[Goose]

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version.

True. It is possible those craters were generated by munitions tossed in the air by the ammunition explosions that detonated on impact. No way to prove that though.

There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

It doesn't take a big volume of explosives to detonate an ammunition store or to trash an airplane, especially if the airplane is fueled. A 5 lb block will do more than fine. Also, if there were several infiltrators placing timed/command detonated charges, they would all go off at once. Big synergy in that.

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

Possible yes, but IMHO not probable. The AGM-88 is a particular type of "anti-radiation" missile. We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing. It is in fact possible we gave them several types. So we did give notice, even if we were non-specific. OTOH, the administration has been very explicit that we would not supply ATACMS to Ukraine. If we changed that policy and did not so state, it is quite clearly deceptive on our part. I don't think we are going to do that.

IMHO it is NEVER a good idea for the administration to flatly say what they are not going to do. The "other side" won't be reassured by that because they already don't trust us. Even if they do trust us they won't bet their country on it. OTOH we may have to recant our position, which at best makes us look indecisive and at worst makes us appear deceptive. It is a lose-lose proposition.

[Goose]

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version.

True. It is possible those craters were generated by munitions tossed in the air by the ammunition explosions that detonated on impact. No way to prove that though.

There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

It doesn't take a big volume of explosives to detonate an ammunition store or to trash an airplane, especially if the airplane is fueled. A 5 lb block will do more than fine. Also, if there were several infiltrators placing timed/command detonated charges, they would all go off at once. Big synergy in that.

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

Possible yes, but IMHO not probable. The AGM-88 is a particular type of "anti-radiation" missile. We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing. It is in fact possible we gave them several types. So we did give notice, even if we were non-specific. OTOH, the administration has been very explicit that we would not supply ATACMS to Ukraine. If we changed that policy and did not so state, it is quite clearly deceptive on our part. I don't think we are going to do that.

IMHO it is NEVER a good idea for the administration to flatly say what they are not going to do. The "other side" won't be reassured by that because they already don't trust us. Even if they do trust us they won't bet their country on it. OTOH we may have to recant our position, which at best makes us look indecisive and at worst makes us appear deceptive. It is a lose-lose proposition.