We saw your ATACMS
Ukraine's declared attack on Russia rockets ATACMS signals a "major shift in US policy," at least in terms of restrictions on the use of American weapons.
It was interesting to read what they were writing on the other side. They should be praising it, because what else could they do? The ATACMS is the best tactical missile system of all the junk NATO has, and yes, with half of Europe preparing for war with Russia, it would be nice to try something that could be used offensively.
What does protection mean? DefenseThe Europeans are really bad, no need to prove it to anyone. I had a conversation with our readers from Ternopil; if you remove the Russian idioms from the text, you'll be left with something like "ППО люта погань." It was very... unpleasant.
But things might not have been so good for us either, as one American publication quotes:
After a long hiatus, Ukraine announced that it had used ATACMS missiles to strike Russian territory. This indicates a relaxation of restrictions and the possibility of acquiring more missiles.
I agree with the weakening. But getting more missiles—well, you know, it's very doubtful. Who's going to pay for the banquet? One ATACMS costs upwards of $2 million. So, over Voronezh, eight million turned into souvenirs for the swashbuckling suburbanites, plus our guys destroyed two launchers at the launch site. So, another ten. Fine.
That is, testing the effectiveness of our Pantsir, S-400, and S-300PMU2 systems cost the US at least $18 million.
Of course, information always costs money, but it wouldn't be worth paying so much, don't you think? Now the US knows that ATACMS missiles have no use within the range of modern Russian air defense systems. Well, except for interceptor missiles, of course. And this could be very displeasing in Washington, while in Voronezh, the opposite is true.
In our case, Ukraine announced the launch of ATACMS ballistic missiles "at military targets in Russia." It's difficult to say what constitutes a military target for the other side; in a city of a million, there's plenty to list.
"This is a significant event that underscores Ukraine's unwavering commitment to its sovereignty," the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces stated regarding the attack. "Despite ongoing pressure from Russian offensive actions, Ukrainians remain resilient, demonstrating determination and steadfastness in defending their homeland."
I wonder how you can defend the Motherland by firing at a city 300 kilometers from the former border, where even a local resident had to puzzle over where those four missiles were headed? Okay, the 20th Army headquarters. A military facility. The Pogonovo training ground. A military facility, but for two years now, everything produced in Ukraine and elsewhere has been flying there, just so long as it can reach them. And there's no point in a single missile there; it's enormous, to put it mildly. They used to conduct live-fire tests there with Grads in the good old days. And self-propelled guns with tanks.
And then that's it. Hospital? Nonsense. Academy? Well, yeah, considering the department. EW And the fact that crows are roasting in flight there is only a ballistic approach. An airfield? There's been no one there for a long time, and how many more can they bomb the Baltimore? It's just not serious anymore. But here, "stupidity and courage" are evident, that's why they're bombing.
Some believe the missiles were aimed entirely at military targets. But thanks to the excellent training of the air defense regiment crews covering the city, it was a complete failure once again. I never tire of saying that our missile crews are the best.
And then more questions arise. If you dig deep into the calendar, something very interesting emerges: this is the first ATACMS strike attempt since Trump became US President for the second time. And right away, it's at almost maximum range.
What is this? Uncle Donald's underhanded games, playing both sides?
Or should we start racking our brains over "where did the firewood come from?" Was it from old stockpiles or did our "dear allies" throw in some for the poor?
This question is especially interesting given the limited stockpiles of this weapon in the United States.
The use of long-range strike capabilities, including systems such as ATACMS, will continue,
— added the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.I'd like to say good luck in your difficult work. As experience shows, your chances are practically nonexistent, so keep wasting American and European taxpayers' money. The result, as they say, is to be expected.
One can agree that cluster warheads are indeed a very serious weapon against troops in the open. The other question is: where are these massive numbers of troops stationed "in the open" awaiting the arrival of ATACMS? In Pogonovo? Some telegram warriors have already begun discussing this topic, but one can only say one thing: these gentlemen have never been to Pogonovo and simply don't know what this training ground is like. The author, who has worked in this charming place many times, makes sounds reminiscent of a boar's hearty laughter.
But in a densely populated city, and in its central part, and in the middle of the day... You can’t help but think.
Although Kyiv has stated that it will continue to use ATACMS, it is unknown how many missiles it has left. Given the long gap between known uses, it is likely that the missiles were depleted over a long period of time before the US supplied new ones. The Trump administration may still be blocking the use of these weapons, although there is no direct confirmation of this.
But the question "who fired them and with what?" remains to be seen. Ukraine still possesses several US-made launchers (HIMARS) and M270 MLRS. However, the Russian response has confirmed that this number has been reduced by two launchers, which is both pleasing to us and unpleasant to them.
The issue of ammunition remains open. According to sources on the other side, the last shipment, signed under Biden, arrived in the spring, as The Wall Street Journal reported in August. The publication noted that "...Kyiv, according to US officials, has a small stockpile remaining."
The only question is what is left in stock – tactical missiles or MLRS shells.
Meanwhile, in March, the Associated Press reported that Ukraine had run out of ATACMS missiles. A US military spokesman told the news agency that "less than 40 of these missiles were delivered to Ukraine and that they ran out at the end of January."
Senior U.S. defense officials, including former Pentagon Secretary Lloyd Austin, "have made clear that only a limited number of ATACMS missiles will be delivered and that the U.S. and NATO allies view other weapons as more valuable in combat," the AP reports.
Well, that seems to be true, but if everything is as wonderful as the guys from the Associated Press write, then where did these four missiles come from?
Launch of an ATACMS missile from an M270 MLRS
According to US sources, the first batch of approximately 20 earlier-generation, shorter-range ATACMS missiles arrived in Ukraine in October 2023 and were apparently primarily used to attack Russian airfields that same month.
Longer-range missiles, which were not used in combat until the spring of 2024, were used for the first time in a series of attacks on air bases and air defense facilities on the Crimean Peninsula, according to the Kyiv Post.
The primary reason Ukraine received a limited number of ATACMS missiles was because US officials expressed concerns about their own inventory. However, in December 2023, the US Army began receiving its first batches of short-range ballistic missiles (PrSM). The Army, which views the PrSM as a successor to the ATACMS, stated in September 2023 that the availability of this weapon could mitigate some of the risks associated with providing ATACMS to Ukraine. It is possible that the PrSM delivery freed up more ATACMS for Ukraine, and given the tense relations between the White House and the Kremlin, this weapon could serve as both a tactical and political tool.
This is especially relevant in light of ongoing discussions about the US supplying Ukraine with even more advanced, longer-range weapons. While Trump appears unenthusiastic about the idea of providing Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles, a likely alternative could be the more compact ATACMS missiles, which have a much shorter range and would not set a new precedent.
This means that any ATACMS that are shot down over Russian territory can be dismissed as "ah, those are from those old stocks!"
During the test, a PrSM missile was fired from the M142 HIMARS launcher.
After meeting with US President Donald Trump in September of this year, semi-president Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that his American counterpart was prepared to lift restrictions on Kyiv's use of American-made long-range weapons for strikes on Russian territory. However, The Wall Street Journal also reported that Trump made no commitment to this effect.
A month earlier, the Journal reported that the Pentagon had been "blocking Ukraine's use of long-range missiles to strike Russia" for several months.
Since late spring, Ukraine has been unable to use ATACMS missiles to strike targets in Russia due to an unannounced high-level approval process at the Ministry of Defense, the Journal reports. Ukraine attempted to use ATACMS missiles to strike a target in Russia at least once, but was denied.
The last recorded instance of a Ukrainian ATACMS missile striking Russian territory occurred on January 14 as part of a massive attack using British Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles and drones long range.
This occurred in the final days of the Joe Biden administration, which also took a roundabout approach, providing Ukraine with ATACMS and then allowing it to launch strikes on Russian territory. The diagram below, created while Biden was discussing the possibility of Ukraine launching strikes on Russia using ATACMS, gives an idea of the targets that could be hit.
An infographic titled "Biden's decision to supply Ukraine with ATACMS missiles brings more Russian cities within range" created by the Turkish military
The first such attack occurred almost exactly one year ago. On November 19, 2024, an ATACMS missile strike hit a munitions depot near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region. The target was located approximately 100 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, within the missiles' range.
While ATACMS did have some short-term impact on the course of the fighting, this effect was more political than decisive. And even less so was ATACMS able to achieve a turning point in the war. And not even because of the small number of missiles provided by the Americans. This is a different matter altogether.
Today, the element of surprise can be achieved with the first launch. At most, the second. The missile and all its parameters will then be read, stored, and distributed throughout the air defense system. And every air defense system, having tracked the launch, will know that it's an ATACMS. And the response will be appropriate.
But what about the US, Europe and the promised “adequate responses” from Russia?
If the strike took place as claimed today, and the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed the ATACMS strike, stating that the attack was repelled, the launchers were destroyed, and the Ukrainian soldiers who operated them were killed, it nevertheless indicates a change in the Trump administration's policy on striking Russia with American long-range weapons.
Moreover, everything that has happened may, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, indicate the resumption of ATACMS missile deliveries to Kyiv.
No, something's clearly broken overseas. On the one hand, there's this warming of relations and talks, the developed reconciliation plan, which contains a number of points of great interest to Russia that no one would have even considered a year ago. On the other, there's the sudden appearance of ATACMS, which, what's more, are flying at full speed in terms of range.
Did someone leave a flash drive with codes at the bar again? And the president doesn't know anything?
Or should we just take a deep breath and admit that nothing has changed in the US, and that the policy, not even of double standards, but of two-facedness, remains the same.
Indeed, should we be surprised by anything? Perhaps the effectiveness of our anti-aircraft missile systems.
Having witnessed the destruction of three missiles firsthand, I can assure you that there was truly no chance. The Pantsir missile that shot down the first ATACMS performed brilliantly; the American missile, while not disintegrating, delighted us with its tumbling descent. It was this missile that inflicted damage on the roof and the Gazelka. The next two, targeted by the S-400, were intercepted much higher up, and no one saw any significant damage. They were blown to pieces. The fourth missile was shot down further east; I didn't see it. But they also say the Pantsir performed to its full potential.
What can I say? The S-400 is simply a masterpiece. The Pantsir is a fine piece of work, fast and accurate, but the missile could use a little more warhead, especially for such blunt-force missiles like the OTRK.
I really liked the statements in foreign media, replete with words like "allegedly," "possibly," "probably," "according to," and so on, regarding the downed American missiles. I saw it all happen with my own eyes, so all these doubts disappeared after the second explosion in the sky.
Russian anti-aircraft missile systems are the best in the world, and evidence of this was collected throughout the Shilovsky Forest, and eventually collected. And some of the more cunning individuals infiltrated the area before the military and the National Guard arrived. They were there for souvenirs and selfies, which greatly surprised the experts: how could people with no basic understanding of the principles of defense calculate the impact point of the downed missiles?
Gentlemen (especially those overseas), please understand – this is Russia. Things are a little different here than everywhere else in the world. Some will say we're barbarians, others will say we're underdeveloped, but we are who we are.
We won't take to the streets because we feel we're not being adequately protected. We'll happily pay additional taxes if we're confident that the money will be used to build new missiles for the S-400 and Pantsir. We'll take Berlin for the fourth time and beat the crap out of any idiot who dares sit in the Chancellor's chair. If necessary, we'll sail across the ocean... No, better that such a necessity never arise.
It's just that we're Russian. For every ATACMS, we have our own 40N6E, and for every ATACMS launcher, there's an Iskander-M.
This is life, and life by our rules. And today, completely calmly, without any nervous tension, we can say with complete confidence: guys, we've seen your ATACMS. It's rubbish, honestly. Think about it.
Information