- cross-posted to:
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
Ukraine wants permission from the west to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to destroy targets deep inside Russia, believing this could force Moscow into negotiating an end to the fighting.
Senior figures in Kyiv have suggested that using the Anglo-French weapons in a “demonstration attack” will show the Kremlin that military sites near the capital itself could be vulnerable to direct strikes.
The thinking, according to a senior government official, is that Russia will consider negotiating only if it believes Ukraine had the ability “to threaten Moscow and St Petersburg”. This is a high-risk strategy, however, and does not so far have the support of the US.
Ukraine has been lobbying for months to be allowed to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia, but with little success. Nevertheless, as its army struggles on the eastern front, there is a growing belief that its best hope lies in counter-attack.
You must log in or register to comment.
Do it now, ask forgiveness later. It’s the American way.
It’s Israel’s playbook and it works literally every time
Israel doesn’t even ask for forgiveness.
“Ukraine has the right to defend itself”
They never do anything wrong so of course they never need too…
Might be the American way, but it’s mainly Europe that will take the heat in an all out war against Russia.
Also, how does it end? Anyone really thinks Putin will surrender after 3-4 missiles hit Moscow? Come on.
The message wouldn’t be to Putin directly. It would be to those both in his power base, or capable of disrupting it.
The goal would be to push Russians to the point they deal with Putin internally, and/or put putin in a position where he needs to end the war to stabilise his own position. It’s all about making the right people feel the effects.
Oh, and as a European, I think the risk is acceptable. If Putin struck at a NATO country, the results would likely be swift and short. The only unknown would be Russian nukes, and even those are far more of an unknown than most people think.
An all out war is unlikely, since if NATO involvement was going to kick that off it would have done so by now.
The next point of escalation that could start something bigger would be stuff like NATO openly sending troops or actively providing fire support.US hesitation to allow our hardware to be used for this type of attack is much more to do with the political issues surrounding the war being framed as a proxy war instead of defensive support.
The electorates support for “saving the day” and “superior US hardware helping keep a country free” is high. Support for a protracted and complex proxy war without clear right and wrong sides is exhausting and hits too many Iraq/Afghanistan buttons for people to care.Asking for and publicly being denied permission to bomb targets adjacent to the capitol does just as well at communicating “we can bomb your capitol” as actually doing it.
deleted by creator
Who would miss the kremlin anyway?
I know it’s ludicrous to need to ask for permission. I’m sure they won’t get it.
Do you think they would continue being funded and given the equipment if they don’t?
Just ask Cambodia
Removed by mod
Got no arguments from me here. Bring him hell I say.
What are they gonna do? Bomb your cities, schools, hospitals?
Think we’re past the point of asking for permission at this point.
What are they gonna do? Bomb your cities, schools, hospitals?
A nuclear first strike
Maybe that give balls to NATO wipeout that fascist state
As long as their demonstration is against military targets (and not what Israel would classify as a “military targets”), I say let them. Bomb every Russian military base within 200 miles of Ukraine into a crater. Russia only seems to respond to a show of force, unfortunately with its current leadership, so give it to them.
I just feel bad for the Russians who have to live under Putin’s rule. I know several Russians who have fled Russia to avoid drafts or persecution. Hearing them talk about how they “probably will never be able to go home again” is heartbreaking.
Hell I say let them strike the rails as well, make some Sherman neckties.
Kick them in the balls. They aren’t fighting fair so why should you.
deleted by creator
Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.
Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team, and then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.
That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.
deleted by creator
Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.
I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.
Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.
If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.
Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.
If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.Just a heads up, you betray your Russian supporting roots saying the Ukraine so openly. I’m assuming you accidentally typed it by habit, because most of the time you addressed them properly, but they aren’t just some regional dependant of Russia. They are an independent nation.
Russia is losing its troops and equipment. That’s why they aren’t using modern stuff anymore. You can find pictures of the modern stuff destroyed on the battlefield if you’re interested. They sent it in. They just got held back and their equipment was lost. It’s not a mystery. It’s publicly viewable to anyone curious.
deleted by creator
but this is still largely an excursion using older equipment and avoiding mass mobilization
I’m more inclined to think that that Russia is a paper tiger and the mass corruption in the country has fucked up any modern equipment they have to the point of unusability.
deleted by creator
They’re saving their best troops for
if their initial assault failsdefending the borderdefending Moscow city limitsdeleted by creator
Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.
Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.
People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.
deleted by creator
You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.
Dude, Russia is not holding back it’s equipment. A lot of it is being tracked behind spotted on parade and such in Moscow and then blown up on the front. They didn’t even have optics for the vast majority of their troops despite the big advantage of the newer AK platform they adopted being that optics fit on them. You’d never see the US, for example, send that many troops to fight without optics, even assuming they’re holding back.
If Russia is holding equipment, they’re stupid. They should have just deployed it to the front and ended the war. They didn’t do this, and the reason is obvious: it doesn’t exist. They’re sending shit from the Cold War to the front because that’s what they’ve got. They aren’t some amazing superpower that’s just playing nice with poor little Ukraine. They want this war over desperately, so they would end it if they could.
deleted by creator
Seriously Striking Moscow (for example) would almost certainly result in a swift, all out retaliation from Russia towards Ukraine.
A large portion of the Russian military has been held in reserve for defense, on the grounds that a full NATO invasion could decapitate the regime (a la Iraq in 2003).
Lemmyites are convinced the Russian military is entirely exhausted and these suicide incursions represent territory Ukrainians can actually hold. But there’s much more of a long game at play, as Europe and Russia wage a proxy was of attrition across Central Europe, Central Africa, and the Middle East.
The only thing I’m convinced of is the fact that you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops agent. You may not be one but at minimum you’re doing their work for them.
you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops
I’m old enough to remember “Baghdad Bob” from the '03 Iraq invasion. We used to make fun of that shit, but now everyone talks like him.
Russian media insists they’re on the cusp of total victory. Ukrainian media insists the Russians are on the verge of collapse. And disagreeing with either one means you’re a spook.
Your age is really not relevant to the comment you replied to.
You’re resorting to personal attacks against an argument which doesn’t take a lot of effort to check the validity of. Get out of your bubble.
They aren’t fighting fair
Who fights fair?
Sooner or later Ukraine will start manufacturing their own such weapons. They have demonstrated time and again that they the ability to be creative and do what the world never expected of them.
Holding them back at this point is just prolonging the war.
Holding them back at this point is just prolonging the war.
“Oh noooo!” - Military Industrial Complex
No. Ukraine is not the US or Russia, it is more on the scale of Germany. It does not have an industrial base outside the range of Russian bombardment (which was also a problem for Germany in ww2). Any advanced weapons systems they use will have to come from outside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Ukraine
In 2012, Ukraine’s export-oriented arms industry had reached the status of world’s 4th largest arms exporter.[1]Since the start of the war in Donbas, Ukraine’s military industry has focused more on its internal arms market and as a result slipped to the 9th spot among top global arms exporters by 2015,[2]11th spot by 2018,[3] and the 12th spot among global arms exporters by 2019.
The intensity of the war pre in 2014-2022 is nowhere near what it is now. They’ve had to scramble to even manufacture enough shells let alone weapons systems. The article mentions as well that the new manufacturing capacities have been targeted by Russian artillery.
I realize that this Kursk offensive by Ukraine was probably also used to show allied nations, “See? We literally just invaded and took over a bunch of land in Russia and they did nothing different. Give us permission.”
It was intended to draw Russian forces away from the south, where the Ukrainians were unable to reclaim territory.
Ukraine wrecked a bunch of facilities up north, but they’re far too drawn out up there to hold any territory. It’s more war of attrition at a faster pace.
True there are several reasons for their offensive into Kursk: 1) Negotiation leverage 2) Diversion of resources for Russia 3) Adding an air-defense buffer, 4) Breaking into the echo-chamber of domestic Russian propaganda, etc. but I just thought of this one to add to the list. Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.
Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.
An enormous influx of new equipment and “advisors” from NATO states can improve your position substantially.
Might be a bit early to declare it a great strategy, as we’re still waiting to see what pays out.
It genuinely feels like western countries are content to allow the war to drag out for the sake of sacrificing Ukraine to destroy Russia’s population. We should be allowing them to aggressively push into Russia, taking the fight off their own territory and moving the war towards a faster conclusion.
Their reasoning is too plausible though. I also don’t want to die is a fiery world ending holocaust, nor would I trust Putin to not take that option if backed into a corner
As a Russian, I am surprised that this is still a question. Like, duh, it’s a war, not a hockey game, bomb right away, what the fuck are you waiting for. I have serious doubts about it turning the tide of war, though, but who am I to tell them what to (not) do.
Obviously it’s a great option for Ukraine in the context of the current war. However what do you say to concerns that Russia might take that as direct involvement by other countries, escalating the war to something much bigger? WWIII is not an ok option for any of us, nor is Russia losing a comforting choice
As long as there are no troops under the NATO flag inside Russian territory, I think we’re in the clear. They can be deployed to defend Ukraine no problem because Putin claims that they already are. Any country can also join under their own volition - I’m pretty sure Russian military had already had direct engagements with French troops in Africa and nobody even batted an eye.
My concern is based on the assumption that nobody actually cares about Ukraine enough to send their military in. Under this assumption, Ukraine is massively outnumbered and the only reason it isn’t steamrolled yet is because Russia can’t really deploy their entire military under the risk of massive draft dodging and revolts. Everybody who gave any shit about Donbas is already on the frontline. The only way for Russian government to gather more is by inviting Ukraine to bomb civilian targets in it’s own territory. By doing it, they can draft more troops under the pretense of defending the motherland, rather than just dying in a pointless conquest.
Attacks launched deeper into Russia deplete ammo from the Ukrainian front lines. It’s a real change in strategy.
You mean by disrupting the supply lines? Because Russia has a shitton of supplies, it’s just that they’re nowhere near Ukraine.
Because Russia has a shitton of supplies
I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY.
they’re nowhere near Ukraine
The article is discussing whether bombs can reach all the way to Moscow. This doesn’t seem to be about cutting supply lines. It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war.
But then that’s the exact same strategy Russians ran against the Ukrainians after their initial offensives stalled, and it hasn’t appeared overly successful either.
I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY
Oh no, it’s just that there is a market for such “news”. Russia pumps out exactly the same kind, but in reverse, about how Ukraine’s going to fall any moment now for the past two and a half years. But reality is that the situation is at a stalemate, with Ukraine getting infused with boatload of weapons once in the while, while Russia has a steady and self-sufficient production but is short on soldiers willing to fight in unjustified conquest.
It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war
Oh nooo… This is going to have exactly the opposite effect. I was previously writing a huge comment detailing how even if targeting out only the military targets, there’s always a risk of collateral damage and how each mistake can result in even more Russian troops in the trenches, but then threw it all out to clarify what you’ve meant. If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?
If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?
You just have to few every baby Russian as a future Enemy Combatant in the same way Israelis view every baby Palestinian as a future terrorist.
Let them use the ATACMS too.
We should hasten the destruction of russia as a geopolitical entity. By all means other than direct military confrontation.
Yeah, that’s what the west is using Ukraine for.
Honestly I’d be so happy for the people there to get out from under Muscovite oppression. As a resource-rich country it could be truly great. Instead, a barbaric war of conquest.
And where’s Putin? The last I’ve heard he was in another country.
My concern with this approach would be the unhinged retaliatory response from the world’s. Richest dictator. I mean I’m just a pothead from the US so I imagine some military strategist has accounted for this… But it’s kinda hard to imagine how crazy is gonna act
Go west and hit Vladivostok lol. Or Kaliningrad
If only we could trust Ukraine 100% to not abuse the weapons
Removed by mod
What a dumb argument
Ukraine is being attacked, give them money!
Ukraine is holding off Russia, give them money!
Ukraine is attacking Russia directly…? Uhh… give them money!
Removed by mod
A big difference is that unlike Russia, they didn’t immediately annex the region, without even controlling the capital. They even announced that annexation isn’t happening. They plan on returning this buffer zone/bargaining chip, once they have a guarantee that Russia will put an end to the endless invasions they’ve been partaking in since the federation’s inception. Or at least on their territory, but it would be nice if they stopped being a terrorist state.
Also Ukraine has proven to be a MUCH more merciful invader than Russia, it’s not even comparable. Actually proving the smallest amount of basic needs and help with evacuation for the occupied population. As opposed to RAPING THEM TO DEATH! Russia’s army manages to commit worse atrocities while running away than the invading Ukranian force, it’s honestly unbelievable… Plundering their own. You can’t make this shit up.
mercy full
you mean merciful
Thanks, fixed!
The Putin bots are really out in force in this thread.
As long as there are unwanted Russian military in your country, you are free to attack Russia back.
Ukraine didn’t start this war, but we will keep giving them aid until they win it.
If they have to blow up Russia in the process, that is on Putin who can stop the war at any moment.
Russia still in their territory give them money well actually give them a lot of stuff we were going throw away. I don’t think someone knows how this works
I know how it works. It’s just gross. Watching seemingly endless money get poured into a war machine so we can get right up on russias border… And at the end of the day, Flint Michigan still has undrinkable water. Guess I’m just getting a bit tired of suffering getting the lion share of our tax dollar.
