What really annoys me is the rhetoric coming out of the USA, that they are going to allow Ukraine to use ATAMS AND Storm Shadow to attack Russia.

Storm Shadow is an Anglo French missile system and has diddly squat to do with the USA saying if Ukraine can use it to attack or not. It is not up to them.

I.e the missile is a totally independent weapon and has NO US content, so it is up to the U.K. or France to say if it can be used, NOT the US.

Define civilian objects, if they start moving weaponry and ammunition back across it, surely it becomes a military target.

Not satisfied with robbing evacuated businesses in the Kursk region, it appears some of the possible troops are now robbing occupied stores and are not even bothered if children are present, it appears he maybe lifting their spirits quite literally, as he has a bottle in front of him.
A follow up

That's a surprisingly difficult question to answer definitively. It is by no means definitively "Yes".

ICRC: Rule 7. The Principle of Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives

You end up needing to balance the military necessity against the presumption that 'civilian objects' should not be attacked.

Targeting the wagon carrying military materiel is likely OK.
Targeting the (civilian) locomotive when it is pulling the (military) wagon likely is probably OK
Targeting the (civilian) locomotive when not pulling a military load is probably not OK
Targeting the bridge used predominantly for civil purposes when no military load is being carried across it is likely not OK.

It is not an easy call, and it is possible to argue that military exigency applies to destroying the Kerch bridge; but there is an arguable case that doing so could, possibly, constitute a war crime. Do the military reasons for destroying it outweigh the civil disruption it causes? If the civil population of Crimea are dependent on humanitarian supplies carried across the bridge, destroying it might be regarded in a poor light.

From a military point of view, the Kerch bridge is an obvious fat target - but because it is not a purely military structure, the justification for attacking it needs to be well thought out and needs to be able stand up in court.

Russian mobilised serviceman in his blog speaks of the high risk of "grinding down" the Russian offensive group in Pokrovsk due to the continuous need to advance, and that the Ukrainian Armed Forces preserve the ability to seise the initiative. He adds that Russian drone operators are being sent into assaults again.




​​​​​​​

😎😎I have a genuine question: NATO airplanes escorted a Shahed drone until it entered Ukrainian territory. What would happen if Ukraine launched drones toward Kaliningrad? Would NATO escort them until they entered Russian airspace?


​​​​​​​

Was the Kerch bridge a military target when the truck exploded and a span dropped?
Were the blown bridges across river Seym in Kursk area civilian targets?
How about the pontoon bridges or Antonivka bridge across Dnipro earlier in the war?

Consensus seems to be that those were legitimate targets, even the Russkies haven't shouted "war crimes".

Surely the section of the Kerch bridge that is in Ukrainian territorial waters belong to Ukraine? So if they don't want it there they can remove it...

I'm sure the experts here will find the later reports but I'm pretty certain the bridge damage was actually a sea drone?

Maybe there should be a cease-fire, while the lawyers dip their grubby mitts into the pot?

The report I read, particularly said "using American systems"which in the context of the article meant aircraft systems and this implicitly F16

Why are you even bothering to debate such a suggestion ? It would be case 22 127 following all the Russian atrocities starting with Bucha

But the F-16 can't carry SS/Scalp so its hardly relevant...?
Ukraine's problem will be if they run out of Su-24's as those with the jury rigged ex-Tornado pylons is all they've got to launch SS/Scalp with...(unless France are currently training Ukrainians to fly and operate M2000 that they can give them later on?)

It appears you are wrong. See theavionationi
st.com/2024/06/11 something. Don,t know how to copy address from tablet.

Regarding Kerch bridge we should understand that it is an illegal structure built on sovereign territory of Ukraine, thus it may be demolished even if it would be deemed 100% civilian infrastructure (which it clearly isn't anyway).

The F-16 database is compatible with the Storm Shadow, the problem is where to carry it. The F-16 wing pylon has a weight limit of 2,500lb, the SS weighs about 2,800lbs. which also introduces issue of asymmetric loads in pitch, roll, yaw etc and relevant clearances.

Or the use of GPS for targeting?

This seems to be the referenced article...

Which is also why the their Su-27 and MiG-29 couldn't be fitted to carry them as well. The Su-24 was all they had that was capable of carrying them, and they have lost a fair few of them as well, so the remaining ones are critical to SS/Scalp ops continuing (unless the French are training them to operate M2000 in the meantime)

The factory of Omsktransmash in Omsk, Russia, is on fire. The factory produces various products for the military, such as the TOS-1A, but it is also engaged in the refurbishment and repair of tanks.


​​​​​​​