That is so true. Could people who appreciate these posts pimp them to the traditional media outlets we follow too. I will do this to ‘Ukraine the latest’ ‘Times Radio ‘ as well as other podcasts.
Except he didn't address the reasoning for the Russian redline at all which is the NATO personnel that are operating these systems. he is basically talking to a wall in this video because he is purposefully omitting the reason the Russians view it as a red line because it would make people actually have to think.
@@matthewk9563you think it was purposeful? I mean, it could be, but it could also just be a cultural or personal bias thing that made him give it less priority than some others would. It’s why most of us look at more sources than one, I’d think?
@@matthewk9563 If they are operated by NATO personnel, then they were also operated by them when hitting in Crimea, which putin claims to also be russia. It wasn't a problem then though, so the latest red line is still nonsense.
Also, they don't know what they don't know. So they may not have been trying deceive by calling "long range", because they didn't think to distinguish between tactical and strategic weapons.
Finally, someone calls out the BS hype that exists around the "long range" missile moniker. Thank you. We are so self deterrent. Actually, we need to open production lines to indigenous Ukrainian designs and help them improve the designs.
You US apologists keep lying. Its not the range, its that they CANNOT be targeted and fired without direct US personnel involvement. This escalates the war to a DIRECT war between USA and Russia instead of just a proxy war. Get it? Stop lying about stupid crap.
Right on, collaboration with NATO is essential. One problem is prioritizing arms systems marketshare over actual democratic sovereignty. Relatedly, there is accumulating excellence in defense production infrastructure in Ukraine whereby countries like Denmark and Germany are funding it rather than developing it at home. So, air defense systems should be drastically increased in-country, such as using THAD systems in the Ukraine. With the expansion & development of Constanta NATO airbase on the Black Sea coast, inadequate advanced anti-missile programs is pressing.
@@lorrmaster4778 Joe Rogan is *****. He does not care about war, deaths and consequences. The only thing he care about is himself, how cool he is, how hyped he is, etc...
Rogan is too much in bed with the usual Russian bugs. UFC and MMA are big with Russians and Chechens. Just saw an interesting post on MMA and Kadyrov and Joe Rogan was with the Chechens, several who are dual hats in Sport and Chechen Paramilitary circles. Rogan is in the same crowd as Tucker Carlson, Tim Pool or Tulsi Gabbard.
It is so refreshing to come across someone on the Internet that actually knows what they’re talking about and can explain it coherently. I really enjoy your content.
I love that Anders sounds almost angry by the end of this video. He is the calmest pro ukrainian commentator that I watch and, like all the others, even his frustration is showing.
Yeah deep strikes are more like 1300km+ imo. But in the context of SRBMS/TBMs 300km is on the mid-end not high end. High-end would be 500km+, not even close to "le deep strikes"
The nerve to even suggest that the defending country isn't allowed to strike back when the target location is in the attacking country is fucking insane. No war was ever fought with such a bullshit clause.
In russia, lies are a type of currency. To say they have a tenuous affinity for the truth would be accurate, and may be a survival mechanism among average folks. Now 1000 days into a SMO, the ruble is losing about 1% per day, lately - things are about to get really tough the less well off.
I wish more analysts and politicians would strip away all the kremlin noise and propaganda and see the situation as you describe it. It's always been that simple.
@@FirstMetalHamster But isn't it true that defending countries are not allowed to attack the striking country. The Palestinians and the Lebanese are told not to attack Israel, even when Israel occupies their lands. Iran was condemned for striking back at Israel for bombing it's embassy and launching a terror attack in Tehran.
There is one really important red line in this war. It is the Ukrainian border. When Russia invaded Ukraine it crossed that line and broke the law. Russian troops must get out of Ukraine. Russia must pay reparations. It's that simple. Can we finally start supporting Ukraine to get there?!
Russia will pay reparations to Ukrainian regions which will join Russia when the war ends Btw, where are you from? Just curious if your country invaded someone in the middle east in your life time and if you paid reparations
They were allowed all the time just could not use eany western weapon to hit or atack inside russia, exept when they moved in to kursk, since they must have used western amored cars and artillery ther, so I think Ukraine said f.... that and did it or the west said ok do it!
Seriously Anders is the sane guy? This war might go out of control into nuclear holocaust and Anders practically wants to raise the stakes to 'save' Ukraine.
@@carstenf279 That exactly is the problem! You should be because you're trying to bully and corner a nation with nearly half the world's nuclear weapons on their border. You're completely insane.
Hi Anders. Just wanted to thank you for another really good commentary. Not just this one, but overall. There seems to be some disconnect of understanding of Russia in much of the Western Europe and U.S. I get that for the most people it's hard to relate to other cultures and it often leads to misunterstandings. As a Finn I can say that your views and understanding of Russian motives and just the way how they do things align very closely to ours. People in the West should understand that Russia doesn't operate by the same values as we do. All these threats (red lines and escalation) are just weapons that Putin uses against the West to limitin their support to Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia just escalates as it has since the war in Chechenya. If anything at all Russia's messaging speaks that they are afraid of the democratic world standing together against them. They are not willing to use nukes, not even tactical ones as it would destroy Putin's regime.
...yup, everybody understands that. Culture is irrelevant; this is the bog standard narcissist playbook. An unfortunately universal human experience unless you're extraordinarily lucky.
@@ptonpcThe real problem is that 80-90% of everything the media reports is bs. They either flat out lie or they leave out the part that incriminates them, such as these weapons are 100% the US or British operated making it no longer a proxy war and meaning that Russia has the right to attack the US and British on their soil.
It has nothing to do with hitting Russia back Ukraine has already been doing that for 2 years, it's the personnel that is doing the hitting back that Russia has specifically mentioned.
@@ailinofaolin8897 It has nothing to do with muscovy, they don't get to dictate the conflict, only their own aggression. Setting the allowable rules of their "victim" is right out.
In war, no one is "not allowed" to do anything. However, doing certain things could have consequences. If the United States and Britain are firing rockets into internationally recognized Russian territory, there might be consequences for that. That's what the Russians are making clear.
Under nuclear weapons limit discussions, 500 km to 5000 km are the most risky, because it gives less time to react correctly and avoid a MAD. ICBMs aren't forbidden, nor battlefield use missiles.
Russia's "IRBM" launch is as meaningful as an ICBM. In fact many countries don't even agree on the definitions. Because they're pretty arbitrary at that range. Russia likely picked it because targeting Ukraine with an actual ICBM would be harder given they're really not designed to hit your next door neighbour. Russia would have needed to launch it from much further away. And when you do that it really doesn't make it clear to everyone else where it's going. It would look much more like an actual nuclear exchange. And they don't want that, given they almost certainly warned directors countries about it. And also because it gives them more escalation to launch their longer range weapons.
@@ikaustralia because Russia is basically just a bully and the thing which provokes them the most, is a perceived weakness, while when you show them some power, they just gonna cry
Thank you, you are absolutely correct. ATACMS and Storm Shadows are not game-changing weapons. Ukraine has been using drones to attack Russia much deeper for many months. The West should be talking about supplying missiles similar to Tomahawks, and many more planes. Also, the West should be sending troops to protect the rear of the Ukrainian fronts to help Ukraine free up resources at the front lines.
I agree, it's very strange some western politicians is so easily mislead. I don't think it's wrong to say those should be held accountable tbh, a lot of people have lost their lives after all. The absurdity of the aggressor being allowed to do absolutely anything while the victim is actually prevented from defending themselves is so far off everything, it's so bizarre and deranged.
Very true, Putin admits that the occupied territories in Ukraine are *not *Russia proper with this new 'red line' ATACMS are not long range: 300 km is short range indeed. I love your posts Anders!
You could even argue that ATACMS are CRBM (Close-Range Ballistic Missile) and not even SRBM ... the difference is indeed less or more than 300km, so right in-between.
When asked if it is a long-range missile, Ben Hodges said: from the point of view of infantry it is. It is long range for a tactical weapon, but short range compared with the strategic ones.
The tactical/strategic scope is what is usually applies, regardless that all this is an arbitrary rule-of-thumb clasification. What matters in the end is the perception of each side
All kinds of unexpected things happened to be strategic for Ukraine in this war. For example, Pion artillery unit, which helped to stop russian columns approaching Kyiv in February - March of 2022
"...don't have the moral high ground", so true. But their response, I don't find it so disproportionate, I find it rather insignificant - but they probably didn't have better options. In their new "Hazelnut" missile they "tested" on the city of Dnipro there's nothing new they have done for years, except that the missile allegedly, so far, hasn't been developed for a conventional payload. It's meant to scare Western voters who do not know that relatively it isn't more scary.
@@larsrons7937Yeah, Russia notified the US about a potential IRBM launch because they're still worried about it being misinterpreted as a strategic launch of a nuclear weapon. This stunt was designed to create hysteria in Western media, and it has largely worked because a great many Western reporters are absolute morons 🤦🏻♂️
History, Science and fact-researching is not something most podcast celebrities and journalists are interested in, especially that MAGA MAFIA lot. They prefer ignorance, arrogance and all the BS sensationalism that is emphasised by the overuse of “Whoaaaa”, “NO way” lots of head shaking and WTF, OMG… you get my drift! Hurts the brain tbh. Glad to have you clarifying and explaining these things Anders.
You comment is technically sound, presentation is to the point and serve as truthfullness and even any layman can understand. Well deserved Good job done!❤🎉
Russia: you cannot fire this "long range" 300km missile at me Also Russia: responds in firing a 3000km range missile back. Because appearently thats normal.
Skøn tirsdag, at komme hjem til en ny Anders Puck Nielsen video. Thanks, Anders, for your factual, easy-to-understand information to clear away common misunderstandings. We much appreciate your work.
This video is 100% disinformation designed to deceive the viewer. It's not whether or not a missiles are "long range" it's that ATACMS are programmed, fired and guided by the US. It's literally the US bombing Russia. Comparing long range missiles vs intermediate range ICBMs - it's like saying a "light truck" cannot be named "light" because it's heavier than a standard car. It's a dumb comparison. Russia has declared two red lines - "NATO guided missiles against Russia-proper" and "NATO soldiers in Ukraine". Crossing this first red line might result in Russia providing the same weapons/guidance to weapons used against NATO countries targets.
Regarding red lines, I'll say that it is far more interesting that russia has been using north korean missiles against Ukraine for half a year, and iranian long-range drones for basically the whole war.... -It would be easy to argue that when this is the case, it is completely reasonable for us to provide Ukraine with similar weaponry, not to mention that supporting Ukraine with whatever other hardware they need, is the only decent thing to do, as russia was the agressor in the first place.... So so much for red lines, honestly, lets put some ourself, putin has been a menace to the world long enough, and should be told so....
In Ukraine (the war zone does not count) They beat missiles and drones are EXCLUSIVELY Russian-made... Which is very easy for professionals to check (screeching in the media is not interesting to anyone - it's all for suckers). Your own screams are absolutely useless. So don't fuss so much, or you'll injure your navel.
Thank you. Some 'journalists' and 'specialists' are telling us, they are better than their counterparts in the social media. We need people like you, Vlad Vexler and others to correct them and the parrots on the social media. Make critical thinking great again!
This video is 100% disinformation designed to deceive the viewer. It's not whether or not a missiles are "long range" it's that ATACMS are programmed, fired and guided by the US. It's literally the US bombing Russia. Comparing long range missiles vs intermediate range ICBMs - it's like saying a "light truck" cannot be named "light" because it's heavier than a standard car. It's a dumb comparison. Russia has declared two red lines - "NATO guided missiles against Russia-proper" and "NATO soldiers in Ukraine". Crossing this first red line might result in Russia providing the same weapons/guidance to weapons used against NATO countries targets.
The Russians are not 'trying to frame' anything any way, they're not trying, they're SAYING that NATO countries shooting rockets deep into Russian territory is unacceptable and will always receive a response. That's what Russia SAID PLAINLY
No NATO country is shooting rockets at Russia. Ukraine is not in NATO. Putin could stop this war in a single phone call by withdrawing all of his forces from all of Ukraine's territory. Yet, he invites NK and China to escalate. Russia is the aggressor and they are escalating. Ukraine and the west are responding.
The red line was first if NATO weapons could be used at targets inside Russia at all, then it became how far. The latter is somewhat of an artificial self imposed limitation.
Ahem, according to the latest sham-referendum-butchery of the Russian so called 'Constitution' - all current fighting is on 'Russian territory' and there should be no difference between Donbass, Crimea or Moscow. You see - Ukraine is the 'invader'.
Can I get a source of the first red line? I can only find a source of Russia saying something about "US and UK striking deep inside Russia" whatever they deem that to be...
@@kroche90 The first red line? It was the non verbalized agreement among NATO partners, that the military aid to Ukraine was to fight Russia inside Ukraine only. That was considered as not being an offensive move by NATO. I bet there were internal reviews in NATO to reach that conclusion.
@@kroche90 Not alone, applied to both parties, what was deemed acceptable within the agreement made with the Warsaw pact originally, that either super power could supply weapons to satellite countries. We kind of witnessed that for 70 years. that was the gentleman agreement.
I think some media people became confused with all the talk about "long range ATACMS" as a specific differentiation between types of ATACMS missiles, and assumed it was a general differentiation between all missiles.
The media types, they are still under the influence, of the russian propaganda since ages ago. Bunch of dangerous idiots. Let Ukraine defend itself all the way.
I totally agree Anders! Its always a wonder, how western politicians agree to Putins ideas. ... 😂😢😮😅 If we continue like that, we can forget Ukraine 🇺🇦❤🇩🇪❤🇩🇰
Perhaps part of the confusion is that ATACMS is "long range" merely by the standards of artillery...in it's case, rocket artillery. By the standards of strike missiles, though, it is rather short ranged. The Tomahawk, as noted has a much longer range than ATACMS and would be of much greater concern to Russia if Ukraine were to acquire some.
Russian warnings about red lines and nukes became meaningless at some point during the second year of this war. Threats to escalate the war and perhaps take it into NATO territory seemed plausible when a fully resourced Russia military was thought to have the second or third best army in the world. Now that Russia has been shown to have a less-than-impressive military, that is has been fought to a standstill in Ukraine, and that it is now pulling out weapons dating back into the 1960s, any threat to enlarge the war by Russia is toothless. They doing all they can to merely hang on in Ukraine. It's a bit like Germany in 1944 threatening to invade the coast of the U.S.
Thank you anders !! , I'm a loader raf and I'm sick of explaining the storm shadow missile is a low flying cruise missile that isn't the longer range version that we keep for UK defence whi h has a minimum recorded distance of 340 miles . The version we sent to Ukraine was the 160 ish mile version and russian air defence can't intercept those or atacms. Russia launching their experimental missile shows desperation and us the level they are on
@michaelotieno6524 with trained systems staff on the updated s-400 then they may intercept the odd one but Ukraine doesn't waste either storm shadow or atacms so flood a volly of low cost missiles first to test the system and operators intelligence. So our old short range storm shadow missiles are defeating russian air defence systems that like the kinzal and sarmat missiles shows us , russian military equipment is overhyped and under manned with experienced operators!!.
@@guy.l8147 My guy, there's literally videos of pantsirs(sa-22) of all things intercepting your wonderous storm shadow, and so far ATACMS hasn't had any real important hits except a liquor factory lol. So, press x to doubt on that one.
@aenodarr7936 I'm not saying it's impossible I'm saying with the standard and performance of late the s-300 ,s-400 needs experienced teams to work proactively and Russian's don't!!
ATAMS is really long range artillery rocket, hardly even a SRBM (short range ballistic missiles), and Russia has used real SRBMs and now IRBMs as well as long range cruise missiles. The media are not well informed when it comest to the military.
ATACMS is a short range ballistic missile, less than 1000km. Storm Shadow is a medium range cruise missile, 300-1000km. Ballistic and cruise missile range categories are defined differently by international standards. These definitions are often used for international treaties.
Thank you very much for your comment about the how arbitrary this red line is. I have been thinking about it for a couple of months now, wondering why I was seeing this alone and wondering if I was going insane or missing something big.
I truly appreciate it how you create shifts of perspectives, not by preaching, but just by pointing out the logical inconsistencies in public discourse. Thank you.
@@wwlb4970 If your enemy launches missiles at you from the Caspian Sea, strategic aviation bases are at least 800 km from the border, and tactical ones are at least 300 km away, then ATAСMS is simply an operational-tactical missile. Not even an analogue of the Russian "Iskander", more like the Soviet "Tochka-U", just much more accurate.
I was called a Russian bot several times for making this exact same statement ATACMS are basically short range ballistic missiles in the same class as the Tochka-U, Ukraine has only long range drones not missiles.
Another outstanding and informative piece. I can't tell you how much I appreciate having some thoughtful input on these matters; the media overall is a jungle of emotive noise and an empty desert of data or analysis!
ATACMS is categorized as a CRBM - Close-Range Ballistic Missile - nothing long range about it (< 300 km) SRBM - 300-1000 km (Short Range) MRBM - 1000-3000 km (Medium Range) IRBM - 3000-5500 km (Intermediate Range) ICBM - +5500 km (Intercontinental)
@@jenspetersen5865 The M142 HIMARS or the M270 are MLRS - Multiple Launch Rocket System - like the the South Korean K239 Hunmoo. They are meant to replace or augment traditional artillery systems. Like the ATACMS that are fired from either the M142 or the M270, the Hunmoo can fire the CT290 - a CRBM with a range of approx 290 km.
If you want to screw around with definitions, ATACMS is a long range rocket mortar. Its the maximum range that you would expect artillery to strike, but it's not long range in the modern context.
I have heard that the reason Russia considers this a big deal is not because the range is longer, but because this system requires the involvement of US personnel to operate. So it is like the US is getting directly involved in the fighting rather than just supplying weapons that Ukranian troops operate independently. I don't know how true this is in practice but i had hoped you would discuss it.
Thank you, finally somebody talks about it. Ive heard "DEEP STRIKES" no 300km are not deep strikes, deep strikes are 1200km+ in the context of tomahawks
On NPR (US "public" radio station) last week, they referred to ATACMS as "ballistic" missiles. Technically, _every_ missile (and even a well-thrown rock) is ballistic, but i found it very sus to include that modifier (to get people to make a mental association with ICBMS, obviously).
i wouldnt call it “sus” as much as i would call it “poor nomenclature”. warfare isn’t an exact science like biology or chemistry. there’s no IUPAC nomenclature council for missiles, although there really should be because that would be the funniest thing.
If I remember well, ATACAMs describe a near-ballistic trajectory ... in other woprds, the bell trajectory is not so high and rather flattened. Even the RU "Hazelnut" IRBM trajectory hass been described also as flatter compared to their bigger brothers' ICBMs; in other words: the former do not go so high in space; their range, speed and payload capability arer much smaller.
@@EugeneYunak bal·lis·tic adjective 1. relating to projectiles or their flight. 2. moving under the force of gravity only. Definition #1 is why _technically_ every missile trajectory is a ballistic missile trajectory, even if #2 doesn't strictly apply. And, why I don't think media agencies should casually refer to missiles as "ballistic" missiles unless they leave the atmosphere.
@ i don’t understand what you are trying to prove. that journos are brain dead peddlers of shocking headers without understanding the subject, manipulating the narrative and confusing the masses? that much is evident. but mudding the waters with factually wrong statements is no better. in military context, missiles are classified into BMs and CMs. not all missiles are ballistic, your statement “every missile is ballistic” is *technically* wrong. general purpose dictionary entries don’t change that.
ATACMS is a long range weapon when referring to fire support platforms. It is considered long range fires in a tactical and potentially operational sense. But What artillerymen may consider long range is not the same in a strategic sense (where red lines are normally drawn). As far as ballistic missiles go which ATACMS is one, it is a short ranged system. But ballistic missiles, longer ranged ones at least are generally considered strategic assets and are often used in geopolitics. Weapons that can create significant tensions such as ones seen between in Turkey and Cuba during the cold war. However, ATACMS is NOT a long range ballistic missile and not a strategic asset. Russia is purposely using the long range fires capability used in the context of tactical/operational fire support to evoke the same concerns associated with strategic weapons like IRBMs or ICBMs.
Thank you for this video! Far too many pundits and media have been implying that these missiles are ‘long range’ … they are in fact are in reality no such weapon! appreciate this video.. 👍
I think Russians care more about not what category ATACMS missiles are, but who are launching them from Ukraine. and even 5500km range missiles does not have enough range to retaliate, nor it would be a smart thing to do with even longer range missiles.
I don’t think the range is the issue even if It goes 1 mt into Russia the problem is that it can’t be used without NATO So a NATO weapon is being used against Russia by NATO
you forgot to mention these missiles need western input the ukes could press the button sure but they have to be set up by western personnel hence redline
It’s about classification and categorisation. Atacms is long range in the class of systems in which it sits. Just as a diesel tourer car is long range in the classification of cars, but short range in the class of transport. But it baffles me why western media always jumps on the bandwagon wagon of hype. A dying breed.
It doesn't matter if they're long-range, they are longER range, AND, most importantly, the US, a nuclear superpower, is shooting rockets at Russia, the other nuclear superpower. That's like NOT GOOD. And you really care about the names in the context of that dangerous situation??
perhaps tell what it takes to program the launch of ATACMS and Storm Shadow and how that would be possible by Ukraine without support or involvement of other countries?
It has been breathtaking to see all of the people who think they have original, rationally derived opinions all be worried about the same things as the kremlin, again and again and again as time has passed theses last 3 years. First they were all worried about NATO expansion which isnt expansion, then they forgot about that and were worried about Ukraine targeting Russian speakers which wasnt happening, then they forgot about that and worried about the escalation ladder they'd never heard of before, then they forgot about that and..... folks, you wanna see the extent and reach of the RF disinfo mechanisms, just look at the things the reactionaries worry about. It's always what the kremlin worries about, week to week to week.
We were right to worry about NATO expansion as it is the immediate proximate cause of the war. It has nothing to do with original thinking, it is rational to worry about the consequences of your actions. Keep in mind we are not even dealing with long range missiles yet. So you can't purport to know how Russia will react to that. But the good thing about those who claim not to worry about nuclear war is that even if you are wrong, no one shall be around to tell you about it.
@@michaelotieno6524 yaaaaay, I was hoping somebody would take the "expansion" bait since it so absurdly easy to prove that it is in fact _not_ rationally derived. Let's propose a hypothetical to see if your worry is indeed rationally derived or merely situationally reactionary. Let us suppose that the US collapsed instead of the Soviets, and the First Nation peoples who have spent hundreds of years under the American thumb suddenly found themselves free to dictate their own sovereignty and national association. Now let us suppose some of those nations asked the Soviets to protect them from the Americans, since the new American leader was talking about how terrible it was that the US collapsed. If the Soviets agreed to protect those First Nations peoples from the aggressive and revanchonist Americans, would that have been Soviet expansion? Or, instead of answering and exposing yourself, will you quibble with the wording or pointless specifics within the hypothetical, in the manner of the cornered pedant?
@@michaelotieno6524 the obvious point of this is that while you are correct to cite it as a proximate cause, the rhetoric out of Moscow for the last two and a half decades makes it clear that a cause was sought, a casus belli was manufactured, not in response to any outside action but rather to justify internal motivations. NATO 'expansion' is a red herring handed to those unable to work through why it is a false motivation. It was not the only one offered, but merely the one that had the most staying power in the west, leading to it's high citation rate. If it had failed to take hold, another motivation would have been offered, and you and I would now be arguing about that particular motivation instead. Because reactionaries gonna reactionary. Just like how now you're being reactionary about nukes.
Rare insight and common sense on the internet. Such a breath of fresh air. One get the impression that the people who need to be listening the closest aren't doing so, though ;)
ATACMS is a short range theatre ballistic missile (about 1000km or less) a type that Russia has been using frequently on Ukraine throughout this invasion.
The video is missing a couple of relevant issues. First, Russia is trying to make it sound like it's the US that is effectively launching the ATACMS missiles into the Kursk region, which would supposedly justify a counterattack not just on Ukraine, but on the US. Second, there's a subtle but important distinction between different types of ATACMS missiles. The US is current providing only the 150 km range cluster warhead ATACMS missiles, which are useful against soft targets like North Korean troops or Russian aircraft in the Kursk region. However, there is another model of ATACMS, which have a 300 km range and have a unitary warhead suitable for attacking hard targets like the Kerch bridge. The US has not yet approved these, and they are sometimes called "long range ATACMS" to distinguish them from the 150 km range "medium range ATACMS". The missiles Russia would really object to are the latter kind, that could take out the Kerch bridge. So they've designed their propaganda to bamboozle the US into failing to provide the 300 km range unitary warhead ATACMS missiles that could really be a game changer by taking out the Kerch bridge.
These posts should be mandatory for any journalist dealing with the war.
That is so true. Could people who appreciate these posts pimp them to the traditional media outlets we follow too. I will do this to ‘Ukraine the latest’ ‘Times Radio ‘ as well as other podcasts.
Except he didn't address the reasoning for the Russian redline at all which is the NATO personnel that are operating these systems. he is basically talking to a wall in this video because he is purposefully omitting the reason the Russians view it as a red line because it would make people actually have to think.
@@matthewk9563you think it was purposeful? I mean, it could be, but it could also just be a cultural or personal bias thing that made him give it less priority than some others would. It’s why most of us look at more sources than one, I’d think?
@@matthewk9563 If they are operated by NATO personnel, then they were also operated by them when hitting in Crimea, which putin claims to also be russia. It wasn't a problem then though, so the latest red line is still nonsense.
@@matthewk9563 Yes, yes, yes: thank you for that Mr Putin; don't call us, we'll call you ... or not. These pesky parrots get everywhere.
Generally, the news media industry tries to get your attention by any means. By contrast, Mr. Nielsen makes an informed, well spoken report.
That's exactly why disinformation is so effective. It uses this concept.
In Denmark, we are fortunate to often see Anders and his colleagues explaining the rationale behind this war in the news.
He's a tool of NATO.
Also, they don't know what they don't know. So they may not have been trying deceive by calling "long range", because they didn't think to distinguish between tactical and strategic weapons.
All-of-the-sudden Biden's war will become Trump's mistake -- you watch.
Finally, someone calls out the BS hype that exists around the "long range" missile moniker. Thank you. We are so self deterrent. Actually, we need to open production lines to indigenous Ukrainian designs and help them improve the designs.
You US apologists keep lying. Its not the range, its that they CANNOT be targeted and fired without direct US personnel involvement. This escalates the war to a DIRECT war between USA and Russia instead of just a proxy war. Get it? Stop lying about stupid crap.
Why ? So that Russia can destroy the factories ?
Other commentators did so days ago.
Right on, collaboration with NATO is essential. One problem is prioritizing arms systems marketshare over actual democratic sovereignty. Relatedly, there is accumulating excellence in defense production infrastructure in Ukraine whereby countries like Denmark and Germany are funding it rather than developing it at home. So, air defense systems should be drastically increased in-country, such as using THAD systems in the Ukraine. With the expansion & development of Constanta NATO airbase on the Black Sea coast, inadequate advanced anti-missile programs is pressing.
Yes, removing red lines is one thing but we need to have more actual missiles, but West exports most components to russia.
The one video Joe Rogan should watch. No need to waste 3 hours time wasting breath with randoms.
I don't know how that podcast works, but maybe Anders Puck Nielson should consider requesting a podcast to discuss this with him in person.
There is a reason there is a monkey in his intro.
@@lorrmaster4778 Joe Rogan is *****. He does not care about war, deaths and consequences. The only thing he care about is himself, how cool he is, how hyped he is, etc...
Would maybe give the US. Right wing a voice of reason to balance out all the BS
Rogan is too much in bed with the usual Russian bugs. UFC and MMA are big with Russians and Chechens. Just saw an interesting post on MMA and Kadyrov and Joe Rogan was with the Chechens, several who are dual hats in Sport and Chechen Paramilitary circles. Rogan is in the same crowd as Tucker Carlson, Tim Pool or Tulsi Gabbard.
It is so refreshing to come across someone on the Internet that actually knows what they’re talking about and can explain it coherently. I really enjoy your content.
I love that Anders sounds almost angry by the end of this video. He is the calmest pro ukrainian commentator that I watch and, like all the others, even his frustration is showing.
I find it frustrating that being objective is considered pro-Ukrainian, but I agree.
He is not pro-Ukrainian, he is pro NATO and war. Ukraine has been thrown under a bus as means to take down Russia.
Frustration that Ukraine is losing.
@@The_ZeroLine someone in 1942 “Well, yes, he is killing them, but let him cook, I have not yet formed the opinion”
Yeah, I’ve been yelling at the TV every time someone says we’ve given them long range approval. Strangely, no one ever seems to listen. 😂
Why are you watching TV news?
@Caedo12
I feel ya. I do exactly the same.😂
I agree but, you need a hug 🤗
Yeah deep strikes are more like 1300km+ imo. But in the context of SRBMS/TBMs 300km is on the mid-end not high end. High-end would be 500km+, not even close to "le deep strikes"
Just we are surrounded by idiots who are not able to understand even the easiest facts.
Altid godt at høre dine analyser Anders👍Længe leve Ukraine🍀❤👍
As a Dutch I can easily understand that.
We would say: "Altijd goed om je analyse te horen Anders. Lang leve Oekraïne." Spot the differences.
Russian bots are storming a lot of channels and especially US channels. I'm glad to see your channel still holds. Good luck!
No point trying to sway people with brain. They target those who are vulnerable to disinformation.
The nerve to even suggest that the defending country isn't allowed to strike back when the target location is in the attacking country is fucking insane. No war was ever fought with such a bullshit clause.
In russia, lies are a type of currency. To say they have a tenuous affinity for the truth would be accurate, and may be a survival mechanism among average folks.
Now 1000 days into a SMO, the ruble is losing about 1% per day, lately - things are about to get really tough the less well off.
Just goes to show how many important friends russia has and how deep their manipulation goes
I wish more analysts and politicians would strip away all the kremlin noise and propaganda and see the situation as you describe it. It's always been that simple.
I'm curious what will you feel when the Taliban strikes your city with a Russian ICBM after your country invaded them for 20 years
@@FirstMetalHamster But isn't it true that defending countries are not allowed to attack the striking country. The Palestinians and the Lebanese are told not to attack Israel, even when Israel occupies their lands. Iran was condemned for striking back at Israel for bombing it's embassy and launching a terror attack in Tehran.
There is one really important red line in this war. It is the Ukrainian border. When Russia invaded Ukraine it crossed that line and broke the law. Russian troops must get out of Ukraine. Russia must pay reparations. It's that simple.
Can we finally start supporting Ukraine to get there?!
Good luck with that. Delusional.
@@EdwardSnortin how's the 3 day special military operation going botnik?
@@TheLumberjack1987Ask the western generals that made this statement. You are spreading a proven false narrative
@@EdwardSnortin You should not snort too much of that stuff. It shows Teddy.
Russia will pay reparations to Ukrainian regions which will join Russia when the war ends
Btw, where are you from? Just curious if your country invaded someone in the middle east in your life time and if you paid reparations
Finally, about time they allowed short range missiles.
Yeah, small delay of two years is insignificant
They were allowed all the time just could not use eany western weapon to hit or atack inside russia, exept when they moved in to kursk, since they must have used western amored cars and artillery ther, so I think Ukraine said f.... that and did it or the west said ok do it!
@@xuko6792
Thank you for your sarcasm. It is so bitter it tastes sweet.
😂😭
A sane voice in an insane world. 👍
Seriously Anders is the sane guy? This war might go out of control into nuclear holocaust and Anders practically wants to raise the stakes to 'save' Ukraine.
@@nowarwithrussiaandchina4667 We are not afraid of Russia... or You 🤣
@@carstenf279 That exactly is the problem! You should be because you're trying to bully and corner a nation with nearly half the world's nuclear weapons on their border. You're completely insane.
Hi Anders. Just wanted to thank you for another really good commentary. Not just this one, but overall.
There seems to be some disconnect of understanding of Russia in much of the Western Europe and U.S.
I get that for the most people it's hard to relate to other cultures and it often leads to misunterstandings. As a Finn I can say that your views and understanding of Russian motives and just the way how they do things align very closely to ours.
People in the West should understand that Russia doesn't operate by the same values as we do.
All these threats (red lines and escalation) are just weapons that Putin uses against the West to limitin their support to Ukraine.
Meanwhile Russia just escalates as it has since the war in Chechenya.
If anything at all Russia's messaging speaks that they are afraid of the democratic world standing together against them.
They are not willing to use nukes, not even tactical ones as it would destroy Putin's regime.
...yup, everybody understands that. Culture is irrelevant; this is the bog standard narcissist playbook. An unfortunately universal human experience unless you're extraordinarily lucky.
Russia, the cry bully. Used to be bully.
Still is. Unfortunately it owns a lot of Western politicians and journalists.
@@ptonpcThe real problem is that 80-90% of everything the media reports is bs. They either flat out lie or they leave out the part that incriminates them, such as these weapons are 100% the US or British operated making it no longer a proxy war and meaning that Russia has the right to attack the US and British on their soil.
@@ptonpc Russia just sends some letters with money. Nothing new.
"Noooooo! You're not allowed to hit me back 😢"
- Russia (2024)
It has nothing to do with hitting Russia back Ukraine has already been doing that for 2 years, it's the personnel that is doing the hitting back that Russia has specifically mentioned.
Nato are you entering the war?
@@ailinofaolin8897 So, the problem is, that Ukranians are hitting back?
That makes even less sense.
@@ailinofaolin8897 It has nothing to do with muscovy, they don't get to dictate the conflict, only their own aggression. Setting the allowable rules of their "victim" is right out.
In war, no one is "not allowed" to do anything. However, doing certain things could have consequences. If the United States and Britain are firing rockets into internationally recognized Russian territory, there might be consequences for that. That's what the Russians are making clear.
Exactly. Doesn't make sense that 300 km range missile would be "long range" when russian IRBM with 5500 km range is intermediary range...
Even the Tomahawk cruise missiles have 1500 mile range
Under nuclear weapons limit discussions, 500 km to 5000 km are the most risky, because it gives less time to react correctly and avoid a MAD.
ICBMs aren't forbidden, nor battlefield use missiles.
Russia's "IRBM" launch is as meaningful as an ICBM. In fact many countries don't even agree on the definitions. Because they're pretty arbitrary at that range.
Russia likely picked it because targeting Ukraine with an actual ICBM would be harder given they're really not designed to hit your next door neighbour. Russia would have needed to launch it from much further away. And when you do that it really doesn't make it clear to everyone else where it's going. It would look much more like an actual nuclear exchange. And they don't want that, given they almost certainly warned directors countries about it.
And also because it gives them more escalation to launch their longer range weapons.
@@lost4468yt they dont have subs?
Makes perfect sense. You just don't be stupid about it, which a lot of media is
No, ATACMS is not a long range missile. At 300 km it falls at least 1000 km short of being "long range". Ukraine needs long range missiles too.
Way off. 1,000-3,000km is the range for a *MEDIUM* range missile by US military definitions.
What difference will it make apart from provoking Russia even further? Ukraine's losing ground at the fastest pace since the beginning of the conflict
Go provide it to them.
@@ikaustralia because Russia is basically just a bully and the thing which provokes them the most, is a perceived weakness, while when you show them some power, they just gonna cry
@@ikaustralia Don't worry, "everything is going according to the plan" of "the great strategist"
😅
Thank you, you are absolutely correct. ATACMS and Storm Shadows are not game-changing weapons. Ukraine has been using drones to attack Russia much deeper for many months. The West should be talking about supplying missiles similar to Tomahawks, and many more planes. Also, the West should be sending troops to protect the rear of the Ukrainian fronts to help Ukraine free up resources at the front lines.
I wouldn't be against that....but you can see what a media fuss that would be, already
If you really think that we should send troops why aren't on the Frontline yet. Ukraine have a foreign legion.
A new can of worms if that were to happen. Maybe UN “PEACEKEEPERS IN MASSIVE FORCE”, (I wonder how Patton would have dealt with this)?
Drones are operated by Ukraine, long range rockets are operated by NATO. That's the difference
→ Yellow
“Operated by NATO” vs “Provided” or do you believe that NATO troops are inside of Ukraine vs NATO providing targeting information?
Thank you for posting this.
The stupidity surrounding this is painful!
Keep wondering if this is stupidity or wilful corruption
Rogan = Stupidity.
F. Elon = Corruption.
I agree, it's very strange some western politicians is so easily mislead. I don't think it's wrong to say those should be held accountable tbh, a lot of people have lost their lives after all. The absurdity of the aggressor being allowed to do absolutely anything while the victim is actually prevented from defending themselves is so far off everything, it's so bizarre and deranged.
@@ailinofaolin8897 Why do you ask me?
@@ailinofaolin8897The first wictim was the truth. The skirmish was started by russian soldiers and wagnerites and lots of russian misinformation.
Russia using missile with a 5,000 km range and we take years to authorize 250 km range missile for Ukraine.
Very articulate and informed analysis.
Very true, Putin admits that the occupied territories in Ukraine are *not *Russia proper with this new 'red line'
ATACMS are not long range: 300 km is short range indeed.
I love your posts Anders!
You could even argue that ATACMS are CRBM (Close-Range Ballistic Missile) and not even SRBM ... the difference is indeed less or more than 300km, so right in-between.
When asked if it is a long-range missile, Ben Hodges said: from the point of view of infantry it is. It is long range for a tactical weapon, but short range compared with the strategic ones.
The tactical/strategic scope is what is usually applies, regardless that all this is an arbitrary rule-of-thumb clasification. What matters in the end is the perception of each side
All kinds of unexpected things happened to be strategic for Ukraine in this war. For example, Pion artillery unit, which helped to stop russian columns approaching Kyiv in February - March of 2022
The Russian response is ridiculously disproportionate, they don't have the moral high ground.
"...don't have the moral high ground", so true. But their response, I don't find it so disproportionate, I find it rather insignificant - but they probably didn't have better options. In their new "Hazelnut" missile they "tested" on the city of Dnipro there's nothing new they have done for years, except that the missile allegedly, so far, hasn't been developed for a conventional payload. It's meant to scare Western voters who do not know that relatively it isn't more scary.
@@larsrons7937Yeah, Russia notified the US about a potential IRBM launch because they're still worried about it being misinterpreted as a strategic launch of a nuclear weapon.
This stunt was designed to create hysteria in Western media, and it has largely worked because a great many Western reporters are absolute morons 🤦🏻♂️
@@larsrons7937 Russian red lines are matryoska dolls. There's always a new one immediately inside.
@@larsrons7937 by disproportionate I was referring to nuclear threats
@@nickbarton3191 what's new? they've been making nuclear threats constantly
Yeah we need to change the discussion about this both in the media and in the public. Short range it is.
Hilsen fra Island. Tusind tak. 😊
History, Science and fact-researching is not something most podcast celebrities and journalists are interested in, especially that MAGA MAFIA lot.
They prefer ignorance, arrogance and all the BS sensationalism that is emphasised by the overuse of “Whoaaaa”, “NO way” lots of head shaking and WTF, OMG… you get my drift! Hurts the brain tbh.
Glad to have you clarifying and explaining these things Anders.
Det har også undret mig hvorfor Attacams missil blev kaldt for "long" range .. men en god forklaring Anders på hvordan man må se på hele konceptet 👍🏼
You comment is technically sound, presentation is to the point and serve as truthfullness and even any layman can understand. Well deserved Good job done!❤🎉
As always, good point, Anders! Thank you!
Russia: you cannot fire this "long range" 300km missile at me
Also Russia: responds in firing a 3000km range missile back. Because appearently thats normal.
Is Russia launching a missile at Europe?🤔
Skøn tirsdag, at komme hjem til en ny Anders Puck Nielsen video. Thanks, Anders, for your factual, easy-to-understand information to clear away common misunderstandings. We much appreciate your work.
Much needed video! This needs to be shared.
This video is 100% disinformation designed to deceive the viewer.
It's not whether or not a missiles are "long range" it's that ATACMS are programmed, fired and guided by the US. It's literally the US bombing Russia.
Comparing long range missiles vs intermediate range ICBMs - it's like saying a "light truck" cannot be named "light" because it's heavier than a standard car. It's a dumb comparison.
Russia has declared two red lines - "NATO guided missiles against Russia-proper" and "NATO soldiers in Ukraine". Crossing this first red line might result in Russia providing the same weapons/guidance to weapons used against NATO countries targets.
ATACMs is a *Tactical* missile, IRBMs are *Strategic* missiles
Regarding red lines, I'll say that it is far more interesting that russia has been using north korean missiles against Ukraine for half a year, and iranian long-range drones for basically the whole war....
-It would be easy to argue that when this is the case, it is completely reasonable for us to provide Ukraine with similar weaponry, not to mention that supporting Ukraine with whatever other hardware they need, is the only decent thing to do, as russia was the agressor in the first place....
So so much for red lines, honestly, lets put some ourself, putin has been a menace to the world long enough, and should be told so....
In Ukraine (the war zone does not count) They beat missiles and drones are EXCLUSIVELY Russian-made... Which is very easy for professionals to check (screeching in the media is not interesting to anyone - it's all for suckers).
Your own screams are absolutely useless. So don't fuss so much, or you'll injure your navel.
Longer range missile is the most accurate term in this context, but it's too many syllables for journalism.
Thank you. Some 'journalists' and 'specialists' are telling us, they are better than their counterparts in the social media. We need people like you, Vlad Vexler and others to correct them and the parrots on the social media. Make critical thinking great again!
This video is 100% disinformation designed to deceive the viewer.
It's not whether or not a missiles are "long range" it's that ATACMS are programmed, fired and guided by the US. It's literally the US bombing Russia.
Comparing long range missiles vs intermediate range ICBMs - it's like saying a "light truck" cannot be named "light" because it's heavier than a standard car. It's a dumb comparison.
Russia has declared two red lines - "NATO guided missiles against Russia-proper" and "NATO soldiers in Ukraine". Crossing this first red line might result in Russia providing the same weapons/guidance to weapons used against NATO countries targets.
The Russians are not 'trying to frame' anything any way, they're not trying, they're SAYING that NATO countries shooting rockets deep into Russian territory is unacceptable and will always receive a response. That's what Russia SAID PLAINLY
Which is a LIE.
No NATO country is shooting rockets at Russia. Ukraine is not in NATO. Putin could stop this war in a single phone call by withdrawing all of his forces from all of Ukraine's territory. Yet, he invites NK and China to escalate. Russia is the aggressor and they are escalating. Ukraine and the west are responding.
The red line was first if NATO weapons could be used at targets inside Russia at all, then it became how far. The latter is somewhat of an artificial self imposed limitation.
Ahem, according to the latest sham-referendum-butchery of the Russian so called 'Constitution' - all current fighting is on 'Russian territory' and there should be no difference between Donbass, Crimea or Moscow. You see - Ukraine is the 'invader'.
Can I get a source of the first red line? I can only find a source of Russia saying something about "US and UK striking deep inside Russia" whatever they deem that to be...
@@kroche90 The first red line? It was the non verbalized agreement among NATO partners, that the military aid to Ukraine was to fight Russia inside Ukraine only. That was considered as not being an offensive move by NATO. I bet there were internal reviews in NATO to reach that conclusion.
@@Tore_Lund so the first red line was set by the west?
@@kroche90 Not alone, applied to both parties, what was deemed acceptable within the agreement made with the Warsaw pact originally, that either super power could supply weapons to satellite countries. We kind of witnessed that for 70 years. that was the gentleman agreement.
I think some media people became confused with all the talk about "long range ATACMS" as a specific differentiation between types of ATACMS missiles, and assumed it was a general differentiation between all missiles.
The media types, they are still under the influence, of the russian propaganda since ages ago. Bunch of dangerous idiots. Let Ukraine defend itself all the way.
I totally agree Anders!
Its always a wonder, how western politicians agree to Putins ideas. ...
😂😢😮😅
If we continue like that, we can forget Ukraine 🇺🇦❤🇩🇪❤🇩🇰
Perhaps part of the confusion is that ATACMS is "long range" merely by the standards of artillery...in it's case, rocket artillery. By the standards of strike missiles, though, it is rather short ranged. The Tomahawk, as noted has a much longer range than ATACMS and would be of much greater concern to Russia if Ukraine were to acquire some.
Hi Anders, thanks for the video
Well, since the 'long range hysteria' came and went even if for the wrong reason, the USA can now start delivering Tomahawks.
If it's all the same to Russia, we might as well send Tomahawks too I guess, since they're both 'long range'?
Very good. We need more of this kind of analysis. Thanks.
Russian warnings about red lines and nukes became meaningless at some point during the second year of this war. Threats to escalate the war and perhaps take it into NATO territory seemed plausible when a fully resourced Russia military was thought to have the second or third best army in the world. Now that Russia has been shown to have a less-than-impressive military, that is has been fought to a standstill in Ukraine, and that it is now pulling out weapons dating back into the 1960s, any threat to enlarge the war by Russia is toothless. They doing all they can to merely hang on in Ukraine. It's a bit like Germany in 1944 threatening to invade the coast of the U.S.
Love the content, Anders
Thank you anders !! , I'm a loader raf and I'm sick of explaining the storm shadow missile is a low flying cruise missile that isn't the longer range version that we keep for UK defence whi h has a minimum recorded distance of 340 miles . The version we sent to Ukraine was the 160 ish mile version and russian air defence can't intercept those or atacms.
Russia launching their experimental missile shows desperation and us the level they are on
Actually Russia can intercept both the storm shadow and ATACAMS.
@michaelotieno6524 with trained systems staff on the updated s-400 then they may intercept the odd one but Ukraine doesn't waste either storm shadow or atacms so flood a volly of low cost missiles first to test the system and operators intelligence. So our old short range storm shadow missiles are defeating russian air defence systems that like the kinzal and sarmat missiles shows us , russian military equipment is overhyped and under manned with experienced operators!!.
@@michaelotieno6524 Seems like they have a hard time finding the on buttons for their SAMS, since we see so many of them destroyed, vatnik.
@@guy.l8147 My guy, there's literally videos of pantsirs(sa-22) of all things intercepting your wonderous storm shadow, and so far ATACMS hasn't had any real important hits except a liquor factory lol. So, press x to doubt on that one.
@aenodarr7936 I'm not saying it's impossible I'm saying with the standard and performance of late the s-300 ,s-400 needs experienced teams to work proactively and Russian's don't!!
ATAMS is really long range artillery rocket, hardly even a SRBM (short range ballistic missiles), and Russia has used real SRBMs and now IRBMs as well as long range cruise missiles. The media are not well informed when it comest to the military.
ATACMS is a short range ballistic missile, less than 1000km. Storm Shadow is a medium range cruise missile, 300-1000km. Ballistic and cruise missile range categories are defined differently by international standards. These definitions are often used for international treaties.
Thank you very much for your comment about the how arbitrary this red line is. I have been thinking about it for a couple of months now, wondering why I was seeing this alone and wondering if I was going insane or missing something big.
Thank you as always - every time you post, I learn something new. Please keep up your fabulous work.
I truly appreciate it how you create shifts of perspectives, not by preaching, but just by pointing out the logical inconsistencies in public discourse. Thank you.
If Belgium is at war with the Netherlands, then yes - ATACMS is a long-range missile.
If your entire army is stuck 150km from your border on third year of the war, then 300km is a long range.
@@wwlb4970 If your enemy launches missiles at you from the Caspian Sea, strategic aviation bases are at least 800 km from the border, and tactical ones are at least 300 km away, then ATAСMS is simply an operational-tactical missile. Not even an analogue of the Russian "Iskander", more like the Soviet "Tochka-U", just much more accurate.
Defining “Long” and “Short” had been a doctrine for the strategic employment for my Tinder
I was called a Russian bot several times for making this exact same statement ATACMS are basically short range ballistic missiles in the same class as the Tochka-U, Ukraine has only long range drones not missiles.
Its not ballistic its cruise missle
@@Speedkam Isn't ATACMS aeroballistic though?
Great and informative video.
Thank you helping us fighting selfdeterrence!
"limited to the Kursk region" and yet, first chance they got they fired at Bryansk.
Where is Bryansk ? In relation to Kursk ?
Another outstanding and informative piece.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate having some thoughtful input on these matters; the media overall is a jungle of emotive noise and an empty desert of data or analysis!
Next give them JASSMs with 900km range, since the 'long range red line' was crossed anyways acording to the Ivans😆
Really helpful clarification of the semantic confusion and general FUD.
ATACMS is categorized as a CRBM - Close-Range Ballistic Missile - nothing long range about it (< 300 km)
SRBM - 300-1000 km (Short Range)
MRBM - 1000-3000 km (Medium Range)
IRBM - 3000-5500 km (Intermediate Range)
ICBM - +5500 km (Intercontinental)
Thank you. The Hysteria re. "long-range" missiles is being generated by Pootin's cunning thugs for a reason.......
What are things like the 80km Himars?
@@jenspetersen5865 They too cross Russian redlines!
@@jenspetersen5865Himars does not even fall in this category for obvious reasons.
@@jenspetersen5865
The M142 HIMARS or the M270 are MLRS - Multiple Launch Rocket System - like the the South Korean K239 Hunmoo.
They are meant to replace or augment traditional artillery systems.
Like the ATACMS that are fired from either the M142 or the M270, the Hunmoo can fire the CT290 - a CRBM with a range of approx 290 km.
It's the difference between strategic and tactical: two different scales.
Yeah, hence the acronym ATACMS. Army TACtical Missile System.
Ukraine allowed to do.. Oh, so there's a third party involved in the conflict? WHO??
If you want to screw around with definitions, ATACMS is a long range rocket mortar. Its the maximum range that you would expect artillery to strike, but it's not long range in the modern context.
What kind of artillery do you use that reaches out to 300km?
The collective West should listen to this and learn thanks for your analysis as always Anders .
I have heard that the reason Russia considers this a big deal is not because the range is longer, but because this system requires the involvement of US personnel to operate. So it is like the US is getting directly involved in the fighting rather than just supplying weapons that Ukranian troops operate independently. I don't know how true this is in practice but i had hoped you would discuss it.
Thank you, finally somebody talks about it. Ive heard "DEEP STRIKES" no 300km are not deep strikes, deep strikes are 1200km+ in the context of tomahawks
Thanks for the info! I appreciate your knowlage on the matter, Anders.
On NPR (US "public" radio station) last week, they referred to ATACMS as "ballistic" missiles.
Technically, _every_ missile (and even a well-thrown rock) is ballistic, but i found it very sus to include that modifier (to get people to make a mental association with ICBMS, obviously).
i wouldnt call it “sus” as much as i would call it “poor nomenclature”. warfare isn’t an exact science like biology or chemistry. there’s no IUPAC nomenclature council for missiles, although there really should be because that would be the funniest thing.
If I remember well, ATACAMs describe a near-ballistic trajectory ... in other woprds, the bell trajectory is not so high and rather flattened. Even the RU "Hazelnut" IRBM trajectory hass been described also as flatter compared to their bigger brothers' ICBMs; in other words: the former do not go so high in space; their range, speed and payload capability arer much smaller.
cruise missiles do not follow ballistic trajectories.
@@EugeneYunak
bal·lis·tic
adjective
1. relating to projectiles or their flight.
2. moving under the force of gravity only.
Definition #1 is why _technically_ every missile trajectory is a ballistic missile trajectory, even if #2 doesn't strictly apply.
And, why I don't think media agencies should casually refer to missiles as "ballistic" missiles unless they leave the atmosphere.
@ i don’t understand what you are trying to prove. that journos are brain dead peddlers of shocking headers without understanding the subject, manipulating the narrative and confusing the masses? that much is evident. but mudding the waters with factually wrong statements is no better. in military context, missiles are classified into BMs and CMs. not all missiles are ballistic, your statement “every missile is ballistic” is *technically* wrong. general purpose dictionary entries don’t change that.
ATACMS is a long range weapon when referring to fire support platforms. It is considered long range fires in a tactical and potentially operational sense. But What artillerymen may consider long range is not the same in a strategic sense (where red lines are normally drawn). As far as ballistic missiles go which ATACMS is one, it is a short ranged system. But ballistic missiles, longer ranged ones at least are generally considered strategic assets and are often used in geopolitics. Weapons that can create significant tensions such as ones seen between in Turkey and Cuba during the cold war. However, ATACMS is NOT a long range ballistic missile and not a strategic asset. Russia is purposely using the long range fires capability used in the context of tactical/operational fire support to evoke the same concerns associated with strategic weapons like IRBMs or ICBMs.
The key word is "Made in..."
dont listen to this guy, he predicted an ukrainian victory
Elon Musk, cancel F-35 ! 🙏🏼
D. Trump stop armament aid ! 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Save Russia 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Save rubel 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 wait ... it's too late 😮
Thank you for this video! Far too many pundits and media have been implying that these missiles are ‘long range’ … they are in fact are in reality no such weapon! appreciate this video.. 👍
Please try and get on the Joe Rogan podcast to put him straight
I think Russians care more about not what category ATACMS missiles are, but who are launching them from Ukraine. and even 5500km range missiles does not have enough range to retaliate, nor it would be a smart thing to do with even longer range missiles.
Thanks man, tell CNN
In reality it's just long range artillery.
Thanks, Anders, much needed clarity as ever.
No, they're not "long range" missiles, but their range is long enough to be damned inconvenient to Russia.
I don’t think the range is the issue even if It goes 1 mt into Russia the problem is that it can’t be used without NATO
So a NATO weapon is being used against Russia by NATO
It is basically a long range artillery system using missiles. The term artillery system would indicate the right context.
you forgot to mention these missiles need western input the ukes could press the button sure but they have to be set up by western personnel hence redline
It’s about classification and categorisation. Atacms is long range in the class of systems in which it sits. Just as a diesel tourer car is long range in the classification of cars, but short range in the class of transport.
But it baffles me why western media always jumps on the bandwagon wagon of hype. A dying breed.
The key word here is "Made in..."
It doesn't matter if they're long-range, they are longER range, AND, most importantly, the US, a nuclear superpower, is shooting rockets at Russia, the other nuclear superpower. That's like NOT GOOD. And you really care about the names in the context of that dangerous situation??
It's not the US shooting.
perhaps tell what it takes to program the launch of ATACMS and Storm Shadow and how that would be possible by Ukraine without support or involvement of other countries?
I had actually wondered about this so thank you very much for clarifying things. As always I just hope that those with influence are listening to you.
An educational video! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽🫵🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 New subscriber
It has been breathtaking to see all of the people who think they have original, rationally derived opinions all be worried about the same things as the kremlin, again and again and again as time has passed theses last 3 years.
First they were all worried about NATO expansion which isnt expansion, then they forgot about that and were worried about Ukraine targeting Russian speakers which wasnt happening, then they forgot about that and worried about the escalation ladder they'd never heard of before, then they forgot about that and.....
folks, you wanna see the extent and reach of the RF disinfo mechanisms, just look at the things the reactionaries worry about. It's always what the kremlin worries about, week to week to week.
Venäjä on aina esiintynyt uhrina vaikka on hyökkääjä.
We were right to worry about NATO expansion as it is the immediate proximate cause of the war. It has nothing to do with original thinking, it is rational to worry about the consequences of your actions.
Keep in mind we are not even dealing with long range missiles yet. So you can't purport to know how Russia will react to that.
But the good thing about those who claim not to worry about nuclear war is that even if you are wrong, no one shall be around to tell you about it.
@@michaelotieno6524 yaaaaay, I was hoping somebody would take the "expansion" bait since it so absurdly easy to prove that it is in fact _not_ rationally derived.
Let's propose a hypothetical to see if your worry is indeed rationally derived or merely situationally reactionary. Let us suppose that the US collapsed instead of the Soviets, and the First Nation peoples who have spent hundreds of years under the American thumb suddenly found themselves free to dictate their own sovereignty and national association. Now let us suppose some of those nations asked the Soviets to protect them from the Americans, since the new American leader was talking about how terrible it was that the US collapsed.
If the Soviets agreed to protect those First Nations peoples from the aggressive and revanchonist Americans, would that have been Soviet expansion? Or, instead of answering and exposing yourself, will you quibble with the wording or pointless specifics within the hypothetical, in the manner of the cornered pedant?
I4000 dudes were killed in donbas and putin urged zelensky to drop joining nato to avoid being invaded educate ypurself
@@michaelotieno6524 the obvious point of this is that while you are correct to cite it as a proximate cause, the rhetoric out of Moscow for the last two and a half decades makes it clear that a cause was sought, a casus belli was manufactured, not in response to any outside action but rather to justify internal motivations.
NATO 'expansion' is a red herring handed to those unable to work through why it is a false motivation. It was not the only one offered, but merely the one that had the most staying power in the west, leading to it's high citation rate. If it had failed to take hold, another motivation would have been offered, and you and I would now be arguing about that particular motivation instead. Because reactionaries gonna reactionary.
Just like how now you're being reactionary about nukes.
This channel consistently makes its viewers smarter, which is very rare on social media. Anders you are fantastic!
Rare insight and common sense on the internet. Such a breath of fresh air. One get the impression that the people who need to be listening the closest aren't doing so, though ;)
Excellent video!
Thank you for putting some actual facts out for people to hear in this time of insane rhetoric ❤
Great explanation
No.
Keep calling them Long Range.
Then wait a sec and give them actual LONG RANGE missiles.
ATACMS is a short range theatre ballistic missile (about 1000km or less) a type that Russia has been using frequently on Ukraine throughout this invasion.
The video is missing a couple of relevant issues.
First, Russia is trying to make it sound like it's the US that is effectively launching the ATACMS missiles into the Kursk region, which would supposedly justify a counterattack not just on Ukraine, but on the US.
Second, there's a subtle but important distinction between different types of ATACMS missiles. The US is current providing only the 150 km range cluster warhead ATACMS missiles, which are useful against soft targets like North Korean troops or Russian aircraft in the Kursk region.
However, there is another model of ATACMS, which have a 300 km range and have a unitary warhead suitable for attacking hard targets like the Kerch bridge. The US has not yet approved these, and they are sometimes called "long range ATACMS" to distinguish them from the 150 km range "medium range ATACMS".
The missiles Russia would really object to are the latter kind, that could take out the Kerch bridge. So they've designed their propaganda to bamboozle the US into failing to provide the 300 km range unitary warhead ATACMS missiles that could really be a game changer by taking out the Kerch bridge.
All they needed to say was “longER-range missiles”
Ukraine ❤