Ukraine has repeatedly tried to attack bridges in Crimea, with limited success so far. For targeted destruction, Kiev needs the desired Taurus cruise missile, says Austrian Colonel Markus Reisner in a weekly interview with ntv.de. This has decisive advantages compared to Scalp or Storm Shadow. The military expert describes the German government’s hesitant attitude about a possible delivery as a continuation of the USA’s “boiling the frog” strategy.
ntv.de: Ukraine has already received the Scalp and Storm Shadow cruise missiles from France and Great Britain. Why does Kiev also want Taurus? What makes the gun so attractive?
Every Monday, Colonel Markus Reisner answers questions about the current situation in Ukraine on ntv.de. He is a military historian, head of the research and development department at the Theresian Military Academy in Vienna and commander of the Austrian Guards Battalion. He has analyzed the war in Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion.
(Photo: private)
Markus Reisner: There are two reasons for this: on the one hand the quantity and on the other hand the quality. The quantity would automatically improve if Germany were to give up a significant number to Ukraine from its approximately 600 Taurus. As a result, Ukraine’s arsenal is increasing, because ongoing operations are reducing the inventory of scalp and storm shadow. Much more significant, however, is the qualitative difference. The Scalp or Storm Shadow cruise missiles are bunker-busting weapons designed to penetrate deep into the earth, breaching concrete walls and detonating inside a bunker. This is due to the detonator, which is designed to detonate only after penetrating several concrete walls or the ground. These igniters are not interchangeable on the Storm Shadow and Scalp, unlike the Taurus, which has variably adjustable igniters. This has the great advantage that it is possible with the Taurus to attack and destroy bridges in a targeted manner.
Over the past few days and weeks, Ukraine has repeatedly tried to attack bridges in Crimea. However, there was no real damage.
This is because the hits were very precise. However, they only sufficed to penetrate the bridge deck, not to destroy important bridge pillars. But that would be possible with the Taurus.
Over the weekend Ukraine tried again to attack the Kerch Bridge in Crimea. What rockets were used for this?
The Kerch Bridge has twice been badly damaged in Ukraine attacks. Once by using a truck loaded with explosives and the second time by unmanned surface systems that blew themselves up on a bridge pier. The last attack was again from the air. With a high degree of probability through long-range systems, comparable to cruise missiles. There is an assumption that they could have been converted S-200s. But since there are no pictures of debris, it cannot be said for sure. The only thing that is certain is that there was no hit.
Then where did the large clouds of smoke that rose above the bridge come from?
Of the defensive measures of the Russians. The use of fog, i.e. the plumes of smoke that we saw, was the classic attempt to make it impossible to aim accurately at the bridge.
Are the attacks on the bridges the only reason Ukraine wants the Taurus cruise missiles?
The Ukraine wants to attack bridges with Taurus because they can use it to destroy them in a targeted manner. They also have a longer range than the Scalp or Storm Shadow.
Taurus has a range of over 500 kilometers and Scalp and Storm Shadow can “only” fly up to 350 kilometers, right?
Correct. It is therefore interesting how discussions are going on in Germany about “defusing” these missiles. But what does that mean? That Ukrainians cannot enter coordinates that are on Russian territory? Or that the missile will be limited in range?
Do you think it makes sense to limit the range?
It is obviously an attempt not to tempt Russia into massive retaliatory measures. The problem is that Ukraine gets guns to fight back, but then doesn’t use those guns 100 percent. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to Russia. It also takes a certain amount of trust that Ukraine does not use these missiles on Russian territory. It already does it with drones and other weapons anyway. And they have the right to do so under international law because they are defending themselves against Russia.
They attack Russian territory but not with the Western-supplied Scalp and Storm Shadow.
Exactly, so far there is not a single example where the Russians would have shown fragments of a scalp on Russian territory, for example.
Can you therefore understand the German government’s reluctance and concerns that Ukraine could use Taurus missiles on Russian soil?
I suspect the German government is continuing the strategy that the American government is also pursuing. There are some examples showing that they have no interest in the conflict escalating. From the American HIMARS systems, which were very successful, 20 units were delivered last summer, and 18 more were promised for the next two years. However, the Ukraine had demanded 100 to 150 pieces, which would also have made military sense. But you didn’t get it. The question is: why? The second is the still undelivered ATACMS, a US short-range ballistic missile with a range of over 300 kilometers. To this day, the US maintains that these missiles are not what Ukraine needs right now, despite the fact that this defies all military logic. The third point is the F-16 deliveries. Around 3,000 F-16 jets are in service around the world and for months it has not been possible to train additional pilots and deliver the aircraft.
And the fourth example?
All these Russian missiles, cruise missiles and drones can only destroy targets in Ukraine and critical infrastructure because they fly using GPS, the Russian GLONASS system (Russian version of GPS). That could bother you, but it doesn’t. And also in the discussion about the Taurus, the background is apparently the strategy of the Americans after “boiling the frog” (“The boiling frog syndrome” describes a strategy aimed at slowly defeating the opponent without him noticing and reacting, note . ed.). Whenever Ukraine falls behind militarily, they want to restore a symmetrical balance, but not overshoot the mark. Because there is obviously a fear that Russia will then take measures that could have regional or even supra-regional consequences. This is also reflected in the current discussion.
The Taurus cruise missiles only fit on the aircraft carriers Eurofighter, F-16 or Tornados. Ukraine doesn’t have all of those, does it?
No, but the problem already existed with the Scalp and the Storm Shadow. Ukraine then modified its Su-24M aircraft to carry the cruise missiles. So you would have to try again to modify the jets so that they can carry the Taurus. That shouldn’t be too much effort, however, because the Taurus is basically very similar in construction to the Storm Shadow and Scalp.
Ukraine would then have to modify some Su-24M jets so that they can carry Taurus but no longer Scalp or Storm Shadow. Is the number of planes sufficient for this?
Ukraine only has a handful of Su-24M aircraft. The problem would not solve itself until they had F-16 jets available. Due to its construction, it can carry many weapon systems, for example American-made ones, such as the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb. That would allow Ukraine to fly multiple attacks at once. The reason they still have a working air force at all is because the Soviet Su-24-M are very robust. Much more robust than F-16 for example. And secondly, because Ukraine almost every day moves these planes from one airport to the next, even stationing them on highways in between. In this way they try to evade the enlightenment of the Russians. They keep attacking airfields in Ukraine with dozens of cruise missiles. But so far they’ve mostly been in vain. This could significantly improve the discussion about the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine and increase the possibility of being able to carry other weapon systems.
Let’s take another look at the front. Ukrainian forces are said to have liberated the town of Urozhaine in southern Donetsk over the weekend. Can this be confirmed?
In the central area, Ukraine actually managed to advance in Urozhaine. We see this very clearly on videos of Russian soldiers trying to flee this small town on foot under heavy artillery fire and trying to establish themselves somewhere to the south. This is a tactical success as it allowed Ukraine to extend its push eastward at Staromajorske while pushing back the Russians. However, it is not an operational success because the breakthrough has not yet been sustainable and has not yet gone into depth.
Are there any other changes to the frontline since last week?
In the south, in the Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, it is interesting that Ukraine has repeatedly tried to set up various bridgeheads on the south bank of the Dnipro in recent days. There is still no large bridgehead that would also make it possible to bring gear and equipment to the other side. The terrain is still very difficult because most of it is flooded. To the north we see successes from the Russians, who launched a successful counterattack at Kupyansk. There the 1st Russian Guards Tank Army advanced centrally with the left and the right flank. But even here one cannot yet speak of a central breakthrough.
Vivian Micks spoke to Markus Reisner