Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Quote:
The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, two U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” a U.S. official said, adding that the policy of allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield –– namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv –– led the president to change his mind.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who supports a restriction lift, became the first U.S. official to publicly hint that Biden may shift course and allow such strikes, telling reporters that U.S. policy toward Ukraine would evolve as needed. White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby later did not rule out a potential change.

The U.S. has strongly delivered the message that Kyiv must use American weapons only to directly hit Russian military sites used for its invasion of Ukraine, but not civilian infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
Lots of news today. But to me the main news is that President Biden has given approval for Ukraine to use US provided weapons against Russian forces in Russia.


Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with US weapons

From that linked story:

Some officials are concerned that Ukraine, when it attacks inside Russia using its own drones, has hit military targets unrelated to Russia’s invasion.

All military targets are fair game.
 
This makes more sense than the video on Russian artillery production that was posted here yesterday. Russia has ramped up production, but I think Trent makes some good observations here.

There is a lot of hand wringing about the volume of Russian artillery, and it is a problem, but Russian artillery is vastly less accurate than western artillery. They require a lot more artillery shots to destroy a target than western systems do. The Ukrainians may not be able to match Russia in artillery volume, but they can beat Russia in accuracy by a large margin.

Russia had zero artillery gun barrel production at the beginning of this war, and they may have started up production again, but Russian steel is inferior to the top grades of German and American steel. That's why a new M109s can fire more artillery rounds before needing to replace the barrel.

I have seen satellite photos of Russian vehicle storage. There are a lot of SP artillery without any barrels.



The Storm Shadow/Scalp and ATACMS are hitting their targets without any problems because they do have back up guidance systems. Most arms fielded by the US that have guidance systems have back ups because planners foresaw that an enemy with anti-satellite capability could take out the GPS system in orbit.

As well as considerations for battlefield jamming. Though jamming is less of a concern for US war planning because of the large investment in HARM capability in the USAF as well as other air arms of the US military. Any battlefield jamming system would immediately become a target for AGM-88s from Wild Weasel anti-radiation aircraft.



The GLSDB was slapped together by Saab and Boeing as a fast and cheap way to get glide bombs to the Ukrainians. Boeing does have a lot of problems. I left Boeing just as the problems were starting. John Oliver did a great piece on Boeing's decline a couple of months ago. It's on YouTube now and I would recommend it.

But the shortcomings of the GLSDB are not so much a problem of Boeing's decline but of oversights because the program was thrown together so quickly.



Authoritarian regimes look strong until suddenly everything unravels in a short time. Predicting when Russia will unravel is difficult. The Russian people will tolerate a lot more pain than western countries before they push back.

I think someone here posted something leaked from Russia that their internal security forces are badly understaffed. When the public aren't rebelling, that isn't a problem, but it will become a problem if widespread protests against the war start.
 
“I think it is absolutely illogical to have [western] weapons and see the murderers, terrorists, who are killing us from the Russian side. I think sometimes they are just laughing at this situation,” he said. “It’s like going hunting for them. Hunting for people. They understand that we can see them, but we cannot reach them.”

 
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
Obama rn 🤣

1717203070289.gif

1717203002090.jpeg
 

The article is a bit off, but there are limits to US weapons. I've been quick to tamper down expectations from each "game changer" that has been announced. The US finding out much touted weapons had problems in combat is nothing new. At the beginning of US involvement in WW II the US had to contend with three major problems with the torpedoes on their subs. Initially the US Navy denied any of the problems existed until sub commanders pounded the reality into their heads.

In Vietnam the introduction of the M-16 was supposed to be a major advancement, but the manufacturer told the Army that a special type of non-corrosive powder needed to be user or the rifle was going to jam fairly quickly. Before delivery the manufacturer used the better powder in their rounds, but the Army insisted on using an older type of powder and the rifles initially had lots of problems in combat because of this. I read an article about this around 1990 that said the problem still hadn't been corrected. Though it may have by now.

The US has fought a number of wars against foes that didn't have much in the way of jamming equipment, which led to laziness about the vulnerability of GPS.

There is a saying that generals usually go to war prepared to fight the last war. The French were fully prepared for WW I style trench warfare in 1940 and learned too late that they were fighting a very different form of war.

The Ukraine war is a learning ground for US wonder weapons. Some have performed well, but others are struggling and some just failed. The article was critical of the Abrams in Ukraine, but the Abrams the Ukrainians are getting is a different version with inferior armor to the version the US Army fields. When the Abrams was announced I did bring up the high maintenance requirements of the Abrams here and was shouted down.

The US has a lot of high maintenance weapons systems. The US also has a higher percentage of support personnel than most armies. The US doctrine is to field Ferraris with a legion of mechanics to keep them running.

I've been an advocate for the US to source M60 tanks from around the world and send them to Ukraine. It's a simpler tank that is renown for high reliability. It doesn't have the punch of the Abrams, but it can defeat at least 2/3 of the tanks the Russians are fielding today.

The article criticizes the M777 which was mostly out of use in the US military at the start of the war, which is why there were so many available to give to the Ukrainians. The US recognized the limitations of towed artillery some time ago and has almost fully mechanized. The M777s were cast offs from the Army. It's a good gun, but in modern battlefields the ability to shoot and scoot is critical. The M777 just isn't capable of being moved as quickly as the M109.

The ships and ferries have been taken care of. Time to target each and every fuel and ammunition depot and railway within range:


Taking out the ferries limits Russia's options if the Kerch Bridge is put out of action. Russia has completed the rail line to Mariupol, but they are still reliant on their old system moving supply from there.


When the war ends let Ukraine into NATO.
 
Belgorod region (which is north of Kharkiv): military targets getting bombarded after U.S. gives green light.
 
Last edited:
Don't really know what to make of this... Seriously Disappointing regardless.

...] "We have been urged by the other countries in the [fighter] coalition to wait with the Gripen system," [Swedish Defense Minister Pål] Jonson told TT in Brussels [TT is a Swedish news agency], adding: "This has to do with the fact that the focus is now on introducing the F-16 system." [...


Imagine that... Something is clearly 'not being communicated' here...

Andrii Plakhotniuk, Ukraine's ambassador to Sweden, said that Ukraine still wants the JAS-39 Gripen fighter jet, despite calls from countries in the air defense coalition to focus on the F-16 program. [My underline.]

"Yes, there are many things we need right now. We need Gripen, we need ammunition, we need air defence systems. We need everything to protect the lives of Ukrainians, it is about the survival of people and the survival of the whole nation," he emphasized.


x.com/NOELreports/status/1795771895633109251

 
Continued:

Can't find any English reporting on this, but Zelenskyy as well said yesterday that he wants Ukrainian pilots to start training immediately in Swedish Gripen Fighter jets.

There are many Swedish sources on this. Here's the Swedish Public Service Radio:
 
If there is a shortage of pilots, perhaps further developments could have brave western F-16 and Gripen pilots volunteering under the cover of the Ukrainian flag. There is much historical precedent for this, particularly in the case of Russia and China supporting their proxy forces in Korea and Vietnam while claiming not being a party to those conflicts. Since these planes would not leave Ukrainian territory, anyone shot down could not be taken captive by Russia.
 
Last edited: