[Mick]

Worst Ukraine news I’ve seen in a while, though not surprising:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...zThPkqAAAA

Our Sec of State Anthony Blinken is referring to it as a war crime...

(6) Jack Detsch on Twitter: "NEW: US is calling on Russia to immediately halt "filtration" and forced deportations in Ukraine: Secretary of State Antony Blinken Blinken said that ?? has interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians, including 260,000 children." / Twitter

[Mick]

Worst Ukraine news I’ve seen in a while, though not surprising:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...zThPkqAAAA

Our Sec of State Anthony Blinken is referring to it as a war crime...

(6) Jack Detsch on Twitter: "NEW: US is calling on Russia to immediately halt "filtration" and forced deportations in Ukraine: Secretary of State Antony Blinken Blinken said that ?? has interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians, including 260,000 children." / Twitter

[Goose]

The Russian evacuation of Snake Island has allowed shipping of grain from Ukraine via the Ukrainian part of the Danube Canal.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...2022-07-12
While this isn't exactly a flood of grain, it helps in increasing traffic via the Danube. The grain still has to be loaded in Romania as I understand it, which adds considerable time and expense.

It will be interesting to see if the talks in Turkey about opening southern Ukrainian ports to grain exports get anywhere. It may be Russia thinks the "good publicity" would be worth allowing it, but I can see lots of reasons it might not work anyway, like Ukraine insisting that no "stolen grain" leave ports on the Sea of Azov. Russia certainly won't agree to that, yet for Ukraine giving in on that may be politically difficult.

[Goose]

The Russian evacuation of Snake Island has allowed shipping of grain from Ukraine via the Ukrainian part of the Danube Canal.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...2022-07-12
While this isn't exactly a flood of grain, it helps in increasing traffic via the Danube. The grain still has to be loaded in Romania as I understand it, which adds considerable time and expense.

It will be interesting to see if the talks in Turkey about opening southern Ukrainian ports to grain exports get anywhere. It may be Russia thinks the "good publicity" would be worth allowing it, but I can see lots of reasons it might not work anyway, like Ukraine insisting that no "stolen grain" leave ports on the Sea of Azov. Russia certainly won't agree to that, yet for Ukraine giving in on that may be politically difficult.

[BostonCard]

HIMARS for the win!

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/07...ssias-army

Nice strategy to “flood the zone” with dumb, cheap Soviet era rockets so that the HIMARS ones are more likely to elude air defenses.

Also…



BC

[BostonCard]

HIMARS for the win!

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/07...ssias-army

Nice strategy to “flood the zone” with dumb, cheap Soviet era rockets so that the HIMARS ones are more likely to elude air defenses.

Also…



BC

[Treefence]

If you are keeping track of Oryx list of arms supplies for Ukraine (here https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/an...plied.html) It seems there are rumors of many other items.  First, Poland might be providing as many as 232 PT-92 tanks. 

https://twitter.com/DemeryUK/status/1547...6pILxTj0LQ

 It sounds like these are somewhat obsolete, but are a variation on the T-72 tank, and given Russia has been pulling out old T-62 tanks from storage, I'd imagine these will be helpful, especially with potential future counter offensives.  

It also sounds like 6 of the M270 MLRS systems will be coming from Britain, 3 from Norway via Britain, so that doubles the amount of those.  And it sounds like ATACMS missiles will be included.  This means if Russia does move ammo supplies further back from the front lines, they'd still easily be in range.  

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/...6pILxTj0LQ

There are also rumors of Swedish archer systems making their way to Ukraine.  Some say Ukrainians are training, others say they are in Ukraine, who knows. 

https://twitter.com/NexusIntel1/status/1...6pILxTj0LQ


I've gotta say, it's pretty impressive that Ukrainians can learn so many systems in such a short amount of time, it's a bit of a frankensteins' monster, but it is what it is.  Hopefully more HIMARS and other such systems will be on there way soon, it would be nice if Ukrainians could start using them on a wider range of targets.

[Treefence]

If you are keeping track of Oryx list of arms supplies for Ukraine (here https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/an...plied.html) It seems there are rumors of many other items.  First, Poland might be providing as many as 232 PT-92 tanks. 

https://twitter.com/DemeryUK/status/1547...6pILxTj0LQ

 It sounds like these are somewhat obsolete, but are a variation on the T-72 tank, and given Russia has been pulling out old T-62 tanks from storage, I'd imagine these will be helpful, especially with potential future counter offensives.  

It also sounds like 6 of the M270 MLRS systems will be coming from Britain, 3 from Norway via Britain, so that doubles the amount of those.  And it sounds like ATACMS missiles will be included.  This means if Russia does move ammo supplies further back from the front lines, they'd still easily be in range.  

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/...6pILxTj0LQ

There are also rumors of Swedish archer systems making their way to Ukraine.  Some say Ukrainians are training, others say they are in Ukraine, who knows. 

https://twitter.com/NexusIntel1/status/1...6pILxTj0LQ


I've gotta say, it's pretty impressive that Ukrainians can learn so many systems in such a short amount of time, it's a bit of a frankensteins' monster, but it is what it is.  Hopefully more HIMARS and other such systems will be on there way soon, it would be nice if Ukrainians could start using them on a wider range of targets.

[Goose]

I've gotta say, it's pretty impressive that Ukrainians can learn so many systems in such a short amount of time, it's a bit of a frankensteins' monster, but it is what it is.  Hopefully more HIMARS and other such systems will be on there way soon, it would be nice if Ukrainians could start using them on a wider range of targets.

It is indeed impressive that they have learned as much as they have and got results. The HIMARS is actually pretty simple to use and it takes only a crew of three, one of whom doesn't need to know much. That said, it is still great they have got as far as they have, especially including the language barrier problems.
Where there may be problems is in the maintenance area and the size of the trained pool of operators. There is going to be some attrition in the operational forces just due to sickness, burnout, promotion, etc. There are also the possibility of casualties. Hopefully training continues full blast to increase the number of qualified operators. Often in the military the desire is to use existing operators to do the training, often OJT. This quite often doesn't work well and that is especially true if the original operators are only marginally trained themselves. They need real continuing out of country training for additional operators to increase the pool size.
Maintenance training is harder to evaluate because having systems fail in the field probably isn't being advertised much by the Ukrainians even if it is happening. I hope that things are going well, and I also hope there are a few "retired" techs working in Ukraine to fill out the maintenance efforts.

[Goose]

I've gotta say, it's pretty impressive that Ukrainians can learn so many systems in such a short amount of time, it's a bit of a frankensteins' monster, but it is what it is.  Hopefully more HIMARS and other such systems will be on there way soon, it would be nice if Ukrainians could start using them on a wider range of targets.

It is indeed impressive that they have learned as much as they have and got results. The HIMARS is actually pretty simple to use and it takes only a crew of three, one of whom doesn't need to know much. That said, it is still great they have got as far as they have, especially including the language barrier problems.
Where there may be problems is in the maintenance area and the size of the trained pool of operators. There is going to be some attrition in the operational forces just due to sickness, burnout, promotion, etc. There are also the possibility of casualties. Hopefully training continues full blast to increase the number of qualified operators. Often in the military the desire is to use existing operators to do the training, often OJT. This quite often doesn't work well and that is especially true if the original operators are only marginally trained themselves. They need real continuing out of country training for additional operators to increase the pool size.
Maintenance training is harder to evaluate because having systems fail in the field probably isn't being advertised much by the Ukrainians even if it is happening. I hope that things are going well, and I also hope there are a few "retired" techs working in Ukraine to fill out the maintenance efforts.

[TrumpCard]

NATO allies Estonia . . .  and *Norway* approved for weapons sales:  https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/...-Z2fsqAAAA


And then Zelenskyy quoted as saying the US' new defense budget will include funds for Ukraine's military aviation:  https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/15...ab4PsqAAAA

[TrumpCard]

NATO allies Estonia . . .  and *Norway* approved for weapons sales:  https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/...-Z2fsqAAAA


And then Zelenskyy quoted as saying the US' new defense budget will include funds for Ukraine's military aviation:  https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/15...ab4PsqAAAA

[OutsiderFan]

My question to those who are following it is what is the U.S. getting vis-a-vis Ukraine and against Russia, by thawing relations with Saudis?

We know Iran and Russia are allies, and Saudi and Iran hate each other, so is this a "your enemies are my enemies, so let's be friends even though we don't like each other" situation? I personally loathe Iran and Saudi, but I have a special level of contempt for Russia and Putin's government. 

I'm guessing Iran's reported plans to give Russia drones is specifically aimed at trying to defeat the HIMARS, so there is no doubt this war is escalating to a degree. But what, if anything does U.S. and Saudi get from each other besides maybe some OPEC cooperation for more oil production in exchange for the MBS photo op with Biden?

[OutsiderFan]

My question to those who are following it is what is the U.S. getting vis-a-vis Ukraine and against Russia, by thawing relations with Saudis?

We know Iran and Russia are allies, and Saudi and Iran hate each other, so is this a "your enemies are my enemies, so let's be friends even though we don't like each other" situation? I personally loathe Iran and Saudi, but I have a special level of contempt for Russia and Putin's government. 

I'm guessing Iran's reported plans to give Russia drones is specifically aimed at trying to defeat the HIMARS, so there is no doubt this war is escalating to a degree. But what, if anything does U.S. and Saudi get from each other besides maybe some OPEC cooperation for more oil production in exchange for the MBS photo op with Biden?

[TrumpCard]

Here’s a somewhat positive spin on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...di-arabia/

[TrumpCard]

Here’s a somewhat positive spin on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...di-arabia/

[OutsiderFan]

Here’s a somewhat positive spin on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...di-arabia/

If the U.S. can get the Saudis to cozy up to Israel and also produce more oil, for the price of an MBS photo op with POTUS, it's probably a worthwhile price to pay. And I can see a lot of merit in the notion the only way to reform the Saudi society is to empower MBS and reward him for making them.

The world is a very complicated and intertwined set of relationships that makes adhering exclusively to your own values pretty much impossible.

[OutsiderFan]

Here’s a somewhat positive spin on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...di-arabia/

If the U.S. can get the Saudis to cozy up to Israel and also produce more oil, for the price of an MBS photo op with POTUS, it's probably a worthwhile price to pay. And I can see a lot of merit in the notion the only way to reform the Saudi society is to empower MBS and reward him for making them.

The world is a very complicated and intertwined set of relationships that makes adhering exclusively to your own values pretty much impossible.

[Goose]

I'm guessing Iran's reported plans to give Russia drones is specifically aimed at trying to defeat the HIMARS, so there is no doubt this war is escalating to a degree.

Actually these drones are more of a "general purpose" assistance. Russia has been utilizing drones to do recon. Many (most?) of these (Orlan-10) drones have been single-use missions. These drones apparently are designed to be recovered and reused, but attrition is high. Russia is undoubtedly in a situation where building lots more is impossible. No electronics. The Iranian drones are needed to fill that gap. Naturally more drones makes more recon possible, and therefore finding HIMARS more probable. What benefits Russia will get from these Iranian drones is TBD. A suicide drone is the best weapon to use against a mobile target like HIMARS. Second best is an armed drone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/us/po...-iran.html

But what, if anything does U.S. and Saudi get from each other besides maybe some OPEC cooperation for more oil production in exchange for the MBS photo op with Biden?

Right now any real (best) or notional (maybe keeps panic down) increase in oil production anywhere in the world is a priority for the US. Keeping the EU "on side" regarding Ukraine is not a given, and the stakes for NATO and the US are indeed very high, let alone Ukraine itself. The gas situation in Europe is bad enough. Oil prices and supply make it a double whammy. This situation will undoubtedly get worse as time passes and the weather gets colder. The response of (at least) Germany and Italy to a "severe" economic downturn is IMHO unpredictable. Better not to find out.

We have also sharply reversed our policy regarding Venezuela. Whether this change regarding Venezuela is wise policy is IMHO arguable, but it seems to have happened without much discussion in the press. Our previous policy regarding Saudi Arabia after the killing of Khashoggi was perhaps morally correct but clearly ineffective. That is fine when you don't care what Saudi Arabia thinks, but realistically for the US this is essentially never the case. This is true because of their role in OPEC but even more so because of their role in middle eastern politics. A policy of condemnation coupled with more, not less engagement would IMHO have been sustainable. What we did was realistically not sustainable. Modifying that policy under pressure is not ideal, but not modifying it would be worse.

[Goose]

I'm guessing Iran's reported plans to give Russia drones is specifically aimed at trying to defeat the HIMARS, so there is no doubt this war is escalating to a degree.

Actually these drones are more of a "general purpose" assistance. Russia has been utilizing drones to do recon. Many (most?) of these (Orlan-10) drones have been single-use missions. These drones apparently are designed to be recovered and reused, but attrition is high. Russia is undoubtedly in a situation where building lots more is impossible. No electronics. The Iranian drones are needed to fill that gap. Naturally more drones makes more recon possible, and therefore finding HIMARS more probable. What benefits Russia will get from these Iranian drones is TBD. A suicide drone is the best weapon to use against a mobile target like HIMARS. Second best is an armed drone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/us/po...-iran.html

But what, if anything does U.S. and Saudi get from each other besides maybe some OPEC cooperation for more oil production in exchange for the MBS photo op with Biden?

Right now any real (best) or notional (maybe keeps panic down) increase in oil production anywhere in the world is a priority for the US. Keeping the EU "on side" regarding Ukraine is not a given, and the stakes for NATO and the US are indeed very high, let alone Ukraine itself. The gas situation in Europe is bad enough. Oil prices and supply make it a double whammy. This situation will undoubtedly get worse as time passes and the weather gets colder. The response of (at least) Germany and Italy to a "severe" economic downturn is IMHO unpredictable. Better not to find out.

We have also sharply reversed our policy regarding Venezuela. Whether this change regarding Venezuela is wise policy is IMHO arguable, but it seems to have happened without much discussion in the press. Our previous policy regarding Saudi Arabia after the killing of Khashoggi was perhaps morally correct but clearly ineffective. That is fine when you don't care what Saudi Arabia thinks, but realistically for the US this is essentially never the case. This is true because of their role in OPEC but even more so because of their role in middle eastern politics. A policy of condemnation coupled with more, not less engagement would IMHO have been sustainable. What we did was realistically not sustainable. Modifying that policy under pressure is not ideal, but not modifying it would be worse.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1548767617535672323?s=20&t=oFOkuo9AvSv4hLfXunSYJQ[/tweet]

Interesting. Could see the threat of ATACMS provided to Ukraine being a potential bargaining chip in reopening Ukrainian ports.

Or, my preference, just give them the missiles and let them open the sea lanes by just winning the damn war.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1548767617535672323?s=20&t=oFOkuo9AvSv4hLfXunSYJQ[/tweet]

Interesting. Could see the threat of ATACMS provided to Ukraine being a potential bargaining chip in reopening Ukrainian ports.

Or, my preference, just give them the missiles and let them open the sea lanes by just winning the damn war.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/15487...hLfXunSYJQ

Interesting. Could see the threat of ATACMS provided to Ukraine being a potential bargaining chip in reopening Ukrainian ports.

Or, my preference, just give them the missiles and let them open the sea lanes by just winning the damn war.

It seems probable this is the case. It is also a problem for them because it increases the transit time from the area of Odesa to/from their home port. Given their naval attrition they can't afford to lose a couple of ships to the first ATACMS attack that nobody expected. As I understand it, the US has committed to providing ATACMS, just not to a specific date.

That said, the nominal "home port" of the submarines always was Novorossiysk. It will be interesting what they actually do move, as the transit time for conventional submarines is a significant issue. They aren't fast on the surface and are slower beneath it. These subs also have been going to sea a lot. They are going to require some time pier-side/in the yards soon. If they all need it at once, that will be double trouble for them.

It is possible the Navy is actually worried about the security of the Crimea itself. That is a big reach, but if Ukraine is serious about taking back Kherson, it may be creating enough uncertainty to prompt such a move. Russian military units often do not trust each other, so what would be absolutely inconceivable to a NATO nation could actually happen in Russia.

Alternatively, this could indeed be part of a negotiated plan to allow the export of grain from Ukraine. Ukraine might have demanded the ships be so far away they can't just show up the next day after the minefields are cleared. It does ensure some warning. Again. let's see what is moved.

It does need to be noted that the Kalibr missiles can fly to Ukraine from just about anywhere in the Black Sea. That doesn't change.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/15487...hLfXunSYJQ

Interesting. Could see the threat of ATACMS provided to Ukraine being a potential bargaining chip in reopening Ukrainian ports.

Or, my preference, just give them the missiles and let them open the sea lanes by just winning the damn war.

It seems probable this is the case. It is also a problem for them because it increases the transit time from the area of Odesa to/from their home port. Given their naval attrition they can't afford to lose a couple of ships to the first ATACMS attack that nobody expected. As I understand it, the US has committed to providing ATACMS, just not to a specific date.

That said, the nominal "home port" of the submarines always was Novorossiysk. It will be interesting what they actually do move, as the transit time for conventional submarines is a significant issue. They aren't fast on the surface and are slower beneath it. These subs also have been going to sea a lot. They are going to require some time pier-side/in the yards soon. If they all need it at once, that will be double trouble for them.

It is possible the Navy is actually worried about the security of the Crimea itself. That is a big reach, but if Ukraine is serious about taking back Kherson, it may be creating enough uncertainty to prompt such a move. Russian military units often do not trust each other, so what would be absolutely inconceivable to a NATO nation could actually happen in Russia.

Alternatively, this could indeed be part of a negotiated plan to allow the export of grain from Ukraine. Ukraine might have demanded the ships be so far away they can't just show up the next day after the minefields are cleared. It does ensure some warning. Again. let's see what is moved.

It does need to be noted that the Kalibr missiles can fly to Ukraine from just about anywhere in the Black Sea. That doesn't change.

[Goose]

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStor...s-87014705

Still not out of the woods here. Hopefully this is just for show, but with an election coming up I wouldn't count on that.

[Goose]

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStor...s-87014705

Still not out of the woods here. Hopefully this is just for show, but with an election coming up I wouldn't count on that.

[BostonCard]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

[BostonCard]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

[Goose]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

It also suggests that if they had to be ordered to do that there are many more screws loose in their organization than we suspected. Seriously, the HIMARS were bound to be effective. That was never really a question. They will be even more effective if/when there are more of them. It is much easier to train people to use a HIMARS than to use an M777. Maintenance on both systems is not difficult but you do need to RTFM, which is hard if you don't speak the language well. Hopefully the pacing item on more HIMARS is training and not the US lack of urgency. FWIW, I believe (surprise, surprise) it is the latter.

[Goose]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

It also suggests that if they had to be ordered to do that there are many more screws loose in their organization than we suspected. Seriously, the HIMARS were bound to be effective. That was never really a question. They will be even more effective if/when there are more of them. It is much easier to train people to use a HIMARS than to use an M777. Maintenance on both systems is not difficult but you do need to RTFM, which is hard if you don't speak the language well. Hopefully the pacing item on more HIMARS is training and not the US lack of urgency. FWIW, I believe (surprise, surprise) it is the latter.

[Treefence]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

It also suggests that if they had to be ordered to do that there are many more screws loose in their organization than we suspected. Seriously, the HIMARS were bound to be effective. That was never really a question. They will be even more effective if/when there are more of them. It is much easier to train people to use a HIMARS than to use an M777. Maintenance on both systems is not difficult but you do need to RTFM, which is hard if you don't speak the language well. Hopefully the pacing item on more HIMARS is training and not the US lack of urgency. FWIW, I believe (surprise, surprise) it is the latter.

Assuming Ukraine gets more HIMARS, do you think we will start seeing an expanded role for their uses?  As of right now, they seem to be mostly used to attack ammo dumps and command posts, but I'd have to assume they can also be extremely effective in counter artillery fire, especially once the Russian offensive in the east picks up.  I'd also assume they can be used to take out air defenses and other defensive positions for the expected Kherson offensive by Ukrainian forces.

[Treefence]

The Russians have been ordered to try to target the HIMARS, which suggests they have been effective.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-orde...lewebshare

BC

It also suggests that if they had to be ordered to do that there are many more screws loose in their organization than we suspected. Seriously, the HIMARS were bound to be effective. That was never really a question. They will be even more effective if/when there are more of them. It is much easier to train people to use a HIMARS than to use an M777. Maintenance on both systems is not difficult but you do need to RTFM, which is hard if you don't speak the language well. Hopefully the pacing item on more HIMARS is training and not the US lack of urgency. FWIW, I believe (surprise, surprise) it is the latter.

Assuming Ukraine gets more HIMARS, do you think we will start seeing an expanded role for their uses?  As of right now, they seem to be mostly used to attack ammo dumps and command posts, but I'd have to assume they can also be extremely effective in counter artillery fire, especially once the Russian offensive in the east picks up.  I'd also assume they can be used to take out air defenses and other defensive positions for the expected Kherson offensive by Ukrainian forces.

[Goose]

Assuming Ukraine gets more HIMARS, do you think we will start seeing an expanded role for their uses?  As of right now, they seem to be mostly used to attack ammo dumps and command posts, but I'd have to assume they can also be extremely effective in counter artillery fire, especially once the Russian offensive in the east picks up.  I'd also assume they can be used to take out air defenses and other defensive positions for the expected Kherson offensive by Ukrainian forces.

I do. I think they are actually using them for counter-battery now, although they pick their spots and are very careful. That will have to happen more frequently if the Russian offensive in the east does pick up. For that reason, they need more HIMARS-M270s RTFN. The M270 is arguably better to use if you have to be close to the front. It is less fragile but also less mobile on roads.

The expected Kherson offensive, if it happens, can take several forms. The HIMARS will be needed for all of them. Unfortunately the Crimea contains very strong air defenses that are left over from the Soviet era where they defended the fleet base at Sevastopol. The S-400s can pretty much dominate the Kherson Oblast airspace, depending on which type of missiles are actually present. The HIMARS without ATACMs will have trouble reaching many of these batteries, especially if the Ukraine doesn't want to push them too far forward. With ATACMs, easily possible. Unfortunately these missiles also makes attacking the Russian fleet base and the Kerch Strait Bridge possible. For the US, that may be "a bridge too far".

I don't know that anybody has really though through how Ukraine can recover Kherson Oblast without hitting targets in Crimea. Politically, Russia thinks Crimea is part of Russia. Obviously the US doesn't and Ukraine certainly doesn't. Will Russia respond to attacks in Crimea with significant escalation? If not, how about the Black Sea Fleet anchored in Sevastopol? One could argue that is just like sinking Moskva, but does Russia see it that way? I am virtually certain Russia regards the Kerch Strait Bridge as part of Russia. Attacking that is like attacking St. Petersburg. However, can Ukraine get Kherson Oblast back without cutting that link?

[Goose]

Assuming Ukraine gets more HIMARS, do you think we will start seeing an expanded role for their uses?  As of right now, they seem to be mostly used to attack ammo dumps and command posts, but I'd have to assume they can also be extremely effective in counter artillery fire, especially once the Russian offensive in the east picks up.  I'd also assume they can be used to take out air defenses and other defensive positions for the expected Kherson offensive by Ukrainian forces.

I do. I think they are actually using them for counter-battery now, although they pick their spots and are very careful. That will have to happen more frequently if the Russian offensive in the east does pick up. For that reason, they need more HIMARS-M270s RTFN. The M270 is arguably better to use if you have to be close to the front. It is less fragile but also less mobile on roads.

The expected Kherson offensive, if it happens, can take several forms. The HIMARS will be needed for all of them. Unfortunately the Crimea contains very strong air defenses that are left over from the Soviet era where they defended the fleet base at Sevastopol. The S-400s can pretty much dominate the Kherson Oblast airspace, depending on which type of missiles are actually present. The HIMARS without ATACMs will have trouble reaching many of these batteries, especially if the Ukraine doesn't want to push them too far forward. With ATACMs, easily possible. Unfortunately these missiles also makes attacking the Russian fleet base and the Kerch Strait Bridge possible. For the US, that may be "a bridge too far".

I don't know that anybody has really though through how Ukraine can recover Kherson Oblast without hitting targets in Crimea. Politically, Russia thinks Crimea is part of Russia. Obviously the US doesn't and Ukraine certainly doesn't. Will Russia respond to attacks in Crimea with significant escalation? If not, how about the Black Sea Fleet anchored in Sevastopol? One could argue that is just like sinking Moskva, but does Russia see it that way? I am virtually certain Russia regards the Kerch Strait Bridge as part of Russia. Attacking that is like attacking St. Petersburg. However, can Ukraine get Kherson Oblast back without cutting that link?

[dabigv13]

S-400's in Sevastopol will not prevent use of low altitude SU25s or helicopters, though could limit use of Bakraktars flying at higher altitude. Even these may be low enough to stay out of range of missile defenses so far away (I'm not certain of their usual operating altitude).

And Russia will also need to take care not to shoot down their own planes. Here we can see their air defense take out one of their own Su34s. Oops!


[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/...P4RLTyyiYg[/tweet]

Aftermath-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1548928553571553280?s=20&t=pryUgtNcVw32P4RLTyyiYg[/tweet]

This was an interesting article about what a Kherson counter offensive may look like.

https://kyivindependent.com/national/wha...-look-like

[dabigv13]

S-400's in Sevastopol will not prevent use of low altitude SU25s or helicopters, though could limit use of Bakraktars flying at higher altitude. Even these may be low enough to stay out of range of missile defenses so far away (I'm not certain of their usual operating altitude).

And Russia will also need to take care not to shoot down their own planes. Here we can see their air defense take out one of their own Su34s. Oops!


[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/...P4RLTyyiYg[/tweet]

Aftermath-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1548928553571553280?s=20&t=pryUgtNcVw32P4RLTyyiYg[/tweet]

This was an interesting article about what a Kherson counter offensive may look like.

https://kyivindependent.com/national/wha...-look-like

[TrumpCard]

Here's one view regarding the tactics needed for a counteroffensive in the South: https://kyivindependent.com/national/wha...-look-like

Here's one source who is inferring from recent Ukraine DoD comments that the US is planning to supply the 300km ATACMS: https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status...8685062144

I think it's naive to assume that Ukraine is ignoring Russia's ability to run supply lines and stage air defenses from Crimea.  Ukraine might not end up getting the 300km ATACMS, but the information we can see in the press suggests to me that Ukraine and the US both know the value of such weaponry.  

Can you provide more info on the basis for believing that attacking supply lines or air defenses in Crimea constitutes a "red line" for Russia?  That may be the case, but the information I read in the press does not seem helpful in reaching any such conclusions.  I'm not confident that there is a "red line" where anything on one side will draw no significant response and anything on the other side will draw an escalation to mutually assured destruction.  Putin does not seem fully rational, so maybe ignore logic, but, to my mind, if he were rational, I would expect escalations commensurate with acts that the US takes.  I suppose Putin might treat an attack on a bridge in the Black Sea as the same as an attack on civilian population centers like St. Petersburg, but that is not at all self-evident to me.

[TrumpCard]

Here's one view regarding the tactics needed for a counteroffensive in the South: https://kyivindependent.com/national/wha...-look-like

Here's one source who is inferring from recent Ukraine DoD comments that the US is planning to supply the 300km ATACMS: https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status...8685062144

I think it's naive to assume that Ukraine is ignoring Russia's ability to run supply lines and stage air defenses from Crimea.  Ukraine might not end up getting the 300km ATACMS, but the information we can see in the press suggests to me that Ukraine and the US both know the value of such weaponry.  

Can you provide more info on the basis for believing that attacking supply lines or air defenses in Crimea constitutes a "red line" for Russia?  That may be the case, but the information I read in the press does not seem helpful in reaching any such conclusions.  I'm not confident that there is a "red line" where anything on one side will draw no significant response and anything on the other side will draw an escalation to mutually assured destruction.  Putin does not seem fully rational, so maybe ignore logic, but, to my mind, if he were rational, I would expect escalations commensurate with acts that the US takes.  I suppose Putin might treat an attack on a bridge in the Black Sea as the same as an attack on civilian population centers like St. Petersburg, but that is not at all self-evident to me.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine just targeted a bridge with HIMARS rockets, along with air defense radars.

So they seem to adjusting their targets from the early days when it was exclusively command centers and ammo dumps. Either Russia is disguising those better or they have run out of them to target.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/154...aslWNTVumg[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/15494...aslWNTVumg[/tweet]

Hopefully ATACMS will be more effective at bridge destruction. If Russia doesn't stop their blockade, then I think they should blow up the Kerch Strait bridge.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine just targeted a bridge with HIMARS rockets, along with air defense radars.

So they seem to adjusting their targets from the early days when it was exclusively command centers and ammo dumps. Either Russia is disguising those better or they have run out of them to target.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/154...aslWNTVumg[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/15494...aslWNTVumg[/tweet]

Hopefully ATACMS will be more effective at bridge destruction. If Russia doesn't stop their blockade, then I think they should blow up the Kerch Strait bridge.