• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

US, France, U.K, Give Ukraine Permission to Use Their Long Range Weapons to Strike Deep Within Russia

Similar to some of what others in the Trump admin has been talking about before, keeping on arming Ukraine if Russia is not serious about negotiations. Utilizing these weapons as bargaining chips in negotiations as combined carrot and sticks could be a potential way to actually pressure Russia to see negotiations through, but even if an armistice or a peace is reached these should still be on hand so that Russia always can be reminded of what the consequences will be if they won't honor an actual binding treaty (Not bringing NATO treaty equivalence into this, sorry). Last time they weren't reminded of this and had a quite cordial relationship with the West, well, then Crimea and Donbass/Luhansk annexations happened, and since they weren't reminded of what was going to happen if they continued... they continued, and now we're here.
 
Charmender said:
Too late, too few of them.
This will let Putin arm hostile third parties as a retaliation as he threatened to do back in June.
Click to expand...
I believe he would and might have on a small scale. But given that Russia has had to reach out for weapons for their war in Ukraine I’m. It really sure how devastating it would be.
 
I think this development was discussed last Wednesday when Trump and Biden got together. It might have even been Trumps idea and told Biden what he planned to do. I do not think Biden did it to make it harder for Trump when he assumes power.

Trump will most likely engage putin directly along the lines of relaxing the economic and political restrictions if Russia agrees to stop the war and pull back his forces.

If not the military and economic assistance will continue and probably actually increase. Ukraine will be allowed to join NATO and will not be if Russia pulls back. IMO
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
It absolutely was time for that decision 1 year ago. But I think you and some others here would still have reacted in the same way as you are right now either way. Cannon fodder yes, but less of an impact on Russian society. The more Russian economy and society is impacted by the war, the more likely they would be to potentially give Ukraine some kind of consessions they might not have wanted to give them before. Regardless of how unwilling I think both Ukraine and Russia are to actually settle something; Ukraine wants security guarantess so that they won't be invaded again and completely eradicated as a nation and culture, Russia wants Ukraine to not have that. The territory they have occupied doesn't matter too much, Ukraine can always just view it as de facto theirs but de jure Russian until some kind of change happens in the future.
Click to expand...
And this drip feeding with no clear plan to win the fight is one of the reasons Harris lost. Twenty years of perpetual war in the sand box with no clear path or strategic plan to winning.
A disorganized and costly retreat from Afghanistan.
Right into a war between Russia and Ukraine with again no plan for victory other than trickle feeding weapon systems to them.

What are the why’s or what are we fighting and spending for. Why are we committing to these endeavors with no strategic plan to win it and end it.
The perpetual war strategy just doesn’t cut it anymore.
I support the defense of Ukraine because the old Warsaw block states in nato see Russias actions as dangerous.

I’m prepared to commit to winning the war either with acceptable peace terms or outright victory for Ukraine. But not with a mewling uncommitted policy that trickles weapons with no strategic plan. And only translates to a perpetual state of war.
 
📣🇷🇺
UK, France can change stance on strikes at Russia if if they are concerned about Europe's security: Russia's permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1858395520776991157

⚡️Russian Officials:
"If France and Britain are concerned about the security of Europe, they have a chance to reconsider their position, There is no longer room for primitive political games."
https://twitter.com/x/status/1858393449793511795

@DEFCON Warning System @RiffRaff @Irag8er
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
"If France and Britain are concerned about the security of Europe, they have a chance to reconsider their position, There is no longer room for primitive political games."
Click to expand...
Not so vague and more of a rather dramatic direct ultimatum or threat.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I begin to undestand what the Ukrainan offensive in Kursk was intended to reach: starting with NATO long range weapons against the Russian soil was a too big step. What could have been a step that, while allowing to hit Russian soil, it was in the same time a smaller step that "bombing Russian soil"? To allow the use of long range missiles only in the Kursk, just because in the Kursk there are the Ukrainans, of course, with the justification that there are already military operations there. It's the well known logic of progressivity. First of all, not all the Kursk Region is occupied. In the occupied area no long range missile are needed. So, it will be hit a Russian area where there aren't active military activities... then, considered that the logistic operations in the rear in the Kursk, are almost the same then just outside the Kursk, the next step will be to hit just outside the Kursk... in the idea that Russian retalian will not be so strong for a missile hitting 1 mile outside the Kursk. And then, progressively, the strikes will go deeper into Russia.

Finally, the offensive in the Kursk it was not a bridgehead of the Ukrainans, but a bridgehead in order to allow the possibility to strike Russia. It was so simple!
This time I am expecting a strong response.
 
Last edited:
www.bbc.com

Ukraine: Fury in Russia at missile move but Putin so far silent

What really counts is what President Putin does next, writes the BBC's Steve Rosenberg.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
“
But some of the media reaction in Russia appeared designed to play things down.

"The Russian armed forces had already [previously] intercepted ATACMS missiles during attacks on the Crimean shore," a military expert told the Izvestia newspaper, which went on to suggest that President-elect Trump might "revise" the decision.”

And as typical the Russian cope begins.
 
Snowfall said:
www.bbc.com

Ukraine: Fury in Russia at missile move but Putin so far silent

What really counts is what President Putin does next, writes the BBC's Steve Rosenberg.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
“
But some of the media reaction in Russia appeared designed to play things down.

"The Russian armed forces had already [previously] intercepted ATACMS missiles during attacks on the Crimean shore," a military expert told the Izvestia newspaper, which went on to suggest that President-elect Trump might "revise" the decision.”

And as typical the Russian cope begins.
Click to expand...

It's already well known that long range missiles are used on the disputed Russian soil. But Russia has warned that this will not tolerated without an "adequate" response is theese missiles are used against the internationally recognized Russian soil. So, the use into Crimea and the use into the Kursk Region, it's not the same thing.
 
bartok said:
It's already well known that long range missiles are used on the disputed Russian soil. But Russia has warned that this will not tolerated without an "adequate" response is theese missiles are used against the internationally recognized Russian soil. So, the use into Crimea and the use into the Kursk Region, it's not the same thing.
Click to expand...
I’m not comparing Crimea to Russian soil, they’re downplaying the effectiveness of ATACMs which is step 2 in Russian cope over new weapon system typically following threats and nuclear black mail and usually followed in step 3 by lines such as “this will do nothing to change the outcome of the war” and “our aims will not change this just proves the west is escalating” and the rest of the typical propaganda they spew 24/7.
 
Both parts building their stories about who is to blame, nothing new. Who would care after a nuclear exchange anyways?
 
Erecon said:
Both parts building their stories about who is to blame, nothing new. Who would care after a nuclear exchange anyways?
Click to expand...
I've been saying for awhile that Putin has not cared about humanity for a while now. He along with half of the world leaders are more than happy to rule the ashes from their bunkers and bank on living on the moon or some other batshit crazy idea. Their entire military theorem rests on CBRN and tactical and strategic nuclear use. When a solely deterrent and decentralized military force such as Russia mobilizes at this scale, the only way forward is war. There is no control in a post war Russia that has been decisively beaten by Ukraine. And with a brokered peace deal and DMZ, only an illusion of control and peace will cover up the expansion of Russian military power and territorial desires. This is what I fear the most, Ukraine joining NATO with a cold border with Russia, while both sides bulk up their nuclear capabilities. The future is foggy.
 
Snowfall said:
A man that isn’t afraid of death doesn’t build a 20’ table because he’s afraid of catching covid.
Click to expand...
Well when your guest is throwing the food at you that they just spit on and you are doing the same it isn't long before someone flips the damn table. If we are speaking in parables lol
 
Irag8er said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1858221280396234857
Click to expand...
I'm going to throw out a different theory that I am not fully invested in. Call it a thought experiment. Feel free to tear it to shreds. :)

There may be a narrow window in which modest escalation against Russia can occur between now (well really, the POTUS election) and 20 January 2025. If Russia honestly believes President Trump will be more open to a negotiated settlement favorable to Russia, there is a chance that Russia will wait out this escalation, assuming the escalation does not kill large numbers of Russians or does not destroy Russian military facilities deemed necessary to Russian defense/existence. Maybe the Biden administration is taking advantage of this window....

If this is true, and that is a big if with tons or risk, it is certainly possible that these attacks weaken Russia to some degree perhaps reducing or undermining any Russian position of strength, which could then provide beneficial to Ukraine during future negotiations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom