Let us show Putin we have ability to hit targets deep inside Russia, Ukraine urges west
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.
Do it now, ask forgiveness later. It’s the American way.
I assume the risk is if they do strike without approval, the critical support they're receiving could end
Nah, more like chewed out. 🤠
I've been chewed out before.
Jolly Rancher
I can't believe you've done this
And nukes is a risk too, perhaps
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.
It'd be a little harder for a lot of civilians to be indifferent towards this whole war if it saunters up and starts banging on their front door
Edit: it's a metaphor. Dude asked how 3-4 bombs would end the war and most things in a war aren't meant to outright end it. Right now the whole thing is 'out of sight out of mind' for most people but if targeted strikes on infrastructure hit local news you bet you're ass it'd be demoralizing
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
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.
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.
FFS stop bringing up Israel in threads that have nothing to do with it. There are many many threads about that subject, the need for gaza-brained people to derail every discussion to inject their propaganda into every discussion is getting really annoying, and really accomplishes nothing.
"I don't like reminders that I support genocide"
Such a dogshit take. Nobody besides maybe some of the right wing brain dead mouthbreathers supports genocide. Well, that and people who support China....Weird we don't hear the same outrage about the genocide happening there. That one doesn't fit your narrative though does it?
That's odd, because DNC seems quite content to support it.
Nobody is giving billions of dollars worth of arms to china to bomb civilians. So no shit people aren't as outraged. What the fuck does that have to do with any narrative? You're not making any sense.
You can't say the DNC supports genocide but also supports an immediate permanent ceasefire. These are mutually-exclusive.
So there is a bit more nuance than you give credit as to why they denounce the collateral damage Israel is causing but continue to provide weapons. I don't agree with the giving of those weapons, but there are substantive reasons as to why they haven't stopped. The only people actually pulling the trigger on those weapons is the IDF. Bibi and Putin are of the same cloth.
Talk is cheap. And as you said, they're continuing to provide weapons. Not much of an effort to prevent genocide.
Pretty obvious they've been trying heavily to get a permanent ceasefire.
You can see that by the way Trump went behind their backs and told Bibi to not take the deal.
I mean, what, do you actually believe Harris and Biden want to be associated with and commit genocide? If the decision were that simple, during an election year, wouldn't you think they just — you know — would stop sending the aid? What is their motive?
Trying would have been ending the weapons deals, applying sanctions, etc.
No, I don't think they do. But I also think their campaign managers are looking at the number of "we stand with israel" signs in people's yards (among other things obv) and they're realizing that taking a hard stance against Israel's genocide of palestinians would lose them too many votes.
So they're skidish about doing the right thing, and taking a half assed approach of trying to negotiate with a dude who's doing a genocide.
!!!
Exactly! You got it! They're skittish because this is an election year and the bigger picture is this: 1) Signal to the pro-Palestinian group by way of leaks of how much Harris & Biden dislike Bibi now, 2) Publicly denounce the collateral damage done in Gaza, 3) Negotiate for a permanent ceasefire behind the scenes... All the while recognizing: IF Harris loses this election, then all your complaining and all the protests will just be ignored farrrrr more than they are now.
I mean look, even IF Biden pulls all aid. There is nothing stopping Trump from just immediately resuming it in 6 months. At the same time, we all know Bibi is a corrupt sadistic fuck who ignored obvious intelligence of an impending attack once already; so what's stopping him from utilizing a false-flag after Biden withdraws aid to smear the Democrats and say, "Omg, look Biden took all the aid away and we were left defenseless against the rapist murdering Hamas!" <- This sinks a campaign, btw.
So here's the calculus at play: You either toe the line with both groups to carve out the largest electorate possible to defeat the guy who couldn't care less about Gazans and put an end to this FOR GOOD in February... Or you come down hard and risk losing the election and fucking Gazans for the next FOUR years — which is it?
Oh I agree that they're in a no win situation. I've been aware of that and never in denial.
But to say they've been trying hard for a ceasefire fire is misleading at best. That's the part I disagree with you on.
There is no convincing Bibi, that's been made clear. He is perpetuating this situation for his own power, and the land he wants to seize. The only thing that's gonna put a stop to it from our end is embargoes and sanctions, and even then that's only ever going to do so much.
I think we agree on the meat of the matter. I'm just confused because you wrote:
but then also recognize why they can't do these things; so within the framework of what they can and cannot do, are they not doing everything they strategically can do without jeopardizing the bigger picture of the election? That's all I'm trying to say.
That's why people like me who absolutely despise Bibi and are pro-civilian are trying to convey this message by trying to point to the big picture. I mean Bibi and AIPAC are basically doing all they can to get a Trump presidency, much like Putin. Leftists associating Biden and Harris with genocide ahead of the pivotal election is effectively shooting ourselves, and Gazans, in the foot.
There's a genocide happening there but you don't care? Why are you supporting a genocide in China???
Not what I said.
By your own logic you support the genocide in China. We know who you are bro, people aren't falling for your bullshit, this isn't .ml
That's some gymnastics. Bravo, 10/10
Thefuck are you on about. I take just as much issue with chinas genocide, I just take less issue with my own (and other) governments' handling of said genocide. For one Israel is getting active support while china has frosty trade relations, but also the balance of power would allow both the EU and US to pressure Israel into stopping, which they can't just do with china because china is a global superpower. I still kinda think they should but we all know citizens will cry about any QoL loss they might experience as a result, and that is reasonably something governments have to consider.
Who the fuck are you talking to? I didn't respond to you.
The term is "Gaza-pilled", thankyouverymuch.
Kick them in the balls. They aren't fighting fair so why should you.
Who fights fair?
The west is stopping Ukraine from doing this for their own good.
The west wants to drag out the war to bleed out Russia.
Seriously Striking Moscow (for example) would almost certainly result in a swift, all out retaliation from Russia towards Ukraine.
The western media might not like to portray it as such, but this is still largely an excursion using older equipment and avoiding mass mobilization, preferring to send "endesirables" like criminals or the poor, for Russia, while Ukraine has been running out of equipment and men.
This is a case of "fog of war" or not seeing the forest for the trees with Ukraine, the west isn't as biased in their analysis of the situation.
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.
Yes at the very beginning they just wanted to make a strong push for the "Special Operation" grab and we saw the results, they weren't good for Ukraine but Ukraine still did better than Russia expected.
When Russia realizes the "special operation" was actually going to have to be a war of attrition, they decided to scale back and basically just hold the area while using up old equipment and draining Ukraine which has much less reserved.
Hence why in the initial attempt at taking the country, as you say yourself, they used newer equipment. They switch to older equipment only when they realized it was going to be a long battle regardless. It's worth noting the Ukraine was largely using older equipment as well with that being what the west was supplying. Using older equipment first isn't a unique or rare strategy.
Also Russia doesn't care if they lose the Z team, they fully expect to go through Z, Y, V etc. The hope is Ukraine won't be able to last long enough for them to start running into trouble.
Or it's a great way to weaken the enemy and send the better troops to clean up. The entire C team might be less valuable than half the B team.
I believe it's both. The entire invasion has been a show of incompetence from the beginning, but Russia just has the ability to out force Ukraine if need be. They just have to feel justified/like that's their best option.
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.
Yeah ...okay Sherlock Holmes. lol atleast you read it though.
Afaik this is the only time I "betrayed my Russian supporting roots"...with Autocorrect changing a missed T in "that" from "tha" to "the" as in
It's worth noting that Ukraine was largely using older equipment...
Yes Russia is losing troops and equipment. We know that the troops being sent are largely "undesirables" though so I don't think it's unusual to assume the equipment might be as well.
Yes, I stated that they previously used newer equipment when they thought they could just make a rushed victory, but when proven wrong and that it would be a stalemate for a long time anyway and they would have to bleed ukraine and be bled, they chose to bleed mostly older equipment.
I mean, admittedly I'm not in the Russian stock rooms so I can't say for certain, but neither are you.
I refuse to partake in flippant dismissal of the military might of a power which we know has ramped up production of modern equipment while still mainly using older equipment, because it makes us feel good and safe to do so.
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.
And you are certainly free to think so.
I disagree. If Russia didn't still have plenty left in the tank, Europe wouldn't be so scared of upsetting them.
Idk why I'm downvoted so heavily for not thinking Russia is a weak baby when the care being taken by Europe and the West with regards to this war suggests that the people who know best agree.
They're saving their best troops for
if their initial assault failsdefending the borderdefending Moscow city limitsThey've always been saving their best for if NATO gets directly involved. Something none of the parties involved (outside of Ukraine themselves) want, because everyone knows that it would be a difficult war and not a stroll through Moscow.
However if Ukraine was to start posing an actual threat to the core of the nation, they wouldn't continue waiting around being cautious until they lost because of it.
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.
They're not "just holding back". They're just not going all out because of similar "domestic political concerns" as the western countries. It would also come at a much greater cost to foreign politics as you risk upsetting allies who now have to sell that to their own people to justify providing support.
Keeping a steady defense of a buffer zone between them and NATO is a much easier sell than a full military invasion attempt especially if, as you suspect, their full potential isn't as great as some think. Hence why it started as a "special military operation"
I don't dismiss that potentially part of the reason they arent going full speed is that their power isn't as good as they portray and many believe, and they don't want to expose that weakness.
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.
That doesn't mean it's all the best equipment. Both sides have a lot of equipment moving through the country then blowing up on the Frontlines, the difference is only one is constantly telling the media that they are running out of equipment and men, and that's Ukraine not Russia.
The US (while not particularly caring for them once they do return) notoriously doesn't like losing its own militarys lives in war.
Russia is literally sending criminals, unwanted immigrants, and dissidents to the front lines with no expectations of them to return.
Except they did do this initially and they made huge ground gains basically sweeping the entire Donbas region. It wasn't until Ukraine recovered and changed the dynamic from quick "special military operation" to entrenched warfare when Russia pulled out the older equipment to lessen the effects of their bleeding.
I've been alive since (longer than) 2022, I've seen the stages of the war and I've seen the statements put out from both sides.
I remember when Russia was steamrolling through Donbas and Ukraine was panicking so much they considered a peace deal until Boris Johnson talked them out of it with the promise of continuing support.
I've seen the continuous desperate calls from Ukraine for more equipment and the increasing conscription which is upsetting their population.
Then I realize I've seen none of that from Russia, and the EU still respects Russias ability, so why would I conclude that Russia is in the same boat as Ukraine with a rapidly expiring military?
They aren't playing nice with Ukraine, for the 100th time. Idk why y'all insist on this specific childish reduction of "playing nice".
They are playing strategic with all of NATO. They want to win the war, but they don't want to show their full hand to NATO, especially if it's weaker than they want people to believe and would leave them weakened for a potential counter.
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 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.
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.
Yeah, the whole "they're not sending their best" Spiel was debunked in the first 6 months. The Russian equipment losses favored high end stuff at the beginning of the war and has been declining ever since. And the Russians have been activating older stuff ever since. Which is visible in the loss data.
A lot of conscripts are indeed not in the war, but judging by performance of the Kursk defense, there is reason to doubt the ability of these forces. Although quantity is a quality by its own right.
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.
“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
https://archive.ph/HjueX
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.
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.
I keep getting told they're broke, they're out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY.
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.
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.
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?
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.
If they claim they are just shooting at Hamas, the US won't interfere.
Let them use the ATACMS too.
And where's Putin? The last I've heard he was in another country.
We should hasten the destruction of russia as a geopolitical entity. By all means other than direct military confrontation.
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.
Yeah, that's what the west is using Ukraine for.
Go west and hit Vladivostok lol. Or Kaliningrad
If it's not his bunker, he doesn't care. Or his palace.
::: spoiler The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Guardian:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/24/let-us-show-putin-we-have-ability-to-hit-targets-deep-inside-russia-ukraine-urges-west ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
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
That’s exactly what we don’t want. There is no reason to allow Ukraine to escalate the war on our dime and at the same time give away our military secrets
What are they going to achieve by that? Russia will become more ruthless by that time. They are now, but you have to remember, russia is still a superpower. They can do more destruction if they want, they can be more violent if they want. Just imagine, usa start to invade mexico, because mexico start to go on a military agreement with russia-china-india block. At that time, we will of course morally support mexico, but we know, its impossible to beat usa. At that time, mexico shouldn't do anything stupid, that would trigger usa, for example, pearl harbour by japan. Doing something only give them back more serious consequences. Same thing for Ukraine here. Same thing for hamas, hezbollah or houthi there. Because of oct7, they are having this consequences. Who are suffering now? Its civilian. Just because of some policy makers, Ukrainians are suffering. We can say anything, "let ukraine fight back, give russia a lesson" anything. But we won't face the consequences of them. They will. Every bomb will fall on them, not ours. Its better to move on to a peaceful solution rather than make it worse. Russia won't kneel, they can't. If they lose here, they will lose all the influence over the world. And right now, russia is at its peak in 21st century. They won’t be soft. I don't know what will happen if they strike in Moscow. Russia might nuke the kyiv. And interestingly, usa or the west won't do anything because they won’t try to start a nuclear war against russia china.
First of all, please consider using paragraphs.
Second of all, Ukraine was attacked by Russia. So why does Ukraine need to avoid triggering Russia, but Russia doesn't have to worry about triggering Ukraine? We aren't going to have a lot of geopolitical stability if countries can invade others without worry of consequences. Far better to make it extremely risky to invade another country, then the various despots of the world will think twice about doing it.
Besides, right now Ukraine is negotiating. Start with "we want to hit targets deep inside Russia" and then compromise down to using Storm Shadows only in specific parts of Russia, like the Kursk and Belgorad regions.
Russia hasn't been a superpower for a long time now.
Still is, technically.
Superpower??? LOL, they're getting their fucking ammo from North Korea and been getting their asses handed to them by someone they thought they were going to take in a couple of weeks.
This guy wants blood so bad , I wonder which business he is “representing”
Who, Zelenskiy?
Fakelenskiy
If only we could trust Ukraine 100% to not abuse the weapons
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!
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.
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.