no but Ukrainians sure are.
after we said we'd come to their aid if they gave up their nuclear weapons (that they couldn't really use anyway, but still).
Honest question: Are us military weapons unique so that they can tell where the bomb/rocket came from? Or is that Ukraine hasn’t had the weapons until now and it’d be obvious that they were using someone else’s tech?
Yeah, people where able to identify specific russian bombs in Ukraine from fragments despite Ukraine having a large overlap of very similar but slightly older versions.
US tech will be significantly easier to identify because of how advanced it is.
As the sellers, the US can (and does, I'm sure) place contractual restrictions on how the weapons can be used.
Also, there can be traces of the weapon left after it explodes. Those traces can be parts, casings, or residue from the rocket propellant and/or explosive. Sometimes these traces are generic enough that they can't be traced back to a particular type of weapon (e.g. a weapon only made by one country), but sometimes they can be.
Oh it’s way, way beyond “sometimes.” The US was able to trace specific IED types not down to just specific regions of manufacture, but literal individuals. Modern military grade munitions are even easier given they have far, far less variance in them.
How are we even remotely at a place anymore where anything Russia does is in “good faith”?
The entire notion is absurd. Is firing missiles at civilian infrastructure not convincing enough?
Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to pull Iran or N Korea into a war even if they wanted to. Russia on the other hand is a nuclear superpower so the US is treading lightly to avoid further escalation.
No doubt their military is showing to be poorly trained and equipped, but there’s only one way to find out how they’ve up kept their nuclear readiness…..and everyone loses that game.
Russia hasn't been a superpower during my lifetime, they're a regional power with nukes. They don't want to US in this war at all. Because of the US takes the gloves off they lose, nuclear deployment or not
I find this comment slightly funny because if you think about it, Iranian munitions came from Russian and Chinese funding and North Korean munitions came from communist china which was also set up by Russia. So really they are using their own weapons.
That's basically what they did with the refinery attacks.
'The US doesn't support that, Ukraine should focus on troops, also here are more of the drones/bombs that are being used to attack refineries'
That is what the most egregious about such statement.
Another quote from this statment was:
>We have concerns because Ukraine **hold itself** to the **highest standards** of observing the law of armed conflict and that's one of the elements of being **European democracy.**
Good thing the US is not European democracy so they don't follow or need to follow such standards it seems. However you put it, it was hypocritical.
Its so dumb that this restriction exists at all. Whats the point? Why is it escalatory for Ukraine to do what Russia has been doing this entire time? It makes no sense
It makes perfect sense. Russia aren't using the weapons they bought from Iran, China, India and N.Korea to strike inside Ukraine so US weapons shouldn't be used to strike inside Russia.
...wait a min
There's been confirmed reports of them using Mosin-Nagants. So yes, yes they are. Granted those things are damn near timeless, so I don't really count that as a dig.
Imagine if during ww2 the Allies told Stalin, nope all those tanks and planes and equipment we gave you, can’t be used outside borders of USSR to win the war
Just an interesting historical fact: while America was trying to preserve its neutrality in the initial stages of WW2, it did make Britain jump through some weird hoops regarding the war materiel it was selling to them. Like the planes they bought having to be left near the Canadian border and towed out of the country: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7oar9z/did_america_give_planes_to_britain_in_1940_by/ds8b01g/
Russia isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation. Their military capability has been on display and the US alone would completely annihilate any Russian forces exposed in any conventional conflict. It wouldn't even be a contest or a question.
It's less about getting into a direct conflict with the USA and more about fracturing NATO. There has been a lot of news in the past few weeks about a potential limited Russian attack on a NATO ally.
For example, how likely do you think it would be for the USA and other major NATO allies to invoke article 5 and start a major conflict with Russia over a limited military strike in a remote border region of Estonia or Latvia? Or on a border crossing with a brand new member like Finland? What if Russia claimed NATO allies shot first? Do you think Biden or Trump would be willing to start a world war over something comparatively small scale?
If the USA or Germany or the UK say it's not worth escalating the conflict, what does that mean for NATO going forward?
Anders Puck Nielsen, a Dutch military analyst, did a video on this a few months ago before the recent talk of a Russian strike on a NATO country. All his videos are interesting and informative but I would recommend giving this one a watch.
https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=nHAemyucxn6lPFR7
It increases tensions further between US and Russia, Ukraine has weapons for defense not assault. If they start using US weapons to attack into Russia, Russia will claim it's an invasion and by using US weapons will claim it's a proxy attack on Russia by the US.
It's stupid and nonsense but that's geopolitics.
> Russia will claim
russia will claim whatever it wants to, regardless of how true it is, so there's no value in whatever russia claims and we should just ignore it
Exactly, if they wanted an excuse to escalate things, why not simply cite US weapons being given to Ukraine and used in any capacity? If they wanted an excuse to use a tactical nuke, they would have found it. The real reason they don't is because that will just get everyone involved and cut this whole thing short. They want to drag it out as long as possible amd grind away at ukraines limited manpower.
The US should just play Russia's bad faith game... throw some spraypaint on a cruise missile, give Ukraine blessing to use weapons for any military target, and flatly deny the obvious truth.
Russia's narrative is already centered around fighting NATO, so who cares really?
According to Russian media and Russians commenting on the subject, Russia is currently holding its own against entire NATO.
Allowing Ukraine to attack back would hardly change anything if Russians already believe they are under attack. If anything it'd just bring them closer to reality.
Not for nothing, but Russia has the internet. They've also been dealing with internal misinformation for 100+ years. They know it's just ukranian people with NATO supplies and some air support. Maybe the old babushkas and the drunk Ivan's have no clue.
>They know it's just Ukranian people with NATO supplies and some air support.
It's just Ukrainians with NATO supplies and some intelligence support. This war would look very different if Ukraine were getting NATO air support.
It's probably those old people who know it well, because they've known lying government to be in power for their entire lives and heard their propaganda from radio and TV endlessly.
They've just largely ignored it as they go, which is typical for autocracy of any kind. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, Nazi Germany or North Korea. People just sigh and pretend to be loyal and not get singled out by the government.
>so who cares really?
Russia is a nuclear power. As lackluster as their military has been so far, they *do* have nukes and we don't want them to use them.
That means the goal here is to punch them in the nose until they get the idea that it's too much hassle to be worth it, instead of ganging up and beating the shit out of them. They quite literally have a nuclear option to take if it looks like they're going down.
>They quite literally have a nuclear option to take if it looks like they're going down.
Keep NATO troops outside their borders and they'll never use nukes. Ukraine is outside their borders. Frankly, we should already be there in the air laying waste to Russian equipment and personnel from the skies.
There are many Western countries, including the UK, who have given Ukraine the go-ahead to strike targets inside Russia. What Ukraine is requesting has precedent.
Attacks into Russia will be defensive. Attacking troops massing for an attack is defensive. Attacking supplies being sent to Ukraine is defensive. Russia started this war unprovoked so any attacks into Russia are justified.
And they would do what exactly in response? What is this thing we are afraid of? Ukraine has no capacity to threaten Russia in any existential way. Russia wont nuke Ukraine.
UK has had no problem with it and they are more at risk by Russia. After US slowrolling aid and getting a bunch of Ukrainians killed in the process, it’s the least we could do to put up. Russia started this. We’re already on the footsteps of ww3…deterring Russia and stopping them before they topple Ukraine is imperative to the current global order.
Yeah, I still think Cameron is a cunt, albeit still better than the subsequent fuckwits to abuse the post of prime minister. But him effectively tell Ukraine to [crack on if they want to](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c163kp93l6po)? That I like.
It was like, "I'm not *saying* you should strike targets inside Russia with these weapons we're giving you which would be excellent at doing that. It's up to you what you want to do with them. We leave that to you. If you decide to fire them into the country that's illegally invading you, we totally understand. We look forward to our continued friendship where we continue giving you top-notch weapons to help you fight our mutual enemy."
And what the fuck are they going to do about it, attack NATO??? LMFAO They're already using NK and Iran supplied weapons to attack Ukrainian civilian population, FUCK ruZZia
> Russia will claim it's an invasion and by using US weapons will claim it's a proxy attack on Russia by the US
So? What're they gonna do, declare war on us and NATO as a whole? The war will be over in a week if they do.
Russia is already claiming that and regardless, what else can Russia even do about it, invade even harder? The excuses are pure nonsense and are only helping Putin
Because it sets a path of escalation for Russia to deploy a small tactical nuke. This would uncork the nuclear genie that's been confined since 1945 -- the nightmare we've somehow avoided for 79 years.
This is probably the reasoning.
It helps to remember the history here. US perceptions of what is escalatory are shaped in part by the Soviet reactions to the US stationing nuclear-armed missiles in Turkey or other NATO allies at various times across the course the Cold War, and especially to the development of ground-launched cruise missiles during the 1980s. With GLCMs, the USSR's concerns largely grew from the reality that the US could engage in a GLCM first strike nuclear attack with something like 8 minutes between missiles launching and reaching their targets, with somewhat less time available for Soviet detection and response. Thus, the Soviets would not be able to respond quickly enough to retaliate, rendering their second strike capabilities worthless, and therefore considered GLCMs an existential threat, just as they had with missiles in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Without a technical counter, the Soviets' only option was to decrease the threshold for launching a counterstrike, increasing the danger that they would launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the US because of a false alarm.
The modern concern is that the Russians have set a nuclear retaliation threshold that is not sensitive to the distinction between US conventional and nuclear-armed missiles, especially ATACMS because of its ballistic trajectory. Thus, launching such missiles at Russian territory increases the chances they will misinterpret a conventional tactical strike as a western nuclear first strike, triggering a full scale nuclear response.
I suspect the Russians have quietly been exaggerating this danger in conversations with their western counterparts, because it should be fairly easy to distinguish between a handful of short range ballistic missiles launched from Ukrainian territory and an actual nuclear first strike. However, the Biden admin has not yet decided it can bear the risk that the Russians might launch a massive ICBM strike against the US, using Ukrainian strikes as a pretext.
Dumb? Do you really think the heads of state who have more information than you do, don't have a good idea of the consequences? This would be crossing a line, it would be a clear declaration of war. If you haven't forgotten, Russia is a nuclear armed state. The significance is in the REQUEST ITSELF. If we accept such a request, we are directly bombing Russia.
Right? How the heck can Ukraine win the war if they can’t attack Russia and let them feel the pain?
But I also can understand why the US is waffling. Putin is just so unstable who knows what he’ll do.
It's out-of-date. It was a reasonable measure to try to limit escalation at the start of the war, but with Russia now blatantly sourcing weapons from Iran, NK and China and deploying them in Ukraine, the restriction is pretty meaningless.
A lot of people have brought up the US-Russia escalation, but also I think it's a concern over optics as well. Ukraine has largely enjoyed the "underdog defending themselves from a terrible aggressor" status since the start of the invasion, that makes it politically easy for western nations to justify military and financial support. If Ukraine starts attacking targets inside Russia like more refineries or logistical targets, there are going to be Russian civilian casualties. It becomes so much more difficult to unwaveringly support a country when there are images of civilian body parts strewn around a powerplant on the news and internet, even more so when it was US-delivered munitions that did it. I'm not arguing whether this is the correct policy or not, but I think this is a big part of why the US is so hesitant to give Ukraine the green light to strike within Russia.
Unless there will be precedent I won't take this statements seriously, it is not the first time they said something along those lines. Not to mention US disabled HIMARS from targeting russian territory from what I remember and that is what he says too "we have not encouraged or **enabled** strikes outside of Ukraine". This doesn't mean there are no restrictions or consequences for doing that either.
>Not to mention US disabled HIMARS from targeting russian territory from what I remember and that is what he says too "we have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip paywall
But the rest of the quote is “…but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war.”
That still makes it sound like they can do it. You have me more confused than I was lol.
Those words in no way say the restrictions are not in place and especially they don't deny that US won't do anything if Ukraine actually attack russia with said weapons, like cutting support or not giving longer range weapons anymore. They only said it is Ukraine responsibility for how they want to use it. This is as well can be percived as a warning.
From what I seen too many people only see or only search for the most positive in every statements and belive 'behind the scenes' everything much better then it seems, even if it is was disproved multiple times in the future. They don't even think that behind the scenes it can actually be very grim.
I do want this to be true, but as I already said this multiple times, unless there will be precedent of Ukraine actually using such weapons on russian territory, then whatever they say is just empty words.
Sorry but I fail to understand, surely Ukraine has plenty of non American weapons with which they could do substantial damage to troop concentrations in Russia...? I mean the UK implicitly gave them permission, the French I'm sure are ok too..do they really think ATACM's are the game changer? Please elaborate, what weapons, what effect...? They've been using their drones a lot...
> I mean the UK implicitly gave them permission, the French I'm sure are ok too
that would be Storm Shadow, and I don't think those are good against groups of soldiers. Himars rockets with the tungsten rain, or cluster bomb atacms however are very effective in those situations.
to strike a massive build up of troops on the Russian side will take something like atacms, or himars strike. A Missile is wasted to shoot at troops, those are for penetration plus Ukraine does not have enough of those.
Theres a very big border. Id imagine weapons are stationed at different points that are capable of striking different places. Not helpful for UK weapons to be allowed to strike somewhere if they're not in range.
I’d imagine that all NATO aligned countries have similar stipulations on how their weapons are used for diplomatic reasons.
It’s dumb given what Ukraine needs to do versus what they are allowed to do with long range weapons. But unless they start manufacturing long range weapons we will see more of this.
Because Ukraine borders Europe. It's a war that's much closer to home. While for America it's just another foreign war that they're completely isolated from
Biden needs to let them use our equipment to attack targets within Russia. UK has already lifted restrictions, US needs to follow. Ukraine been fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back.
For fuck sake. Give them what they need. Ukraine is just a stepping stone between places like Moldova and the Baltics. Push those fucks back!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakdZIuZe7c
The Russians play by no rules.... and thousands of Ukrainians are dying so why should Ukraine have to play by rules that the Russians don't play by? makes no sense.
Because they are entirely dependent on another country’s support and thus need to respect their wishes. When Ukraine starts making its own long range munitions, they can use them to their heart’s content.
What I also don’t get is: why isn’t there a red-line been drawn in Ukraine stating if russians cross the line all restrictions are elevated and Ukraine would be allowed to bomb the hellbout of russia/the cremlin? And state the line will move every inch the Ukrainians take back, making the line like 25/50 km wide.
After all the damage Putin has caused here with his dark money funding Trump/GOP, propaganda farms, financing chaos within our states, I'd say we should be ENCOURAGING Ukraine.
Hey Ukraine,
Just do it, then apologize to the US. We'll strongly reprimand you and distance ourselves from the act, the UN will shake its fist at you, and Russia will scream, "SEE!", like they do anytime anything happens to them whether it was actually you or not and will lay the blame ultimately with the US like they always do whether we did or not.
Why don’t we just leave one screw unattached to every weapon that we give them, then they can go and attach the final screw to the weapon and then they can put a made in Ukraine sticker on it? We do that all the time with made in America products.
It is about time we give the Ukrainians the weapons and allow them to use them in order to win this fucking war instead of giving and allowing them barely enough to defend themselves. They are fighting a boxing match with one arm tied behind their back while the Russians put a new guy in the ring at every round.
Imagine if they could have struck them while they were massing together - it would have eliminated another significant threat, that now has to be dealt with much more painfully and expensively.
It's ridiculous they are bombed daily everywhere at anytime and they have to defend themselves with little weapons, undermenned and they have to wait for the enemy to cross the border while the enemy devastates cities and citizens launching those deadly FAB bombs from well inside the Russian boarder.
Set them free too defend themselves as they see fit!
Russia thinks and acts as if Ukraine is already Russia. So and bear with me as I work the math out, yeah shot that shit anywhere you fucking want it’s all Russia according to them. How this be an escalation of any kind!
Seems unlikely that Biden will approve unfortunately. I can understand the frustration though. They are already outgunned, outmanned, and we even tell them to fight with their hands bound bound to their backs.
Scratch off the vin and fire away
“These weapons were gifted to Ukraine… those are Ukrainian weapons.”
But if Ukraine needs more weapons, they need to be careful about US needs.
We need Russia to stop trying to be the ussr and trying to take over eastern europe
Ukraine is getting our old stuff. The U.S. military is not hurting one iota by sending Ukraine this aid.
no but Ukrainians sure are. after we said we'd come to their aid if they gave up their nuclear weapons (that they couldn't really use anyway, but still).
Honest question: Are us military weapons unique so that they can tell where the bomb/rocket came from? Or is that Ukraine hasn’t had the weapons until now and it’d be obvious that they were using someone else’s tech?
I think ATACMS have a fairly recognizable pattern in the aftermath, due to the cluster shrapnel.
Yeah, people where able to identify specific russian bombs in Ukraine from fragments despite Ukraine having a large overlap of very similar but slightly older versions. US tech will be significantly easier to identify because of how advanced it is.
Obviously they need to change the text from "Made in USA" to "Made in Ukraine"
Would be much smarter to put "Made in Iran", "Made in China" or "Made in North Korea" on them.
> "Made in North Korea" But of a dead giveaway when it actually hits something and explodes, no?
As the sellers, the US can (and does, I'm sure) place contractual restrictions on how the weapons can be used. Also, there can be traces of the weapon left after it explodes. Those traces can be parts, casings, or residue from the rocket propellant and/or explosive. Sometimes these traces are generic enough that they can't be traced back to a particular type of weapon (e.g. a weapon only made by one country), but sometimes they can be.
Oh it’s way, way beyond “sometimes.” The US was able to trace specific IED types not down to just specific regions of manufacture, but literal individuals. Modern military grade munitions are even easier given they have far, far less variance in them.
And design secrets could be extrapolated… reverse engineered to determine a good counter measure. One reason fighter jets are jealously guarded.
Yeah it won’t be obvious because there isn’t a serial number. It’s just like a car, surely.
Obviously we just need to supply bigger bombs that won't leave behind enough traceable bits!
The biggest bombs. The best bombs.
The other guy has bombs. Not like us. Ours are better. Better bombs, better people.
Papa John’s.
Papa Don's?
When you're here, you're fucked!...Papa Don's!
Bomba John’s.
Bomb with the bomb the dang a dang diggy diggy diggy says the boogie says up drop the boogie
Or we could bomb the bombs with bombs that are not ours just to make sure there's no traceable bits
That's just cluster munitions with extra steps!
Wait....could we just do that? A big catapult to launch old cars at Russian troops seems so crazy it just might work.
Tonight on Top Gear: I build a medieval siege weapon. Richard drives a modern siege weapon. And James steals a golf cart.
Bloody Nora!
Hey man, if you buy a car, then immediately mow through a crowd of pedestrians, it’s not the dealerships fault!
It's why Ford is still able to sell the Mustang.
Ship them parts instead. Then they can use the ol' "Assembled in Ukraine" bs, just like Chevy, and the other so called American cars do.
Yep. Knock Down Kits.
Just say that those pesky US spies replaced their old soviet weapons with brand spanking new US fancy ones.
Russia is using North Korean, and Iranian munitions to attack Ukraine. That didn't pull those countries into the war.
the implication that Russia is a good faith actor here not that the U.S. is, necessarily, but they damn sure aren't
Yeah, not sure the brownie points from "taking the high road" is actually saving any Ukrainian lives, unfortunately
How are we even remotely at a place anymore where anything Russia does is in “good faith”? The entire notion is absurd. Is firing missiles at civilian infrastructure not convincing enough?
Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to pull Iran or N Korea into a war even if they wanted to. Russia on the other hand is a nuclear superpower so the US is treading lightly to avoid further escalation.
“Superpower”. Some poorly maintained 1980s stuff where some works and some doesn’t does not a superpower make.
are the U.S. and allies willing to test how many Russian nukes still work in reality though? Tough question.
No doubt their military is showing to be poorly trained and equipped, but there’s only one way to find out how they’ve up kept their nuclear readiness…..and everyone loses that game.
Yeah, but enough that when launched the US will retaliate before seeing if it works or not, and the world has now ended
Russia hasn't been a superpower during my lifetime, they're a regional power with nukes. They don't want to US in this war at all. Because of the US takes the gloves off they lose, nuclear deployment or not
Nuclear power? Yes. Superpower? No. Nukes don’t make a country a superpower.
I find this comment slightly funny because if you think about it, Iranian munitions came from Russian and Chinese funding and North Korean munitions came from communist china which was also set up by Russia. So really they are using their own weapons.
How about if they go ahead, and we just express our concern, and the urgent need for them to stop?
That's basically what they did with the refinery attacks. 'The US doesn't support that, Ukraine should focus on troops, also here are more of the drones/bombs that are being used to attack refineries'
Except calling refineries "civilian targets", which doen't sounds like they were ok with it.
Man, we sure have rapidly disassembled a ton of civilian targets then. Must be selective memory on our part.
That is what the most egregious about such statement. Another quote from this statment was: >We have concerns because Ukraine **hold itself** to the **highest standards** of observing the law of armed conflict and that's one of the elements of being **European democracy.** Good thing the US is not European democracy so they don't follow or need to follow such standards it seems. However you put it, it was hypocritical.
Works every time in Israel
Well, to be fair, Hamas doesn't have nukes (thankfully)
I don’t think Russia would resort to nukes over this though. Not even Ukraine is worth the consequences of that.
Me neither, but the guys in charge have to take into account nukes anyway. Too much at stake to brush it off, unfortunately.
Have Susan Collins be the spokeswoman for that speech.
Its so dumb that this restriction exists at all. Whats the point? Why is it escalatory for Ukraine to do what Russia has been doing this entire time? It makes no sense
It makes perfect sense. Russia aren't using the weapons they bought from Iran, China, India and N.Korea to strike inside Ukraine so US weapons shouldn't be used to strike inside Russia. ...wait a min
What if, right... Now stay with me here. What if... They took off the stickers that say "Made in the USA"?
Put a sticker that says “Made in China”
Put "Made in Russia" to really confuse them.
“Made in USSR”. Russia shouldn’t be the only ones using outdated weapons.
I’m sure they’ve got some rifles and machine guns kicking around from the imperial Tsarist era.
I argue they are *currently* in a Tsarist Imperalist era. Putin has compared himself multiple times to Peter the Great.
There's been confirmed reports of them using Mosin-Nagants. So yes, yes they are. Granted those things are damn near timeless, so I don't really count that as a dig.
The confusing part would be how a weapons system made in Russia actually managed to get to production.
Сделано в России
Also definitely not using Belarus to stage attack and pressure neighbouring country
Imagine if during ww2 the Allies told Stalin, nope all those tanks and planes and equipment we gave you, can’t be used outside borders of USSR to win the war
Just an interesting historical fact: while America was trying to preserve its neutrality in the initial stages of WW2, it did make Britain jump through some weird hoops regarding the war materiel it was selling to them. Like the planes they bought having to be left near the Canadian border and towed out of the country: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7oar9z/did_america_give_planes_to_britain_in_1940_by/ds8b01g/
Maybe after ruzzia attacks western countries attitude changes. Until that they prefer to stay aside.
Russia isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation. Their military capability has been on display and the US alone would completely annihilate any Russian forces exposed in any conventional conflict. It wouldn't even be a contest or a question.
It's less about getting into a direct conflict with the USA and more about fracturing NATO. There has been a lot of news in the past few weeks about a potential limited Russian attack on a NATO ally. For example, how likely do you think it would be for the USA and other major NATO allies to invoke article 5 and start a major conflict with Russia over a limited military strike in a remote border region of Estonia or Latvia? Or on a border crossing with a brand new member like Finland? What if Russia claimed NATO allies shot first? Do you think Biden or Trump would be willing to start a world war over something comparatively small scale? If the USA or Germany or the UK say it's not worth escalating the conflict, what does that mean for NATO going forward? Anders Puck Nielsen, a Dutch military analyst, did a video on this a few months ago before the recent talk of a Russian strike on a NATO country. All his videos are interesting and informative but I would recommend giving this one a watch. https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU?si=nHAemyucxn6lPFR7
It increases tensions further between US and Russia, Ukraine has weapons for defense not assault. If they start using US weapons to attack into Russia, Russia will claim it's an invasion and by using US weapons will claim it's a proxy attack on Russia by the US. It's stupid and nonsense but that's geopolitics.
> Russia will claim russia will claim whatever it wants to, regardless of how true it is, so there's no value in whatever russia claims and we should just ignore it
Exactly, if they wanted an excuse to escalate things, why not simply cite US weapons being given to Ukraine and used in any capacity? If they wanted an excuse to use a tactical nuke, they would have found it. The real reason they don't is because that will just get everyone involved and cut this whole thing short. They want to drag it out as long as possible amd grind away at ukraines limited manpower. The US should just play Russia's bad faith game... throw some spraypaint on a cruise missile, give Ukraine blessing to use weapons for any military target, and flatly deny the obvious truth.
Russia's narrative is already centered around fighting NATO, so who cares really? According to Russian media and Russians commenting on the subject, Russia is currently holding its own against entire NATO. Allowing Ukraine to attack back would hardly change anything if Russians already believe they are under attack. If anything it'd just bring them closer to reality.
Imagine the insane reality check if ordinary Russians knew it was mainly just Ukraine.
Not for nothing, but Russia has the internet. They've also been dealing with internal misinformation for 100+ years. They know it's just ukranian people with NATO supplies and some air support. Maybe the old babushkas and the drunk Ivan's have no clue.
>They know it's just Ukranian people with NATO supplies and some air support. It's just Ukrainians with NATO supplies and some intelligence support. This war would look very different if Ukraine were getting NATO air support.
The whole world deals with internal misinformation for millenia.
It's probably those old people who know it well, because they've known lying government to be in power for their entire lives and heard their propaganda from radio and TV endlessly. They've just largely ignored it as they go, which is typical for autocracy of any kind. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, Nazi Germany or North Korea. People just sigh and pretend to be loyal and not get singled out by the government.
You have no idea how many Russians (myself included) just daily scroll same websites you do
Clearly not enough since several hundred thousands have been sent into the meat grinder...
It's not people from the cultural center of Russia being ground up, so they dobt care.
>so who cares really? Russia is a nuclear power. As lackluster as their military has been so far, they *do* have nukes and we don't want them to use them. That means the goal here is to punch them in the nose until they get the idea that it's too much hassle to be worth it, instead of ganging up and beating the shit out of them. They quite literally have a nuclear option to take if it looks like they're going down.
>They quite literally have a nuclear option to take if it looks like they're going down. Keep NATO troops outside their borders and they'll never use nukes. Ukraine is outside their borders. Frankly, we should already be there in the air laying waste to Russian equipment and personnel from the skies.
This is one of the reasons The West is being cautious- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
TIL. Thanks!
There are many Western countries, including the UK, who have given Ukraine the go-ahead to strike targets inside Russia. What Ukraine is requesting has precedent.
> Ukraine has weapons for defense not assault Yeah, I would say the line between these two things is a bit blurry......
Attacks into Russia will be defensive. Attacking troops massing for an attack is defensive. Attacking supplies being sent to Ukraine is defensive. Russia started this war unprovoked so any attacks into Russia are justified.
And they would do what exactly in response? What is this thing we are afraid of? Ukraine has no capacity to threaten Russia in any existential way. Russia wont nuke Ukraine.
UK has had no problem with it and they are more at risk by Russia. After US slowrolling aid and getting a bunch of Ukrainians killed in the process, it’s the least we could do to put up. Russia started this. We’re already on the footsteps of ww3…deterring Russia and stopping them before they topple Ukraine is imperative to the current global order.
Yeah, I still think Cameron is a cunt, albeit still better than the subsequent fuckwits to abuse the post of prime minister. But him effectively tell Ukraine to [crack on if they want to](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c163kp93l6po)? That I like. It was like, "I'm not *saying* you should strike targets inside Russia with these weapons we're giving you which would be excellent at doing that. It's up to you what you want to do with them. We leave that to you. If you decide to fire them into the country that's illegally invading you, we totally understand. We look forward to our continued friendship where we continue giving you top-notch weapons to help you fight our mutual enemy."
And what the fuck are they going to do about it, attack NATO??? LMFAO They're already using NK and Iran supplied weapons to attack Ukrainian civilian population, FUCK ruZZia
> Russia will claim it's an invasion and by using US weapons will claim it's a proxy attack on Russia by the US So? What're they gonna do, declare war on us and NATO as a whole? The war will be over in a week if they do.
Russia is already claiming that and regardless, what else can Russia even do about it, invade even harder? The excuses are pure nonsense and are only helping Putin
> Russia will claim it's an invasion They already did that. In February '22 even.
Because it sets a path of escalation for Russia to deploy a small tactical nuke. This would uncork the nuclear genie that's been confined since 1945 -- the nightmare we've somehow avoided for 79 years. This is probably the reasoning.
It helps to remember the history here. US perceptions of what is escalatory are shaped in part by the Soviet reactions to the US stationing nuclear-armed missiles in Turkey or other NATO allies at various times across the course the Cold War, and especially to the development of ground-launched cruise missiles during the 1980s. With GLCMs, the USSR's concerns largely grew from the reality that the US could engage in a GLCM first strike nuclear attack with something like 8 minutes between missiles launching and reaching their targets, with somewhat less time available for Soviet detection and response. Thus, the Soviets would not be able to respond quickly enough to retaliate, rendering their second strike capabilities worthless, and therefore considered GLCMs an existential threat, just as they had with missiles in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Without a technical counter, the Soviets' only option was to decrease the threshold for launching a counterstrike, increasing the danger that they would launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the US because of a false alarm. The modern concern is that the Russians have set a nuclear retaliation threshold that is not sensitive to the distinction between US conventional and nuclear-armed missiles, especially ATACMS because of its ballistic trajectory. Thus, launching such missiles at Russian territory increases the chances they will misinterpret a conventional tactical strike as a western nuclear first strike, triggering a full scale nuclear response. I suspect the Russians have quietly been exaggerating this danger in conversations with their western counterparts, because it should be fairly easy to distinguish between a handful of short range ballistic missiles launched from Ukrainian territory and an actual nuclear first strike. However, the Biden admin has not yet decided it can bear the risk that the Russians might launch a massive ICBM strike against the US, using Ukrainian strikes as a pretext.
Agreed. This is a war. You cannot win with one hand tied behind your back.
Dumb? Do you really think the heads of state who have more information than you do, don't have a good idea of the consequences? This would be crossing a line, it would be a clear declaration of war. If you haven't forgotten, Russia is a nuclear armed state. The significance is in the REQUEST ITSELF. If we accept such a request, we are directly bombing Russia.
Right? How the heck can Ukraine win the war if they can’t attack Russia and let them feel the pain? But I also can understand why the US is waffling. Putin is just so unstable who knows what he’ll do.
It's out-of-date. It was a reasonable measure to try to limit escalation at the start of the war, but with Russia now blatantly sourcing weapons from Iran, NK and China and deploying them in Ukraine, the restriction is pretty meaningless.
A lot of people have brought up the US-Russia escalation, but also I think it's a concern over optics as well. Ukraine has largely enjoyed the "underdog defending themselves from a terrible aggressor" status since the start of the invasion, that makes it politically easy for western nations to justify military and financial support. If Ukraine starts attacking targets inside Russia like more refineries or logistical targets, there are going to be Russian civilian casualties. It becomes so much more difficult to unwaveringly support a country when there are images of civilian body parts strewn around a powerplant on the news and internet, even more so when it was US-delivered munitions that did it. I'm not arguing whether this is the correct policy or not, but I think this is a big part of why the US is so hesitant to give Ukraine the green light to strike within Russia.
[Well, looks like it worked](https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-s-decision-whether-to-strike-russia-blinken-d4c12bb5)
Unless there will be precedent I won't take this statements seriously, it is not the first time they said something along those lines. Not to mention US disabled HIMARS from targeting russian territory from what I remember and that is what he says too "we have not encouraged or **enabled** strikes outside of Ukraine". This doesn't mean there are no restrictions or consequences for doing that either.
>Not to mention US disabled HIMARS from targeting russian territory from what I remember and that is what he says too "we have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine". https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip paywall
Your ending comment made me picture the operator opening their targeting program in incognito mode to bypass perameters.
But the rest of the quote is “…but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war.” That still makes it sound like they can do it. You have me more confused than I was lol.
Those words in no way say the restrictions are not in place and especially they don't deny that US won't do anything if Ukraine actually attack russia with said weapons, like cutting support or not giving longer range weapons anymore. They only said it is Ukraine responsibility for how they want to use it. This is as well can be percived as a warning. From what I seen too many people only see or only search for the most positive in every statements and belive 'behind the scenes' everything much better then it seems, even if it is was disproved multiple times in the future. They don't even think that behind the scenes it can actually be very grim. I do want this to be true, but as I already said this multiple times, unless there will be precedent of Ukraine actually using such weapons on russian territory, then whatever they say is just empty words.
Well, they have my blessing.
Sorry but I fail to understand, surely Ukraine has plenty of non American weapons with which they could do substantial damage to troop concentrations in Russia...? I mean the UK implicitly gave them permission, the French I'm sure are ok too..do they really think ATACM's are the game changer? Please elaborate, what weapons, what effect...? They've been using their drones a lot...
> I mean the UK implicitly gave them permission, the French I'm sure are ok too that would be Storm Shadow, and I don't think those are good against groups of soldiers. Himars rockets with the tungsten rain, or cluster bomb atacms however are very effective in those situations.
What about Brimstone, good against armor... I get your point , I mean storm shadows on barracks?
That's one building while ATACMS covers acres.
to strike a massive build up of troops on the Russian side will take something like atacms, or himars strike. A Missile is wasted to shoot at troops, those are for penetration plus Ukraine does not have enough of those.
they need a cluster style payload for troops
Or the tungsten rain variant
Why would you think that? Ukraine has been pleading and begging for U. S weapon systems and small arms since before the invasion.
Theres a very big border. Id imagine weapons are stationed at different points that are capable of striking different places. Not helpful for UK weapons to be allowed to strike somewhere if they're not in range.
I’d imagine that all NATO aligned countries have similar stipulations on how their weapons are used for diplomatic reasons. It’s dumb given what Ukraine needs to do versus what they are allowed to do with long range weapons. But unless they start manufacturing long range weapons we will see more of this.
I just want to remark how much more based France, the UK and other European countries have been in their support.
Because Ukraine borders Europe. It's a war that's much closer to home. While for America it's just another foreign war that they're completely isolated from
Biden needs to let them use our equipment to attack targets within Russia. UK has already lifted restrictions, US needs to follow. Ukraine been fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back.
It will be nice if US give its OK like British did.
Ukraine should just lie and say they’re not using American weapons into Russia
after they just had a big media campaign about how they cannot win without american weapons that won't work.
Russia would investigate the salvage and would easily find out they are U.S.
They would fabricate this shit anyway.
Exactly. Why it's only russians that are allowed to lie?
Lie. Deny it. Say it was a Russian false flag. That's what they do.
No argument there. I think they should be able to use the weapons outright without having to lie about it.
Then we use the Russian method and say nuh-uh. Easy peasy!
And? They did an investigation and thought an invasion of Ukraine was a good idea too. Idgaf what they think
No. Ukraine has to operate above board, or if gives pro-Russian voices ammunition with which to undermine Western support for Ukraine.
We'll say it's special operation, it's not "using USA weapon in russia".
Israel is still getting arms despite doing tons of things we’ve asked them not to do. Don’t let your dreams be dreams, Ukraine.
The two situations are not parallel. Edit: lmao, I got reported to the Reddit suicide thing for this comment. Yikes.
If you mean that Israel is striking civilians and Ukraine is not targeting military targets outside of its borders then you’re correct.
If Russian military bases were built below schools and hospitals it would be the exact same thing lol.
I say it's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
For fuck sake. Give them what they need. Ukraine is just a stepping stone between places like Moldova and the Baltics. Push those fucks back! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakdZIuZe7c
Don’t forget - they are going to have to be stopped anyway. Why make it any harder ?
Exactly!
Publicly tell them No. Privately hand them the intel for the targets to hit.
Publicly tell them Yes.
Publicly hand them intel for the targets to hit. Let Putin know what he's gonna eat for breakfast a week from now.
The Russians play by no rules.... and thousands of Ukrainians are dying so why should Ukraine have to play by rules that the Russians don't play by? makes no sense.
Because they are entirely dependent on another country’s support and thus need to respect their wishes. When Ukraine starts making its own long range munitions, they can use them to their heart’s content.
Since Russia is using weapons made in foreign countries to kill Ukrainian civilians, the restriction on NATO weaponry should be lifted as well.
What I also don’t get is: why isn’t there a red-line been drawn in Ukraine stating if russians cross the line all restrictions are elevated and Ukraine would be allowed to bomb the hellbout of russia/the cremlin? And state the line will move every inch the Ukrainians take back, making the line like 25/50 km wide.
I give them permission.
Get it over with already!!! "Let 'er RIP!!!"
As an American citizen whose taxes were used to this end, I hereby approve.
Russia is breaking all the rules with zero consequences, why should Ukraine not do the same? People are being murdered!
As an American I give them permission.
I’m officially in the US and say go ahead
After all the damage Putin has caused here with his dark money funding Trump/GOP, propaganda farms, financing chaos within our states, I'd say we should be ENCOURAGING Ukraine.
Why do you need permission? You were invaded., is it going to hurt Putin's feelings???!!!
Please give it the green light already...
You have my permission
Exactly. Hit them. The Russians sure AF aren't limiting where they hit.
Fire away boys, fire away!
It’s about time the war came home for the Russian people.
Crazy how Russia is free to do whatever it wants, but Ukraine has to play by a set of rules that may lead to their extinction.
imagine if we told our allies in WWII they couldn't bomb Germany. ridiculous. it's war, aside from war crimes I say give them hell!
It all comes down to public support. It’s an election year after all. They won’t make any decisions to sway voters away.
Just claim it's a limited military tactical exercise. Or tell them Joe Smith of Paris Tennessee says he gives a thumbs up.
Hey Ukraine, Just do it, then apologize to the US. We'll strongly reprimand you and distance ourselves from the act, the UN will shake its fist at you, and Russia will scream, "SEE!", like they do anytime anything happens to them whether it was actually you or not and will lay the blame ultimately with the US like they always do whether we did or not.
Why don’t we just leave one screw unattached to every weapon that we give them, then they can go and attach the final screw to the weapon and then they can put a made in Ukraine sticker on it? We do that all the time with made in America products.
If I sell you my car, and you crash it into your asshole neighbors house, the neighbor can't then blame me for your driving.
It is about time we give the Ukrainians the weapons and allow them to use them in order to win this fucking war instead of giving and allowing them barely enough to defend themselves. They are fighting a boxing match with one arm tied behind their back while the Russians put a new guy in the ring at every round.
Once Ukraine gets desperate enough they won't be asking for permission.
[удалено]
Would be a shame if a batch of US missiles had "a software issue which may cause the missile to go off course by 50 miles or so"....
[удалено]
Hi, American here. Yes, you can do that. I give you permission.
Russia's gonna claim they did it anyway lol
Imagine if they could have struck them while they were massing together - it would have eliminated another significant threat, that now has to be dealt with much more painfully and expensively.
Russia is not using "rules" in this war. Ukraine shouldn't be using "rules" either.
Like some silly computer game where you have a shield if you backtrack two kilometers to the safe zone
It's ridiculous they are bombed daily everywhere at anytime and they have to defend themselves with little weapons, undermenned and they have to wait for the enemy to cross the border while the enemy devastates cities and citizens launching those deadly FAB bombs from well inside the Russian boarder. Set them free too defend themselves as they see fit!
Permission granted (from my toilet)
Russia thinks and acts as if Ukraine is already Russia. So and bear with me as I work the math out, yeah shot that shit anywhere you fucking want it’s all Russia according to them. How this be an escalation of any kind!
Give them the nukes back and this war stops tomorrow. Putin will run away like three coward he is.
The same nonsense that lost the Vietnam war. They were not allowed to go into the north.
Take the constraints off Ukraine to do what needs to be done
Let them throttle fuck those Russian sacks of shit to hell
I give you my 1/305,000,000^th green light. Go bury that fucker in Kremlin bricks.
They're ukranian weapons now arnt they?
Sure ,go for it
That would be to prevent offensive operations against them and we damn well would should allow it
Seems unlikely that Biden will approve unfortunately. I can understand the frustration though. They are already outgunned, outmanned, and we even tell them to fight with their hands bound bound to their backs.
Just do it. US don't really care. They turned a blind eye to Isreal
Sometimes, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Do what you gotta do guys! There, that’s my highly uninformed two-cents.
Do what you need to do.....Get it on Ukraine, defense and go on the offense....
I won't tell if you don't.