[Goose]

Does any of this "make sense" from a military or "reality" point of view? No, but from a political point of view it apparently does. Like for like applies inside Ukraine, but not elsewhere because we have adopted that constraint.

Worth pointing out that this perhaps overcautious policy has gotten Ukraine through 8 months of war, with Russia literally hemorrhaging men and equipment and on retreat, with no wider NATO or US involvement, a great success.

I agree. NATO has navigated the political minefield successfully and coupled with Ukrainian skill and courage has pretty much created an untenable situation for Russia. However, Russia is adapting and trying to fix that problem. Russia also has the advantage that NATO cannot adapt in a way that involves direct involvement. It has been tricky and is going to get trickier. For that reason, I think we do need to demonstrate to Russia that if they bring in new long range weapons from outside of Russia, Ukraine can do the same. Iran is already sanctioned severely, so it is improbable that further sanctions will reduce the weapons flow from there. Iran has missiles that can do even more damage than the drones Russia is already employing. We need to make that source of supply costly, IMHO.

Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure is more  akin to the terror bombing of WW2 than to militarily useful strikes. I doubt it is of much value to Ukraine to respond in kind for the most part because any long distance weapons used for those missions would probably be better served against more military targets, IE air defense sites, command and control,  artillery, ammo or fuel dumps, would all be more important targets than a power station. Russia is most likely targeting power infrastructure with their long range weapons more than Ukraine because they don't have as good real time targeting information for more militarily useful targets, and power stations can't move around.

I don't totally agree with you here. It is undoubtedly true that Ukraine can't destroy Russia's entire power grid, but it is not true that destroying that grid around their borders is not militarily useful. If warehouses have no lights it is very detrimental to logistics. If the traffic lights don't work, that really can cause delays. The cell phone system in most places can't operate very long without power. Most importantly in both Ukraine and Russia, if there is no power there are no trains. Some low traffic areas are not electric, but all main lines are. We have discussed repeatedly how important rail transport is to both sides. IMHO it is a demonstration of Russian incompetence that the power grid wasn't taken out on day 1. We certainly did that in Iraq. Terror bombing this is most definitely not. Russia does plenty of that too, but the two things are not equal.

Ukraine has struck power stations in Belgorod, but I'm not certain which munitions were used.

Did they ever officially own up to that? I am sure they did it, but I am not sure they admitted it. I am willing to bet heavily that however it was done it didn't involve HIMARS or other NATO supplied weapons. Getting sideways with NATO just isn't worth it.

[Goose]

Does any of this "make sense" from a military or "reality" point of view? No, but from a political point of view it apparently does. Like for like applies inside Ukraine, but not elsewhere because we have adopted that constraint.

Worth pointing out that this perhaps overcautious policy has gotten Ukraine through 8 months of war, with Russia literally hemorrhaging men and equipment and on retreat, with no wider NATO or US involvement, a great success.

I agree. NATO has navigated the political minefield successfully and coupled with Ukrainian skill and courage has pretty much created an untenable situation for Russia. However, Russia is adapting and trying to fix that problem. Russia also has the advantage that NATO cannot adapt in a way that involves direct involvement. It has been tricky and is going to get trickier. For that reason, I think we do need to demonstrate to Russia that if they bring in new long range weapons from outside of Russia, Ukraine can do the same. Iran is already sanctioned severely, so it is improbable that further sanctions will reduce the weapons flow from there. Iran has missiles that can do even more damage than the drones Russia is already employing. We need to make that source of supply costly, IMHO.

Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure is more  akin to the terror bombing of WW2 than to militarily useful strikes. I doubt it is of much value to Ukraine to respond in kind for the most part because any long distance weapons used for those missions would probably be better served against more military targets, IE air defense sites, command and control,  artillery, ammo or fuel dumps, would all be more important targets than a power station. Russia is most likely targeting power infrastructure with their long range weapons more than Ukraine because they don't have as good real time targeting information for more militarily useful targets, and power stations can't move around.

I don't totally agree with you here. It is undoubtedly true that Ukraine can't destroy Russia's entire power grid, but it is not true that destroying that grid around their borders is not militarily useful. If warehouses have no lights it is very detrimental to logistics. If the traffic lights don't work, that really can cause delays. The cell phone system in most places can't operate very long without power. Most importantly in both Ukraine and Russia, if there is no power there are no trains. Some low traffic areas are not electric, but all main lines are. We have discussed repeatedly how important rail transport is to both sides. IMHO it is a demonstration of Russian incompetence that the power grid wasn't taken out on day 1. We certainly did that in Iraq. Terror bombing this is most definitely not. Russia does plenty of that too, but the two things are not equal.

Ukraine has struck power stations in Belgorod, but I'm not certain which munitions were used.

Did they ever officially own up to that? I am sure they did it, but I am not sure they admitted it. I am willing to bet heavily that however it was done it didn't involve HIMARS or other NATO supplied weapons. Getting sideways with NATO just isn't worth it.