The ATACMS permission MAKES UKRAINE SAFER and is NEVER any risk to its ALLIES - leading Republicans in both House and Senate asked Biden to lift this restriction ever since the bill was passed
The ATACMS is just one more missile of many that Ukraine is ALREADY using against legitimate military targets within Russia with several of them ALREADY supplied by the USA
You can get a first idea of this blog post by just looking at the graphics and reading the section titles.
[I use caps lock in the title to try to highlight key words for panicking people]
Any Russian spokesperson who says that there is ANY RISK to Ukraine's allies from the US allowing Ukraine to use one more missile against targets in Russia to add to the many it is using already is just trying their best to hobble Ukraine’s legitimate self defence.
This permission will ONLY MAKE UKRAINE SAFER and there was NEVER ANY RISK TO ITS ALLIES.
And the Biden bashing by some Republicans claiming FALSELY that it will start a world war is particularly bizarre since Republicans from Mike Johnson, speaker of the House through to Mitch McConnel have been ALL calling on Biden to give Ukraine ht is permission since May 2024. And Mitch McConnel has been calling on Biden to supply ATACMS to Ukraine - without any restrictions - since September 2022.
This all just
Russian propaganda to try to hobble Ukraine in its defence against the Russian war machine
Clickbait from Western media which is done for no reason except to attract clicks and views, and
Biden bashing by a small minority of Republicans just to score political points in his “lame duck” last session as president of the USA.
That’s all, there is no real risk to any of Ukraine’s allies.
This new permission makes Ukraine safer by protecting it a little more against Russia’s war machine.
Its allies were never at risk anyway.
This is a graphic I did to help those who voted for Trump especially. It is to help counteract the FALSE idea that Biden is giving Ukraine this permission to cause problems for Republicans.
No he is NOT. The Republicans have been asking Biden to give this permission to Ukraine since May. Mitch McConnnel has been asking him to give the ATACMS since Sept 2022. If Biden had sent ATACMS then along with the permission back then, the war would likely have ended in 2022.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
For Trump voters scared that Biden has lifted the restrictions on ATACMS - YOUR PARTY HAS BEEN ASKING FOR THIS SINCE 2022.
Mitch McConnel asked Biden to supply ATACMS in Sept 2022.
When Congress passed the bill in May it put NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE ATACMS.
Mitch McConnel and Mike Johnson both asked Biden to STOP MICROMANAGING THE WAR and just let Ukraine use the missiles as it saw fit.
They said that Congress put no restrictions on the missiles and Biden shouldn't either. Biden has taken 6 months to lift the restrictions.
Congress supplied them with NO RESTRICTIONS ON USE IN RUSSIA
Mitch McConnel first called on Biden to supply ATACMS to Ukraine on 15th September 2022.
All this is just PROLONGING THE WAR
There is absolutely NO RISK TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
They are only used against MILITARY targets involved in attacking Ukraine.
When Russia leaves Ukraine the war is over.
Photograph from: Republican leader in U.S. Senate calls on Biden to send ATACMS to Ukraine
Biden is doing this to help protect Ukraine in a very long delayed response after many requests from the Ukrainians, from Congress, from many generals asking him to do this, from the UK and France and to many others who have been asking him to do this for MONTHS to PROTECT UKRAINE
In more detail:
Mitch McConnel first called on Biden to supply ATACMS to Ukraine on 15th September 2022.
Ukraine got a few ATACMS a YEAR later
not enough to do much.
The Ukraine bill got stuck in Congress over winter
Ukraine got more ATACMS in the spring
Congress supplied them with NO RESTRICTIONS ON USE IN RUSSIA
Biden added this nonsense restriction
not to use against targets in Russia
precisely where a 300 km range missile would be most useful.
Russia got
6 months to adapt to them in occupied Ukraine.
If Ukraine has indeed only got permission to use them in Kursk oblast
it gives Russia more time to adapt.
All this is just PROLONGING THE WAR
There is absolutely NO RISK TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
They are only used against MILITARY targets involved in attacking Ukraine.
When Russia leaves Ukraine the war is over.
Remember Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson was criticised for holding up the Ukraine bill? He is the last person to suggest USA does anything reckless in its support for Ukraine. He is not even that interested in the war and thinks the Mexican border is far more important.
But he also agrees this restriction makes no sense.
SPEAKER: I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.
Ukraine has every right to defend itself.
To make it stranger, from May to November, Biden permitted Ukraine to use missiles with 80 km range against targets in Russia, but not longer.
So they can use US missiles against targets in Russia if they are close to the border but not against the SAME targets if they are further away.
As for nukes, Russia doesn't have nukes to prevent Ukraine from exercising its legitimate self defense against an invasion. They have nukes to deter any country from overthrowing the government of the Russian Federation by military means.
Russia knows perfectly well that Ukraine is no threat to the Russian Federation and is only defending itself.
Ukraine’s permission to use its ATACMS for airfields and logistics hubs in Russia is ONLY DEFENSIVE and STOPS ESCALATION - expected since spring 2024 - lowers risk to Ukraine and no risk to its allies
You can get a first idea of this blog post by looking at the graphics and reading the section titles.
See also my post:
First ATACMS strike is far smaller and far closer to Ukraine than the big munitions dump explosion of Sept 18 - and similarly blew up explosives Russia was saving to drop on Ukraine - defensive only
You can get a good first idea of this debunk by just looking at the graphics and reading section titles
No Putin does NOT have any obligation to do ANYTHING and WON’T do anything - because he just lied when he bluffed
Putin has set NUMEROUS red lines in the past. When Ukraine's allies cross those red lines he doesn't have ANY obligation to act. Because he just lied when he made those bluffs. When the red line is crossed he pretends he never said anything. He can do this because he lied, and was never going to do anything in the first place. That is what it means to bluff.
Typical responses after a red line is crossed:
Hides it from the news in Russia as long as he can.
Rubbishes whatever Ukraine just got. E.g. says the F-16 cost too much and are just a waste of money. Says Russia has far better systems than the HiMARS.
Claims that Russia has already destroyed many of the systems before they even get to Ukraine sometimes. In some cases these are wooden decoys built by the Ukrainians - e..g Russia has destroyed dozens of wooden imitation HiMARS system which they claim are the real thing.
Most common - no response. He just never mentions the system again. Never refers to his previous bluffs.
Right now he continues to bluff because Ukraine hasn't yet used ATACMS against targets in Russia.
As soon as they actually use them any bluffs are useless so he will then switch to one of those responses.
Try looking at it like this:
Would it make sense for Putin to try to find an excuse to use nukes against NATO? Obviously not, ever.
Would it make sense for Putin to bluff to try to get the US to tell Ukraine not to fire its most powerful intermediate-range missile at Russia?
Yes obviously.
So they are bluffs.
Some recommended media sources on this topic - Associated Press, Defence Express, and Kyiv Independent
In response to comments I've added this section on responsible media sources
I can recommend three sources that are still reporting this responsibly:
Associated Press for mainstream media [the best I know though it does sometimes have clickbait]
Defence Express for the perspective of military experts
Kyiv Independent for the Ukrainian point of view.
There are likely others but those are a good start to get better idea of the situation
though none of them go into the level of detail I do here and none of them are written to help scared people.
If you read these sources it will help you to understand that what I say here is factual, well-grounded and true.
There is so much clickbait around. I wouldn’t recommend the BBC on this topic for instance. Or the New York Times. This is because of the clickbait titles. The titles LIE about the story itself, which is very scary for people who are anxious. That is what “clickbait” means. They also often have serious mistakes in the story itself sadly. For instance falsely suggesting that Ukraine targets Russian civilians which it never does.
The Associated Press is the least clickbait I know. Try this post by them about the missiles:
NOTHING in the title about any risk to Ukraine's allies. Because there is no such risk. That would certainly be in the title if there was a real risk.
.Associated Press is covering this story responsibly. NOTHING about IMPOSSIBLE nukes or world war.
Just talks about what effect it will have on the war and to what extent it will help Ukraine defend itself.
QUOTE FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
Ukraine has been asking its Western allies for longer-range weapons in order to alter the balance of power in a war where Russia is better resourced, and strike with precision air bases, supply depots and communication centers hundreds of kilometers (miles) over the border.
It hopes the weapons would help blunt Russia’s air power and weaken the supply lines it needs to launch daily strikes against Ukraine and to sustain its military ground offensive into Ukraine.
. What does Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use longer-range US weapons mean?
You can also try Defence Express for the perspective of military analysts:
QUOTE STARTS
The United States is nearing to cancel the unreasonable restriction on using its missiles to strike russia. The important question is, what kind of effect this change brings to the battlefield
See: How Far Ukraine Would Reach If U.S. Allows to Fully Use ATACMS (Map)
Then in more detail, they talk here about the likely targets Ukraine wants to hit. You can check that NONE OF THESE ARE CIVILIAN TARGETS. It does NOT WANT OT HIT CIVILIANS, a common misunderstanding.
In May 2024, after being pressured against the background of a looming russian offensive on Kharkiv, Biden Administration also allowed near-border strikes in russia to attack immediate threats to the city.
Still, the majority of operational- and strategic-level targets like airfields of logistics hubs remained beyond the reach of these artificial limits. At some point around September 2024, in its effort to obtain permission to fully use ATACMS, Kyiv went as far as submitted a list of specific targets in russia so that Washington could check and authorize only strikes aimed at the articles mentioned in this document.
While the contents of this alleged list are confidential, the russian key assets aren't, so let's recall some of the most important ones within the 300-km range.
See: Biden Allowed Ukraine to Use ATACMS For Strikes Inside russia: What Targets They Can Reach
This is the perspective of the experts I follow on Twitter. They just don’t understand at all why the US has this restriction and have been asking for it to be lifted since May. It just makes no sense to them.
Also the Kyiv Independent is a good source. It shows the Ukrainian point of view. Remember they are the ones that are most at risk of whatever Russia might do and they see this as making them safer.
T
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
'Missiles will speak for themselves' — Zelensky reacts to long-range strike permission reports
My annotation: These will be missiles hitting MILITARY TARGETS to STOP the Russian attacks on civilians and on Ukrainian soldiers
. 'Missiles will speak for themselves' — Zelensky reacts to long-range strike permission reports
Unlike the rest of us, they are at risk of being hit by hypsersonic missiles (which hit you before you can hear them) and glide bombs (which you can hear coming but devastate an entire apartment in one go) and every night they get air raid sirens now and many of them now shelter in underground stations and underground shelters from the bombs much like London in the Blitz.
They see this permission as far too little far too late but that it will help a little to reduce the risk from these bombs.
They don't see any risk of a world war
Same also for the Baltic states, or Poland - they would be at the front line in any world war but are not scared because they know all that is BULLS**T.
Ukraine is defending itself against Russia which has converted its economy into a war machine to attack Ukraine and is attacking only targets that it needs to attack to defend itself
Putin is already hitting Ukraine with far longer-range missiles almost every day and is NOT hitting legitimate military targets [apart from the war itself being illegal under the UN charter]
Russia is trying to destroy their electricity grid over and over, after having already destroyed all their fossil fuel power stations. This is a very clear war crime as civilian infrastructure should not be targeted unless there is a clear military use and it has military necessity [e.g. there is justification for Ukraine to target the Kerch bridge
Ukraine’s new permission to use the ATACMS can help protect Ukrainian cities from the Russian bombs which are fired from within Russia.
The result will be to reduce the risk to Ukraine. And no effect on its allies, we are not at risk
All Ukraine is doing is to attack military sites in Russia that are directly used to bomb its cities and kill its civilians and its soldiers. This is just the sovereign right of an invaded country to defend itself under the UN charter.
Ukraine is NOT attacking civilians in Russia. It is ONLY attacking things like:
fighter jets and bombers that attack Ukraine every day with missiles with a range of thousands of kilometers.
storage depots for Shahed drones that attack Ukraine in dozens every day now, able to reach anywhere in Ukraine right up to the Polish border.
storage depots for glide bombs which Russia drops on Ukrainian cities and the front lines many times a day.
munitions dumps with millions of shells and thousands of missiles that Russia uses to attack Ukraine every day
fuel depots that fuel the tanks, fighter jets, missiles and other elements of Russia’s war machine
oil refineries which make the fuel for tanks fighter jets etc and which also are the main source of revenue for the Russian military
concentrations of Russian soldiers that are fighting Ukraine or on their way to fight in Ukraine.
airfields that Russia has just across the border in Russia which its bombers and fighter jets take off from every day to drop one to three ton glide bombs on Ukrainian soldiers and civilian buildings in cities.
bridges that are used to supply shells,. tanks, fuel etc to the front line
roads and railway lines that are also used to supply the front-line
command posts that are used to organize the fight and issue commands to the front line.
industrial buildings directly used to make or store the bombs that are dropped on Ukraine or the tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc.
air defence systems that protect all these military targets from attack
artillery firing at Ukraine across the border
warships in the Black Sea that fire missiles at Ukraine from a great distance.
tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other ground vehicles that soldiers use to attack Ukraine.
fighter jets, helicopters, military supply aircraft and bombers that are used every day to attack Ukraine when they are in the air over Russia before they reach Ukraine.
ALL OF THESE are legitimate targets whether they are in occupied Ukraine or in Russia. A tank that is driving towards the border is as much a threat before as after it crosses the border. A fighter jet or bomber waiting to take off from an airfield in Russia to attack Ukraine is as much a threat to Ukraine as the same fighter jet in the air on its way to attack Ukraine.
Ukraine is using US supplied
GLMRS missiles to attack all of these when they are within a range of 80 km across the border or 80 km from their front line in Kursk oblast
US-supplied HiMARS launcher to launch the US supplied GLMRS
M777 Howitzzers and the 155 mm shells all supplied by the USA for targets within 25 km across the front line.
The HiMARS is the same launcher that launches the GLMRS.
.TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
HiMARS launching GLMRS missile.
It’s “Shoot and scoot”
stop and enter coords
raise platform
hit fire
lower platform
move on BEFORE it hits the target
Ukrainians do this MANY TIMES A DAY
It can launch 6 GLMRS or 1 ATACMS missile
GLMRS range 80 km
been firing at targets in Russia since May 2024
ATACMS range 300 km
just got permission to use against targets in Russia
Used many times against Crimea
Ukraine is ALREADY defending itself by hitting targets in Russia with the GLMRS missiles range 80 km - this permission just lets it fire the ATACMS from the SAME LAUNCHER range 300 km at the SAME TYPES OF TARGET just to DEFEND ITSELF
HiMARS_launch2.png
Image from: File:HIMARS - missile launched.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Ukraine have ALREADY killed thousands of Russian soldiers on Russian soil with US-supplied tanks infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers and GLMRS missiles in Kursk oblast.
Giving Ukriane permission to use one more missile system with a range of 300 km much smaller than their longest distance drone is NOT in any way a threat to the Russian Federation.
And Ukraine is ALREADY attacking ALL OF THESE with its own drones and missiles as far away as the Arctic Circle and regions in central Russia far beyond Moscow that came within range of the Ukrainian missiles as they developed longer and longer range drones over the last year.
The ATACMS is just one of numerous missiles Ukraine has that are longer distance from the 80 km GLMRS upwards.
There’s a graphic of many of them here:
https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1858249895741739271
And page about them here: H I Sutton - Covert Shores
You can see with the US flags:
the 300 km ATACMS at bottom left,
above it the 80 km GLMRS which is fired from the same launcher which Ukraine ALREADY has permission to use against targets in Russia.
The HARM in the middle also from the USA which they’ve been firing at radar systems in Russia that it uses to guide missiles against Ukraine, since 2022.
The HARM is dropped from an aircraft and homes in on radars in Russia. Range 25 to 148 km depending on how high it is dropped from. For some reason neither the USA nor Russia has ever raised any issues with Ukraine using HARM in this way AFAIK.
The JSOW is a glide bomb launched from a plane
The Harpoon is a shore to ship missile.
I don’t think either of those are used aginst targets in Russia yet but there isn’t any debate about them. Some day they likely are.
Then you see two Ukrainian built missiles which of course have no restrictions and have been used already in the war.
Second from the left at the bottom you see the Ukrainian built Palyanitsa which is a jet propelled cruise missile like the Stormshadow with a range of 700 km
to the right of it the OTRK Sapson also known as HRIM-2 which is a ballistic missile like the ATACMs with a range of 700 km.
Both have been used in the war but Ukraine has only small numbers so far. It’s built about 100, they don’t say how many of each.
But by summer next year it should have large numbers of them and the range should be much more than 700 km if the war is still continuing by then.
The Neptune cruise missile dates back to 2022 and has a range of around 300 km and was first used against warships, famously sinking the flagship of the Black Sea the Moskva, but now also against land targets.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC - A “no navy” country Ukraine sunk the flagship of the Russian fleet, the Moskva, in 2022 with two sea skimming Neptune drones. From then on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was pretty much out of the war - they never ventured near the Ukrainian shores and then were forced out of Crimea as well in 2023.
So Ukraine has many missiles of its own and supplied by others.
It also has numerous drones of different models even modified microlights which can travel for hours across Russia and hit targets 1000 miles away under autopilot and dropping small explosives, for some reason the Russian air defences can’t seem to stop microlights.
This is about how Ukraine is using modified microlights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAVs
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Russia's air defences are so degraded that Ukraine is able to fly microlights through them without getting shot down.
Replace pilot and passenger by explosives and remote control, and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and bomb a Russian oil refinery 1000s of kilometres from Ukaraine.
Yet Russia claims FALSELY it can "escalate" and win a war against not just Ukraine but NATO as well. Just bluffs and bulls**t.
Graphic shows the A-22 microlight - a small Ukrainian civilian microlight plane with just enough payload for the pilot plus one passenger. Aeroprakt A-22 Foxbat . Replace pilot and passenger by explosives and remote control and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and head off and bomb a refinery deep in Russia.
Video showing some of the drones attacking oil refineries Ukraine’s AI-enabled drones are trying to disrupt Russia’s energy industry. So far, it’s working | CNN Business Bear in mind that to do this it has flown slowly at about the speed of a fast car over Russia for many hours and not been shot down by air defences or even fighter jets. Here are more of the sorts of things Ukraine uses. Most are propellor driven.
So Ukraine has many missiles of its own and supplied by others.
Of course there are no such restrictions for the drones or missiles it makes itself or these modified microlights. They are produced by Ukraine and so long as it keeps to the UN Charter and the international law of armed conduct nobody has any cause to say anything against it.
But the US has vast numbers of ATACMS and they are particularly effective which is why Ukraine wants this permission now rather than to wait until it can build up stockpiles of its own missiles.
Though Ukraine has drones that can reach the Kremlin it's never tried to attack Putin and all this is just defence.
Ukraine doesn't have the slightest interest or the capability to take over Russia. All it is doing is defending itself. If Putin's army leaves Ukraine the war is over.
The Russians know this and they are just using empty threats to try to get Ukraine's allies to stop supplying an important and effective missile system which would slow down or even halt Russia's slow one-mile-per-week advances in Ukraine and make it harder for Russia to conduct
the war crimes of destroying Ukraine's civilian electricity grid
the war crimes of directly targeting civilian buildings with glide bombs.
And if Putin did use a single nuke against NATO, goodbye to his Black Sea fleet on day 1 not from nukes, from conventional explosives.
I don’t think many in the West realize quite how devastating it would be to Putin to lose his Black Sea fleet. This is why Ukraine sees the Tomahawk cruise missiles as a big lever it could use in negotiations with Putin.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is of huge national pride to the Russians. Ukraine has already sunk its flagship and a third of its ships with the ATACMS, stormshadows and its own native Neptune but most have retreated out of reach to the far side of the Black Sea.
If Ukaine had the Tomahawk cruise missile it could sink the entire fleet - gone from the Black Sea for the first time since it began in 1783
A major lever for negotiations with Russia from a position of strength.
Black Sea Fleet - just before the start of the Crimean war of 1853-6
Graphic: Ivan Aivazovsky. Black Sea Fleet in the Bay of Theodosia, Crimea, just before the Crimean War
They would have control over the Russian air space by the next day with their F-35s. The objective of almost the entire world, China and India included would be to make sure Russia never uses its nukes again. There is no way that China or India could endorse Russia if it used a nuke in response to Ukrainians attacking military targets in Russia with US-supplied weapons.
There is just NO WAY that the risk-averse Putin does such a dumb thing or that his generals obey him if he does.
There is just so much clickbait sensationalist BS in the Western media about this, and when you look at it, then the actual permission is nothing.
It is nowhere near enough indeed.
If Ukraine had got this permission when it first used ATACMS in the fall of 2023
it might have significantly flipped the war because back then Russia had hundreds of fighter jets in airfields near to Ukraine.
ATACMS could have destroyed hundreds of fighter jets in a few days and significantly deterred Russia and also destroyed many munition dumps and fuel dumps
if Ukraine had been given unlimited permission to use them in any way that is acceptable according to the law of armed conduct, the effect on the command posts that are running the war would have been devastating.
That would have been like when they destroyed the Black Sea headquarters in Sevastopol but much more so.
But now, after months of debate by the US and initially limited to Kursk oblast if that is what is happening then Russia has
time to slowly adapt, change the way it does things and continue the war in a slightly different way
moving assets just out of reach of ATACMS before it can hit them.
That is why people now say it won't have much effect on the war. It is hard to say.
Ukraine thinks it can still have a big effect so we'll see.
But a year ago before Ukraine developed its own long-range capabilities to the extent it has today and before Russia adapted to the extent it has today, it would have had a big effect.
Putin would NOT HAVE USED NUKES which NEVER MAKES ANY SENSE.
He would just have possibly lost the war and withdrawn from Ukraine depending on how many the US sent and how effective they were.
As we saw in the graphic Mitch McConnel has been asking for the US to send ATACMS to Ukraine since September 2022.
It got them for the first time in September 2023 but only a small number and then the funding bill was stopped in the House.
It got more in spring 2024 but with this nonsense restriction that they can't use them across the border into Russia.
It's taken to November 2024 to get permission to use them across the border into Russia.
This is how the generals and military analysts I follow see it. A bizarre senseless restriction that has prolonged the war for years. Which is in place because Biden is timid. As is Olaf Scholtz.
I think both Biden and Scholtz likely know that Putin would NOT use nukes. On reflection, I think they may just be timid because of
this hysterical reaction of the electorate and the news media whenever they cross one of Putin's arbitrary red lines fanned by Russian statements like this.
Makes more sense than being concerned about a nuclear war themselves.
Putin doesn't need to worry about the reaction of Russian media to what he says because he controls it and it says whatever he wants it to say.
Democracies with free speech and free and fair elections do need to think about such things.
And Putin says vague threatening things to give Western media lots of material for its clickbait stories which then influences their leaders to be timid in their support for Ukraine.
Please don't be afraid yourself. There is nothing here to be scared of.
Not for retaliation - doesn’t target civilians - just for defence to stop attacks on their own civilian and military
Ukraine does NOT attack civilians. This is not for retaliation it is just for defence. When you hear about civilians harmed in Russia it is either
debris of Ukrainian missiles shot down by Russia, OR
Russia’s own missiles dropped by mistake in Russia - this happens rather often for some reason, its heavy glide bombs seem to have a quick release that fails easily and they fall off their planes, released early and they often just land and explode in an empty field but sometimes fall in cities and harm civilians
But Russia DOES target Ukrainan civilians and Ukrainian civilian power supplies. These attacks are now very common.
Ukraine does NOT attack civilians in Russia - FALSE Western CLICKBAIT
Sadly even respectable Western media often runs FALSE stories of Ukraine targeting civilians in Russia JUST FOR CLICKS AND VIEWS.
Many of the people I help believe these false stories and are scared that Ukraine wants permission to hit Russian civilians in retaliation. It does NOT. Ukraine does NOT do war crimes like Russia does and keeps to the law of armed conduct.
This is one example of these false stories:
.
Text on graphic: This photograph featured by the New York Times is VERY MISLEADING and RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
This shows the aftermath of a Russian glide bomb that one of its bombers accidentally dropped on a Russian apartment block in Belgorod.
Ukraine does NOT target Russian civilians - it wants permission to hit legitimate defensive targets in Russia. Such as the artillery firing shells at Vovschank from just over the border 5 kilometers away .
Tweet shown in screenshot: Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
Open source analysis: Oliver Alexander (@OAlexanderDK) on X
Details, see
This is another recent clickbait story by the BBC.
T
TEXT ON GRAPHIC This house fire was started by debris from a Ukrainian drone that the Russians shot down - Ukraine did NOT target this house. The story explains this if you read it carefully.
CLICKBAIT from the BBC.
“Trade huge drone attacks” suggests Ukraine is retaliating.
Ukraine hits defensive targets in Russia to try to STOP the Russian attacks on Ukraine.
The CLICKBAIT BBC story is here:
. Moscow targeted as Ukraine and Russia trade huge drone attacks
Moscow wasn’t targeted either, typically they fire at the air fields or the oil refinery in Moscow which directly support the war.
DALAI LAMA: “WHEN WE FACE SOME PROBLEM IF THERE IS A WAY TO WORK ON IT - THEN MAKE EFFORT - IF THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO OVERCOME IT - THEN THERE IS NO USE IN MUCH WORRY” (BASED ON SHANTIDEVA)
Another thing you can do if you can afford it - donate to the UK Red Cross. Doesn't matter if it is a small amount, lots of small amounts add up. They have a Ukraine crisis appeal.
More of them here
. Big humanitarian crisis in Ukraine - you can donate to help
But - don’t feel you have to give away more than you can afford or get into financial hardship! Far better to help in small ways with no regret.
Instead of cowering in fear and depression, you can try actually doing something. If you can.
And if you can’t then there is no use in much worry.
The Dalai Lama put it like this, 1:17:40 into this video: He in turn is quoting the 8th Century Indian sage Shantideva:
1:17:40 into the video:
"When we face some problem, if there is a way to work on it, then make effort. If the situation is such that there is no way to overcome it, then there is no use in much worry." [Dalai Lama's comment on the quote] A very realistic and very scientific way of thinking.
He goes on to talk about how he applied this advice to his exile from Tibet and his interactions with China and the Chinese people.
Video here: Compassion and the Individual | The 14th Dalai Lama
About Shantideva here Shantideva
See also
. Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
. Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears
GROUNDING YOURSELF IN KINDNESS
Also grounding yourself in kindness may help.
As the Dalai Lama put it:
"love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are news, compassionate activities are so much part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.."
Every time you hear of something horrible in the news your mind focuses on it. But when you hear of someone being kind - you probably wouldn't bother share it, don't mention it to anyone, such stories sink down in the news and are hardly noticed.
Not necessarily to go around telling others to do that but it' can be a useful way to lead your life if you find it useful :).
BLOG: Looking for kindness - Far healthier than looking for hostility especially if easily scared
BLOG: On Substack (plays videos better): The true heroes and true brave and kind hearts in the world? - not Netanyahu or Putin - taking the side of Peace - if you get caught up in anger with them it can help to turn those values upside down
Putin won’t do anything as he is very risk averse
Putin only invaded Ukraine because he thought he had a 100% risk free plan to take over Kyiv in 3 days and all of Ukraine in 2 weeks.
As an example we now know that NATO could easily sink Russia's entire Black Sea Fleet in a few hours. with a few dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from as far away as the Mediterranean. More on that below.
This is real life, not a movie. This is to help you understand that they are real people. Though they are ruthless and seem not to care much about the lives of their soldiers, they are very risk-averse themselves.
This is how the Institute for the Study of War puts it:
TWEET “Putin is a very risk averse individual. He is extremely calculated, and he oftentimes really prefers not to make urgent, rash political decisions that would specifically impact the health of his regime,” said ISW’s Russia deputy team lead @ KatStepanenko
You can see it in his concern for personal health too
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Putin is VERY RISK AVERSE.
- this may be an example
- during the COVID pandemic he used extreme distancing with some world leaders
- at the time the recommendation was 2 meters
Although Putin often orders his soldiers to take great risks
he takes an extraordinary level of care over his own
safety and those he cares about.
When Putin ordered the invsion of Ukraine he believed FALSELY he had a risk free way to take over Kyiv in 3 days and all of Ukraine in 2 weeks.
Background graphic: Putin and Macron meeting on February 7, 2022
See Vladmir Putin’s meeting table - Wikipedia
Putin has grandchildren and a girlfriend. He wouldn't want his children and grandchildren to grow up in a devastated world
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Putin wants a good future for himself, his children and grandchildren
Putin's generals want a good future too. Nobody wants a world war.
Putin wouldn't want his children and grandchildren to grow up in a devastated world.
For more on this see my:
So given that Putin is so risk averse - why did he attack Ukraine? Because he thought it was ZERO RISK.
He was so sure of his plan he never told his generals about it in advance.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Putin is "A VERY RISK AVERSE INDIVIDUAL" (ISW).
So why did he invade Ukraine? He thought it was ZERO RISK.
He planned to
- take Hostomel airport on day 1.
- land tanks and take over Kyiv government next day.
- take over Ukraine in 2 weeks.
Then this happened.Debris from destroyed Russian helicopters
Putin had no plan B.Putin was so sure of this plan devised by spied he kept it secret
There is NO WAY Putin could think using nukes is ZERO RISK no matter what his spies say.
Photo of the damaged airport from: Occupiers fail to secure their foothold in the attack on Kyiv
See:
There is NO WAY that Putin could think that using a nuke would be risk free. It doesn’t matter what the spies might tell him he is not going to believe that.
So he won’t do it.
Indeed he would have to lose his ability to reason to use nukes against NATO.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Is this is my general?
Is this a flowerpot?
This is how insane Putin would have to be to actually use nukes.
His generals would need to be deluded in the same way, not able to reason coherently or distinguish imagination from reality.
Putin knows what nukes are.
Flowerpot from: "Meillandine" Rose in clay pot
General Valery Gerasimov from: Valery Gerasimov official photo
See:
He is capable of coherent rational thought and understands that nobody can win in a nuclear war.
He has nukes as a deterrent
How nuclear deterrents work. One of Queen Elizabeth’s bodyguards. His job was to keep her safe. NOT to go around starting fights with people around her, which would make her very unsafe A nuclear deterrent is like a bodyguard He kept her safe by just standing there and doing nothing, alert to any trouble
Photo by Irish321 on Wikimedia commons. I can’t find the original photo as the url doesn’t seem to work but they are credited here: How The Queen left a Head of State lost for words as By Irish321 at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, User talk:MisterProper - Wikimedia CommonsArrows added by Business Insider Professional bodyguards reveal how to stay safe while traveling
. How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
As for NATO leaders, then to use a nuke in peace time goes against the law of armed conduct and would be a major war crime. A US general who received such an order from the president would be required to refuse the order and have no hesitation in doing so.
NATO’s vast superiority over Russia - F-35 fighter jets with radar cross-section of a supersonic potato - high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone able to drop ATACMS and Tomahawk cruise missiles with range of 2,400 km - Ukraine gets none of these
Imagine how hard it would be to defend against supersonic potatoes? That is what the Russians would see in their radars if they were fighting a NATO country with F-35s
.
When you look for one of these F-35s on radar …
This is what you see: [large potato]
Russian radar operator (imagined): “What is that on the radar? A supersonic potato?”
Billie Flyn, F-35 test pilot on what it would do in Ukraine.
It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not….
Background photos: rightmost potato from: Potato var. Linda HC1 and F-35 at Edwards
The 4th generation F-35 has a radar cross section of 0.005 square meters or about 7 cm by 7 cm, 2.8 inches by 2.8 inches similar to a large potato. It's like trying to detect supersonic potatoes in flight. The Mig-29 has a cross section of 3 square meters so about the size of a normal door. The F-16c is between the two, 1.2, smaller than a door.
Figures from here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Since 2022, Ukraine has been asking for the high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone which can fly behind the front line and then deliver its “Hellfire” missiles from far too high for Russia to detect them.
But the US won’t send them. Again NATO would have those
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Ukraine has asked for the high altitude stealth Grey Eagle drone since 2022.
this could drop small precise missiles from an undetectable high alitude of 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) and fly for up to 36 hours, range of 370 km.
Any NATO country has these available from day 1.
Photo: MQ-1C Warrior (2005-08-11)
Details from: General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle
.jpg){kind=link}
Similarly they are not likely to send the veteran 1980s technology Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of over 2,400 kilometers and a payload like the ATACMS.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Range of the US tomahawk cruise missile with a half ton payload like the ATACMS, travels at nearly 1000 km / hour, range 2,400 km.
Proven ability to get through Russia's S-400 system
With the current state of Russian air defences, teh US could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in a few hours but doesn't give this capability to ukraine.
Details of the missile here: Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia
Circle drawn with this free online map circle drawing tool Radius Around a Point on a Map
Russia seems unable even to stop modified microlight hobbyist aircraft loaded with explosives! This is about how Ukraine is using modified microlights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAVs
If Ukraine had those, then given how vulnerable the Russian warships have been since it sunk the Moskkva, Ukraine could sink the Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet the day after Ukraine got the missiles. But the US would be too worried about giving Ukraine that capability.
But even more so none of its airfields or command centers or munitions depots or fuel depots or munitions factories would be safe from Ukarine right up to 2,400 km from the front line.This is why Admiral Radakin said that there is no way that Russia attacks NATO.
Admiral Radakin’s main point is that Russia is
more dangerous
but less effective
than they realized before the war started. By preparing in a strong way, they make it impossible for Putin to attack NATO.
See also my quote from General Radakin her
e
Text: The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.
[Plus bullet points below]
These are some of his points from the speech - just reformatted as bullet-points and slightly rewritten to make it clearer, e.g. repeated the word NATO for clarity.
Any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.
NATO can draw on 3.5 million uniformed personnel across the Alliance for reinforcement.
NATO’s combat air forces outnumber Russia’s 3 to 1 –
NATO would quickly establish air superiority.
NATO’s maritime forces would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic,
NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.
NATO has a
collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia.
total defence budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia AND China combined.
The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly
Putin expected to take between 3 days and 3 weeks.
to subjugate Ukraine’s population.
to take about two thirds of Ukraine’s territory.
to stop Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.
Putin failed in ALL these strategic objectives.
Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air.
Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy and Ukraine’s maritime trade is reaching back to pre-war levels.
Russia’s Army lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.
To pose a realistic threat to NATO’s Eastern flank within the next 2-5 years, Russia will need to
reconstitute her tanks and armoured vehicles,
rebuild her stocks of long-range missiles and artillery munitions and
extract itself from a protracted and difficult war in Ukraine.
[This doesn't mean Russia would attack. This is after the war is over and NATO would always be far stronger than Russia. He means back to how it was in 2022.]
I am not saying that Russia is not dangerous
But at the same time it is also significantly less capable than we anticipated following its disastrous illegal invasion into Ukraine.
And it faces an even stronger straitjacket with the introduction of Finland and Sweden into NATO.
Recent talk of a Britain that is undefended, and an Armed Forces chronically imperilled, is way off the mark.
There are always challenges in running a large organisation that conducts worldwide operations and is as sophisticated as our modern military.
These kinds of challenges apply to militaries everywhere. But
we have the finest people and some of the best equipment.
For longer extracts from his speech:
SHORT DEBUNK: Nothing even remotely resembling a world war situation in Ukraine now or in the future (under World War in the left panel if it doesn’t open to it)
The speech itself is here Chief of the Defence Chatham House Security and Defence Conference 2024 keynote speech
This is a graphic I did comparing Putin to a midget trying to attack a mammoth with soap bubbles:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
NASA, huge and powerful but very timid
Russia knows it can't use nukes in reality
Russia tiny and weak, bluffs as meaningless as soap bubbles
Even the Soviet Union had no way to win a war with nukes
Imagine if your team was invisible - how easily you could win a game of football.
That is how much better NATO's F-35 jets are than anything Russia has.
300+ F-35s (USA), 100+ F-35s (Europe).
Russia's 5th generation fighter jet is not ready for war and may never be (expensive technology to develop).
NATO's technology is vastly superior (one of many ways)
NATO: Population 967 million
[it's 631 million leaving out USA]
Russia: Population 144 million
NATO: 3.5 million soldiers
Russia: 1.32 million soldiers
Ukraine: 900,000 soldiers
US defence spending $883.7 billion, 3% of GDP
NATO European allies $380 billion, 2% of GDP
Russia: $112 billion, 6% of GDP.
Ukraine: $43.23 billion, 22.1% of GDP
Based on this image created by Dall-E via Bing Chat Generated by Microsoft Copilot
American football photo from: US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field - Wikimedia Commons
Putin head from this graphic flipped Vladimir Putin (2017-01-17)
Details for the figures on the graphic, see: For Russia to attack NATO is like a midget attacking a mammoth with soap bubbles - it can't do it
Or it’s like an ant fighting a mammoth
More graphics from my recent debunks:
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
List of SOME of the legitimate defensive targets within range of ATACMS for Ukraine
Does NOT take account of Kursk incursion which adds to the range
Does NOT include new fuel and missile depots and other temporary targets.
Putin will just go "meh" as he did when Ukraine used HiMARS to blow up dozens of munitions dumps in occupied Ukraine in spring to summer 2022.
Most likely never hits the headlines in Tass
Means glide bombers have to fly at least 300 km which is far enough to reduce the payload they can carry and makes them easier to shoot down.
Also long range missiles and Shahed drones have to be fired from further away making them easier to shoot down.
Helps Ukraine to win faster.
Part of Zelensky's victory plan
Legitimate defensive targets.
Jens Stoltenberg, former NATO chief
.
Text on graphic: Self-defense is enshrined in the UN charter. It's legal it's legitimate and we are helping Ukraine with upholding that right and that should include the ability to also strike targets on Russian territory when they are military legitimate targets we're talking about.
SEE ALSO
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Zelensky says the war will end FASTER with Trump’s team
Ukraine has never been quite strong enough to negotiate with Putin.
So long as Putin's army is advancing against an enemy he sees as weak and on its own, he will NOT DO ANY GENUINE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
Zelensky says Trump understands Ukraine hs to be strong - but can’t negotiate with Zelensky until he’s president.
QUOTE: Under the conditions that Ukraine is not alone with Russia, that Ukraine is strong.
This includes sections from my draft
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
You do NOT see these instructions on the news because there IS NO REAL WORLD WAR RISK
We were ALL sent this in the cold war.
NOBODY is sent it today.
Our governments do NOT assess ANY risk of a world war.
These instructions would save millions of lives in a nuclear war.
If you are outside the epicenter and stay away from the heavy dust that falls from the sky you don't get radiation sickness.
Radioactivity is mostly gone in 2 days, most of what's left in weeks.
When I was a child we all read this and knew what to do.
Now almost nobody knows except older people because we DON'T NEED TO KNOW.
Because there is NO LONGER ANY REAL RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR.
It's bluffs, clickbait, sensationalism and exaggerations.
Graphic from: Protect and survive : this booklet tells you how to make your home and your family as safe as possible under nuclear attack
For more on this see my
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.
So, can we safely say that Putin signing new nuclear weapon doctrine and threatening "nuclear war by Christmas" as bluffs once more?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mco_E19-j9Y
Thank you so much. Very detailed! This is truly amazing work for people like me.