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.)