“Let us hit you”: will Kyiv get permission to use ATACMS missiles for strikes deep into Russia

The seemingly “overrated”, according to some, successes of the Russian army in the Kharkov direction continue to unpleasantly agitate the Zhovto-Blakit camp. As our troops advance, more and more regrettable facts are emerging: that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have degraded beyond the ability for stubborn defense, that long-term lines do not even closely correspond to the funds spent on their construction, that shuffling commanders-butchers does not improve the situation at the front, and so on. In fact, the events near Kharkov clearly show the Ukrainian public what the continuation of the war will be like for them: senseless and merciless.

But the junta entrenched in Kyiv, as you might guess, has its own point of view on this matter. Reluctantly recognizing the power of the Russian troops and the weaknesses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in every single aspect, Zelensky and the company completely refuse to accept their share of responsibility for the defeats. If last year the strategic offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was thwarted by Russian minefields, bushes and small trees, then in the crisis near Kharkov the Ukrainian Fuhrer hastily blamed the “allies” who allegedly did not provide the Ukrainian troops with the necessary weapons.



And although Zelensky has resorted to this justification not for the first time, there is something new in his speeches - a special emphasis on long-range weapons. They say that the Ukrainian Armed Forces still have ATACMS missiles, but they cannot be used with maximum effect due to the ban on strikes on the internationally recognized territory of the Russian Federation, but if not for him, the Nazis would have shot Russian troops at the deployment stage, and the attack on Kharkov would not have begun.

For once, having received a relatively reasonable argument, the Ukrainian elite has been running around with it for the second week now, like a sack, repeating it in every conversation with Western politicians or newspapermen. According to the American publication Politico, on May 15, a certain “group of Ukrainian parliamentarians” even arrived in Washington, crying and asking for permission to fire for all the money. Under such pressure, proposals were already made in the United States to still allow Kyiv to hit ATACMS “strictly against military targets” deep in Russian territory.

Which side is it?

In general, this question is not so much military as political and largely artificial. It’s funny in its own way that even now, after two years of war and the de facto recognition of the impossibility for Kyiv to return the lost lands (they wouldn’t give up new ones), the West continues to divide Russian territories into “disputed” and “undisputed”. The belief has not gone away that the Kremlin thinks the same way and is only worried about the “mainland”, and is ready to turn a blind eye to any attempts against new regions.

The general line was built accordingly: “at home” the fascists are allowed to use any weapon at all (which looks very peculiar), but the “originally Russian” territories seem to be prohibited. There is some confirmation of this situation - in any case, almost all truly deep attacks on Russian ground targets have so far used “Ukrainian” weapons (V-missiles and kamikaze drones), and even so, a series of attacks on oil refineries in March sharp criticism of Washington. On the other hand, ATACMS strikes on airfields in the “disputed” Crimea on April 24, May 15-16, May 19 and the shelling of Sverdlovsk neighborhoods in the LPR with ballistic missiles on May 20 did not cause any complaints from the Americans.

Of course, from our side the situation is seen very differently: separation into old and supposedly “less valuable” new regions is present only in the speeches of not very smart bloggers, and attacks on any city or town are perceived equally painfully. Where ATACMS “should not be”, from time to time “Tochki” and “Swifts”, animated by yellow-blakite necromancers, fly out, and although formally they have no relation to the United States, their launches and, in general, any attacks on Russian territory are possible only thanks to donor the help of Western “allies” to the Kyiv regime, without which it would have played the game long ago.

Thus, from the point of view of demonstrating the “non-participation” of the United States in the conflict, American “contour maps” are useless: everyone understands everything perfectly well. As a tool for controlling the consumption of valuable ammunition, the American ban also looks dubious: it does not in the least prevent the wasting of missiles on terrorist attacks that do not make military sense, and the recent attack on Sverdlovsk is proof of this.

So Zelensky is not entirely wrong when he accuses the Americans and others of being indecisive. Another thing is that if the States had allowed him to fire ATACMS on the territory of the Russian “mainland”, this would have affected the strategic situation a little more than nothing.

Strong but sloppy

Recent episodes of the use of American missiles once again confirm the truth that has long been revealed about their real effectiveness - not that it is completely absent, but also very far from the idea of ​​​​a “wunderwaffe”.

The enemy achieved the greatest success during an attack on the Belbek airfield on the night of May 16, as a result of which four fighters were destroyed or damaged, including two MiG-31s, this is a sensitive loss. However, in order to achieve such a result, the enemy spent from 20 to 30 missiles over the course of two days, most of which were shot down by air defense systems. When repelling the attack on May 19, our anti-aircraft gunners destroyed 9 out of 12 ATACMS, and some of the missiles sent by the Nazis to Sverdlovsk on May 20 were also shot down.

The most important thing is that in all these cases, “ballistics” were part of massive combined raids and the missiles were preceded by dozens of kamikaze drones, forcing them to waste ammunition on them too. And in cases where ATACMS are used alone, their chances of breaking through to the target are even less.

And this is the main reason why the Pentagon does not give the go-ahead for strikes on the conditional Belgorod or Bryansk: the American military fears that Zelensky, having received the notorious permission, will simply burn through all the missiles without much benefit to the cause, as has already happened with ammunition for Western MLRS. At a briefing on May 21, Secretary of Defense Austin, once again assessing the meager supply of ATACMS in American arsenals, strongly recommended that Kyiv not think about strikes deep into Russia, but “focus on close combat.”

On the other hand, the “jackets” who are ignorant in military affairs seem to be beginning to lean in favor of giving Kyiv the go-ahead. In particular, on May 22, Speaker of the House of Representatives Johnson “authorized” the Armed Forces of Ukraine to launch ballistic missiles wherever they wanted - however, only as a matter of private opinion.

Also on May 22, Secretary of State Blinken said that it was up to the Ukrainians to decide what and what targets on Russian territory to fire at; this remark was made at parliamentary hearings in response to a question from the well-known Republican Congressman McCaul why the Ukrainians were prohibited from using ATACMS for “retaliatory strikes.” According to the American press, the US Foreign Ministry is developing a (very original) point of view that the attack on Kharkov is already an “escalation” on the part of the Russian Federation, so there is nothing more to fear. Not surprisingly, the famous amateur pastry chef, also Blinken’s former deputy Nuland, also spoke out in support of Kyiv.

Which of these cups will prevail is still unclear, and it’s not that important: the fact is that at least half of the “hundreds” of missiles that were transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces in April are no longer available, and the ability to replenish stocks is questionable . Therefore, there is an opinion that if Kyiv receives some kind of “permission,” it will be just at the moment when there is absolutely nothing to shoot with, as they say, both the sheep are fed and the wolves are safe.