Attached: 1 video
Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov has posted a video on social media showing off his new cybertruck. He claims that it was a gift directly from Elon Musk and vows to send the "cyberbeast" into battle against Ukraine. https://t.me/RKadyrov_95/4999
There's also this Ukrainian report on the matter but it's in Ukrainian, so I'm sharing the Mastodon post in English.
Setting aside the question of whether he's actually going to take the thing into a fight, I don't see how you'd get much more out of it than acting as a technical.
A technical, known as a non-standard tactical vehicle (NSTV) in United States military parlance, is a light improvised fighting vehicle, typically an open-backed civilian pickup truck or four-wheel drive vehicle modified to mount SALWs and heavy weaponry, such as a machine gun, automatic grenade launcher, anti-aircraft autocannon, rotary cannon, anti-tank weapon, anti-tank gun, ATGM, mortar, multiple rocket launcher, recoilless rifle, or other support weapon (somewhat like a light military gun truck or potentially even a self-propelled gun), etc.
Technicals fill the niche of traditional light cavalry. Generally costing much less than purpose-built combat vehicles, the major asset of technicals is speed and mobility, as well as their ability to strike from unexpected directions with automatic fire and light troop deployment. Further, the reliability of vehicles such as the Toyota Hilux is useful for forces that lack the repair-related infrastructure of a conventional military on land. However, in direct engagements they are no match for heavier vehicles, such as tanks or other armored fighting vehicles, and they are mostly helpless against any air support from a proper military. [citation needed]
The Cybertruck is a light truck. It's got no armor, no relevant sensors. It's not tracked, which probably isn't the end of the world. The only notable thing about it is that runs on electricity, but in a battlefield context, my bet is that it's easier to get ahold of fuel than electricity. I guess you don't have to worry about fuel in a tank catching on fire, but lithium makes for exciting reactions too -- I kind of doubt that the battery cases deal well with being ruptured. Militaries are generally using ICEs, not EVs, today.
I'd say that a Hummvee is a considerably-better-suited vehicle in that category, and nobody is going to make a big deal out of taking a Hummvee into a fight.
Its quite fast compared to most other technicals, on an undamaged road.
Its nearly silent.
Air Conditioning.
You can cut vegetables for meal prep with the frunk.
.
..
...
Ok negatives:
Unless they wrap or paint it, it is extremely shiny and highly visible.
Also, it is no longer silent once you start unloading with a rear mounted Kord or PKM.
It is significantly heavier than a similarly sized truck, not great for mud or crossing a structurally dubious bridge.
It can't offroad for shit in actually difficult or broken terrain, we've seen many of these things completely break their axels over curbs or collisions that most modern SUVs would be able to drive away from.
Its functionally totally unarmored.
It will probably explode/go up in flames if shot.
Also, if its electrical systems are sufficiently damaged, it will lock you out, or in.
It may or may not just stop working, or prevent itself from turning on fully if it decides to do a software update and has connectivity issues.
If the doors are damaged or your stupid key fob thing breaks, the door 'handles' are by default flush with the door panel and you cannot actually enter the vehicle.
If the central touch screen is say, shot, or maybe just bumped and cracked by an ammo box... probably you also cannot even get the thing to start.
Also, once you're close to the front line, where are you going to charge this thing? There's definitely no fast chargers, and if you do find a house with a working 220v outlet you're a sitting duck for the next 8 hours or so.
Ukrainians have been using electric bikes and scooters successfully, but a whole EV is another kettle of fish.
While that might play a very small part on their strategy I don't think anyone in Ukraine thinks twice before shooting it should the situation really need it. It would make a nice trophy, agreed, but I think the mentality is that if it doesn't burn then nice and even if it does the charred remains are still a trophy and a big PR win via social media.
But since Kadyrov might be inside, they might just make sure to save the video of blowing it up with egregious firepower. Even if he's not inside, it's a nice fuck you to all involved.
Does a fully charged CyberTruck have enough range to drive from... wherever it is, to say... Kursk?
It would be the funniest thing in a while if Ukraine managed to hack into the Autopilot and tell the thing to drive itself across the frontline to be captured.
Not even "just" against Ukraine. Kadyrov is pro-honour-killing, has advocated nuking Ukraine, claimed to be sending his own 14-year-old son to fight, and has been described by Human Rights Watch as being responsible for such widespread torture that it is a crime against humanity.
I can't wait to see the Ukrainian video of them drone striking this piece of shit lol. Assuming they even bother and it doesn't just die on the side of the road on the way to anywhere.
Assuming that Musk actually had a hand in it and it isn't just Kadyrov playing up a truck he bought second hand to make himself seem more important. Not that Elon isn't shitty, but I'm not sure if Kadyrov is notable enough for the guy to personally send him presents.
Can we seize Space X and Tesla paid with tax payer's funds? Force him to sale, I don't give a shit what it is. A national resource is in the hands of a extreme far right Putin/Jinping/ Bin Salman puppet. This man has way to much power.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It's a fairly narrow definition. I haven't found any cases where the USSC defines "enemy" but, given the preceding sentence, it looks like the heavily implied definition is, "Members of a nation that is at war with the United States."
Officially, the US has only been at war 5 times. The last one was WW II.