Transformer stockpiles and power grids come under threat

Which makes perfect sense, because Russia wants Ukraine's energy generation/transportation infrastructure.

There is difference between "not targeted" and "failed to blow up". 80% to 90% percent of missiles that russia shoots are intercepted, at which point you don't know what was their final destination. I guess more high value targets (like highest voltage transformers) have better air defense perimeter.

This would not solve the issue and might even worsen it.

HVDC converter stations are absolutely massive and necessary to interconnect the HVDC line with the rest of the AC grid, making them larger targets than even the largest autotransformers (i.e. 750kV to 330kV like they seem to have in Ukraine).

If openinframap can be trusted, there are quite a few HVDC lines across India and China already, some in US, Canada and Brazil. It's not just the international underwater cables that use them. Not sure if avoiding large transformers is sufficient reason for using HVDC lines. HVDC conversion stations still need big transformers in addition to giant semiconductors and other high power electronic components which aren't exactly cheap or widely available either.

Hvdc systems still have transformers on the AC side.

Certain media is reporting strikes on airbases that are bombing civilian infra as “escalation”. There’s definitely no shortage of people who believe Ukraine having territorial sovereignty is too hardline for negotiations.

There are also options for asymmetric tit for tat escalation that Russia could take. E.g. there are numerous militias in the Middle East that would happily accept high-end Russia weaponry to attack American troops.

I've wondered this also. I could understand the initial reluctance for western powers to supply such weapons. But the complexion of the war, it seems to me, has changed considerably with most Russian long range weapon fire now directed at civilian targets. This Russian tactic must constitute a war crime and so I feel the case for supporting the defence against these weapons is much stronger.

Most of russian launched missiles are either airborne or launched from ships in Black Sea or Kasipan Sea. Also a bunch of iranian drones.

The "only" land missile batteries in russian is S300 in Belgorode area that shoot at Kharkiv direction.

Yes, it does, just like Russia considers it a provocation too far to strike Ukraine's warmaking industry. Because that industry is located in NATO countries.

Also, Ukraine striking Russia would erode international support for it, and be a fantastic domestic propaganda opportunity for Russia.

There is no situation in which doing so would be to Ukraine's advantage. It can only win the war by destroying Russia's will to fight, it cannot win it by destroying it's means to fight.

> Does the U.S. consider it to be a provocation too far to equip Ukraine with weapons systems that can strike these Russian missile batteries in Russia?

Maybe. I would not rule out that the real rationale is that limiting the scope of escalation of assistance serves the purpose of giving room to escalate further without crossing some point beyond that which would cross what it actually sees as “too far”.

Also, Ukraine has a (limited) domestic deep strike capability using Tu-141 jet drones converted to cruise missiles, which it has used to strike deep into Russia at strategic bomber bases from which Russia has been launching attacks.

> It is ridiculous that we are tacitly tolerating this war by Russia

I’m not sure I’d describe it that way; while on the one hand we are limiting the kind and scope of assistance to Ukraine, and not directly intervening, the arms lift to Ukraine is pretty much unprecedented in anything post-WWII where we aren’t directly engaged. This doesn’t seem to be “tacit toleration” of Russia’s war.

Yes the US has publicly stated they are avoiding delivering weapons which could be used to strike inside Russia.