The AP addresses a lot of questions about ATACMS. Worth reading.
Unless they mean the planes that are launching the glide bombs are based 300km away, I think that statement is way off.
I’m pretty sure that is what is being implied. Morozovsk for example would be an obvious target. It has been the SU-34s that have been launching the kit-glide bombs at ranges of 10-40 km depending on the size of the bomb (they can technically be launched from a little farther out than that, but the farther you pull back apparently the worse the accuracy).
Would that particularly bother the Russians? They’ve not been known for their scrupulousness.
Not scrupulousness, they’re not trying to be surgical to save lives. They just want to hit their targets accurately enough to inflict maximum damage. Miss a building and plow into a neighboring field and you’ve just made a big crater to no particular effect except to rattle nerves. Which isn’t really worth the cost. Though claimed range is 50-70 km (depending on size), 35-50 km is apparently more the normal release range. They want to get close enough to minimize their circular error probability, but stand off far enough that Ukrainian air defense is less of a threat.
On Sunday 17 November 2024 a cable carrying internet traffic between Lithuania and Sweden was cut, and on Monday 18 November a cable between Finland and Germany. Finnish and German governments are concerned that it might be sabotage.
This could be a very beneficial collaboration.
Israel has advanced electronics that Ukraine could use.
Apparently the Iron Dome doesn’t stop drones.
Interestingly, Russia has used an ICBM against Ukraine - the very first usage ever of such a missile in warfare. This might signal Russia is really scraping the barrel for things to use in the war.
Others use the same picture and claim it was not an ICBM, but an “experimental intermediate range ballistic missile”:
Splitting hairs with missiles? Yeah, sounds like the Russian way.
It could be scraping the barrel. It could also be saber rattling. It could also be testing how their ballistic missile stock performs in actual warfare, to see if they need to repair or modernize them.
Well, the “experimental” part explains how they could use an IRBM when their current known inventory of ballistic missiles doesn’t include any IRBMs.
And also, IRBMs were typically nuclear-capable* so it’s not really much comfort to minimize this by emphasizing that it’s an IRBM.
*As are many of the weapons already being used in this war thus far, such as some of the long-range cruise missiles and some of the aircraft.
Probably payback for when we destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic a couple years back.
It probably was not what you meant to say, but just to be clear I would like to point out that I in no way meant to “minimize” any Russian use of weapons. If the Russians have and use short range nuclear capable missiles, intermediate range nuclear capable missiles and ICBMs the risk for false alarms and the accidental start of WWIII can only rise. This just shows how deranged the Russian military doctrine is.
I am not sure the fact the US felt the need to “assure” the world that it was not an ICBM is a good sign.
Delenda est Rossia!
Yes, the use of the word “minimize” wasn’t directed toward you. The original source reports “clarifying” that it wasn’t reeeeally an ICBM is the minimization I was addressing.
But “ICBM” still provokes the fear of World War III, whereas most people don’t even know what an IRBM is. (At least, most Americans. Europeans may remember the Pershing crisis of the 80s with some non-fondness.)
Oh I remember the SS-20, which led to the deployment of the Pershing 2, and the NATO Double Track Decision well! Those were the days I was young…
ETA: Only we did not call them IRBMs, we called the Mittelstreckenraketen: medium range missiles. And the argument against them was that they made war more likely, shortening the reaction time and increasing the likehood of a false alarm. Same thing I just wrote a couple of posts ago. And yes, the first stone was thrown by the Russians, already back then. First came the SS-20, then came the Double Track Decision and the Pershing 2.
The next ICBM they launch may be the real deal. And they will say opps, our mistake.
Wait for it.
Russia uses fear as a weapon, and they’ve seen it is quite effective. That fear has stayed the hand of many Western governments in the last 1,000 days.
But that missile is not the first nuclear capable missile that has been used against Ukraine. Putin knows the red lines and this “new” missile changes very little. Although the US might like to test some its anti-ballistic missile systems such as the Aegis. Don’t be surprised if we see Biden transferring a system like that to the Ukrainians.
Both sides are trying to manoeuvre an advantage before Trump gets into office. There will be a change in US support in some way and the prevailing battlefield situation will be hugely important to Trump’s considerations and any negotiations that take place. Hence both sides are ramping things up ahead of that, knowing we are in an in-between moment.
Russia gave the US a heads up so we would know it wasn’t a nuke.
That is very probable, but are there any credible sources that confirm it?