Perhaps Germany fears Taurus may lose sales to Storm Shadow and SCALP.
It’s an interesting juxtaposition: countries whose elites preach that “people don’t kill people, guns kill people”. Those same countries’ elites seem to think they can escalate the power and range of “guns+” that kill Russians - with malice aforethought - and expect zero retribution. This is, indeed, the kind of miscalculation which makes WWIII much more likely. Do they really not remember how Russia responded a few short generations ago when facing a prior existential threat? Do they think actions at this level are countered with talking points? Do they think Russians are like their own cowed citizen-subjects?
Germany may provide Ukraine with long-range Taurus cruise missiles in the coming months, but they are expected to be modified to make it impossible for them to strike Russian territory, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported on Aug. 11, citing its own sources.
A “reconsideration” about supplying Ukraine with the long-range weapons is now taking place, even though German Chancellor Olaf Scholz hesitated to provide Ukraine with them due to concerns that Kyiv could attack the Russian territory, the report said.
Over the past few weeks, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has asked the Taurus manufacturer to integrate a corresponding target programming limitation into the cruise missiles, the magazine claimed.
According top the Detroit Free Press, Biden is letting the Russians conduct military operations in the US. Or perhaps this should be a Gell Mann Amnesia post:
A fighter jet flying at the Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti in the Thunder over Michigan air show crashed Sunday, with emergency crews rushing to the scene. The plane, a former Soviet — now Russian — MiG-23 aircraft, burst into flames when it hit the ground.
I suspect this was one of the 11 privately-owned MIG-23s registered in the U.S. See:
under Civilian/United States:
There are 11 civilian-owned MiG-23s registered in the United States of America according to the FAA.[6]
Most of these were sold by ex-Warsaw Pact countries in the grand arms bazaar of the 1990s.
It’s the writer’s reflexive “now Russian” inaccuracy.
The owner has spares:
Here is Juan Browne’s (Blancolirio) compilation of mobile phone videos (portrait mode, of course) of the ejection from and crash of the MIG-23 in Michigan. It is not clear at this point why the crew ejected—from one of the videos it appears the engine was operating at the time of the ejection and the plane did not appear to be out of control. Since the crew survived, I’m sure that’s one of the first things investigators will be asking them.
Does the pilot have a YouTube channel? Might not know the ejecting to get a viral video was already tried. 
Was rear seater someone who could have grabbed the ejection handle by accident?
Lieutenant Arutiunian, who uses the military call sign Doc — a reference to the doctorate in data mining he holds from Kyiv Polytechnic — commands four teams in the unmanned aerial vehicle service of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, operating on the southern front. They deploy a variety of propeller-driven drones and planes to track Russian forces for the Ukrainian military and are constantly adjusting tactics and equipment to evade Russian interceptors. […]
Ukrainian volunteers, many of them entrepreneurs and computer and technology professionals, were quick to exploit the use of cheap, commercial drones in the first months of the war. This gave the Ukrainian Army an advantage over Russian forces, which struggled with poor communications during the battle for Kyiv in March last year. […]
This was an area that the Russians had abandoned after recent fighting, said a soldier using the call sign Gremlin, 23, who was a software developer before the war. She was comparing the new footage with an earlier satellite map of the area. “The Russians come back to positions they have left,” she said.
Don’t know how this Mig was set up, but American 2-seat jets have the ability for command ejection by the back-seater. However, that authority is usually selected by the pilot, and by-and-large pilots do not give their back-seaters this ability. I would be surprised if it were so set-up in this jet ride. Don’t know who the back-seater was, but I would suspect it was a paid ride.
An interesting summary from Larry Johnson:
How Will the War in Ukraine End? - A Son of the New American Revolution (sonar21.com)
".… something we should be contemplating if the world is going to avoid a nuclear holocaust. It boils down to three possibilities:
** Unconditional Surrender*
** Negotiated Settlement*
** Prolonged Conflict and Exhaustion, i.e. Stalemate*
…
Ukraine is facing a situation like the one that confronted the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee, at Appomattox. Lee’s beleaguered army still wanted to carry on the fight against the North but, despite their spirit, they lacked the logistics and manpower to continue. Lee recognized the futility of the situation and agreed to the generous terms offered by General Ulysses Grant. I believe the moment is approaching when Ukraine’s General Zaluzhny will face a similar moment of truth. …"
In the video I posted today, EJECT! EJECT!, John Nichol and Ward Carroll discuss command eject at some length. Carroll (F-14 pilot for 15 years) says that originally pilots did not usually enable back seat command eject, but after several incidents in which the pilot was disabled or injured, now the majority do fly in that mode. It’s still at the pilot’s discretion, and presumably they wouldn’t enable it while flying an untrained person in the back seat, especially after the 2020 Rafale B incident in France. It was only due to a malfunction that the pilot was not ejected as well and was able to fly the plane back to the base without a canopy and land safely. (The passenger landed safely.)
American 2-seat jets have the ability for command ejection by the back-seater. However, that authority is usually selected by the pilot, and by-and-large pilots do not give their back-seaters this ability.
[/quote]
In the video I posted today, EJECT! EJECT!, John Nichol and Ward Carroll discuss command eject at some length. Carroll (F-14 pilot for 15 years) says that originally pilots did not usually enable back seat command eject, but after several incidents in which the pilot was disabled or injured, now the majority do fly in that mode. It’s still at the pilot’s discretion, and presumably they wouldn’t enable it while flying an untrained person in the back seat, especially after the 2020 Rafale B incident in France. It was only due to a malfunction that the pilot was not ejected as well and was able to fly the plane back to the base without a canopy and land safely. (The passenger landed safely.)
[/quote]
You are, of course, correct. Mostly it’s a question of crew trust. When a crew has flown together a bit, there is a bond that develops that allows the pilot to feel “safe” allowing his back seater to initiate ejection for both if he is injured. Remember, if the pilot initiates the ejection, the back seater goes automatically - he has no choice (especially since he usually has no aircraft controls in the back).
As discussed in this documentary:
and note what happens when the same pilot forgets to enable:
Ward Carrol wasn’t a pilot, he was a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) backseater. Obviously, he had to knows a lot about all aspects to do his job.
Some would argue the pilots were chauffers for the RIOs who were the actual brains of the operation, but that’s just inside baseball.