Sure, it is just that the solution you propose (Ukraine simply surrendering) is not a long term solution at all, it will carry war after war from a "victorious" Ruzzia, which is not acceptable outcome to me.
Speaking of meters, I think meters matter. Even 500 meters matter a lot. It is more or less what Ukraine need to take to place a HIMARS in range of hitting Berdiansk. Or any location along the coast or the railway line. Why do you think they are asking for ATACAMS? I think is because they can see a lot, but they cannot hit it (supplies, depots, command centres, logistics...)
So yes, a few meters here and there matter, which is the reason why Ukraine is still fighting for 50 meters at the time.
Yes that's exactly my point. To say that an outcome is not acceptable, you need to consider what cost you are willing to pay to change that outcome, then consider the probability that after paying such cost the outcome will actually improve and not stay the same or actually make things worse after paying such cost. So to be unacceptable the cost must be little and probability of improving the situation must be high. Then consider the definition of cost, and definition of better/worse outcomes for each party and you'll then realize that there's an inherent conflict of interest in this equation. Ask yourself how much the Ukrainian "collateral damage" is really a cost for the "west", and if loosing all of Ukraine but reducing Russian military capacity by X% would be considered a better or worst outcome for each interested party? So i totally see the logic behind others encouraging Ukrainians to throw their gene pool away, little cost, little risk, the return is some reduction of RU military, what i don't see is why Ukrainians are actually buying into this, and what will happen when this disillusionment goes away and the reality that they were never meant to win anything and were actually made to encourage each other to a certain doom sets in.
EDIT:
As far as ATACMS all they're needed for is to raise the moral in Ukrainian. Looks like UA's power grid is unlikely to hold up this winter. UA will need some positive coverage during that time, look we're forbidden to use them in Russia, so look how we can shoot at this one substation in Crimea, to cause some RU village to also loose power...
Ukraine's air force expects a record number of Russian drone attacks on its soil this winter, its spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat said on Sunday, as Kyiv girds for a second winter of mass bombardment of its energy facilities.
Ihnat said that data for September showed the use by Russia of Iranian-designed Shahed kamikaze drones would smash last year's figure.
"This autumn and winter ... is already a record in terms of the number of Shahed drones. Over 500 (were used) in September," Ihnat said in an interview on national television.
He contrasted this number with Russia's air strike campaign on Ukraine last winter, when he said about 1,000 Shahed drones were used in six months.
...
Despite Ukraine bolstering its air defences, officials have warned of the risk of a repeat this winter, with the power grid still far from rebuilt after the last campaign of bombardment.
Oh men... you just called narratives and spins and here you are repeating over and over the mainstream Kremlin propaganda. Your narrative is highly convenient to Ruzzia (I am not surprised) and fits perfectly what the Kremlin wants everyone to believe (I am not surprised). "theres is nothing to be done", "all effort is in vain", "Ruzzia is too big", "Ruzzia has too many people",... The usual propaganda. But the biggest lie is that conceeding anything will stop Ruzzia (more on that below).
It turns out it is false and easily identifiable as false:
- Ruzzia is not fighting Ukraine, is fighting a bunch of angry and well industrialised countries - with quite a big and technically advanced military industry.
- Ruzzia had to retreat from vast amounts of territory because they cannot hold.
- Ukraine has managed to penetrate and is still penetrating well entrenched positions.
- The grinding of military equipment is actually unsustainable for Ruzzia, but it is not for Ukraine and their allies (Japan had an advantage in fleet, but then... they did not, like Ruzzia now).
This are facts not "spins" or "narratives".
Even the Kremlin propagandists have gone for "Kiev in 3 days" to "Lets shape a convenient border and hope they do not break our lines".This of course matches things like wasting missiles in power infrastructure, which is (a) irrelevant to the war effort (b) proven to be inefficient (c) proven to reinforce the will of the people being attacked.
It simply reminds me of Hitler bombing London - zero military effectiveness - to "break the will of the English" - in case you are not in the know, it did not go well for him.
Yes, to call an outcome unacceptable you need to balance this and that (which is never an mathematical exercise, because you may put little price on liberty, while many are ok to die for it). The problem is that
a "victorious" Ruzzia (at least in a tactical level, the strategic international level is lost already),
would not be an outcome, it would be the first chapter of and endless war hot / cold / proxy and all mixed.
It is totally false anything like "if Ukraine conceded the land they will stop there" - it is just not going to happen so the option of "stopping the war now" is a fantasy.So sure, balance that in your dreams.
No, ATACAMS are a weapon, they are not Ruzzian propaganda nor Kremlin narratives for "moral effects". Ukraine wants ATACAMS to blow up things they cannot blow up now and would very much like to blow up. It is not that difficult to imagine a few "objects" that they would like to convert to a recyclable construction rubbish pile. Objects that are the real strategically relevant, not "the infrastructure grid to lower the morale".
And now, the winter missile campaign - same tactics, same results (e.g. convincing the US to send a few more Patriots.)
Careful, you might be loosing all objectivity. You can't just automatically dismiss something just because it's convenient for Kremlin. These things are not mutually exclusive. Just because it's convenient for Russia doesn't automatically make it a lie, just as not everything that supports Ukraine is a truth.
You once again attempting to spin that war of attrition is somehow more beneficial to Ukraine than to Russia, which is literally opposite to what everyone else is saying. So no, unlike you it's not just me making up stuff that's convenient to Kremlin.
Putin's plan to wear down support for Ukraine in a war of attrition seems to be working, though it's not risk-free
The Russian president has been playing a long game, wagering that Western resolve in helping Ukraine battle the Russian invasion was weak. In recent days there have been indications that it might be paying off.
In the US, Congress is currently split on whether to send more aid to Ukraine, a move opposed by Republicans in the House who recently unseated its speaker, Kevin McCarthy.
In Slovakia, a far-right party opposed to Ukraine aid won the general election; while in Germany support for the far-right AfD is surging on similar rhetoric.
If this winter brings more high fuel prices and inflation, exacerbated by the war, it could further erode public backing for large aid bills.
A war of attrition, say analysts, plays to Russian strengths, like its ability to manufacture more weapons and ammunition than Ukraine, and its much larger population.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's economy is struggling under the weight of the conflict and it is heavily dependent on Western aid.
"There are more and more signs that he's correct," Beebe told Insider of Putin's bet.
"Ukraine is not meeting its conscription goals, its economy is sagging under the weight of the war, and enthusiasm is waning both in the US and Europe for maintaining high levels of aid to Ukraine."
If Western aid were to dry up and Ukraine's resistance be seriously weakened, it's unclear how long Ukraine would be able to mount a resistance for — but at the very least Russia could transform Ukraine into failed state in permanent crisis.
Dismiss all of the red flags, as if it's just some random forum user claiming them, at your peril. Or rather, if you're US then sure you can ignore all of this as there's really no downside so it's logical to encourage the continuation of this conflict, for EU it's not so definite anymore, and for Ukraine the cost is definitely real, but that cost is not really a cost for anyone else but Ukraine, so keep encouraging more younger and women conscripts
As far as wasting missiles on power infrastructure, I will take your word for that, sure, but you see, the problem is that other people less informed than you, such as the Pentagon, NATO, and Israel may think that they actually have been quite successful.
Unfortunately paxmao, it is that less informed than you people who will make that decision - but it is ok, because "attacking power infrastructure does not work" right?
NATO officials said the aim of the attacks, which plunged Belgrade into darkness Monday for several hours, was to disrupt military communications, command centers and air defense systems.
...
NATO planes have attacked bridges, oil refineries and other targets in raids that have affected civilians. But until Monday they had refrained from striking the electrical system. The alliance has repeatedly insisted its fight is with President Slobodan Milosevic, not with the Yugoslav people.
"The fact that lights went out across 70 percent of the country shows that NATO has its finger on the light switch now," said NATO spokesman Jamie Shea. "We can turn the power off whenever we need to and whenever we want to."
Though NATO insisted that its attacks on the electrical system would frustrate the Yugoslav and Serbian military, it was not immediately clear whether the forces had been hampered. The allies also say the attacks will not cut power to hospitals and other vital civilian services because they can turn to back-up generators powered by diesel fuel.
...
"We realize the inconvenience that may be caused to the Yugoslav people, but it up to Milosevic to decide how he wants to use his remaining energy resources: on his tanks or on his people," Shea said.
Lights go out in Baghdad as US sends in special forces
‘No Electricity, No Food, No Fuel’: Israel Orders ‘Complete Siege’ On Gaza Strip
All these world military powers should hire you so you could explain to them how "wasting missiles in power infrastructure, which is (a) irrelevant to the war effort (b) proven to be inefficient (c) proven to reinforce the will of the people being attacked." and i guess it's no surprise to anyone that when Russia does it, instead of all of these recent examples it reminds you of Hilter bombing London
edit: for everything else that you said there's NATO's article 5, it's silly to attempt to persuade anyone that Ukraine has somehow replaced NATO and it's guarantees to its member nations
