*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (6 Viewers)

[Chadstroma]

Hegseth tells NATO Ukraine 'firepower' is coming amid Tomahawk missiles speculation https://share.google/2VaT8rxM5bm0VDPL1

 

[Chadstroma]

Leading US Aerospace Firm to Add Operations in Ukraine https://share.google/sBcxABlgUO8ah6dMJ

 

[Chadstroma]

IMF Cuts Russia’s 2025 Economic Forecast Again - The Moscow Times https://share.google/WgAGripnlXcP1Y4ci

 

[Chadstroma]

NATO's newest members offer to buy more US arms for Ukraine as Western backing declines - ABC News https://share.google/iDE3btysYh4ObMbdh

 

[Chadstroma]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

 

[The Z Machine]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

duh

 

[fatness]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

That's an awkwardly written article. It leads with Trump changing his mind about hitting energy targets after the first summit. Not a change of mind today.

Is that how you read it?

 

[Chadstroma]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

That's an awkwardly written article. It leads with Trump changing his mind about hitting energy targets after the first summit. Not a change of mind today.

Is that how you read it?

Agreed, not the best written article in the world. I had to re-read a couple of sections when I originally read it. My take away was that the administration had asked the Ukrainians to hold off on attacking infrastructure leading up to the meeting. Once there was no deal made at the meeting, Trump changed his mind, gave them the green light and had us furnish intelligence to assist. Without going back and trying to figure out the timeline for sure, that seems to gell with about the time that the Russian oil refineries etc started to really get hammered.

ETA: "Changed his mind" may not be the right way to put it though that is certainly how the article put it. Seems more like a policy of trying to create leverage, both before and after the summit. But that all would be more of a guess on anyone's part outside of the Trump inner circle.

 

[fatness]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

That's an awkwardly written article. It leads with Trump changing his mind about hitting energy targets after the first summit. Not a change of mind today.

Is that how you read it?

Agreed, not the best written article in the world. I had to re-read a couple of sections when I originally read it. My take away was that the administration had asked the Ukrainians to hold off on attacking infrastructure leading up to the meeting. Once there was no deal made at the meeting, Trump changed his mind, gave them the green light and had us furnish intelligence to assist. Without going back and trying to figure out the timeline for sure, that seems to gell with about the time that the Russian oil refineries etc started to really get hammered.

ETA: "Changed his mind" may not be the right way to put it though that is certainly how the article put it. Seems more like a policy of trying to create leverage, both before and after the summit. But that all would be more of a guess on anyone's part outside of the Trump inner circle.

Yeah, for the most part I read it like you do. I don't want to get into a debate about changing his mind. I think there are finally enough people within the administration and with allied governments telling Trump that basically "Putin is trying to make a fool of you."

I just want Friday's meeting with Zelenskyy to go well, and after the next Putin summit for Russia to either give up territory, stop bombing civilians, or to get ready to see some Tomahawks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

After telephone call with Putin today, nah never mind we’re not sending Ukraine tomahawks.

Permitted analysis: [_________] and also <~~~>.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Russian readout of the call explaining the careful American balancing of diplomatic & national security considerations that took place in withdrawing the Tomahawks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“‘Would you mind if I gave a couple thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?’ I did say that to him.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump will travel to Hungary to meet with Putin privately, again.

- Zelensky will not attend.
- Orban is a notorious ally of Putin as well, of course.

 

[Dezbelief]

“‘Would you mind if I gave a couple thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?’ I did say that to him.”

Only problem is the US would only send 20-50 if approved.

 

[Dezbelief]

Rare Russian Tornado-S MLRS Obliterated by Ukrainian Drones 33 km From Frontline

Ukrainian forces have successfully neutralized a rare Russian Tornado-S rocket system, showing enhanced capabilities in targeting high-value threats.

united24media.com

Ukrainian forces have destroyed a rare Russian long-range multiple launch rocket system, likely the modernized Tornado-S, according to Defense Express report on October 17.

The strike was carried out by Ukraine’s Lasar’s Group, which detected the launcher operating in a field roughly 33 kilometers from the front line.

After spotting its movement into cover, Ukrainian drones struck the system with a suicide UAV, followed by a bombing run that caused a large secondary explosion, confirming its destruction, Defense Express wrote.

The Tornado-S—or BM-30 Smerch, if it was the older variant—had been shelling civilian areas across Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia regions. The upgraded Tornado-S has a range of up to 120 kilometers, making it difficult to detect and destroy.

This marks only the third confirmed elimination of a BM-30 or Tornado-S system since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, according to Defense Express.

The operation also demonstrates Ukraine’s growing ability to locate and destroy high-value Russian assets, with reconnaissance drones reportedly using relay systems to extend strike range, Defense Express stated.

 

[Dezbelief]

Russia 'shoots down own Su-30SM fighter jet' during Ukrainian drone attack on Crimea, Sochi

In Donetsk, a Russian ammunition depot was hit in a drone attack, with fires and explosions reported in the occupied city.

kyivindependent.com

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

 

[Chadstroma]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

A game changer? No. Worthless? Absolutely not.

For platform, there is a new land based platform developed by Oshkosh X-MAV that can launch tomahawk and would need to be part of an arms package to use. I don't know if it is operational as it is only recently been announced.

As for the usefulness of Tomahawk. Russian aircraft defense is stretched and thin now with significant losses that they have suffered over the course of the war with limited ability to replace with new systems. The tomahawk is a significant upgrade over the flamingo adding another 500 miles of range (1K vs 1500). The deep range of the Tomahawks opens up a number of targeting possibilities and would absolutely add to the ability of Ukraine to strike. I would suspect them to be used to strike energy infrastructure deeper into Russia and cause more damage than the current drone attacks.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

A game changer? No. Worthless? Absolutely not.

For platform, there is a new land based platform developed by Oshkosh X-MAV that can launch tomahawk and would need to be part of an arms package to use. I don't know if it is operational as it is only recently been announced.

As for the usefulness of Tomahawk. Russian aircraft defense is stretched and thin now with significant losses that they have suffered over the course of the war with limited ability to replace with new systems. The tomahawk is a significant upgrade over the flamingo adding another 500 miles of range (1K vs 1500). The deep range of the Tomahawks opens up a number of targeting possibilities and would absolutely add to the ability of Ukraine to strike. I would suspect them to be used to strike energy infrastructure deeper into Russia and cause more damage than the current drone attacks.

Right, that platform was just announced, I haven't seen anything suggesting it's in advanced production and ready to be deployed. Even the US only has four (4) ground-based Tomahawk launchers right now. Ukraine would need to be able to launch dozens of these things to really make a strategic impact and there's no indication that they'd be able to do that even if the administration gave this the green light today.

 

[bolzano]

After Putin summit, Trump changed his mind on supporting Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy targets, sources say | CNN Politics https://share.google/FaLKRAqXwkZvIy2te

That's an awkwardly written article. It leads with Trump changing his mind about hitting energy targets after the first summit. Not a change of mind today.

Is that how you read it?

Agreed, not the best written article in the world. I had to re-read a couple of sections when I originally read it. My take away was that the administration had asked the Ukrainians to hold off on attacking infrastructure leading up to the meeting. Once there was no deal made at the meeting, Trump changed his mind, gave them the green light and had us furnish intelligence to assist. Without going back and trying to figure out the timeline for sure, that seems to gell with about the time that the Russian oil refineries etc started to really get hammered.

ETA: "Changed his mind" may not be the right way to put it though that is certainly how the article put it. Seems more like a policy of trying to create leverage, both before and after the summit. But that all would be more of a guess on anyone's part outside of the Trump inner circle.

Yeah, for the most part I read it like you do. I don't want to get into a debate about changing his mind. I think there are finally enough people within the administration and with allied governments telling Trump that basically "Putin is trying to make a fool of you."

I just want Friday's meeting with Zelenskyy to go well, and after the next Putin summit for Russia to either give up territory, stop bombing civilians, or to get ready to see some Tomahawks.

What leverage does Trump currently have on Putin/ the Kremlin to force them into a settlement on Ukraine and NATO’s terms? Yes, we still have some big sticks in our bag (e.g., secondary sanctions on Russia’s trading partners, a multinational rear force). But, while US/ European leaders have flirted with these ideas, they’ve always backed down.

Unless we’re willing to escalate well beyond what we’ve been doing, I’m afraid the best we’re gonna get is what amounts to Russian victory; that is, something similar to Putin’s demands that he outlined in June ‘24- Ukraine agrees to neutrality/ never enter NATO, Russia gets the 4 regions (or Donbas and Crimea at the very least), etc.

 

[Chadstroma]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

A game changer? No. Worthless? Absolutely not.

For platform, there is a new land based platform developed by Oshkosh X-MAV that can launch tomahawk and would need to be part of an arms package to use. I don't know if it is operational as it is only recently been announced.

As for the usefulness of Tomahawk. Russian aircraft defense is stretched and thin now with significant losses that they have suffered over the course of the war with limited ability to replace with new systems. The tomahawk is a significant upgrade over the flamingo adding another 500 miles of range (1K vs 1500). The deep range of the Tomahawks opens up a number of targeting possibilities and would absolutely add to the ability of Ukraine to strike. I would suspect them to be used to strike energy infrastructure deeper into Russia and cause more damage than the current drone attacks.

Right, that platform was just announced, I haven't seen anything suggesting it's in advanced production and ready to be deployed. Even the US only has four (4) ground-based Tomahawk launchers right now. Ukraine would need to be able to launch dozens of these things to really make a strategic impact and there's no indication that they'd be able to do that even if the administration gave this the green light today.

I don't think they need to launch dozens to be effective. Again, the Russian air defenses are currently stressed as is. An S-400 needs to be within 150 miles to effectively intercept. If a need to overwhelm defenses was needed, the tactic would similar to what the Russians do currently which is to launch a number of drones, Flamingo and Nepture missiles along with the Tomahawks to overwhelm and punch through. Likely the only deep target right now still protected by S-400's would be Moscow which would not be a target. They would use these on 'soft' targets such as oil refineries deep in the country that have little if no real air defenses.

Adding Tomhawks would be a significant addition to what Ukraine can do in strikes.

I would bet that Oshkosh could pump out a few systems pretty quick. A big push by the current War Department has been to speed up the research/development/production cycle. I don't think that this new launcher would be such new tech that it would not be fieldable quickly if ordered.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

A game changer? No. Worthless? Absolutely not.

For platform, there is a new land based platform developed by Oshkosh X-MAV that can launch tomahawk and would need to be part of an arms package to use. I don't know if it is operational as it is only recently been announced.

As for the usefulness of Tomahawk. Russian aircraft defense is stretched and thin now with significant losses that they have suffered over the course of the war with limited ability to replace with new systems. The tomahawk is a significant upgrade over the flamingo adding another 500 miles of range (1K vs 1500). The deep range of the Tomahawks opens up a number of targeting possibilities and would absolutely add to the ability of Ukraine to strike. I would suspect them to be used to strike energy infrastructure deeper into Russia and cause more damage than the current drone attacks.

Right, that platform was just announced, I haven't seen anything suggesting it's in advanced production and ready to be deployed. Even the US only has four (4) ground-based Tomahawk launchers right now. Ukraine would need to be able to launch dozens of these things to really make a strategic impact and there's no indication that they'd be able to do that even if the administration gave this the green light today.

I don't think they need to launch dozens to be effective. Again, the Russian air defenses are currently stressed as is. An S-400 needs to be within 150 miles to effectively intercept. If a need to overwhelm defenses was needed, the tactic would similar to what the Russians do currently which is to launch a number of drones, Flamingo and Nepture missiles along with the Tomahawks to overwhelm and punch through. Likely the only deep target right now still protected by S-400's would be Moscow which would not be a target. They would use these on 'soft' targets such as oil refineries deep in the country that have little if no real air defenses.

Adding Tomhawks would be a significant addition to what Ukraine can do in strikes.

I would bet that Oshkosh could pump out a few systems pretty quick. A big push by the current War Department has been to speed up the research/development/production cycle. I don't think that this new launcher would be such new tech that it would not be fieldable quickly if ordered.

I don't think any of that is accurate and I guess I'll just leave it there.

 

[Chadstroma]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

A game changer? No. Worthless? Absolutely not.

For platform, there is a new land based platform developed by Oshkosh X-MAV that can launch tomahawk and would need to be part of an arms package to use. I don't know if it is operational as it is only recently been announced.

As for the usefulness of Tomahawk. Russian aircraft defense is stretched and thin now with significant losses that they have suffered over the course of the war with limited ability to replace with new systems. The tomahawk is a significant upgrade over the flamingo adding another 500 miles of range (1K vs 1500). The deep range of the Tomahawks opens up a number of targeting possibilities and would absolutely add to the ability of Ukraine to strike. I would suspect them to be used to strike energy infrastructure deeper into Russia and cause more damage than the current drone attacks.

Right, that platform was just announced, I haven't seen anything suggesting it's in advanced production and ready to be deployed. Even the US only has four (4) ground-based Tomahawk launchers right now. Ukraine would need to be able to launch dozens of these things to really make a strategic impact and there's no indication that they'd be able to do that even if the administration gave this the green light today.

I don't think they need to launch dozens to be effective. Again, the Russian air defenses are currently stressed as is. An S-400 needs to be within 150 miles to effectively intercept. If a need to overwhelm defenses was needed, the tactic would similar to what the Russians do currently which is to launch a number of drones, Flamingo and Nepture missiles along with the Tomahawks to overwhelm and punch through. Likely the only deep target right now still protected by S-400's would be Moscow which would not be a target. They would use these on 'soft' targets such as oil refineries deep in the country that have little if no real air defenses.

Adding Tomhawks would be a significant addition to what Ukraine can do in strikes.

I would bet that Oshkosh could pump out a few systems pretty quick. A big push by the current War Department has been to speed up the research/development/production cycle. I don't think that this new launcher would be such new tech that it would not be fieldable quickly if ordered.

I don't think any of that is accurate and I guess I'll just leave it there.

I think all of it is accurate and I guess I'll just leave it here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

Could they reach Arkhangelsk? How about Irkutsk?

ETA - thanks for the response, sincerely, but my understanding is Tomahawks have a range of 2500 KM. That means that if they had them (even a handful) Ukraine can hit any Air Force base, munitions factory, drone factory, drone base, cities up to the Baltic & past the Volga & Urals, gas & oil refineries & wells, electricity & infrastructure anywhere. Tactically thats a major shift. Obviously US IC & defense think it would be effective because they’ve asked for it & Ukraine thinks it would be effective as they’ve begged for it.

 

[bolzano]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

 

[Chadstroma]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

So why hasn't Russia targeted and destroyed the F-16's, Mirages and the legacy Soviet aircraft? Why haven't they hit the Patriot batteries? The answer is that it isn't easy to hit targets deep within a country with cruise missiles that are mobile and assets that are actively protected.

The main counter to ATACMs and HIMARS has been GPS jamming/spoofing which the Tomahawks have a built in backup system if encountered but even so, ATACMs and HIMARS are still effective, just like drones are even with jamming because you can't jam everything, everywhere, all the time (and the US is upgrading these to overcome jamming/spoofing though that would be for our own stocks I would assume). The Ukrainian Flamingo and Neptune (which has been adapted to be used in ground strikes) have proven effective and the Tomahawks are much more capable and effective.

A position that the Tomahawks are useless or ineffective is just not accurate at all based on anything that is commonly open sourced information. Russia has the capability to shoot down Tomahawks just as they do Flamingo or Neptune's but their use has been effective in the past and would still be in Ukraine. "Most" of the Tomahawks used in Syria, hit their marks even as some were shot down.

They are not a game changer but they do add capability to the Ukrainians to strike at Russia. I have not seen any analysis that says otherswise.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

So why hasn't Russia targeted and destroyed the F-16's, Mirages and the legacy Soviet aircraft? Why haven't they hit the Patriot batteries? The answer is that it isn't easy to hit targets deep within a country with cruise missiles that are mobile and assets that are actively protected.

The main counter to ATACMs and HIMARS has been GPS jamming/spoofing which the Tomahawks have a built in backup system if encountered but even so, ATACMs and HIMARS are still effective, just like drones are even with jamming because you can't jam everything, everywhere, all the time (and the US is upgrading these to overcome jamming/spoofing though that would be for our own stocks I would assume). The Ukrainian Flamingo and Neptune (which has been adapted to be used in ground strikes) have proven effective and the Tomahawks are much more capable and effective.

A position that the Tomahawks are useless or ineffective is just not accurate at all based on anything that is commonly open sourced information. Russia has the capability to shoot down Tomahawks just as they do Flamingo or Neptune's but their use has been effective in the past and would still be in Ukraine. "Most" of the Tomahawks used in Syria, hit their marks even as some were shot down.

They are not a game changer but they do add capability to the Ukrainians to strike at Russia. I have not seen any analysis that says otherswise.

Here you go. https://x.com/kofmanmichael/status/1978484789486239859?s=46

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc., are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity off by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if he would “mind” if we delivered the missiles.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc - are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if it would be “all right” with him if we delivered them.

Much like the F16s, anything can help in theory and Ukraine will continue to ask for everything and everything. Whether the missiles will have any sort of material effect on the war effort is debatable. The administration is clearly trying to use the threat of providing these weapons as a way to get negotiating leverage, so you clearly aren’t going to have DOD staff come out and say they won’t help.

You are overstating the military consensus in your effort to hammer Trump over how he’s handled Putin in this, which is a separate and valid issue IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc - are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if it would be “all right” with him if we delivered them.

Much like the F16s, anything can help in theory and Ukraine will continue to ask for everything and everything. Whether the missiles will have any sort of material effect on the war effort is debatable. The administration is clearly trying to use the threat of providing these weapons as a way to get negotiating leverage, so you clearly aren’t going to have DOD staff come out and say they won’t help.

You are overstating the military consensus in your effort to hammer Trump over how he’s handled Putin in this, which is a separate and valid issue IMO.

Fwiw if the effectiveness is nill or at best debatable then there is no leverage. We’re not tricking the Russians into believing there’s some technical capability that doesn’t exist.

 

[bolzano]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

So why hasn't Russia targeted and destroyed the F-16's, Mirages and the legacy Soviet aircraft? Why haven't they hit the Patriot batteries? The answer is that it isn't easy to hit targets deep within a country with cruise missiles that are mobile and assets that are actively protected.

The main counter to ATACMs and HIMARS has been GPS jamming/spoofing which the Tomahawks have a built in backup system if encountered but even so, ATACMs and HIMARS are still effective, just like drones are even with jamming because you can't jam everything, everywhere, all the time (and the US is upgrading these to overcome jamming/spoofing though that would be for our own stocks I would assume). The Ukrainian Flamingo and Neptune (which has been adapted to be used in ground strikes) have proven effective and the Tomahawks are much more capable and effective.

A position that the Tomahawks are useless or ineffective is just not accurate at all based on anything that is commonly open sourced information. Russia has the capability to shoot down Tomahawks just as they do Flamingo or Neptune's but their use has been effective in the past and would still be in Ukraine. "Most" of the Tomahawks used in Syria, hit their marks even as some were shot down.

They are not a game changer but they do add capability to the Ukrainians to strike at Russia. I have not seen any analysis that says otherswise.

Russia has successfully targeted and destroyed Patriot missile batteries. And yes, when I mentioned Russian air defense, I was including their electronic warfare capabilities. Moreover, I didn’t say that Tomahawks wouldn’t be helpful as part of a holistic support package. My point was that Tomahawks aren’t some wonder weapon that will turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor.

I suppose this gets to the heart of our disagreement: You seem to think Ukraine is on its way to winning the war, whereas I’m quite bearish. (Of course, I suppose it depends on how we define victory.) So, you see Tomahawks as being materially impactful, while I see them as a drop in the bucket relative to what Ukraine really needs.

 

[thecatch]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc - are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if it would be “all right” with him if we delivered them.

Much like the F16s, anything can help in theory and Ukraine will continue to ask for everything and everything. Whether the missiles will have any sort of material effect on the war effort is debatable. The administration is clearly trying to use the threat of providing these weapons as a way to get negotiating leverage, so you clearly aren’t going to have DOD staff come out and say they won’t help.

You are overstating the military consensus in your effort to hammer Trump over how he’s handled Putin in this, which is a separate and valid issue IMO.

Fwiw if the effectiveness is nill or at best debatable then there is no leverage. We’re not tricking the Russians into believing there’s some technical capability that doesn’t exist.

You’re simultaneously arguing the administration is being historically inept and also exceedingly rational with respect to these negotiations.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc - are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if it would be “all right” with him if we delivered them.

Much like the F16s, anything can help in theory and Ukraine will continue to ask for everything and everything. Whether the missiles will have any sort of material effect on the war effort is debatable. The administration is clearly trying to use the threat of providing these weapons as a way to get negotiating leverage, so you clearly aren’t going to have DOD staff come out and say they won’t help.

You are overstating the military consensus in your effort to hammer Trump over how he’s handled Putin in this, which is a separate and valid issue IMO.

Fwiw if the effectiveness is nill or at best debatable then there is no leverage. We’re not tricking the Russians into believing there’s some technical capability that doesn’t exist.

You’re simultaneously arguing the administration is being historically inept and also exceedingly rational with respect to these negotiations.

Not the administration, there are definitely capable (still) analysts at DOD & IC. Now that you mention it I’m arguing the point person is both inept & irrational (at least as to US national security) so I think that’s consistent.

- eta - thanks for the comments, seriously, these are interesting points about the Tomahawk system. I’m just going to drop off now as I mean to focus on news reports, apologies if argumentative.

 

[bolzano]

Ukraine member of Duma confirms Tomahawks on hold.

Based on what I've heard/read, Tomahawks would basically be worthless at this stage. Ukraine lacks the platforms to fire them from, they are expensive, they are interceptable, and require a lot greater volume to be effective than Ukraine would have access to. Apparently we fired 60 at a Syrian airbase a few years ago to limited effect, and we're talking about Ukraine getting a handful.

And what is their range?

Btw say what you will about tactical advantage (& see my question on that) *but that’s something a president gleans from briefing from his military & Intelligence advisors, not upon instruction from the foreign adversary they’d be directed at.

They are of course longer range weapons than what Ukraine is currently working with for the most part, but of course that's only a part of the story for the reasons I stated. Nothing in my post can or should be read as a defense of the president's recent reported interactions with Putin.

To piggyback on this, Ukraine’s air defense has been heavily degraded, and Patriots (and other Western systems) have a poor track record of intercepting certain types of Russian missiles. Indeed, Russia has been striking deep into Ukraine with minimal resistance. So, even if we could supply a sufficient amount of Tomahawks and launchers, how would we stop Russia from destroying them?

Also, we shouldn’t discount Russia’s air defense capabilities. They’ve successfully countered ATACMS and HIMARS, and, as you noted, they have experience dealing with Tomahawks during the Syrian civil war.

Thus I’m back to where I was in my post above. If we want to end the war on Ukrainian/ NATO terms (return to pre-2014 borders, reparations, etc.), it’s going to require a significant escalation in all around support, ranging from increased sanctions and supply of materials to perhaps even birds in the air and boots on the ground. There’s no single wonder weapon that’s gonna do it, not a conventional one.

I’ll just add - again - these tactical issues, whether right, fair, wrong, interesting, fodder for discussion etc - are meaningless. Our DOD & IC, & Ukraine’s strategists, did not reach this conclusion. Trump (who apparently was so clueless about the details that he had the quantity by a factor of thousands) only made the decision after he asked Putin, our adversary, if it would be “all right” with him if we delivered them.

Much like the F16s, anything can help in theory and Ukraine will continue to ask for everything and everything. Whether the missiles will have any sort of material effect on the war effort is debatable. The administration is clearly trying to use the threat of providing these weapons as a way to get negotiating leverage, so you clearly aren’t going to have DOD staff come out and say they won’t help.

You are overstating the military consensus in your effort to hammer Trump over how he’s handled Putin in this, which is a separate and valid issue IMO.

Fwiw if the effectiveness is nill or at best debatable then there is no leverage. We’re not tricking the Russians into believing there’s some technical capability that doesn’t exist.

If we’re looking at it from the carrot/ stick perspective, the only bargaining chips that we really have left are carrots- normalization of relations, lifting of sanctions, economic cooperation, etc.

The Biden and Trump administrations already gave away our biggest sticks when they ruled out any talk over Ukraine’s immediate admission to NATO, a no fly zone, boots on the ground, and so on. Moreover, we won’t implement the Graham/ Blumenthal plan (i.e., secondary sanctions) because Trump is afraid of the damage it would do to the US economy.

Putin would be a fool not to engage Trump in negotiations over said carrots, as it’s plausible he will get to have his cake and eat it too (neutral Ukraine, Donbas, Crimea, AND economic and diplomatic incentives).

 

[fatness]

Trump resists Zelenskyy’s plea for Tomahawk missiles

Volodymyr Zelenskyy left the White House on Friday without a US agreement to send Ukraine Tomahawk missiles, after Donald Trump said the “dangerous” weapons could worsen the war.The US president had signalled willingness in recent weeks to send the long-range missiles to Kyiv, but changed tack on Friday, saying that he did not want to escalate the conflict or drain US stockpiles.“Tomahawks are very dangerous weapons,” Trump told reporters in the White House ahead of his meeting with Zelenskyy. “It could mean escalation. Tomahawks are a big deal.”“Hopefully, we will be able to end the war without thinking about Tomahawks,” he said. “We are fairly close to that.”

Trump’s apparent reversal came a day after he spoke by phone with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, when the two leaders agreed to hold a summit in Budapest.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Dutch have cut back on intelligence sharing with the US.