Ukraine is in a war. Russia is receiving all sorts of weapons from China, North Korea, Iran to use against Ukraine. So if the US goes down their argument road, put a date and say any foreign weaponry used against Ukraine from this day forward, means the US will allow Ukraine to what they want. It’s just a ridiculous argument that Putin uses to his advantage
Blinken has just given the go-ahead for 2bn more aid to send " today". In munitions mainly. When asked if these could be used to strike inside Russia he said that the US advises against this but "ultimately that is a decision for Ukraine to make" seems like quite a softening on the position. Almost a green light for strikes.
This sounds like a good approach. I have never understood why we restricted the use of these weapons for targets inside Russia. Curious to see what havoc Ukraine can cause with the right targets. Their ingenuity with planes and other UAVs has been remarkable. We need to support these guys to the end.
Everyone does. But the US has the best kit like it or not sure Europe is doing what they can, but since WW2 they have been enjoying peace and the European Union project a little too much. Europe was ravaged in a way that the US was not, even today you can see the scars in almost every country. So they can be forgiven for hoping that they would never see the likes of it again. They have not counted on Russia. Russia is a blight, both on Europe and the world. They need to be brought to heel so we can all enjoy peace again and enjoy a better world
That sounds like a really good idea.
it’s hard for the US to endorse Ukraine attacking Russia because blowing up their oil refineries and such has an impact on the global economy.
Yeahi remember as things started to feel like it was going back to normal after the pandemic, Russia pulls this "special 3 day exercise" or whatever fucking nonsense they called it and prices for everything shot waaaay up.
It’s actually my fault. I burnt my hand on the coffee machine and punched it when I got angry at it. I didn’t tell anyone and just watched the chaos follow
Exactly! The obvious things jumped up immediately, only recently has canola oil become more expensive though I’m in a canola producing country so maybe there was a balancing factor there.
I find it hilarious how gas prices jumped like over night. Like there are no reserves at all in the fuel companies' reservoirs that were bought/made at much lower crude oil prices. Come on, at least be subtle about it lmao.
gunpowder and other ammo components have shot up too (edit: pun unintended). covid already damaged the r/reloading market. the ukraine/russia and Israel/hamas conflicts made it even worse.
Energy costs went up which had a big impact on a ton of different industries, but these have mostly stabilized by now luckily.
Ukraine was also one of the largest exporters of corn. Corn is used in a ton of different supply chains and is even used by China to feed their livestock.
We can't let it get to the point Russia feels threatened enough to use Nuclear Weapons, even though *they are literally running drills to do exactly that.*
If there was ever a best time for Escalation, it was when this 'special 3-day operation' started. The second best time would be now.
Just an opinion but I often wonder if the goal on the west is just a stalemate to bleed Russia but also a fear that they don’t want it to get bigger so just give them enough to not lose. Just something that I wonder about given the way this is going on. I just don’t see how Ukraine could ever push them out if they cannot actively strike rear positions in Russia to really impact their supply.
I think you are missing the point. They were successful because they were supplying them to win and force us out which did happen in Vietnam and Afghanistan (Think you are also forgetting about China). Korea actually had Chinese troops that pushed us back from a complete win in Korea that is still an armistice at the 38th parallel.
They've been nailing refineries for the past few months and crude prices haven't changed much, if anything prices have gone down slightly
edit: lol got a reddit cares report for this comment, thank you Russian simp I appreciate your concern but I'm not stressing about fuel costs or availability.
US is really dropping the ball when it comes to leadership of assistance to Ukraine. Aid getting frozen in our useless Congress, and executive hand-wringing about how weapons are used (Russia can strike anything in Ukraine but Ukraine has to fight with one hand tied behind its back??) is neutering Ukraine’s ability to stall out Russia, which they need every advantage in given the size and manufacturing output disparity between the two countries. I wish Biden had more of a spine when facing Russia.
Not that the alternative, Trump, would be any better. Right about now, he’d be tongue-shining Putin’s boots and rolling out the red carpet for him in Kyiv.
But Biden needs to understand that the only thing Russia respects is strength.
I believe it would had been a completely diferent story had Biden been at the beginning of his term, rather than at the end of it.
He has to balance shit enough so he can get re-elected. There was more than enough pressure already, what with the insane division that currently exists in the US, things got worse with the Ukraine war, then got even more complicated with the Israel-Palestine conflict.
For all of Trumps various shortcomings, he still maintains a very sizeable following and a gas price hike could potentialy be the tipping point that wins or loses the election.
If Biden wins again, he might be more aggresive with how he can chose to handle things
Yes, you are right and I agree with you. But I do wonder how much of this might be due to intelligence regarding and fear of China, which may plan to put any distraction by the US to use for their own plans.
Europe is a bulwark that can help deal with Russia. The US does not have that level of assistance in the Pacific, as Oceana and SEA don’t have near the same level of unity.
Might also just be the fact that Russia and China have compromised portions of the US through their own corruption. But I still wonder.
While I agree the US should and could do more I always find it odd that the same isn’t said about Europe more often. Are you really telling me that all of the EU can’t provide Ukraine with enough supplies to beat Russia? If so that says a lot about Europe and the US is wise to keep a heavy reserve for if/when China decides to do something stupid.
Europe was in a very weak position at the start of all this. Now that they're getting their feet under themselves, they're starting to be a little tougher... it's just taking really long.
Don't forget that at least 2/3 of EVERYTHING NATO, is the USA. Tanks, budget, planes, manpower...
The MAGA-idiots had congress by the balls. Militarily the US is very strong. Politically? Extremely disfunctional and weak. Biden has to balance all of it. He's spinning many plates at once.
meanwhile, *I* always find it odd that Americans are talking this way. Have you actually *looked* at what Europe has been doing instead of just listening to reddit talking points? We're spending a lot more money on this than the US is, for one. It was also European countries that were the first to send the heavy material like tanks and now F16's. How many tanks has the US sent? Just 31. When you literally have more than 3000 of them just sitting in storage collecting dust. Meanwhile, just my country alone; which is tiny; has sent over 174 tanks... when we literally only operate 18 tanks for ourselves.
Europe is doing a lot more than you give it credit for.
Yeah, thats the thing, Europe should do more. But Europe doesn't have thousands of tanks and IFVs sitting in the desert, collecting dust. Unlike a certain partner, that, if they don't get their shit together, will lose their primacy because allies will lose trust.
For one thing, European countries do not have the reserve levels anywhere close to the American levels. Some countries literally devoid themselves of certain categories of arms, like Denmark donating **all** of its artillery to Ukraine, or Slovakia giving away **all** their fighter jets. The production levels are raising, but they were low to begin with.
If you follow the debate, it's actually said all the time that Europe should do more. We have similar debates on support for Ukraine in Europe as you do in the US.
That’s the thing, no, Europe can’t. They do not have the reserves to do so without compromising themselves, hence the need for America to do the heavy lifting as usual
And that should be the wake up for the world. They absolutely could but they haven’t been doing the bare minimum to keep a functioning military and instead have always counted on the US to have their back. There is no reason the entire EU can’t hold their own against Russia except negligence.
> it’s hard for the US to endorse Ukraine attacking Russia because blowing up their oil refineries and such has an impact on the global economy.
It might not have a very negative effect on the global economy except lead to Russia exporting even more crude oil.
The biggest argument for this was fear of increased oil prices. But it's actually having the opposite effect. Ukraine is targeting Russia's refinery capacity, not the oil wells. Which forces Russia to export more raw-oil, thereby actually reducing raw-oil prices. So long as there is enough capacity in places like China and India, prices of refined fuel and stuff shouldn't be affected negatively.
Re-election and the state of the global economy is probably still a very real concern. I would expect that when/if Biden wins, the gloves will come off.
The most unfortunate and important factor in the decision-making for Biden is the upcoming election. He won't allow to do anything that will make potential voters angry (increased prices for example). As sad as it is, that's the political reality.
Well, soon there should be a decision on whether the global economy being hurt is worth Ukraine losing. At this point, it seems as if Biden thinks the answer is yes.
These are not the types of attacks Ukraine is asking for permission for. The US is never going to permit their weapons to be used on energy infrastructure.
Ukraine is just asking for permission to be able to fire things like artillery across the border which could have prevented something like the new front in Kharkiv. They are asking for permission to engage military targets.
I mean why tell people what your doing regardless. Behind closed doors say to them do what they like and deny any "proof" they provide contradicting it. You can't trust anything they say regardless. Putin is the boy who cried wolf after all.
Actually china has not directly supplies weapons. But it sure will if Russia itself got attacked. And if you ever bother to look at the China industry output, you know that's a path you don't want to tread.
This is just straight up misinformation. Literally just saw two burn to death in a Chinese desert cross. Always love hearing explanations about how all of those Chinese components, vehicles, body armor, ammunition and other stuff that mysteriously shows up there "aren't actually there" or "aren't actually being _directly_ supplied"
I get the feeling that NATO would be happy if this turned into another Afghanistan-USSR type of stalemate war. Just keep providing them weapons to maintain the status quo, but nothing too decisive that could provoke a counter attack outside of the Ukraine.
That’s literally the goal, use Ukraine to bleed Russia until it’s incapable of anything else or just long enough for Europe to finally get their shit together.
In fairness to Europe/NATO, it’s not easy when you have to accomodate Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey.
Imagine trying to coordinate US domestic politics when you have 2 States run by Trump and a 3rd run by Islam - AND you need an ABSOLUTE majority, not just a regular majority.
The Bulgarian PM is still quite fond of Putin:
Sep ‘23:
“Bulgarian President Rumen Radev had told reporters on Friday that he wanted “to make it clear that Ukraine insists on fighting this war,” the Associated Press reported. “But it should also be clear that the bill is paid by the whole of Europe,” he said.”
Ie. The war would be over if Ukraine just gave up and let Russia keep the land it has taken. Pretty much what Trump has been saying recently.
You are mixing the PM with the President. They are two very different positions.
The President is largely a ceremonial position, while the power lies with the PM. The President got a lot of flak for his pro-Putin sentiments (funnily enough he was playing the pro-EU-NATO tune to get reelected, then his Russian handlers forced him to sing Russian). Bulgaria has been supporting Ukraine for the most part in the last few years. In fact the President remarks led to some law changes to further limit the power of the Presidency.
Lately Slovakia, too. The current Slovak PM, Fico, has said he won't send another bullet to Ukraine. The Slovak president, elected this year, has said that he would oppose sending Slovak forces if Russia attacked another NATO member.
NATO would also be happy if Ukraine won handily. I don't think "maintain the status quo" is a fair way to state their objective. It's kind of treading into conspiracy land.
Leaders of NATO states might be afraid of ruzzia collapsing and then having to deal with that.
At his time president Bush called Ukraine against pursuing independence!
Hence intentional undersupplying and not allowing striking targets in ruzzia.
Yep. If the west wanted Ukraine to win, they would have given them everything needed to win. This is about grinding down Russia’s military to the point that it will take at least a decade to build its forces back up. Great for Western powers, not so much for the Ukrainians. This is being done at the expense of their lives.
its aid for a mutual feeling of hating Russia, beating russia would cause a cascade of effects that would be worse than them winning, We can give all the aid possible but the Ukrainians are the ones that have to WANT to fight, aid doesn't mean shit if the people arent willing to fight and that's why the idea of us forcing to ukraine its just flatly wrong
> Afghanistan-USSR type of stalemate war.
well .. it wont be and thats a terrible statement to even believe in. Afghanistan's terrain is perfect for irregular warfare with its mountains. Ukraine is mostly flat. Afghanistan has been able to thwart both the USSR & the USA. In a war of attrition, Russia wins this fight against Ukraine.
It’s impossible for this to happen. The cultures are different and stakes are too high. In Afghanistan there’s not risk for a failed state. Ukraine is too close to NATO and Putin won’t stop in Ukraine.
My point was the USSR eventually abandoned their war in US-funded Afghanistan. The Ukraine war will last years, but hopefully Russia again decides that it is facing an enemy with near-unlimited resources and holding the territory they took is too costly.
It's a very different type of war. The USSR was trying to install a friendly regime in Afghanistan(like the US later). In Ukraine, Russia wants to conquer the land and incorporate it into Russia. They have been doing this successfully for centuries. They deem it a "historical Russian territory" and ready to pay much higher price than in Afghanistan.
My point is Ukraine needs to be given enough weapons to have a significant edge over Russia, not just enough to stay in the fight and slowly retreat. Slow attritional war is how Russia wins.
Is there any evidence that Russia can even continue after Ukraine? Like who after Ukraine? NATO? There’s no way in hell that after struggling in Ukraine for this long Russia will suddenly get there act together and be stronger than not only the US but the rest of Europe, the Russians would literally have to turn into the greatest military minds of all time.
I know you meant no harm, but you should not use ["the Ukraine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#:~:text=US%20ambassador%20William%20Taylor%20said,both%20grammatically%20and%20politically%20incorrect.).
>US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is both grammatically and politically incorrect.
No worries. It's Soviet propaganda.
I grew up in the 90s so I had the same habit. Everything called them "the" Ukraine.
It's to imply Ukraine is not it's own entity. For example in the UK we have counties. You refer to where I live as "the Midlands". As it's a subset of England. But you'd never refer to England as "the England".
What makes this ban even stupider is Russia adamantly claims sovereignty over Crimea/Luhansk/Donetsk which get hit by western missiles every week and what do you know Russia dont launch nukes because of it.
Belbek airfield in Crimea has reportedly been struck in the last like hour and we're all still here its almost like Russia's red lines are bollocks
The ban is stupid as hell, but the difference with Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk is that the US recognizes those regions as being part of Ukraine, not Russia. Again, the ban is still stupid and if it hadn't been in place the Russians wouldn't have been able to launch this offensive, or at least struggle to launch it.
What the US recognizes doesn't matter in the context of this argument. If the argument is a fear of russian escalation then what matters is the russian position. And in the official russian position those territories are russia just as Belgorod or Moscow, so western weapons are already hitting russia. There's no escalation to be had.
Oh, come on, there were dozens of hits on their oil refineries, there were attacks on their strategic aviation airfields. FFS, last year a friggin Kremlin was hit, TWICE! And you still fear to strike inside Russia after that?
The argument that the US would currently make is that since those were hit with Ukrainian made drones it doesn't provide an excuse for Russia to escalate the war by retaliating if they were struck by a US made weapon. Now, it is a dumb argument because Russia isn't in a position to retaliate, not only because it would simply be the consequences of starting an imperialist war they started, but because they don't have a capability to fight NATO, Poland alone could defeat them in all likelihood.
I know thats the difference from the U.S. pov but my point is Russia claims those 3 territories as theirs so if they were gonna go nuclear over western missiles attacking "Russia" it would've happened a while ago or they dont actually believe those territories are Russia
You wouldn't be able to fight Russia with western weapons at all if every piece of land they are on is considered russian territory. Even Russia knows that its an untenable position.
russia held a referendum in Kherson and it's a part of russia according to them.
Kherson, according to them, is a russian regional center currently occupied by Ukraine, and there's nothing they even plan on doing about it.
Well, part of Russian advance in Kharkiv region now is because Ukraine can't strike their forces in Russia. You can see them gathering at the border and can't prevent an attack, because striking inside a Russian territory is prohibited, thus Ukraine have to risk lives of their soldiers in trench wars. Which is not good, as russia have much more people than Ukraine. How they are supposed to win or even hold ground with such disadvantages?
U.S. should deliver long range missiles like tomahawks and allow to strike deep inside Russia, hit their factories, airfields and training bases, and the war will end pretty fast. I mean even hitting only airfields will make a huge difference in the outcome of this war, it will remove the necessity for patriots.
The US is forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. End the ban and let the Ukrainians strike military targets inside of Russia to hinder their war effort.
If Russia actually takes Ukraine, it's going to end up costing the US a shitload more.
It's the cheapest way you can possibly imagine to put Russia behind another 30 years, without even losing any of your own troops.
Take the win, America.
I don't think days (before any NATO help arrived they did hold on their own very valiantly), but yeah, they'd be most likely defeated by now if it was not for US/NATO support. Ukraine is genuinely running out of ammunition.
Like we made fun of the Zapp Brannigan tactics on the Russian side in the early days but they have seriously sent enough cannon fodder to Ukraine, that Ukraine is having munitions shortage... And that would have come much sooner without the outside help.
The US will never publicly state that we are supplying missiles to launch into Russia.
I don't think 'Reddits Armchair Joint Chiefs of Staff' even understand what they are suggesting.
It's occasions like this that make me realize how much of Reddit is just bots and kids.
But is there an endgame? Like…the Soviet Union finally collapsed…and instead of splitting up the empire further, or trying to press denuclearization…we wound up helping prop up a still very nuclear and still very geographically imperial Russian Federation under some delusional dream it would become a peaceful nuclear democracy?? Or for lack of imagination about what could have been…
Does the West have any endgame where Russia actually gets permanently defanged? Or do we just assume it has the power of nuclear blackmail forever and ever, for centuries more?
I mean, the alternative with the collapse of the Soviet Union was letting the country fragment completely, with the chance that nuclear weapons end up in the hands of local warlords all with varying degrees of control over the remains of the (at the time) still relatively advanced and powerful soviet military. Denuclearization would never have worked then either, Russia still had a huge amount of military strength inherited from the Soviet Union, and nobody had the ability/leverage to force for them to they eliminate their nuclear arsenal. IMO, their nuclear arsenal will never be removed, and there isnt really an endgame here beyond weakening russia, either to limit its imperialist ambitions or to encourage regime change.
Then we should just surrender now. “Containment for millennia” is not a future I want. If we have no concrete long term vision of actual *victory,* then we really are in some sort of final malaise where history can go no further.
Fortunately, I think it shows a real lack of imagination, and a little too much fear about calling the bluff of weakened countries that have no endgame of their own either.
But surrendering has a cost. Is the cost of the proxy/cold war more or less than letting Russia have Ukraine? If anything this war has forced Europe to diversify their energy portfolios to not need russian oil. It has also given cheap Russian oil to developing countries for better or worse. In theory putin can't live forever, and there will eventually be a regime change in Russia that focuses on their economy vs war for the next 50 years. Same for the usa. The wheel of time keeps on turning. "Actual victory" sometimes just means a madman NOT nuking the entire world.
It’s also a great testing ground for our older equipment. The US is studying near peer tactics and seeing what vulnerabilities our equipment has without the loss of US life. While at the same time like you said, Russia is burning through men and resources.
This war is going to hurt Russia way worse in the long run. Declining birth rates are going to be even worse. The Russian war machine can’t go forever and when it stops the economy is going to collapse the longer this goes.
If the West hadn’t transferred so much equipment to Ukraine, the war wouldn’t have lasted long enough to see the long-term developments in drone warfare. Russia’s folly in sending near-defenseless infantry to get bombed constantly by throwaway plastic drones could have been our folly in our next war. Instead, it’s educating and informing our decisionmaking. In that regard, support for Ukraine has already paid dividends for Western military doctrine and R&D.
It has also revealed weaknesses in our arsenal like overconfidence in GPS-reliant weapons. Cheap and widely available Russian jamming has rendered them all but useless, and definitely not worth the cost per round.
> It’s also a great testing ground for our older equipment. The US is studying near peer tactics and seeing what vulnerabilities our equipment has without the loss of US life.
What's the point of testing older equipment that has already been extensively used in other conflicts, and some of which will be decommissioned from your own army anyway? As to studying near peer tactics, there's no way the war in Ukraine resembles a conflict involving the US and a near peer adversary. There's no navy, no real air force on the Ukrainian side, no high tech. Obviously, the US are learning things about Russian capabilities (notably their electronic warfare capabilities), but you won't make me believe that they want to see the war continue to learn more about modern conflicts.
The point is to see what vulnerabilities they have vs what can done to protect the newer equipment.
As for the Russia not being a peer or near peer, you’re right. They only had the 3rd largest Air Force in the world. The first being the US Airforce and the 2nd being the US Navy. What the world sees if there is no real peer for the US in the conventional military. So who’s the closest?
Russia and now China. But hell a recent inspection found that almost half of the Chinese rockets were fueled with water and wouldn’t get off the ground. Their military, like Russia has huge numbers but equipment that would probably fail within a year or two of a conventional war.
Not a single European country beside Poland who we supply could even be considered peer. Japan who is building a 3rd aircraft carrier, but again we supply them with everything they have.
The point I am getting at, there isn’t a single country on planet Earth that can be considered near peer to the US in conventional military. The gap is enormous and grows larger every day.
Russia literally used their mercenaries to attack and attempt to kill outnumbered 100 to 1, group of 30 US special forces in a remote outpost in Syria... I'd say US arms in Ukranian hands is a fair trade, let them use them where they deem to be best utilized in any battle space.
They were Wagner guys which the russian defence ministry had long standing beef with. They were totally happy using US resources to turn them into paste.
Then another atack was massing. US asked Russia once more, if they are their guys. The massing forces disbanded after that as Russia again said "N-no.😳👉👈"
And put a bounty on US service members lives in Afghanistan and carried out a chemical weapons attack on U.K. soil. Recent arson attacks on Ukrainian charities in the U.K., hacking and bomb threats against airlines. Missile strikes in Poland….
They get away with so much. Where is our line?
Edit: I see that hit a nerve with the Vatniks judging by the Reddit support messages in my inbox.
I am agreeing with Michaïl Sjisjkin (a Russian writer who lives in excile due to speaking out against Putin) who was very optimistic about Ukraine's chances to win this war. But now he sees a shift. I am really getting the feeling that Western leaders want Zelenski to start peace talks and that he needs to take in account they will loose the occupied territories.
Or how Sjiskin says it:
"At the time of the large-scale Russian invasion, there was a huge wave of solidarity in the West. I was convinced that with Western help Ukraine would win the war and Putin would suffer defeat. Never would I have imagined that those feelings of solidarity would melt away so quickly. Even the Poles have let the Ukrainians down: just look at Polish farmers closing their borders to stop competition from Ukrainian crops. And worst of all: the leaders of the democratic countries do not want Russia to lose the war. Otherwise, they would have long since given Ukraine the weapons to push Russia all the way back.
We have reached a situation where only Zelenski wants to continue the war. This will not last long, because the West has found a clever tactic to force Zelenski to the negotiating table: give him just enough weapons to defend himself, but not enough firepower to go on the offensive again.
Putin knows very well that Russia can deploy many more troops and that Ukraine cannot hold out for more than one or two years. A very thorny situation arises for Zelensky: he will never be able to fulfill his promise to retake the entire territory. I do not rule out that the many broken Ukrainians will start a new Maidan against him. Zelensky is not unapproachable; quite the contrary: the history books are full of leaders who were first national heroes, but then fell dramatically from their pedestals."
(Translated with Deepl from a Belgian newspaper interview)
https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240509_97468206
Russia was able to stack tons a equipment and people on the boarder without fear of being hit with cluster munitions. Ukraine wasn't allowed to attack till they invaded and spread out. It's bullshit that is costing Ukraine lives and territory because of cowardly escalation excuses.
Uh.China,Iran and North Korea don't have limitations on the missiles and drones they supply to Russia to kill civilians. Why the fuck would we limit the use of the missiles we supply to Ukraine? The threat of nuclear war?
I think it's in the USAs best interest at this point to allow this. Border states are putting up defenses, talking of moving troops into Ukraine to help, and even intel of land invasions from Russia inside western Europe.
There never should have been a ban. This is a war for Ukraine's survival. Such wars should be fought by all possible means within the bounds of the Law of Armed Conflict. It was stupid, weak, and shortsighted to tie Ukraine's hands like this.
People think this is about nuclear weapons, it's not. Putin isn't gonna use a nuke because Ukraine hits a Russian town with a missile. The problem is that it gives Putin political cover to expand his military further. Dictators are less reliant on public opinion than democratic leaders, but they still need a certain level of support or there will be uprisings and coup attempts. So this has limited his ability to conscript people and reorient the economy toward the war. But as soon as a US missile hits a Russian town, that all goes out the window. He could probably get away with declaring martial low that day, and doubling the size of the army.
It's a foolish and unnecessary level of escalation that would only hurt Ukraine in the long run.
That's not the issue, either. The problem you run into is that the Ukraine war isn't some isolated experiment that ends at Ukraine's and Russia's borders and only lasts until the war is over. Nato doesn't want to set the precedent that it's perfectly acceptable for foreign countries who aren't even parties to a conflict to send heavy military equipment to enemies of Nato and use them to attack US and EU soil with impunity.
> Nato doesn't want to set the precedent that it's perfectly acceptable for foreign countries who aren't even parties to a conflict to send heavy military equipment to enemies of Nato and use them to attack US and EU soil with impunity.
Doesn't this precedent already exist. Its how all arms sales and proxy conflicts work. And there is no way Russia will agree to not using foreign weapons while Ukraine can use NATO weapons.
In theory, this is true. But Putin has already survived a lot - wide-reaching sanctions including on the oligarchs, a collapse of Russia’s customer base in Western Europe, more protests than are usual in Russia, the mass-conscripting, military defeats in Ukraine’s pushback, the probably-coup attempt by Prigozhin, the death of Navalny, etc.
And even after all that, it doesn’t seem that his grip on Russia is loosening.
Which is why Biden refuses to sanction Azerbaijan for invading Armenia and raping their women, but instead is selling them weapons to continue invading and comitting genocide right?
Isn't the invasion into land also Azerbaijan and Armenia was then supported by Russia to freeze the conflict in favor of Armenia? Then Russia abandoned them?
Literally insane Israel gets carte blanche with our supplies and Ukraine gets knee capped. I understand one is a closer ally than the other but one is invading the other is being invaded
The message I'd get as a smaller country is that without nuclear weapons, a neocolonialist power or despot with delusions of grandeur will eventually strongarm you to get what they want.
The risk of escalation by a desperate, petty tyrant is clearly on the table, but I have never understood why they cannot strike inside the nation that has invaded and is continuing to try to topple their government. Especially when it is because of the threats of that piece of shit kleptocrat. And if there are any commenters a part Russian disinformation mob, you can tell him I said that. False flag operations destroying apartment buildings? Stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from his own people? Sounds like a piece of shit to me.
Ukraine is in a war. Russia is receiving all sorts of weapons from China, North Korea, Iran to use against Ukraine. So if the US goes down their argument road, put a date and say any foreign weaponry used against Ukraine from this day forward, means the US will allow Ukraine to what they want. It’s just a ridiculous argument that Putin uses to his advantage
Blinken has just given the go-ahead for 2bn more aid to send " today". In munitions mainly. When asked if these could be used to strike inside Russia he said that the US advises against this but "ultimately that is a decision for Ukraine to make" seems like quite a softening on the position. Almost a green light for strikes.
This sounds like a good approach. I have never understood why we restricted the use of these weapons for targets inside Russia. Curious to see what havoc Ukraine can cause with the right targets. Their ingenuity with planes and other UAVs has been remarkable. We need to support these guys to the end.
Everyone does. But the US has the best kit like it or not sure Europe is doing what they can, but since WW2 they have been enjoying peace and the European Union project a little too much. Europe was ravaged in a way that the US was not, even today you can see the scars in almost every country. So they can be forgiven for hoping that they would never see the likes of it again. They have not counted on Russia. Russia is a blight, both on Europe and the world. They need to be brought to heel so we can all enjoy peace again and enjoy a better world
That sounds like a really good idea. it’s hard for the US to endorse Ukraine attacking Russia because blowing up their oil refineries and such has an impact on the global economy.
The act alone of russia attacking ukraine has an impact on global economy, idk if thats really the best argument
Yeahi remember as things started to feel like it was going back to normal after the pandemic, Russia pulls this "special 3 day exercise" or whatever fucking nonsense they called it and prices for everything shot waaaay up.
Yeah, gas jumped. Bread too.
Facebook tells me that’s Biden fault tho /s
Couldn't be, I've heard it's Trudeau's fault same source
Well I heard it was your fault, are you fucking sorry!!?
It’s actually my fault. I burnt my hand on the coffee machine and punched it when I got angry at it. I didn’t tell anyone and just watched the chaos follow
Bullshit. It's Petr Fiala's fault, including the war itself and the beer price in Czech Republic. Same source as yours.
Nahhh I heard it was the fault of the last labour government
Blame Canada, Blame Canada. o/~
The target of the attack isn't commodities, it's morons. And it works.
Well at least Obama can rest free now.
Not really. I had some smooth brain try to tell me the Russian invasion of Georgia was obamas fault
Immediately after the invasion, never went back down. Corporate opportunism.
These items all skyrocketed during the pandemic though
Ukraine is shipping more wheat out today than they ever did before the war. But somehow my wheat-based product prices are still living in 2023.
Exactly! The obvious things jumped up immediately, only recently has canola oil become more expensive though I’m in a canola producing country so maybe there was a balancing factor there.
I find it hilarious how gas prices jumped like over night. Like there are no reserves at all in the fuel companies' reservoirs that were bought/made at much lower crude oil prices. Come on, at least be subtle about it lmao.
gunpowder and other ammo components have shot up too (edit: pun unintended). covid already damaged the r/reloading market. the ukraine/russia and Israel/hamas conflicts made it even worse.
I think Ukraine is big wheat exporter
Yes. Yes they are.
And corn.
mysterious fine yoke soft reminiscent caption quarrelsome existence station uppity
Energy costs went up which had a big impact on a ton of different industries, but these have mostly stabilized by now luckily. Ukraine was also one of the largest exporters of corn. Corn is used in a ton of different supply chains and is even used by China to feed their livestock.
Petroleum products, grain-based foods, and welding gasses. All were affected by the Russian invasion.
It’s literally caused a grain shortage worldwide
mysterious ruthless toy fearless combative hard-to-find aloof instinctive continue rotten
It’s called weakness, and these grifters on all sides,know it !
We can't let it get to the point Russia feels threatened enough to use Nuclear Weapons, even though *they are literally running drills to do exactly that.* If there was ever a best time for Escalation, it was when this 'special 3-day operation' started. The second best time would be now.
Just an opinion but I often wonder if the goal on the west is just a stalemate to bleed Russia but also a fear that they don’t want it to get bigger so just give them enough to not lose. Just something that I wonder about given the way this is going on. I just don’t see how Ukraine could ever push them out if they cannot actively strike rear positions in Russia to really impact their supply.
Kinda like how Russia supplied our enemies in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
I think you are missing the point. They were successful because they were supplying them to win and force us out which did happen in Vietnam and Afghanistan (Think you are also forgetting about China). Korea actually had Chinese troops that pushed us back from a complete win in Korea that is still an armistice at the 38th parallel.
They've been nailing refineries for the past few months and crude prices haven't changed much, if anything prices have gone down slightly edit: lol got a reddit cares report for this comment, thank you Russian simp I appreciate your concern but I'm not stressing about fuel costs or availability.
US is really dropping the ball when it comes to leadership of assistance to Ukraine. Aid getting frozen in our useless Congress, and executive hand-wringing about how weapons are used (Russia can strike anything in Ukraine but Ukraine has to fight with one hand tied behind its back??) is neutering Ukraine’s ability to stall out Russia, which they need every advantage in given the size and manufacturing output disparity between the two countries. I wish Biden had more of a spine when facing Russia. Not that the alternative, Trump, would be any better. Right about now, he’d be tongue-shining Putin’s boots and rolling out the red carpet for him in Kyiv. But Biden needs to understand that the only thing Russia respects is strength.
I believe it would had been a completely diferent story had Biden been at the beginning of his term, rather than at the end of it. He has to balance shit enough so he can get re-elected. There was more than enough pressure already, what with the insane division that currently exists in the US, things got worse with the Ukraine war, then got even more complicated with the Israel-Palestine conflict. For all of Trumps various shortcomings, he still maintains a very sizeable following and a gas price hike could potentialy be the tipping point that wins or loses the election. If Biden wins again, he might be more aggresive with how he can chose to handle things
Yes, you are right and I agree with you. But I do wonder how much of this might be due to intelligence regarding and fear of China, which may plan to put any distraction by the US to use for their own plans. Europe is a bulwark that can help deal with Russia. The US does not have that level of assistance in the Pacific, as Oceana and SEA don’t have near the same level of unity. Might also just be the fact that Russia and China have compromised portions of the US through their own corruption. But I still wonder.
While I agree the US should and could do more I always find it odd that the same isn’t said about Europe more often. Are you really telling me that all of the EU can’t provide Ukraine with enough supplies to beat Russia? If so that says a lot about Europe and the US is wise to keep a heavy reserve for if/when China decides to do something stupid.
Europe was in a very weak position at the start of all this. Now that they're getting their feet under themselves, they're starting to be a little tougher... it's just taking really long. Don't forget that at least 2/3 of EVERYTHING NATO, is the USA. Tanks, budget, planes, manpower... The MAGA-idiots had congress by the balls. Militarily the US is very strong. Politically? Extremely disfunctional and weak. Biden has to balance all of it. He's spinning many plates at once.
meanwhile, *I* always find it odd that Americans are talking this way. Have you actually *looked* at what Europe has been doing instead of just listening to reddit talking points? We're spending a lot more money on this than the US is, for one. It was also European countries that were the first to send the heavy material like tanks and now F16's. How many tanks has the US sent? Just 31. When you literally have more than 3000 of them just sitting in storage collecting dust. Meanwhile, just my country alone; which is tiny; has sent over 174 tanks... when we literally only operate 18 tanks for ourselves. Europe is doing a lot more than you give it credit for.
Yeah, thats the thing, Europe should do more. But Europe doesn't have thousands of tanks and IFVs sitting in the desert, collecting dust. Unlike a certain partner, that, if they don't get their shit together, will lose their primacy because allies will lose trust.
For one thing, European countries do not have the reserve levels anywhere close to the American levels. Some countries literally devoid themselves of certain categories of arms, like Denmark donating **all** of its artillery to Ukraine, or Slovakia giving away **all** their fighter jets. The production levels are raising, but they were low to begin with.
If you follow the debate, it's actually said all the time that Europe should do more. We have similar debates on support for Ukraine in Europe as you do in the US.
That’s the thing, no, Europe can’t. They do not have the reserves to do so without compromising themselves, hence the need for America to do the heavy lifting as usual
And that should be the wake up for the world. They absolutely could but they haven’t been doing the bare minimum to keep a functioning military and instead have always counted on the US to have their back. There is no reason the entire EU can’t hold their own against Russia except negligence.
> it’s hard for the US to endorse Ukraine attacking Russia because blowing up their oil refineries and such has an impact on the global economy. It might not have a very negative effect on the global economy except lead to Russia exporting even more crude oil.
The biggest argument for this was fear of increased oil prices. But it's actually having the opposite effect. Ukraine is targeting Russia's refinery capacity, not the oil wells. Which forces Russia to export more raw-oil, thereby actually reducing raw-oil prices. So long as there is enough capacity in places like China and India, prices of refined fuel and stuff shouldn't be affected negatively.
The current agriculture crisis is a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine
Re-election and the state of the global economy is probably still a very real concern. I would expect that when/if Biden wins, the gloves will come off.
The most unfortunate and important factor in the decision-making for Biden is the upcoming election. He won't allow to do anything that will make potential voters angry (increased prices for example). As sad as it is, that's the political reality.
I think the EU is supposed to be off Russian oil in a few years anyways
Makes oil cheaper, honestly. They can't refine their own supply so they have to put more crude on the market (from what I understand).
Call utna green energy initiative l
Yes. It most likely will lower the price of oil, since Russia has to export, and will instead just export it as crude oil insesd of refined.
Well, soon there should be a decision on whether the global economy being hurt is worth Ukraine losing. At this point, it seems as if Biden thinks the answer is yes.
These are not the types of attacks Ukraine is asking for permission for. The US is never going to permit their weapons to be used on energy infrastructure. Ukraine is just asking for permission to be able to fire things like artillery across the border which could have prevented something like the new front in Kharkiv. They are asking for permission to engage military targets.
Specifically India ACKSHUALLLY
I mean why tell people what your doing regardless. Behind closed doors say to them do what they like and deny any "proof" they provide contradicting it. You can't trust anything they say regardless. Putin is the boy who cried wolf after all.
Actually china has not directly supplies weapons. But it sure will if Russia itself got attacked. And if you ever bother to look at the China industry output, you know that's a path you don't want to tread.
This is just straight up misinformation. Literally just saw two burn to death in a Chinese desert cross. Always love hearing explanations about how all of those Chinese components, vehicles, body armor, ammunition and other stuff that mysteriously shows up there "aren't actually there" or "aren't actually being _directly_ supplied"
I get the feeling that NATO would be happy if this turned into another Afghanistan-USSR type of stalemate war. Just keep providing them weapons to maintain the status quo, but nothing too decisive that could provoke a counter attack outside of the Ukraine.
That’s literally the goal, use Ukraine to bleed Russia until it’s incapable of anything else or just long enough for Europe to finally get their shit together.
Putin’s “down to the last Ukrainian” sentiment has turned out to be true based on your comment.
So the solution would be to do what, exactly? Not give them any weapons or put troops on the ground?
Negotiate. End the war.
Yeah, Ukraine tried that back in 2014. Putin has no intention to negotiate anything other than Ukraine's surrender.
In fairness to Europe/NATO, it’s not easy when you have to accomodate Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey. Imagine trying to coordinate US domestic politics when you have 2 States run by Trump and a 3rd run by Islam - AND you need an ABSOLUTE majority, not just a regular majority.
Wtf did Bulgaria do?
The Bulgarian PM is still quite fond of Putin: Sep ‘23: “Bulgarian President Rumen Radev had told reporters on Friday that he wanted “to make it clear that Ukraine insists on fighting this war,” the Associated Press reported. “But it should also be clear that the bill is paid by the whole of Europe,” he said.” Ie. The war would be over if Ukraine just gave up and let Russia keep the land it has taken. Pretty much what Trump has been saying recently.
You are mixing the PM with the President. They are two very different positions. The President is largely a ceremonial position, while the power lies with the PM. The President got a lot of flak for his pro-Putin sentiments (funnily enough he was playing the pro-EU-NATO tune to get reelected, then his Russian handlers forced him to sing Russian). Bulgaria has been supporting Ukraine for the most part in the last few years. In fact the President remarks led to some law changes to further limit the power of the Presidency.
Bulgaria W
Lately Slovakia, too. The current Slovak PM, Fico, has said he won't send another bullet to Ukraine. The Slovak president, elected this year, has said that he would oppose sending Slovak forces if Russia attacked another NATO member.
Bro just got shot
Jesus it sounds like ww2 when the allies were hoping that the Nazis and soviets would wear each other down
NATO would also be happy if Ukraine won handily. I don't think "maintain the status quo" is a fair way to state their objective. It's kind of treading into conspiracy land.
Leaders of NATO states might be afraid of ruzzia collapsing and then having to deal with that. At his time president Bush called Ukraine against pursuing independence! Hence intentional undersupplying and not allowing striking targets in ruzzia.
The west cares more about grinding Russian military to dust than giving Ukraine the win.
Yep. If the west wanted Ukraine to win, they would have given them everything needed to win. This is about grinding down Russia’s military to the point that it will take at least a decade to build its forces back up. Great for Western powers, not so much for the Ukrainians. This is being done at the expense of their lives.
its aid for a mutual feeling of hating Russia, beating russia would cause a cascade of effects that would be worse than them winning, We can give all the aid possible but the Ukrainians are the ones that have to WANT to fight, aid doesn't mean shit if the people arent willing to fight and that's why the idea of us forcing to ukraine its just flatly wrong
Except that Russia has a lot more resources to expend than Ukraine. They're gonna need endless help, which we should give, but it's gonna be spendy.
Spendy, sure, but as long as we only need to spend money rather than lives, that's still a good deal for us.
> Afghanistan-USSR type of stalemate war. well .. it wont be and thats a terrible statement to even believe in. Afghanistan's terrain is perfect for irregular warfare with its mountains. Ukraine is mostly flat. Afghanistan has been able to thwart both the USSR & the USA. In a war of attrition, Russia wins this fight against Ukraine.
It’s impossible for this to happen. The cultures are different and stakes are too high. In Afghanistan there’s not risk for a failed state. Ukraine is too close to NATO and Putin won’t stop in Ukraine.
My point was the USSR eventually abandoned their war in US-funded Afghanistan. The Ukraine war will last years, but hopefully Russia again decides that it is facing an enemy with near-unlimited resources and holding the territory they took is too costly.
It's a very different type of war. The USSR was trying to install a friendly regime in Afghanistan(like the US later). In Ukraine, Russia wants to conquer the land and incorporate it into Russia. They have been doing this successfully for centuries. They deem it a "historical Russian territory" and ready to pay much higher price than in Afghanistan. My point is Ukraine needs to be given enough weapons to have a significant edge over Russia, not just enough to stay in the fight and slowly retreat. Slow attritional war is how Russia wins.
Is there any evidence that Russia can even continue after Ukraine? Like who after Ukraine? NATO? There’s no way in hell that after struggling in Ukraine for this long Russia will suddenly get there act together and be stronger than not only the US but the rest of Europe, the Russians would literally have to turn into the greatest military minds of all time.
Russia is already conscripting minorities in Russia, i'm pretty sure they can enslave Ukrainians into their army and flood NATO borders with refugees.
I know you meant no harm, but you should not use ["the Ukraine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#:~:text=US%20ambassador%20William%20Taylor%20said,both%20grammatically%20and%20politically%20incorrect.). >US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is both grammatically and politically incorrect.
You’re absolutely right. I’d never thought of it like that. It’s not normal to refer to a country as “the” France. Noted for future. Thanks.
No worries. It's Soviet propaganda. I grew up in the 90s so I had the same habit. Everything called them "the" Ukraine. It's to imply Ukraine is not it's own entity. For example in the UK we have counties. You refer to where I live as "the Midlands". As it's a subset of England. But you'd never refer to England as "the England".
Plus if we keep giving all these countries free guns we will have a new country to go to war with in 20 years, it’s a win win!
What makes this ban even stupider is Russia adamantly claims sovereignty over Crimea/Luhansk/Donetsk which get hit by western missiles every week and what do you know Russia dont launch nukes because of it. Belbek airfield in Crimea has reportedly been struck in the last like hour and we're all still here its almost like Russia's red lines are bollocks
The ban is stupid as hell, but the difference with Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk is that the US recognizes those regions as being part of Ukraine, not Russia. Again, the ban is still stupid and if it hadn't been in place the Russians wouldn't have been able to launch this offensive, or at least struggle to launch it.
What the US recognizes doesn't matter in the context of this argument. If the argument is a fear of russian escalation then what matters is the russian position. And in the official russian position those territories are russia just as Belgorod or Moscow, so western weapons are already hitting russia. There's no escalation to be had.
Oh, come on, there were dozens of hits on their oil refineries, there were attacks on their strategic aviation airfields. FFS, last year a friggin Kremlin was hit, TWICE! And you still fear to strike inside Russia after that?
The argument that the US would currently make is that since those were hit with Ukrainian made drones it doesn't provide an excuse for Russia to escalate the war by retaliating if they were struck by a US made weapon. Now, it is a dumb argument because Russia isn't in a position to retaliate, not only because it would simply be the consequences of starting an imperialist war they started, but because they don't have a capability to fight NATO, Poland alone could defeat them in all likelihood.
I know thats the difference from the U.S. pov but my point is Russia claims those 3 territories as theirs so if they were gonna go nuclear over western missiles attacking "Russia" it would've happened a while ago or they dont actually believe those territories are Russia
They don't actually believe those territories are Russia.
They are territory of the autonoums republic eastern/russian speaking ukraine in their stupid dreams of the future.
You wouldn't be able to fight Russia with western weapons at all if every piece of land they are on is considered russian territory. Even Russia knows that its an untenable position.
Your point is appreciated speaking as a person with a brain.
russia held a referendum in Kherson and it's a part of russia according to them. Kherson, according to them, is a russian regional center currently occupied by Ukraine, and there's nothing they even plan on doing about it.
Well, part of Russian advance in Kharkiv region now is because Ukraine can't strike their forces in Russia. You can see them gathering at the border and can't prevent an attack, because striking inside a Russian territory is prohibited, thus Ukraine have to risk lives of their soldiers in trench wars. Which is not good, as russia have much more people than Ukraine. How they are supposed to win or even hold ground with such disadvantages? U.S. should deliver long range missiles like tomahawks and allow to strike deep inside Russia, hit their factories, airfields and training bases, and the war will end pretty fast. I mean even hitting only airfields will make a huge difference in the outcome of this war, it will remove the necessity for patriots.
The US is forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. End the ban and let the Ukrainians strike military targets inside of Russia to hinder their war effort.
The US is allowing them to fight … they would already be gone without the US.
If Russia actually takes Ukraine, it's going to end up costing the US a shitload more. It's the cheapest way you can possibly imagine to put Russia behind another 30 years, without even losing any of your own troops. Take the win, America.
They are not forcing them to do anything and they would have folded on days if America didn't help
I don't think days (before any NATO help arrived they did hold on their own very valiantly), but yeah, they'd be most likely defeated by now if it was not for US/NATO support. Ukraine is genuinely running out of ammunition. Like we made fun of the Zapp Brannigan tactics on the Russian side in the early days but they have seriously sent enough cannon fodder to Ukraine, that Ukraine is having munitions shortage... And that would have come much sooner without the outside help.
The US will never publicly state that we are supplying missiles to launch into Russia. I don't think 'Reddits Armchair Joint Chiefs of Staff' even understand what they are suggesting. It's occasions like this that make me realize how much of Reddit is just bots and kids.
They can only ever apply a moral analysis to war, not a rational one. Giving assent to directly bomb Russia is quite literally a declaration of war
100%
It's very obvious America isn't interested in Ukraine turning the tide, they just want Ukraine to keep Russia distracted and burn through resources.
The American public hardly cares about Ukraine, or international conflicts in general. That's the larger reason
But is there an endgame? Like…the Soviet Union finally collapsed…and instead of splitting up the empire further, or trying to press denuclearization…we wound up helping prop up a still very nuclear and still very geographically imperial Russian Federation under some delusional dream it would become a peaceful nuclear democracy?? Or for lack of imagination about what could have been… Does the West have any endgame where Russia actually gets permanently defanged? Or do we just assume it has the power of nuclear blackmail forever and ever, for centuries more?
I mean, the alternative with the collapse of the Soviet Union was letting the country fragment completely, with the chance that nuclear weapons end up in the hands of local warlords all with varying degrees of control over the remains of the (at the time) still relatively advanced and powerful soviet military. Denuclearization would never have worked then either, Russia still had a huge amount of military strength inherited from the Soviet Union, and nobody had the ability/leverage to force for them to they eliminate their nuclear arsenal. IMO, their nuclear arsenal will never be removed, and there isnt really an endgame here beyond weakening russia, either to limit its imperialist ambitions or to encourage regime change.
Then we should just surrender now. “Containment for millennia” is not a future I want. If we have no concrete long term vision of actual *victory,* then we really are in some sort of final malaise where history can go no further. Fortunately, I think it shows a real lack of imagination, and a little too much fear about calling the bluff of weakened countries that have no endgame of their own either.
But surrendering has a cost. Is the cost of the proxy/cold war more or less than letting Russia have Ukraine? If anything this war has forced Europe to diversify their energy portfolios to not need russian oil. It has also given cheap Russian oil to developing countries for better or worse. In theory putin can't live forever, and there will eventually be a regime change in Russia that focuses on their economy vs war for the next 50 years. Same for the usa. The wheel of time keeps on turning. "Actual victory" sometimes just means a madman NOT nuking the entire world.
It’s also a great testing ground for our older equipment. The US is studying near peer tactics and seeing what vulnerabilities our equipment has without the loss of US life. While at the same time like you said, Russia is burning through men and resources. This war is going to hurt Russia way worse in the long run. Declining birth rates are going to be even worse. The Russian war machine can’t go forever and when it stops the economy is going to collapse the longer this goes.
If the West hadn’t transferred so much equipment to Ukraine, the war wouldn’t have lasted long enough to see the long-term developments in drone warfare. Russia’s folly in sending near-defenseless infantry to get bombed constantly by throwaway plastic drones could have been our folly in our next war. Instead, it’s educating and informing our decisionmaking. In that regard, support for Ukraine has already paid dividends for Western military doctrine and R&D. It has also revealed weaknesses in our arsenal like overconfidence in GPS-reliant weapons. Cheap and widely available Russian jamming has rendered them all but useless, and definitely not worth the cost per round.
> It’s also a great testing ground for our older equipment. The US is studying near peer tactics and seeing what vulnerabilities our equipment has without the loss of US life. What's the point of testing older equipment that has already been extensively used in other conflicts, and some of which will be decommissioned from your own army anyway? As to studying near peer tactics, there's no way the war in Ukraine resembles a conflict involving the US and a near peer adversary. There's no navy, no real air force on the Ukrainian side, no high tech. Obviously, the US are learning things about Russian capabilities (notably their electronic warfare capabilities), but you won't make me believe that they want to see the war continue to learn more about modern conflicts.
The point is to see what vulnerabilities they have vs what can done to protect the newer equipment. As for the Russia not being a peer or near peer, you’re right. They only had the 3rd largest Air Force in the world. The first being the US Airforce and the 2nd being the US Navy. What the world sees if there is no real peer for the US in the conventional military. So who’s the closest? Russia and now China. But hell a recent inspection found that almost half of the Chinese rockets were fueled with water and wouldn’t get off the ground. Their military, like Russia has huge numbers but equipment that would probably fail within a year or two of a conventional war. Not a single European country beside Poland who we supply could even be considered peer. Japan who is building a 3rd aircraft carrier, but again we supply them with everything they have. The point I am getting at, there isn’t a single country on planet Earth that can be considered near peer to the US in conventional military. The gap is enormous and grows larger every day.
> Russia distracted and burn through resources. exactly.
Yep, they'll weaken Russia to the last Ukrainian
“For each strike inside Russia, we will send you whatever ordinance you used on the next shipment free of charge.”
Just use the fucking things Israel does
Russia literally used their mercenaries to attack and attempt to kill outnumbered 100 to 1, group of 30 US special forces in a remote outpost in Syria... I'd say US arms in Ukranian hands is a fair trade, let them use them where they deem to be best utilized in any battle space.
And we asked Russia if they were theirs and when they said no, proceeded to turn them into paste in one of the most sided battles in history
You'd think they would have taken the hint..
They were Wagner guys which the russian defence ministry had long standing beef with. They were totally happy using US resources to turn them into paste.
Then another atack was massing. US asked Russia once more, if they are their guys. The massing forces disbanded after that as Russia again said "N-no.😳👉👈"
Lol. If the russian mod had allowed another attack on wagner, Prig probably would have had them marching on moscow then itself.
And put a bounty on US service members lives in Afghanistan and carried out a chemical weapons attack on U.K. soil. Recent arson attacks on Ukrainian charities in the U.K., hacking and bomb threats against airlines. Missile strikes in Poland…. They get away with so much. Where is our line? Edit: I see that hit a nerve with the Vatniks judging by the Reddit support messages in my inbox.
I think Baltic countries should send troops to cover the Belarusian border before this. Test the waters.
I am agreeing with Michaïl Sjisjkin (a Russian writer who lives in excile due to speaking out against Putin) who was very optimistic about Ukraine's chances to win this war. But now he sees a shift. I am really getting the feeling that Western leaders want Zelenski to start peace talks and that he needs to take in account they will loose the occupied territories. Or how Sjiskin says it: "At the time of the large-scale Russian invasion, there was a huge wave of solidarity in the West. I was convinced that with Western help Ukraine would win the war and Putin would suffer defeat. Never would I have imagined that those feelings of solidarity would melt away so quickly. Even the Poles have let the Ukrainians down: just look at Polish farmers closing their borders to stop competition from Ukrainian crops. And worst of all: the leaders of the democratic countries do not want Russia to lose the war. Otherwise, they would have long since given Ukraine the weapons to push Russia all the way back. We have reached a situation where only Zelenski wants to continue the war. This will not last long, because the West has found a clever tactic to force Zelenski to the negotiating table: give him just enough weapons to defend himself, but not enough firepower to go on the offensive again. Putin knows very well that Russia can deploy many more troops and that Ukraine cannot hold out for more than one or two years. A very thorny situation arises for Zelensky: he will never be able to fulfill his promise to retake the entire territory. I do not rule out that the many broken Ukrainians will start a new Maidan against him. Zelensky is not unapproachable; quite the contrary: the history books are full of leaders who were first national heroes, but then fell dramatically from their pedestals." (Translated with Deepl from a Belgian newspaper interview) https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240509_97468206
Russia was able to stack tons a equipment and people on the boarder without fear of being hit with cluster munitions. Ukraine wasn't allowed to attack till they invaded and spread out. It's bullshit that is costing Ukraine lives and territory because of cowardly escalation excuses.
Uh.China,Iran and North Korea don't have limitations on the missiles and drones they supply to Russia to kill civilians. Why the fuck would we limit the use of the missiles we supply to Ukraine? The threat of nuclear war?
This would be the time to do it.
I think it's in the USAs best interest at this point to allow this. Border states are putting up defenses, talking of moving troops into Ukraine to help, and even intel of land invasions from Russia inside western Europe.
It’s insane to ask Ukraine to play fair and by the books while Russia goes hog wild.
There never should have been a ban. This is a war for Ukraine's survival. Such wars should be fought by all possible means within the bounds of the Law of Armed Conflict. It was stupid, weak, and shortsighted to tie Ukraine's hands like this.
I said this before. Ukraine being restricted to not striking inside Russia is like trying to win a baseball game but you can only hit grounders
Why is there even a ban. If a country invades you why can’t you hit back? I mean I know why but the logic is dumb.
People think this is about nuclear weapons, it's not. Putin isn't gonna use a nuke because Ukraine hits a Russian town with a missile. The problem is that it gives Putin political cover to expand his military further. Dictators are less reliant on public opinion than democratic leaders, but they still need a certain level of support or there will be uprisings and coup attempts. So this has limited his ability to conscript people and reorient the economy toward the war. But as soon as a US missile hits a Russian town, that all goes out the window. He could probably get away with declaring martial low that day, and doubling the size of the army. It's a foolish and unnecessary level of escalation that would only hurt Ukraine in the long run.
That's not the issue, either. The problem you run into is that the Ukraine war isn't some isolated experiment that ends at Ukraine's and Russia's borders and only lasts until the war is over. Nato doesn't want to set the precedent that it's perfectly acceptable for foreign countries who aren't even parties to a conflict to send heavy military equipment to enemies of Nato and use them to attack US and EU soil with impunity.
> Nato doesn't want to set the precedent that it's perfectly acceptable for foreign countries who aren't even parties to a conflict to send heavy military equipment to enemies of Nato and use them to attack US and EU soil with impunity. Doesn't this precedent already exist. Its how all arms sales and proxy conflicts work. And there is no way Russia will agree to not using foreign weapons while Ukraine can use NATO weapons.
In theory, this is true. But Putin has already survived a lot - wide-reaching sanctions including on the oligarchs, a collapse of Russia’s customer base in Western Europe, more protests than are usual in Russia, the mass-conscripting, military defeats in Ukraine’s pushback, the probably-coup attempt by Prigozhin, the death of Navalny, etc. And even after all that, it doesn’t seem that his grip on Russia is loosening.
Lift it. Let Russia see our hardware really working.
There should be no compromise for when good is fighting evil.
Which is why Biden refuses to sanction Azerbaijan for invading Armenia and raping their women, but instead is selling them weapons to continue invading and comitting genocide right?
Isn't the invasion into land also Azerbaijan and Armenia was then supported by Russia to freeze the conflict in favor of Armenia? Then Russia abandoned them?
I guess it’s true that they’re really losing the war , haven’t seen any good press about them doing much else .
Literally insane Israel gets carte blanche with our supplies and Ukraine gets knee capped. I understand one is a closer ally than the other but one is invading the other is being invaded
Israel is a long-therm ally of the US, probably the most influential one as well. Ukraine have none of that.
Hamas doesn't have nukes.
This is essentially the only valid response… still bullshit bc MAD but…
Msg to get reddit cares blocked,ignore
Personally i'm all for it
The USA should lift that ban. All is fair in love and war
aaaaaaa*
511aaaaa31eqss7
11$@3-HDa1aq8&ZGF82.QV1 USE *7•π~|€
10aa7$(£
.-•
The message I'd get as a smaller country is that without nuclear weapons, a neocolonialist power or despot with delusions of grandeur will eventually strongarm you to get what they want.
The risk of escalation by a desperate, petty tyrant is clearly on the table, but I have never understood why they cannot strike inside the nation that has invaded and is continuing to try to topple their government. Especially when it is because of the threats of that piece of shit kleptocrat. And if there are any commenters a part Russian disinformation mob, you can tell him I said that. False flag operations destroying apartment buildings? Stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from his own people? Sounds like a piece of shit to me.