• 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

DarkNoon said:
You mean Trump capitulating to Putin? Call it for what it is. Burying our heads in the sand...
Click to expand...
Well yeah, depending on the interpretation.
Snowfall said:
Oh I’m sure they’re going to frame it as a response to ATACMs but western weapons have been bombing Russia for almost a year at this point, I sincerely doubt that Russia really cares that much about ATACMs being used in border regions versus the other weapons that were already being used. Now if it was something like tomahawks or we were talking about bombing Moscow with long range weapons than I think I’d be digging my bunker.
Click to expand...
Exactly...there have been Ukranian troops backed by western aids inside Russia for months now.
The ATACMs, given the quantity and the range (compared to the surface of Russia) are an escalation but IMHO way lesser compared to the Kursk's invasion.
 
"Probably you will not be able to say 'Merry Christmas' because you will stay in the hole trying to hide away [your] family from the nuclear catastrophe. It can develop very, very quickly."

Clearly an effort from Russia to frighten the west, including influential opposition politicians. Might even be an effort to push a less constructive peace for Ukraine, ie, scream and shout as much about nuclear war as possible and rattle the saber so that when Trump is inaugurated he and others will be less inclined to give Ukraine concessions. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll start something along the lines of "If we are forced to return even an inch of occupied territory then there will be WW3"
 
Charmender said:
Exactly...there have been Ukranian troops backed by western aids inside Russia for months now.
The ATACMs, given the quantity and the range (compared to the surface of Russia) are an escalation but IMHO way lesser compared to the Kursk's invasion.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think a lot of people forget Ukraine is literally driving western donated tanks and vehicles, fighting with western supplied weapons, inside of the sovereign internationally recognized territory of Russia they have been occupying for months. If launching ATACMs is their true red line than the people in Moscow need to have a serious look at their priorities. I think it’s more they are afraid of them getting an extreme long range weapon (tomahawks) and are afraid this precedent would carry over but the odds of that happening are basically zero and even the Russians know it.
 
RiffRaff said:
Yes, I've made that observation in the discussion with staff. However, at some point the West is going to cross a line that will result in Russia following through on its threats. The problem is we don't really know where that line is, but we keep getting closer and closer to it.
Click to expand...
And to complicate this problem is Putin does not know what line it is he might cross that will provoke NATO to an extreme response.
It was a calculated risk for him to even to do a full scale invasion. He called our bluff and we belatedly raised the stakes. It’s poker who will raise how committed to their hand. Who will go all in. He believes the west will not go all in.

Here is the only way to bring the war to an end short of negotiations or ongoing Ukrainian targeting of Russian supply depots. Is a direct intervention of nato forces with a full scale deployment of troops armor and air. Complete control of the battle space. Nato could do this but will they? Well that’s the bluff.

Something that is not discussed much of the loss of life on both sides. We’ve reached comparable numbers to fatality durring WW1. It amazes me how willing Europeans and Russians so willingly suffer these kinds of numbers. Marching into the breach.
Just end the damn thing already and if that requires a large scale NATO intervention then let Putin know it’s on the table and get on with it.
 
Gaijin said:
Just in case anyone hasn't worked it out yet.

Biden allows long range strikes.
Putin blusters that it will trigger a robust response.
Medvedev blusters that it will trigger a nuclear response.
The media panics.
Everything goes back to normal.
Trump is inaugurated.
Trump proposes a peace plan that has been pre-approved by Moscow.
Ukraine has no choice but to accept.
Some of Trump's Russian loans are written off and the publishing of proof of him being a Russian agent is delayed for another year, or until Putin needs another favour.
Click to expand...
Purely out of interest (a genuine question), why would Ukraine have no choice but to accept in this scenario?
 
I think another important thing to remember is the U.S. (and the west as a whole for that matter) is very escalation conscious in this whole situation. I’m sure there was quite a calculus done before this decision was approved and I doubt they would’ve approved it if the escalation risk was high. Our intelligence may not be perfect but it’s pretty dang good.
 
TruthandJustice said:
Because Trump will probably give his buddy Putin the go ahead to launch a nuke attack if Ukraine doesn’t capitulate.
Click to expand...
I assume this is sarcastic jesting....

I am no fan of President Trump. But I very much doubt that he would ever authorize an adversary to launch a nuclear strike on a country that is being assisted/armed by NATO. When (not if) such a thing were ever uncovered, at a minimum, it would likely fracture the NATO alliance. It's very very risky and seriously destabilizing within the region. I doubt any military or political advisor to the President would support it.
 
jealousmelon said:
Purely out of interest (a genuine question), why would Ukraine have no choice but to accept in this scenario?
Click to expand...
If they'd be forced to accept a peace that is not constructive and not sustainable for Ukraine that could endanger its security in the long run. Which European/American companies would want to invest in rebuilding Ukraine if it's likely they just will get invaded again three-ish years down the line? And forced in this case means Trump admin going for a likely plan where if Ukraine doesn't start to negotiate they will take away the material support.
 
Snowfall said:
I think another important thing to remember is the U.S. (and the west as a whole for that matter) is very escalation conscious in this whole situation. I’m sure there was quite a calculus done before this decision was approved and I doubt they would’ve approved it if the escalation risk was high. Our intelligence may not be perfect but it’s pretty dang good.
Click to expand...
I feel like that doctrine change was said like back in February?
 
SamHoarderBridges said:
I feel like that doctrine change was said like back in February?
Click to expand...
They’ve been talking about for a long time, again there’s not many actual changes in it beyond just some legal word changes and the inclusion of Belarus. There was nothing ever stopping the kremlin from using nukes in response to conventional weapons if they wanted to.
 
Snowfall said:
There was nothing ever stopping the kremlin from using nukes in response to conventional weapons if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
THIS
The declaratory policy is one thing and serves as a deterrent, the action policy is another thing.
This difference is even bigger in Russia.
Back in the end of 2022, nuclear use was deemed a real possibility during the last weeks of the year.

Putin wouldn't have needed to change anything, as the policy was (and still is now) voluntarily open to interpretations.
Until we don't reach to crazy actions, like i dunno...using a nuke inside Russia.
 
Charmender said:
THIS
The declaratory policy is one thing and serves as a deterrent, the action policy is another thing.
This difference is even bigger in Russia.
Back in the end of 2022, nuclear use was deemed a real possibility during the last weeks of the year.

Putin wouldn't have needed to change anything, as the policy was (and still is now) voluntarily open to interpretations.
Until we don't reach to crazy actions, like i dunno...using a nuke inside Russia.
Click to expand...
I will give credit to Russia where it’s do that them being constantly vague certainly leads to a lot of debate 😂.
 
Charmender said:
THIS
The declaratory policy is one thing and serves as a deterrent, the action policy is another thing.
This difference is even bigger in Russia.
Back in the end of 2022, nuclear use was deemed a real possibility during the last weeks of the year.

Putin wouldn't have needed to change anything, as the policy was (and still is now) voluntarily open to interpretations.
Until we don't reach to crazy actions, like i dunno...using a nuke inside Russia.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly, he could just order it at any time. Without any reason what so ever, he is a dictator.
 
Snowfall said:
I think another important thing to remember is the U.S. (and the west as a whole for that matter) is very escalation conscious in this whole situation. I’m sure there was quite a calculus done before this decision was approved and I doubt they would’ve approved it if the escalation risk was high. Our intelligence may not be perfect but it’s pretty dang good.
Click to expand...
Pretty much reading their correspondence. All but face to face conversations.
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
Fair. I might have come across as a bit more sweeping with that statement than how I actually intended. But I think that at least some here who are a bit more leaning toward the ceasing of help side would have been a lot more alarmed if Biden allowed ATCSMS one year ago rather than now.

Ukraine can only be brought to the table if they have serious security guarantees from the US or Europe. The DMZ policed by European military is a start, but that means Russia will have to accept it too. As far as I know they are pretty clear with that they don't want Ukraine to have any kind of guarantees, least of all NATO obviously, but "neutral" in this sense probably means not enjoying any kind of protection from other NATO states even in a framework completely outside of the NATO organization itself. Otherwise it'll just be a Minsk 2. Not just figuratively, but literally as well, something that will bite both US and European security back in its ass later.
Click to expand...
Your correct Ukraine has little reason to accept complete surrender. And any negotiated peace I think would only be accepted with nato forces on the line or in country.

It’s always been an either or conflict. Ukraine might accept new boarders. But they simply have no good reason to accept a truce and no material (nato troops on the line) cessation of hostilities.
We (the west ) have a choice to put our big boy pants on. Or turn our backs on Ukraine. No matter what the temporary truce it.

If it is your ambition to show Putin that he cannot do this again. Then that’s our choice. Get used to the bad taste in the mouth.

Everyone knows I am not overly pessimistic regarding how trump will deal with it. As everyone likes to say he’s a businessman first. What is the best and surest way to end this and ensure that it is truly over.
Ukraine and Russia might have to accept boarders they don’t like. But is the promise of a lasting peace worth it. And of course is a lasting peace worth it to nato? If is then prepare to deploy becaue it might be necessary.

As a recent interview I listened to regarding Trumps possible actions.
It is worthwhile to remember. It was trump who gave the orders to counter attack and kill more Russians than were killed during the entire period of the Cold War by US forces.

He is a wild cannon, he does not follow traditional state dept and military doctrine. He is willing to commit forces when needed.
If the intention is to achieve a doable and final solution.

The west is afraid to use their stick. All these Ukrainian flags on social media accounts “we support Ukraine”. Blah blah blah.
They will be switched out with code fucking pink flags as soon as US troops start dying.
It cannot be one by simply throwing more money at it. The ATICAMS will hurt and hinder Russia. But they won’t do it alone. Just more trickle feeding Money and material to patch a problem far away from home.
 
This is not a change but a restating of their 2022 doctrine change.
If the State is threatened then nukes are an option.
I put the State in bold because just like China “if the existing powers of government are threatened”. Not the nation and and its people. Those in charge.
Putin doesn’t care about Ukraine pushing into Russian soil. He only cares about staying in power.
So that redline is not a known act taken against Russia. It’s that ambiguous tripping point in Russia power dynamics that threatens his leadership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom