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.

This is of absolutely no concern. Indeed the main puzzle is why Biden didn't give this permission already in the spring for the

• 300 km ATACMS which Ukraine already uses against military targets in Crimea

when he gave the identical permission for the

• 80 km GLMRS which are fired from the same launcher and almost identical except for range. Ukraine has been using these against similiar targets in Russia since the spring.

They hit much the same targets only further away

.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

I hope this graphic will help you all understand how fine the distinction is. It is really geeky and very strange that Biden didn't just give Ukraine permission to use both the US missiles from the same platform against Russia when he gave the permission in May 2024.

The HiMARS crew can fire their GLMRS against targets in Russia but then the same platform is only permitted to fire the ATACMS against targets in Ukraine when the ATACMS is the longer ranged missile and the one most useful against targets in Russia.

These are military defensive targets NOT civilians. The only times civilians are harmed are if the Russians shoot down the missiles before they reach their targets and the debris lands near civilians

The missiles are precise to within a meter or so and they are very careful to fire them at military targets.

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

See also my post:

See also my post:

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:

1. Hides it from the news in Russia as long as he can.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

• 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. Though not totally without it. 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.

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

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.

.

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.

See the section:

SECTION: LARGE NUMBERS OF DEFENSIVE TARGETS COME WITHIN RANGE OF UKRAINE WITH ATACMS

in:

BLOG: Putin "Pants on Fire": Ukraine finds targets with its OWN “People’s satellite” - and Ukrainians CAN type coordinates into a keypad to launch ATACMS without US help - will NOT make USA a combatant

See also

BLOG: When Putin has major setbacks in his Ukraine war he reaches for peace negotiations not nukes - US agrees Ukraine’s incursion into Russia is NOT ESCALATORY - DEFENSIVE to stop border attacks

This decision has been expected for a long time. Nothing will happen. I am not sure why this has ever been an issue.

For months, members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, have wanted him to lift all restrictions, except of course that they have to comply with the international law of armed conduct and the UN charter.

I think another president might well have given the permission for the 300 km ATACMS at the same time as the permission for the 80 km GLMRS in the spring

There isn’t even anything special about hitting targets deep within Russia. The 300 km range is much less than Ukraine’s own drones.

Ukraine hits military targets in Russia with smaller amounts of explosive as far away as the Arctic circle and well over 1000 km away in all directions, further away than Moscow.

One of numerous missiles Ukraine is using from its allies and its own inventions - and NATO does NOT fire the missiles for Ukraine any more than it does for, say, India or the UAE who also have ATACMS

Ukraine is already using the GLMRS with range 80 km against targets in Russia, even fired from within Russia to Russia in Kursk oblast.

And it is just lies when Russia claims that Ukraine needs NATO help to fire its HiMARS missiles. The export operators of HiMARS are Poland, Romania, Jordan, Singapore, Ukraine, the UAE and USA. Singapore doesn’t need NATO help to fire ATACMS that makes no sense. It couldn’t sell a missile to foreign countries if it had to be on hand to fire it every time it’s used! Indeed it’s a particularly easy to use fire and forget missile.

See: Putin "Pants on Fire": Ukraine finds targets with its OWN “People’s satellite” - and Ukrainians CAN type coordinates into a keypad to launch ATACMS without US help - will NOT make USA a combatant - Ukraine already fires US missiles FROM Russia to Russia

This 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 the 300 km ATACMS at bottom left, and above it the 80 km GLMRS with the US flags.

Then you see 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. For some reason neither the USA nor Russia has ever raised any issues with Ukraine using HARM in this way AFAIK.

Second from the left at the 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 powered 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.

So Ukraine has many missiles of its own and supplied by others.

It also has numerous drones of different models even modified ultralights 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 ultralights

This is about how Ukraine is using modified ultralights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAV

s

TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Russia's air defences are so degraded that Ukraine is able to fly ultralights through them without getting shot down.

Replace pilot 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 Ukraine.

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 File:Huntair.pathfinder.arp.jpg

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.

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

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. b

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.

Even Mike Johnson in Congress asked Biden to give this permission already in May as well as many others

Remember 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.

. Kateryna Lisunova (@KaterynaLis) on X

Chairman of the Foreign affairs committee

TWEET: Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee @RepMcCaul asks @SecBlinken whether the administration will lift the restrictions on how to use weapons provided to Ukraine.

“They cannot achieve victory with the restrictions you placed on them.”

. Ostap Yarysh (@OstapYarysh) on X

Helsinki commission

Experts and bipartisan members of Congress agree: Ukraine must not only be allowed but encouraged to target military sites within Russian borders. 🇺🇦

. U.S. Helsinki Commission (@HelsinkiComm) on X

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.

Someone like the former Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnel would have given Ukraine the ATACMS already in 2022.

May be limited to Kursk oblast initially

First Kursk oblast is in Russia and Ukriane has been fighting Russian soldiers on Russian soil wth US supplied weapons including infantry fighting vehicles and tanks and the HiMARS GLMRS missiles and the M777 Howitzers and shells since August.

I wrote about it in August soon after it started.

BLOG: Ukraine crossed into Russia to DEFEND itself - easier to stop Russian attacks on the ground in Russia than with missiles fired from Ukraine - also to block a railway supplying Russian attacks

It rather looks as if it is to target concentrations of North Koreans to discourage Kim Jong Un from sending more of them to Ukraine.

A BBC correspondent says on TV that the permission is limited to airfields and logistics hubs

From the Washington Post article it sounds as if it will start with targets in Kursk oblast and then expand.

QUOTE STARTS

One U.S. official said the move is in part aimed at deterring Pyongyang from sending more troops. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un must understand that the initial deployment has been a “costly” mistake, said the official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

The initial Ukrainian effort is expected to focus on and around the Kursk region, though it could expand, according to the official and another person familiar with the matter.

./ ukraine-russia-north-korea-atacms/

They usually don't announce this sort of thing, and don't let it leak either, they wait until the missiles are actually used.

If they delay the announcement until the missiles are actually used which is the usual practice then the Russians have no reason to say anything.

Zelensky says this is part of his Victory plan - and that strikes are not announced in advance

This suggests that we shouldn’t pay too much attention to the various rumours. Whatever permission Biden has given to Ukraine is something only he and Ukraine knows.

QUOTE STARTS

The plan to strengthen Ukraine is the Victory Plan which I presented to our partners. One of its key points is long-range capabilities for our army.

Today, there’s a lot of talk in the media about us receiving permission for respective[appropriate] actions. But strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced. Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will"

. 🌊 R Saddler (@Politics_PR) on X

See also my:

North Korea will do nothing when its first soldiers are killed or captured - its first combat since 1953

NK is not attacking NATO and it is just a foreign war. The US, UK, France, Russia etc have been involved in numerous foreign wars. But this is the first war that NK has been involved in ever, since the Korean war in 1953. It has just contributed a few thousand soldiers. It expects some of those to be killed.

When countries contribute soldiers to a foreign war they do NOT expect to be attacked back and the will also NOT attack the countries that supply weapons to that foreign war. This is just not how warfare works.

So NK, would NOT attack the USA because some NK soldier gets killed by Ukraine in Russia. That is movie villain or computer game character type behaviour not real world.

That would be just total madness and NK is not mad. Kim Jong Un has his nukes as a deterrent to prevent an invasion of NK by the US / SK which he worries could destroy his government - and that's all. This would just be Ukraine defending itself against attacking NK soldiers in a war that isn't even of interest to NK.

See also my:

BLOG: North Korean troops in Ukraine will have minimal effect - only equivalent to the soldiers Russia loses in a few days and with major language communication problems with Russians

BLOG: Why there is no risk of a world war or larger war from North Korea - Kim Jong Un bluffs to protect himself and his country like a small threatened animal

Ukraine has been firing missiles at military targets in Russia since the day after the invasion and US missiles at radar systems in Russia since 2022

Ukraine has been using

• its own Neptune since 2022 against targets in Crimea.

• its own HRIM2 ballistic missile (possibly) against Saky airbase in Crimea in 2022

• US supplied HARM anti-radar system against targets in Russia since 2022.

• First Ukrainian missile to hit a target in Russia onthe day after the invasion on 25th February when Ukraine used one of its own missiles to hit the Millervo airbase in Russia.

See: Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia for some of these.

The HARM anti-radar missiles fired from fighter jets also destroy Russian radar systems in Russia. For some reason the US and Russia have never made an issue of the HARM missies hitting Russia.

Then

• Patriot air defences sometimes shoot down Russian aircraft including helicopters and fighter jets over Russia.

• Ukraine uses ATACMS frequently to hit airfields, munitions dumps, ships, air defence systems, and fuel depots throughout Crimea

Again neither Russia nor the US seem bothered by any of this any more though Russia did kick up a big fuss and threaten vague escalations when the US first supplied ATACMS. Of course nothing happened.

It is all very eccentric, why is there such a fuss about ATACMS across the border into Russia against military targets within 300 km of the front line?

Naturally Ukraine has every right under the law of armed conduct to respond by hitting MILITARY targets in the invading country that are firing over the border into Ukraine.

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

BLOG: Ukraine is not attacking Russian civilians - didn't ask permission to attack civilians - would be very illegal - shoddy reporting from the New York Times - running Russian propaganda without checking

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.

ATACMS are DE-ESCLATORY to STOP Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s civilians and its civilian electricity grid

Ukraine wants ATACMS because they are DE-ESCALTORY. Russia is ALREADY escalating.

Russia is doing its best to destroy Ukraine's electricity supply over and over and over again over winter. They have already destroyed all the fossil fuel power stations and now they are going after substations that connect its hydro and nuclear power stations and the European grid to the customers and to their own grid.

As soon as they mend their grid, the Russians drop bombs on it again. They also target civilian buildings.

Ukraine is successfully stopping most of the missiles. But Ukraine knows where these missiles are fired from,

• many of the shahed drones especially are launched from well within reach of the ATACMS.

Russia is also dropping lots of glide bombs which can demolish a multi-story apartment block with a single bomb.

• These are flown from airfields well within reach of ATACMS and could be greatly reduced.

Ukraine uses ATACMS all the time against targets in Crimea

The Russian air defences are unable to do much to protect against the ATACMs which often destroy air defences in occupied Ukraine and Crimea. Russia then rushes air defences from the rest of Russia leaving them exposed.

Ukraine uses these ALL THE TIME in Crimea.

They use them to hit targets throughout Crimea.

Radar systems, airfields and ships mainly.

Also fuel depots and munitions dumps.

The surprising thing is just how long it took.

It means that Ukraine will get fewer Shahed drone attacks and fewer glide bombs and will be in a somewhat stronger position as it comes into the spring.

With permission to hit command posts like the main HQ for the war in Rostov upon Don it could make a huge difference - but Biden is unlikely to give this permission

Depending on what permissions it got it could make a big difference.

The command post in Rostov upon Don which commands the entire war is within range of ATACMS but Biden might say command posts are off limit. They shouldn't be.

I mean in terms of the UN charter there is no reason for command posts to be off limit.

If Ukraine was a NATO country, the HQ in Rostov upon Don would certainly be a fair target.

But it is likely Biden has limited it to airfields and a few other specific targets.

If Ukraine could say attack lots of air fields AND command posts they might temporarily "blind" Russia for a counteroffensive.

Of course I'm not recommending any of this!

I'm a pacifist and taken a vow of not killing. I couldn't suggest such a thing but nobody is listening to me

I'm just trying to think about what Ukraine could do.

We may hear of ATACMS strikes on the airfields and on Shahed launch sites.

Probably won't hear that Ukraine has targeted the HQ of the entire Ukrainian war in Rostov upon Don, I expect Biden has made that off limits. Though it is a valid defensive target under international law and the UN charter since it is involved in all the day to day command of the war.

ATACMS will stop many - not all - of the Russian bombs and missiles making defence easier

So the ATACMS will stop many of the Russian bombs and missiles. NOT 100%. They can still fire ballistic missiles and the Shahed drones from well beyond the range of ATACMS but Ukraine will have much more time to see them coming.

Nearly every day now Russia is sending waves of bombs against Ukraine. It can shoot them down - especially the ballistic missiles using Patriot. But the shahed drones are far harder to shoot down and the ATACMS will let them hit them at source before they can be fired.

Ukraine shot down 102 missiles and 42 UAVs, including:

◾️1 3M22 Zirkon missile (ALL OF THEM)

◾️7 Kh-47M2 Kindzhal missiles (ALL EXCEPT 1)

◾️85 Kh-101/Kalibr missiles (ALL OF THEM)

◾️4 Kh-22/Kh-31P missiles (ALL OF THEM)

◾️5 Kh-59/69 guided aviation missiles (ALL OF THEM)

◾️42 Shahed UAVs and other drones (OUT OF A TOTAL OF 90)

. Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) on X

. Ukraine's air defense downs 102 missiles, 42 drones during mass Russian strike

As you can see the Ukrainian air defences are very effective against the ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles - only one of them got through out of 97 in total. But they are not able to shoot down all the Shahed drones. Only 42 of those shot down out of 90. They can't use the Patriot air defences for those because the air interceptors are too expensive and because they risk running out of interceptors for the ballistic missiles before they can reload.

Ukraine needs more of the Patriot too but it also needs more of the lower tech air defences that can shoot down the drones. It will also help a lot once they have more of the F-16s as they can shoot down the Shahed drones too.

This will make Ukraine safer for the winter.

Not too late for a November counteroffensive if this permission came in time for that

It is also not too late in the year for a Ukrainian counteroffensive. It's possible that this may be in preparation for that too.

There are several places where Ukraine could do a counteroffensive.

I know that it doesn't seem like it but I explain here why their victory plan is plausible.

BLOG: Russia is NOT WINNING in Ukraine - it LOST a buffer region in Russia itself - it is well believable Zelensky has a genuine victory plan - with many ways Ukraine can win on the battlefield

I have wondered if Ukraine will do a counteroffensive this fall but no sign of it so far.

But if they do plan a counteroffensive then they would keep it very secret. Not even most of their allies would know because there have been many leaks from their allies and surprise will be very important. Nobody would know, it wouldn't be shared publicly anywhere.

It is still possible. We will see if it happens.

But that's all.

Putin will say nothing once the first ATACMS are used - no point in bluffing with the decision already made

Putin will say nothing. There is no point in bluffing once the decision is already made. The bluffs are just to try to stop the decision not because he is going to ever do anything.

He will likely then tell the world that ATACMS are useless and that Russia has far better missiles, and if they do destroy lots of Russian fighter jets or command posts then he will just not run the news in Russian media. That is how he copes typically.

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.

BLOG: “Putin is a very risk averse individual” - ISW - So why did he invade Ukraine? - supreme confidence in a plan from his spies to take over 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

. Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) on X

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:

BLOG: Putin bluffs, and everyone talks about how NOT to have a world war - nobody wants a world war for the same reason you don't want it - and no increased risk

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

Map: Antonov International Airport (GML) to Kyiv

See:

BLOG: “Putin is a very risk averse individual” - ISW - So why did he invade Ukraine? - supreme confidence in a plan from his spies to take over Ukraine in 2 weeks

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:

BLOG: Flowerpot? Or General? Putin has many reasons to BLUFF about nukes - to use them would mean he has lost his ability to reason coherently or to distinguish the imaginary from the real

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

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

This includes sections from my draft

.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

There is NO REAL WORLD WAR RISK - or we'd all know what to do

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

See:

DRAFT: Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - MID EDIT AND MUCH TO DO

For more on this see my

DRAFT: Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - MID EDIT AND MUCH TO DO

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.

From. Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) on X

BLOG: Zelensky: war in Ukraine can end faster with Trump - can only negotiate from a position of strength - expects Trump to strengthen Ukraine - but by 1799 Logan act can’t discuss until he's president

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:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

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.