• 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

Putin in September: If Ukraine uses U.S. long-range missiles to strike Russia, the "United States is at war with Russia.

"Biden in November: *Authorizes Ukraine to use US long-range missiles to strike Russia.*Biden has just two months left in office.The decision comes after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week that the US will rush "every dollar" at its disposal to Ukraine while Biden is still in office.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858242363933753472
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
By handing Ukraine the best situation possible. And I like breitbart's ww3 watch, excuse me? If anything adds toward ww3 it's north Korea helping Russia unopposed. What would these pundits think helping peace would be? Stopping all weapons to Ukraine and calling it a day? They don't want Russia to be in a weak position since they could earn money from a powerful Russia in the future, likely why Musk is keen on warming up to Putin too, a sanction free Russia means more room for western oligarchs to get even richer..
Click to expand...
And nevermind that Ukraine has been asking and needing this for months...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torch
Irag8er said:
Putin and Zelensky have both stated since the election that it is time for negotiations.

The introduction North Korean troops having any real impact, other than cannon fodder, really?

You don’t think that Russia is going to retaliate, and hard?

No, the time for this decision was 1 year ago.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
But I think you and some others here would still have reacted in the same way as you are right now either way.
Click to expand...
A little harsh…….and a lot wrong (in my case)

Cilvilt_beredskap said:
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...
Exactly………negotiated settlement .
 
GBS61 said:
This is proof that the fear of starting World War 3 was a big lie, on the part of the Biden administration.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a lie, but a legimitate cautiousness that seemed reasonable in the start but grew less and less relevant as more things were allowed, even if the drip-feeding might just have been one part as to why Russia didn't escalate things with NATO proper. But at the same time, the lie is also clearly promoted by Russia - look at some of the statements of their officials recently. They really want to try to hammer it in that helping Ukraine means either a complete eradication of Ukraine (as if that wasn't their goal already) or WW3. Saying all of this and trying to flood the information space with it could also be a good tactic to get the Trump admin more on their side, if they talk much and blame it all on Biden some GOP politicans will likely gobble it up and cause problems for Ukraine in negotiations because then they will pester Ukraine with "you better agree, because we can't send more stuff because that means WW3, and that means our eradication too - we'll be fine with only yours"
 
Irag8er said:
A little harsh…….and a lot wrong (in my case)


Exactly………negotiated settlement .
Click to expand...
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.
 
alphaecho said:
SENIOR RUSSIAN SENATOR SAYS US DECISION COULD RESULT IN 'UKRAINIAN STATEHOOD IN COMPLETE RUINS BY MORNING'

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858260227960742260
Click to expand...
With what? Drone Swarm part 2? North Korean suicide bombers? That's obviously an attempt to try to reach at some kind of straw to get Biden to change his mind or say "only in Kursk" which he pretty much has said too.
 
Ben Dhyani said:
Putin in September: If Ukraine uses U.S. long-range missiles to strike Russia, the "United States is at war with Russia.

"Biden in November: *Authorizes Ukraine to use US long-range missiles to strike Russia.*Biden has just two months left in office.The decision comes after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week that the US will rush "every dollar" at its disposal to Ukraine while Biden is still in office.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858242363933753472
Click to expand...
I just don't see how constructive it is to put Russian fearmongering here. A lot of people visit this site and the forums as well in order to try to look beyond that. Sure, it's still reporting of the saber rattling that Russia/Russian propagandists are doing, but it's obvious that they want to bring as much fear to people as possible so that Biden will be forced to change or roll back the desicion, perhaps if some people close to Trump are influenced to the point that they decide to put Biden on trial for risking WW3 or something similar, or some kind of challenge in congress.
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
Ukraine can only be brought to the table if they have serious security guarantees from the US or Europe.
Click to expand...
Yeah…..not so much. Ukraine was given those guarantee’s once…..

👉 Bill Clinton admits regret for having Ukraine give up nuclear weapons​

Click to expand...
nypost.com

Bill Clinton admits regret for having Ukraine give up nuclear weapons

Former President Bill Clinton has expressed remorse over his role in negotiating a 1994 deal that resulted in Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal, suggesting that Russia never would have invaded …
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Irag8er said:
Yeah…..not so much. Ukraine was given those guarantee’s once…..


nypost.com

Bill Clinton admits regret for having Ukraine give up nuclear weapons

Former President Bill Clinton has expressed remorse over his role in negotiating a 1994 deal that resulted in Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal, suggesting that Russia never would have invaded …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Then it's a matter of the west showing Ukraine (and Russia too) that it's serious about those guarantees. It's IMO what's needed for Ukraine to sit down at the table and be willing to have the war frozen, if there are no serious or just half-measured guarantees they won't accept that they will be forced to give up territory and won't have a reason to negotiate. Russia, on the other hand, likely wants less of these guarantees along with internationally recognized annexation of occupied territory (IMO they could potentially agree to a more favourable version for Ukraine, that is non-recognized annexation of occupied territory, so Ukraine can still consider those territories de facto theirs). If Trump manages to actually broker a sustainable peace that both Ukraine and Russia will be happy with, well... I'll call him the master of the art of the deal.
 
Charmender said:
Besides the expected announcements and saber ratting from the Russians.
This won’t change a thing…will help in the Kursk. Will make logistics for the russians more complicated…
But it’s far from being the start to start a world war.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that Russia is saber rattling when this really won't cause that much of a change on the battlefield. I'd argue that this is a bit more symbolic than anything else and at least a signal to tell Putin that constant bluffing might not always work.
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
I just don't see how constructive it is to put Russian fearmongering here. A lot of people visit this site and the forums as well in order to try to look beyond that. Sure, it's still reporting of the saber rattling that Russia/Russian propagandists are doing, but it's obvious that they want to bring as much fear to people as possible so that Biden will be forced to change or roll back the desicion, perhaps if some people close to Trump are influenced to the point that they decide to put Biden on trial for risking WW3 or something similar, or some kind of challenge in congress.
Click to expand...
So you think Collin Rugg is Russian fearmongering, I consider it merely an astute observation.
Click to expand...
 
ambrosia12 said:
Does anyone think this will lead to nuclear war?
Click to expand...
It's an escalation, that's for sure. I think everyone's eye is on January 20th. That is what is driving everyone's decisions at the moment.
 
Looking at the other tweets, he was more nuanced there but still always seemed a bit anti-Ukraine from the start, so obviously someone like him won't want them to have more powerful weapons period. Big headache for Trump administration? Sure. Headache for Putin? Absolutely. Headache for Zelensky? Not really, adds some breathing room until January 20th. I've always been in the camp that Ukraine should be armed with ATACSMS and more, Putin can cry and fearmonger about escalation all they want until you realize they were pretty much escalating things more slowly on their own anyway. If red line is regime security, more weapons won't really be an issue until it threatens his power directly.


I'd almost go as far as to say that if Trump admin plays their cards right here, the weapons allowance could be a negotiation chip and actually help them, but I have my doubts about them considering it since they can blame it on Biden if no peace is reached. Anyway, if Trump is indeed seriously wanting to make a good deal for both, this could be used, for example as one of the "sticks" for the negotiations to pressure Russia to make consessions to Ukraine. For example: "If you have a stable armistice for a month and show seriousness in your talks with Ukraine, we might take away the allowance of these weapons. If you start acting in bad faith thoroughout the process we might consider allowing them to use the weapons again."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom