Do note what I said: The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. All you need is specific coordinates of both the target and your position and some meteorological data. That's it. Even the Tochka missile that Ukraine has (or had) could hit something like a large ammo dump.

Do notice all the drone attacks done by Ukraine, btw. Far earlier Ukraine attacked Dyagilevo and Engels air bases and destroyed TU-22 Backfire and two TU-95 Bear aircraft. So that shows their capability.

Besides, Ammo dumps don't move, they can be only emptied, but that takes time. What is telling that neither side cannot hit moving targets deep inside in the other ones territory. I haven't seen one example of a moving train that has been attacked and destroyed (I may have just missed the occation). Russian aircraft don't dare to venture deep into Ukraine and attack trains and traffic.

The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. — ssu

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, but the guidance modules have been updated over time to be able to correlate INS with systems other than GPS, since GPS is basically a relic of the past due to how easily it is jammed.

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, — Tzeentch

Ammo dumps are far larger than a side of a barn. Or you mean top of a barn? Besides, as the solid fuel propellants of the missiles go old, old inventories aren't from the 1980's anymore. At least in the US.

We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. Does the job perfectly.

(Just for comparisons: 450m CEP for a SCUD B from the 60's, 4500m CEP for a V2 during WW2.)

We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. — ssu

With just a tiny, old INS over a 300km trajectory?

Yeah, no.

The whole point is for the GPS and INS to function together to reduce their respective errors.

Russia is invading Europe with China’s money, Iran’s weapons, and North Korea’s troops. Chinese ships captained by Russians are destroying undersea natural gas pipelines and telecom cables in the Baltic Sea. Russian weapons used in Ukraine are built with Chinese components. Russia is causing mayhem on the streets of the UK. Their mercenaries have been raping and plundering their way through Africa and using the proceeds to finance the war in Ukraine. Iran, supported by China, has encircled Israel with its proxies and set the better part of the Middle East—and key shipping lanes—alight. Putin regularly threatens us with nuclear weapons. What could this be if not a world war? — It's Time to Call This WWWIII

A sophisticated way of saying "Putin bad." - not very convincing.

If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict - for example at the role of the US and the UK in blocking the Istanbul agreement, and Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal.

If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict — Tzeentch

The defeatist attitude that will guarantee a victory for Putin.

Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal. — Tzeentch

Hoping that Trump will cut a surrender deal to Putin, just like he did with the Taleban?

Well, it's a possibility, unfortunately

Our shockingly obscene incompetence has already guaranteed a victory for Putin.

If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality.

If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality. — Tzeentch

I'm hoping that Ukraine exists as an independent state now and in the long run.

That won't happen if we stab Ukraine in the back.

The Americans have already stabbed the Ukrainians in the back.

The promise upon which the Ukrainians hedged their chances against the Russians was the fact that we would come to their rescue. We did not. We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise.

There is no military path to an independent Ukraine. Ukraine will be completely hollowed out. Whatever is left at the end will not be an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.

Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations.

We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise. — Tzeentch

I agree that the idea of giving Ukraine enough to survive and only that is the cause that makes the prospects of negotiations with Russia now so dire. It simply has been delusional to think that military aid given to Ukraine would mean that Putin would launch WW3. He isn't and the Russian leadership aren't insane and suicidal.

But this is an example where Western politicians have lost the idea of winning on the battlefield, but just to "send messages" with military aid. For them it's a minor issue, one among others. For Putin this war is existential. Once Russia is committed, only the possibility of a total fiasco will force Russia to the negotiation table. But now Putin is totally OK with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldier having been killed or wounded, so ideas that Trump could force him to do anything are whimsical. Hence the only one Trump can pressure is Ukraine.

Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations. — Tzeentch

I severely doubt that and besides, a lot has happened after that. Yearning those negotiations that didn't go anywhere is like to yearn for the time of the Oslo Peace Process at the present time in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed.

For Putin this war is existential. — ssu

Not just for Putin, mind you.

It's quite popular among the mainstream media to repeat the idea that this is 'Putin's war', but it's been known since prior to the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a red line for much if not all of the Russian political establishment.

So yes, the Russians are prepared to go far in order for this war to be settled in their favor. That much should be crystal clear by now.

That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed. — ssu

True. Things have gotten gravely worse for Ukraine. There's nothing left of the bargaining position they had in March/April 2022. Frontlines are crumbling, nations are starting to talk about withdrawing support, etc.

That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise.


In Ukraine's defense, there is another dimension to this.

In March/April 2022, the West told the Ukrainians to cease negotiations - even make them impossible as Zelensky made sure to cement in the Ukrainian constitution - and double down on the military path.

Ukraine likely did this because of promises that were made by the West.

Now Ukraine is likely and understandably bitter about the prospect of negotiations in the face of wavering Western support. We basically made them fight on for two years, for nothing.

That's probably why Ukraine will need serious 'nudging' (aka, threatening to cut off support) to force them to change their stance.

It's quite popular among the mainstream media to repeat the idea that this is 'Putin's war', but it's been known since prior to the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a red line for much if not all of the Russian political establishment. — Tzeentch

It was about Ukraine's (established) independence, sovereignty, all that, and that the Ukrainians might assert it sooner or later.
"Fortunately" for the Kremlin circle, Ukraine's anticipated NATO aspirations came to the fore, giving them the excuse to cross Ukraine's established red lines (land grabbing).
Well, their (ongoing) destruction, regress, activities, whatever, engendered hate, further distrust, degraded chances of talks, it's how they roll.

That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise. — Tzeentch

Russia chose the military path to increase it's territorial annexations. Denying this and only talking about "NATO Enlargement" as the only cause is pure denial and a huge error, because those what you continue to repeat aren't all the Russian objectives. To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Russia had gotten it's objective of Ukraine not joining NATO with the 2021-2022 military buildup already, if not earlier. This is totally evident, for example from Angela Merkel's memoirs that she was against NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Yet NATO never could accept a formal veto from an outside party as it would go against it's charter. But a de facto veto was obvious, not only with Hungary opposing, but Germany. And then absolutely everything changed with the large scale attack in 2022.

To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous. — ssu

The Istanbul agreements are direct evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence that is out there in favor of warmongering for total war is what is dangerous, and that's what many in the West are engaged in.

The Russians were willing to settle the war in March/April 2022 without any territorial gains for themselves.

That's a fact. It's confirmed by neutral sources, and even by the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.

So annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts didn't happen in the echo chamber that @Tzeentch lives in or is somehow meaningless?

On 30 September 2022, Russia unilaterally declared its annexation of areas in and around four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, parts that Russia didn't and does not yet control.

Putin said Russia has “four new regions”, calling the residents of Ukraine’s occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions “our citizens forever”.

“This is the will of millions of people,” he said in the speech before hundreds of dignitaries at the St George’s Hall of the Kremlin.

“We will defend our land with all our strength and all our means,” he added, calling on “the Kyiv regime to immediately cease hostilities and return to the negotiation table”. In one of his toughest anti-American speeches in more than 20 years in power, Putin signalled he was ready to continue what he called a battle for a “greater historical Russia”, slammed the West as neo-colonial and as out to destroy his country.

But for you this obviously didn't happen, because is worried just about NATO and at the start of the war had talks that didn't go through. Because you really simply don't listen to what Putin says and what he does. Why the denial? I have never denied that NATO enlargement was one reason, simply said that it wasn't the biggest reason and Ukraine couldn't have avoided this conflict just by not being in NATO... which it doesn't belong to. Even without NATO, Putin likely would have tried to grab parts of Ukraine back to Russia, if not all of it. Putin very clearly shows where his objectives are. Some quotes from that September 30th speech:

"We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately end hostilities, end the war that they unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table."

"We are ready for this ... But we will not discuss the choice of the people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. That has been made. Russia will not betray them."

And the reasons, coming again back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union:

"In 1991, at Belovezh Forest, without asking the will of ordinary citizens, representatives of the then-party elites decided to destroy the USSR, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their motherland. This tore apart and dismembered our nation, becoming a national catastrophe ..."

The objective: Great historical Russia for the next generations:

"The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Simply ludicrous to think that a leader saying all the stuff above is just thinking of NATO expansion and wouldn't have an imperialistic agenda. Seldom if ever has it been as evident as this. It's basically a Russian Reconquista.

But to repeat the line that it's all just about NATO enlargement is the disinformation that works wonders for Putin. If Trump comes with his "peace plan" and opts for there being peace with Ukraine out of NATO and the four oblasts now sacred Russian territory forever, then Putin has indeed has succeeded in the a great reconquista! Worth all those lives lost.

The Russians offered us the terms, the Ukrainians accepted and the West boycotted it and subsequently ruled out negotiations in favor of 'breaking apart Russia', 'inflicting a strategic defeat', 'enacting regime change', etc.

You'd have to be pretty foolish to think that such a move on the part of the West wasn't going to have fundamental consequences for the nature of the war.

None of that has any meaning, @Tzeentch Face the reality what Putin wants.

You are like someone talking over and over about the Oslo Peace process, contemplating how it's going to be restarted. It cannot restart as Israel has truly changed, we are in a totally different era and the brief period when the conflict could have ended with the Oslo Peace process is over. Permanently.

And anyway, it's extremely likely that Putin simply would have used an agreement reached in Istanbul just for a time to get his military up after the initial failure in getting Blitzkrieg victory. Remember ALL the Minsk agreements? Remember them, @Tzeentch? THEY DIDN'T END THE CONFLICT!

What he has said and done tell it all so clearly. Face reality.

Face the reality what Putin wants. — ssu

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine.

That is the reality.

You're pretending that all of these things that happened in reality should be ignored in favor of lowbrow "us vs. them" narratives, and attempts at mindreading the Kremlin's 'true' intentions.

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch

As they exactly did about the lands they wanted to annex from Ukraine, Novorossiya.

I'm not pretending anything. I myself have said many times that Russia was against NATO enlargement. But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022.

The fact is that you cannot deny what I say, hence you simply won't acknowledge the obvious and stick to this hallucination that conflict would have ended happily in Istanbul. All the various Minsk agreements and of course, the Budapest memorandum, have been simply peaces of papers Russia uses as toilet paper.

The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022. — ssu

You're simply cherry-picking.

The idea that the Russian goals in September 2022 more purely reflect their initial goals than those stated up to and including March/April 2022 has no logical basis whatsoever.

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals.

You're simply cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Really? That I say that NATO enlargement was one reason, but so is also all the stuff the Putin has said, acted, put into law about the annexations of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine being an artificial coutry?

And I'm the one cherry picking?

You are hilarious! :rofl:

Cute posturing, but you failed to respond to the point I made.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. :snicker:

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals. — Tzeentch

Look, the obvious war goals were arleady there to anybody to see in 2014. Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. It's mindboggling to say this wasn't obvious before 2022.

This map is from 2015:


Those "separatist" were directly controlled by Kremlin. The war aims have been there for anybody to see for years. Your denial about of this simply is laughable.

And oh yes, NATO enlargement was also a reason.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. — ssu

What "single reason for the war" do you believe I am repeating?

Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. — ssu

The idea that Russia's annexation of Crimea was purely territorial/imperial is a completely unconvincing argument to make, and not only do you seem to be doing that, but you're also using that argument to then claim Russia's reason for war in 2022 must be the same.

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument.

Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. — ssu

Again, that's simply cherry-picking.

You're ignoring a decade of clear signals to the West over a selective interpretation of a single sentence.

Whenever the Russians say things that confirm your preconceived notions of this conflict you attribute great value to them. When they don't, you ignore them.

Seems like any counterargument against Tzeentch is "cherry picking". Like things like what the objectives of the Separatists were. Oh yes, if I mention the objectives of one side of the combatants, that's "cherry picking" for you. :lol:

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument. — Tzeentch

Who again is retreating to an even less convincing argument?

Istanbul negotiations happened in April 2022, when things weren't under control for Russia and the front hadn't been yet stabilized. Then it was perfect stalling tactic for the Kremlin then. Just look at all the Minsk agreements! That now it's a totally different situation doesn't matter to you, because this is the way you can defend Russia. And when those negotiations didn't come through then A HA! Tzeentch finds his Holy Grail: it's all the fault of US and the West, because they pushed Ukraine to continue. Not like the attrocities Bucha mattered. Everything would have been solved then.

Well, let's then look just WHY Istanbul negotiations failed:

According to the Charap and Radchenko account, the Istanbul deal would have been still born as it contains an obligation by the Western powers to provide real security guarantees that oblige them to commit troops in Ukraine if Ukraine was attacked again – something that Kyiv had not cleared with its Western allies during the talks and something they did not want to do.

This version of events tallies with earlier bne IntelliNews reporting, suggesting the proposed security deals the West was supposed to offer, but never actually agreed to ahead of, or during, the talks was the real dealbreaker.

“Even if Russia and Ukraine had overcome their disagreements, the framework they negotiated in Istanbul would have required buy-in from the United States and its allies. And those Western powers would have needed to take a political risk by engaging in negotiations with Russia and Ukraine and to put their credibility on the line by guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. At the time, and in the intervening two years, the willingness either to undertake high-stakes diplomacy or to truly commit to come to Ukraine’s defence in the future has been notably absent in Washington and European capitals,” the authors said.

(See Fresh evidence suggests that the April 2022 Istanbul peace deal to end the war in Ukraine was stillborn)

And how you cherry pick this story:

In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.”

This is the only thing important for you... not the story, just something what one Western politician said. That's all you need in your cherry pie along with the vague promises an US president has made for Kyiv about NATO membership (without there being any acceptance from all the member states about this, actually opposition to this). But who cares about the NATO charter.

After all, what has happened after, or what had happened before, what Putin has said about Ukraine, what he has done in Ukraine, what the Ukrainian territory means for Russia, that doesn't matter as the Istanbul negotiations are the only thing that matters here, because everything, absolutely everything is the fault of the West.

This is simply the Kremlin line that feeds on the self-criticism of the West.

"Fresh evidence" - Yea, typical nonsense when unfortunate facts need to be white-washed, which is obviously what the West needed to do with their actions in Istanbul.

I've shared multiple accounts (like 5?) of the Istanbul negotiations, all of which either Ukrainian, Western or neutral, and they all sketch the same ugly picture, so accusing me of cherry-picking doesn't impress.

EDITED

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch

They went ahead with the opposite. Started a war and whatnot. Supplied the Ukrainians (+ others) with more reasons for wanting to join NATO, or whatever sufficiently resourceful defense.
Not just neutral, by the way (has come up before). Besides, if Ukraine was neutral, then they might still kick Russia out of Sevastopol where they've been for a good while, put up a wall to prevent illegal Russian "migrants", look to the EU for trade/cooperation, go their own way.
Adding something like "Russia Shall Not Be Attacked From Ukraine" to Ukraine's constitution is a bit late now, not impossible though.

But, if that's what the Kremlin wants, then peace should be achievable:
Add something to the effect of "No Ukrainian NATO-Membership" and "Russia Shall Not Be Attacked From Ukraine" to the Ukrainian constitution (without any of those special external vetos or backdoors). Ukraine butts out of Kursk. Russia butts out of Ukraine.
Additionally, Ukraine could sign the usual minority protections, due process in the justice system, anti-corruption, some further democratic reforms and humanitarianism (things incidentally part of their path towards the EU, that Russia incidentally isn't currently expected to meet).
Do you think the Kremlin would be on board with that peace proposal? (Lots of resources freed up, too, and I'm guessing a few sanctions would be lifted.)

Some theorizing, FYI, though from memory this stuff has come up in the thread already:
Why Russia Started War in Ukraine (— The Military Show · Sep 7, 2024 · 18m:55s)

A Japanese minister brought up an Asian defense alliance:

Ishiba's 'Asian NATO' dead on arrival as new PM set for diplomatic debut
^{— Kathleen Benoza, Jesse Johnson · The Japan Times · Oct 8, 2024}
Japan: Deciphering Prime Minister Ishiba’s Strategic Vision. Toward an Asian version of NATO?
^{— Céline Pajon · Ifri · Oct 10, 2024}
Japan’s prime minister vows military buildup and deeper ties with the US as regional tension rises
^{— Mari Yamaguchi, Mayuko Ono · AP · Nov 9, 2024}

Little interest.
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, perhaps others, share some interests, though.
Not much by way of nuclear deterrence, unlike a bunch of neighbors.

Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal. — Tzeentch

Trump is basically implying that he will cave to Putin, whom he constantly expresses admiration for. As said many times, I believe Putin is wholly and solely responsible for the criminal invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Wholly and solely. It is desperately important that Putin is defeated and seen to be defeated, and that will be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, outcome. But anything less is capitulation to a murderous autocrat.