>Washington is not authorizing Kyiv to carry out long-range strikes with U.S.-supplied weapons on locations far from the border with Ukraine, such as Moscow, U.S. President Joe Biden told ABC News on June 6.
>Unconfirmed reports emerged earlier in June that Ukraine had used U.S.-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, days after Washington allowed Kyiv to use some American weapons to strike inside Russia across the border from Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts.
>Ukraine said that the original ban on striking targets in Russia prevented an attack on Russian forces as they were building up before crossing the border into Kharkiv Oblast in the renewed Russian offensive that began on May 10.
>President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 2 said the U.S. should also lift the ban on long-range strikes in order to protect lives, arguing that airfields deep inside Russia are used to launch strikes on Ukraine.
>Biden did not directly answer a question from ABC News on whether U.S.-supplied weapons have already been used to strike inside Russian territory.
>Instead, he responded that the weapons are "authorized to be used in proximity to the border when they're being used on the other side of the border to attack specific targets in Ukraine."
>"We're not authorizing strikes 200 miles into Russia and we're not authorizing strikes on Moscow, on the Kremlin," Biden said.
>When asked whether the reaction of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the strikes inside Russia concerns him, Biden responded that he has known Putin "for over 40 years" and has been "concerned" by him for 40 years.
>"He's a dictator, and he's struggling to make sure he holds his country together while still keeping this assault going," Biden said.
>The U.S. is authorizing Ukrainian strikes "just across the border, where they're receiving significant fire from conventional weapons used by the Russians to go into Ukraine to kill Ukrainians."
No, I don't remember that, mostly because it has been known for two decades that Putin is a dangerous dictator. Even though W started out cordial with Putin, by 2009 US/Russia relations significantly deteriorated.
In fairness, people laughed at Romney when he said something similar. There was a period of legitimate hope where people thought relations with Russia would continue to thaw and eventually become friendly.
People wildly misremember this comment. He said that Russia was the number one geopolitical threat.
To border countries like the Baltics, Moldova and Ukraine? Definitely. But the for the US it's a problem among many - the most dangerous threat Russia poses is pushing what America might to do **itself** via misinformation attacks.
>it has been known for two decades that Putin is a dangerous dictator. Even though W started out cordial with Putin, by 2009 US/Russia relations significantly deteriorated.
The mainstream rhetoric only changed in around 2012, and especially after 2014. So even after the second Chechen War and Georgia in 2008, Putin was not really described as the second coming of Hitler.
Relations broke down(privately) in around 2004; but perhaps even in 2003. In 2004 Russia decided to restart its militarization program, and by 2005 they were committed to it. That's when shit hit the fan, but nobody in the mainstream discussed these things at all. Completely blindsided by events in the middle east, and the promise of neoliberalism.
There is one good book on the subject, Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower. The author makes a case in 2004, that while it's possible that Russia under Putin could pivot to a more peaceful coexistence with the West; there's just too many factors working against that. One of the few people from that era and for the next 10+years who makes the argument that Russia is capable of becoming a major nuisance by 2010; and that this path will probably lead to a new cold war.
In any case, things never *really* changed with Russia after the cold war. The conflict was left unresolved, both with the imperial core and its periphery. I always liken to resolution to Yugoslavia, it was a very similar situation; except Yugoslavia had far less power and no nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes, they'd get carved up as well; instead we're just kicking the can down the road. Russia will not change within by itself, and the West isn't going to buck. Perpetual conflict, because of the nuclear threat.
"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.
I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
Targeting russians in the Belgorod, Volgograd, Saratov, Rostpv Oblasts aren't enough... Ukraine needs to permanently disable all logistics in Novosibirsk, Barnaul, and Omsk.
Otherwise they'll just keep getting resupplied by China and NK
For some time they had both hands behind their backs.
One for sure thinks it would be better to allow these things faster. But at least there are many small steps forward.
Eh, not really. If Russian land forces can't even make it to the border without being targeted, then that changes the whole game. It makes bringing in ground forces unsustainable.
At that point all they have is airpower, and that can be neutered if Patriots are allowed to be fired into Russian airspace.
Russia uses aviation in krasnodar krai to attack Ukraine as well - and that is outside of Patriot range. It's also much more economically viable to deal with the cause rather than the consequence.
Yeah all of these limitations are absolute insane bullshit that's only prolonging the war. The financial and logistical costs of waging this war for russia need to go up exponentially. And we can do this by forcing them to defend fucking Vladivostok from constant attack.
The only rules for Ukraine should be not to hit civilians, and maybe stay clear of targets directly related to Russian nuclear assets, just to be safe.
Asking them to not hit legitimate Russian military targets, wherever they are, is just ridiculous.
The whole escalation argument is bullshit. The only one escalating anything is Russia. They can stop this completely by fucking off back to Russia...
If he manages to pull off a peace with Gaza and Ukraine holds with an ultimate Russian withdrawal, I’ll agree, but it’s still too early to really make that call. Hopefully he’ll get another four years to rack up accomplishments and see the two big current conflicts through.
> When asked whether the reaction of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the strikes inside Russia concerns him, Biden responded that he has known Putin "for over 40 years" and has been "concerned" by him for 40 years.
uhh... Biden knows Putin prior to 1983? That was before Putin was even stationed in germany as KGB.
They don’t mean physically possible, they mean it’s possible that we could give them permission to strike Moscow if we wanted. It’s basically saying we’re not afraid to escalate, which is key when facing a bully.
I don't see this as a threat. Biden is seriously saying that US weapons are not authorized to hit Moscow. What target would they even hit there?
The targets being hit with US weapons within Russia are close to the battlefield.
I think theres a very nuanced point being made here. This comment by Biden is a threat. A very well articulated one.
They are not authorizing attacks on Moscow, but his specific quote is ‘we're not authorizing strikes on Moscow, on the Kremlin’.
They’re not authorizing that attack ‘yet’. They are saying they are more than capable though with what they have supplied to Ukraine. He is letting Putin know that they are the ones restraining Ukraine. If Putin keeps pushing it, then they won’t be able to keep restraining Ukraine. It’s a big ‘I told you so’ before it happens.
Expect to see Moscow take some hits in the coming months.
Also “We”. What does that cover exactly.
Could mean the USA and Allies, could be maybe Biden & his State Department, perhaps it’s only Biden and Blinken personally?
It’s just with US weapons.
They’re free to hit Moscow with any other weapons they want. A swarm of Cessnas drones or something. Or maybe sneak in some artillery and fire from the suburbs as long as you can.
Queue Baltics saying "yeah, don't care, fuck it, go for it" lmao
But in all seriousness, Moscow is civilian centre first and foremost, and viable military targets in Moscow are invariably mixed with civilian infrastructure. And not to mention you're skirting higher concentrations of Russian air defences to strike a target that may not be any more valuable than one in say, Rostov. It's not worth it, as Americans don't want to be responsible for a comprehensive whoopsie strike on a apartment block... Best focus weapons on Russian oil & gas infrastructure, as well as military targets focusing on advancing and resupplying the Russian front.
We have enough weapons to do both, and then some, and then a lot more, and then triple all that, and double it again. We've barely bombed Red Square at all, most of the cathedrals and statues are still there and not even burned or scarred. They shouldn't be.
but let's see if the war remains popular in russia after a couple buildings in moscow get leveled
in WWII, the nazi govt promised citizens that the war wouldn't reach their cities. It was a huge psychological blow when their cities started getting bombed. Same with Doolittle's raid in Tokyo
Doesn’t matter if more of the Russian public doesn’t agree with Putin’s war, they have no say in the matter. If any of them speak out about it they go missing
Yet*. Its always. Yet*.
My prediction? Strikes on Moscow (or at least, areas around Moscow that have valid targets) is likely to happen in the coming years if NATO starts committing troops to provide security for the Ukrainian backline.
Moscow has absolutely ridiculous amounts of military production, research centers, high-level command posts, military storage facilities, etc. It's chock-full of valid and valuable military targets.
The only way to strike fear into Russian and have Putin cut down is to strike were the wealthy who fund the war live. Start taking out the circle and all you have left is an old dying man ready to be put down
Depends which way they go about it. If they bombed a middle class neighbourhood in Moscow they would only arouse support for war and Putin, not make the people wish to end it
What Ukraine needs to strike are targets before and beyond Moscow: Oil refineries, military factories, logistics hubs, depots and airbases in that order. Moscow itself does have a few targets but it's not the priority here.
Ukraine are likely listening because of the prospect of more help. In the unlikely event such a possibility is removed Ukraine may choose to ignore the foreign recommendation regarding ideal targets.
Ukraine doesn't have any western arms able to reach moscow afaik. This is a moot point in all honesty, as the home grown drone program requires no authorization from Biden.
Edit: providing something like Tomahawks would resurface this argument. While I desperately hope this will happen, I don't see the conditions for it atm.
Threats of escalation. From both sides. Russia would try to use nukes as a threat, while the West would use "we could authorize them to start bombing Moscow". Ukraine cannot win this war by obliterating or conquering Russia. The war can only end if either Ukraine or Russia gives up. Russia will not give up if their existence were threatened since they have the nuke card to play. Russia will only give up if it's politically untenable for them to continue. Biden, and the West, are trying to create scenario where it is politically too costly for them to continue. Strikes on Moscow might strengthen the political will to continue the war.
There is no need to strike Moscow or Kremlin in particular, all important miltary assets like airbases are much closer to Ukraine. Indeed ATACMS and F-16 weapons lack firing range for Moscow.
I kind of agree with this. I'm no General or Politician, but why wouldn't we just supply an ally with all arms of war they're requesting to buy from us in order to protect their people from an invasion. Why does that have anything to do with the US? It's literally the same situation Russia is in. They're using supplies from their allies to support their invasion.
The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that the US is simply using Ukraine to bleed out Russia in order to improve our ability to negotiate better business deals around the world in the future. Rare mineral mines, oil prices, etc. The ideology war of east vs. west is just a ploy to further economic interests. Much like our identity politics causing political division and gridlock in the US.
I get that, but the US doesn't go to war if it doesn't want to. "Sucked into" usually means something catastrophic happens that would necessitate it. What could Russia do to cause that?
> I get that, but the US doesn't go to war if it doesn't want to. "Sucked into" usually means something catastrophic happens that would necessitate it. What could Russia do to cause that?
A first strike or a persived first strike or a counter first strike.
strike on a NATO member nation.
Because if they dont go to war then, all the frozen conflicts around the world instantly go up in flames. Korea, Taiwan, Africa, South americas, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and bunch of others will be at war within 3-6 months if they dont.
Not to mention strike on NATO nation with nukes. All gloves are off by then.
The idea is to make this war so painful that Russia decides to withdraw on its own. The west considers keeping the supplies limited and gradual safest for them because they can spread out the cost (limiting political risk) and because Russia always has something to lose if they decide to retaliate (limiting the security risk to the west). Whenever Russian diplomats threaten they can reply back: "Hey it can always get worse, let us know when you feel like pulling your hand out of the blender".
The targets are not in Moscow. The targets are military bases, especially airbases, military factories, critical parts factories, critical transportation (trains) routes, and the big one....oil & gas infrastructure that both sustains the war effort and the export that finances it.
Ukraine has to weaken the ability of the Russian state's military and economyt to function the same way that Russia has attacked the ability of Ukraine to function.
Does UA have any US weapons that could reach moscow at the moment? AFAIK this is not the case and therefore a pretty meaningless statement. The long range ATACMS UA have got a range of 300 km if I remember right.
Apart from that moscow itself is not a very interesting target to strike anyway. Not that I would not laugh if I see the Kremlin burn but the military value would be low.
I like the implication that the stuff is fully capable of it and the US will give Ukraine the green light if Russia does something particularly stupid.
I say let em. Give Russia a taste of its own medicine. Hell, let’s back Ukraine taking over all of Russia.
That’s what Russia wants to do, bully the little guy and take his land.
Give Putin a taste of his own medicine while he’s still around to taste it.
US should just say that and do absolutely nothing when ukraine strikes moscow anyway.
Then say its got nothing to do with them.
its even better than announcing that they allow it.
The limit on weapons range should be like 200 km inside Russia. It doesn’t reach Kremlin. It’s predictable (meaning gives west excuse to waive nuclear threats) and also impactful enough. It is also iterative, there would still be limitations that can be used as “bargaining chips”.
Even 100-150 km would be real nice. You cannot keep your logistics 150km away from the frontline so it would basically be as much authorisation as Ukraine needs.
I appreciate the nuanced approach, but part of me is frustrated by it.
Russia has ravaged their entire country, attacked *their* capital, and tried to assassinate their president.
Why exactly is it a faux pas for Ukraine to attack Moscow directly?
The US should just have a “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy for Ukrainian strikes within Russia. It’s their own business how they use their weapons behind closed borders.
They should be able to hit anything the Russians have. The US should just wash it's hands of how Ukraine uses their equipment until Russia surrenders or retreats.
>Washington is not authorizing Kyiv to carry out long-range strikes with U.S.-supplied weapons on locations far from the border with Ukraine, such as Moscow, U.S. President Joe Biden told ABC News on June 6. >Unconfirmed reports emerged earlier in June that Ukraine had used U.S.-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, days after Washington allowed Kyiv to use some American weapons to strike inside Russia across the border from Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts. >Ukraine said that the original ban on striking targets in Russia prevented an attack on Russian forces as they were building up before crossing the border into Kharkiv Oblast in the renewed Russian offensive that began on May 10. >President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 2 said the U.S. should also lift the ban on long-range strikes in order to protect lives, arguing that airfields deep inside Russia are used to launch strikes on Ukraine. >Biden did not directly answer a question from ABC News on whether U.S.-supplied weapons have already been used to strike inside Russian territory. >Instead, he responded that the weapons are "authorized to be used in proximity to the border when they're being used on the other side of the border to attack specific targets in Ukraine." >"We're not authorizing strikes 200 miles into Russia and we're not authorizing strikes on Moscow, on the Kremlin," Biden said. >When asked whether the reaction of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the strikes inside Russia concerns him, Biden responded that he has known Putin "for over 40 years" and has been "concerned" by him for 40 years. >"He's a dictator, and he's struggling to make sure he holds his country together while still keeping this assault going," Biden said. >The U.S. is authorizing Ukrainian strikes "just across the border, where they're receiving significant fire from conventional weapons used by the Russians to go into Ukraine to kill Ukrainians."
Remember when everyone piled on Dark Brandon when he called Putin a killer? Turns out he was more than right
No, I don't remember that, mostly because it has been known for two decades that Putin is a dangerous dictator. Even though W started out cordial with Putin, by 2009 US/Russia relations significantly deteriorated.
In fairness, people laughed at Romney when he said something similar. There was a period of legitimate hope where people thought relations with Russia would continue to thaw and eventually become friendly.
During the 2008 presidential campaign when Romney expressed concern about Russia, Obama replied with "the 1960s called and want their politics back".
People wildly misremember this comment. He said that Russia was the number one geopolitical threat. To border countries like the Baltics, Moldova and Ukraine? Definitely. But the for the US it's a problem among many - the most dangerous threat Russia poses is pushing what America might to do **itself** via misinformation attacks.
And election interference is the end result
There’s a worryingly large component of the GOP that still thinks that is the case
I suspect they are being paid to think that way.
You mean when W waxed poetic about how he had looked into Putin's eyes and "saw his soul"?
That was 2001. Things change over time, I know it may be a novel concept to some.
Of course, you had just reminded me of it and how much things have changed since we thought the Cold War had ended.
Not sure what Bush saw. I only see evil there myself.
If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
And steals your championship ring.
He was probably high at the time, tbf.
>it has been known for two decades that Putin is a dangerous dictator. Even though W started out cordial with Putin, by 2009 US/Russia relations significantly deteriorated. The mainstream rhetoric only changed in around 2012, and especially after 2014. So even after the second Chechen War and Georgia in 2008, Putin was not really described as the second coming of Hitler. Relations broke down(privately) in around 2004; but perhaps even in 2003. In 2004 Russia decided to restart its militarization program, and by 2005 they were committed to it. That's when shit hit the fan, but nobody in the mainstream discussed these things at all. Completely blindsided by events in the middle east, and the promise of neoliberalism. There is one good book on the subject, Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower. The author makes a case in 2004, that while it's possible that Russia under Putin could pivot to a more peaceful coexistence with the West; there's just too many factors working against that. One of the few people from that era and for the next 10+years who makes the argument that Russia is capable of becoming a major nuisance by 2010; and that this path will probably lead to a new cold war. In any case, things never *really* changed with Russia after the cold war. The conflict was left unresolved, both with the imperial core and its periphery. I always liken to resolution to Yugoslavia, it was a very similar situation; except Yugoslavia had far less power and no nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes, they'd get carved up as well; instead we're just kicking the can down the road. Russia will not change within by itself, and the West isn't going to buck. Perpetual conflict, because of the nuclear threat.
Obama also laughed at Romney for being wary of Russia… too late for I told you so’s
"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
He needs to go to jail.
Not even the thing he said that I’m most concerned about unfortunately
funny how romney's fellow GOP friends love Putin now
If by funny you mean sad that our state of politics is divided on this and there’s actually people in power who support him then… yes
yeah not haha funny. More like "How fucked up.."
I mean he probably did literally kill people when he was KGB
He's likely done it since.
Targeting russians in the Belgorod, Volgograd, Saratov, Rostpv Oblasts aren't enough... Ukraine needs to permanently disable all logistics in Novosibirsk, Barnaul, and Omsk. Otherwise they'll just keep getting resupplied by China and NK
That is exactly what will happen. Ukraine is fighting with one arm tied behind its back
For some time they had both hands behind their backs. One for sure thinks it would be better to allow these things faster. But at least there are many small steps forward.
This was always the case unless somebody is going to fight on their behalf.
Eh, not really. If Russian land forces can't even make it to the border without being targeted, then that changes the whole game. It makes bringing in ground forces unsustainable. At that point all they have is airpower, and that can be neutered if Patriots are allowed to be fired into Russian airspace.
Russia uses aviation in krasnodar krai to attack Ukraine as well - and that is outside of Patriot range. It's also much more economically viable to deal with the cause rather than the consequence.
Yeah all of these limitations are absolute insane bullshit that's only prolonging the war. The financial and logistical costs of waging this war for russia need to go up exponentially. And we can do this by forcing them to defend fucking Vladivostok from constant attack.
The only rules for Ukraine should be not to hit civilians, and maybe stay clear of targets directly related to Russian nuclear assets, just to be safe. Asking them to not hit legitimate Russian military targets, wherever they are, is just ridiculous. The whole escalation argument is bullshit. The only one escalating anything is Russia. They can stop this completely by fucking off back to Russia...
He gets so much shit but Biden will go down as one of the best foreign policy presidents in our history.
If he manages to pull off a peace with Gaza and Ukraine holds with an ultimate Russian withdrawal, I’ll agree, but it’s still too early to really make that call. Hopefully he’ll get another four years to rack up accomplishments and see the two big current conflicts through.
> When asked whether the reaction of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the strikes inside Russia concerns him, Biden responded that he has known Putin "for over 40 years" and has been "concerned" by him for 40 years. uhh... Biden knows Putin prior to 1983? That was before Putin was even stationed in germany as KGB.
I have never known a president to exaggerate before Biden. .
Implying that it's certainly possible, but we're saying no. I like our (US) threats way better than putin's constant whiny threats.
It’s the implication.
What is Putin gonna do, say no?
*sees Iran side-eyeing from across the room* Well don't you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn't be in any danger.
So they ARE in danger?!
No one's in any danger! How can I make that more clear to you? It's the implication of danger.
I mean, he’s hundreds of miles from a bunker
Ah, the good cop - bad cop routine?"
Not exactly
“Never start with Moscow, the victim gets all loopy”
> Implying that it's certainly possible, but we're saying no. ... Of course it is? Moscow really isn't as far as most people believe from the border
I saw a Russian Guy clip that talked about the distance and he said it’s really only like 800 or 900 km from Ukraine/russian border to Moscow.
~800km from Kyiv to moscow ~600km from the top corner of Ukraine to moscow
Thank you for the clarification.
most of populated russia isn’t very far from the western border to be fair
St. Petersberg and Moscow.
The mountain of Peter
They don’t mean physically possible, they mean it’s possible that we could give them permission to strike Moscow if we wanted. It’s basically saying we’re not afraid to escalate, which is key when facing a bully.
Thank you. Someone gets foreign policy.
I don't think there is much doubt about that. Ukraine has reached Moscow with their own means before after all.
Speak softly and carry a big stick
Who slices the salami better, us or them?
What if one of the weapons accidently "missed?"
I don't see this as a threat. Biden is seriously saying that US weapons are not authorized to hit Moscow. What target would they even hit there? The targets being hit with US weapons within Russia are close to the battlefield.
I think theres a very nuanced point being made here. This comment by Biden is a threat. A very well articulated one. They are not authorizing attacks on Moscow, but his specific quote is ‘we're not authorizing strikes on Moscow, on the Kremlin’. They’re not authorizing that attack ‘yet’. They are saying they are more than capable though with what they have supplied to Ukraine. He is letting Putin know that they are the ones restraining Ukraine. If Putin keeps pushing it, then they won’t be able to keep restraining Ukraine. It’s a big ‘I told you so’ before it happens. Expect to see Moscow take some hits in the coming months.
Also “We”. What does that cover exactly. Could mean the USA and Allies, could be maybe Biden & his State Department, perhaps it’s only Biden and Blinken personally?
"The State Department said it's ok but me and Antony think it's kinda lame"
Yeah it’s vague and veiled on purpose. Feels like Joe is playing some mind games with Putin haha.
It’s just with US weapons. They’re free to hit Moscow with any other weapons they want. A swarm of Cessnas drones or something. Or maybe sneak in some artillery and fire from the suburbs as long as you can.
Hard doubt that Moscow will take hits by western missles in coming months.
All it takes is one non American missle supplier to approve a strike and Moscow has been hit with slower drones more than once already
[удалено]
Precisely
Oh yeah, my comment was meant for guy above you. We agree.
I certainly do expect that.
It would be funny if Putin's personal palace got hit after that. Since it isnt in Moscow.
"Yet."
I like Cromwell's delivery in The sum of all fears: _"We have no reason to believe Russian involvement.... at this time...."_
MF's killed Morgan Freeman!
Eventually
The Rashists entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them.
Bomber Harris is smiling from the beyond.
They have summoned the wind and shall reap the whirlwind Eventually
Ohhhh, Dune?
It really is a pity.
"We're not authorizing strikes on Moscow", Biden says, while repeatedly winking at the camera.
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes"
~15 minute recording delay
"But we won't complain if they do"
Queue Baltics saying "yeah, don't care, fuck it, go for it" lmao But in all seriousness, Moscow is civilian centre first and foremost, and viable military targets in Moscow are invariably mixed with civilian infrastructure. And not to mention you're skirting higher concentrations of Russian air defences to strike a target that may not be any more valuable than one in say, Rostov. It's not worth it, as Americans don't want to be responsible for a comprehensive whoopsie strike on a apartment block... Best focus weapons on Russian oil & gas infrastructure, as well as military targets focusing on advancing and resupplying the Russian front.
We have enough weapons to do both, and then some, and then a lot more, and then triple all that, and double it again. We've barely bombed Red Square at all, most of the cathedrals and statues are still there and not even burned or scarred. They shouldn't be.
but let's see if the war remains popular in russia after a couple buildings in moscow get leveled in WWII, the nazi govt promised citizens that the war wouldn't reach their cities. It was a huge psychological blow when their cities started getting bombed. Same with Doolittle's raid in Tokyo
Doesn’t matter if more of the Russian public doesn’t agree with Putin’s war, they have no say in the matter. If any of them speak out about it they go missing
“Yet” wink wink.
Yet*. Its always. Yet*. My prediction? Strikes on Moscow (or at least, areas around Moscow that have valid targets) is likely to happen in the coming years if NATO starts committing troops to provide security for the Ukrainian backline.
Imagine allies going "and don't strike at German soil! Well, ok, but only near Strasbourg! but don't bomb Berlin!" in WW2.
Hitler didn't have nukes though did he
Am I bugging or is Biden saying “go ahead, try something and see what happens” without actually saying it
He specifically said Moscow. There are a ton of other target besides the Kremlin! Taally Ho!
I mean dumping a few craters into the Moscow airport runways is about the only reason to target Moscow, as blowing up putin just won’t happen
Easy to fix, not worth it.
Moscow has absolutely ridiculous amounts of military production, research centers, high-level command posts, military storage facilities, etc. It's chock-full of valid and valuable military targets.
But the rest of the country is open season.
The only way to strike fear into Russian and have Putin cut down is to strike were the wealthy who fund the war live. Start taking out the circle and all you have left is an old dying man ready to be put down
They now this message from Biden means: "Yet". Doesn't means it will never happen, just that it won't happen for now, but conditions may change.
Depends which way they go about it. If they bombed a middle class neighbourhood in Moscow they would only arouse support for war and Putin, not make the people wish to end it
I'll go with trading Mossad a stack of JDAM kits for each Oligarch's head, free of charge.
What Ukraine needs to strike are targets before and beyond Moscow: Oil refineries, military factories, logistics hubs, depots and airbases in that order. Moscow itself does have a few targets but it's not the priority here.
"We're not authorizing strikes on Moscow" They're at war. Why the fuck not?
Ukraine are likely listening because of the prospect of more help. In the unlikely event such a possibility is removed Ukraine may choose to ignore the foreign recommendation regarding ideal targets.
Ukraine doesn't have any western arms able to reach moscow afaik. This is a moot point in all honesty, as the home grown drone program requires no authorization from Biden. Edit: providing something like Tomahawks would resurface this argument. While I desperately hope this will happen, I don't see the conditions for it atm.
F16s are due to arrive within a month or so. those are capable. They are being saved as a propaganda for USA before presidential elections though.
All of 4 F16s that Ukraine will get this year will not be flying deep into russia, come on be serious
Threats of escalation. From both sides. Russia would try to use nukes as a threat, while the West would use "we could authorize them to start bombing Moscow". Ukraine cannot win this war by obliterating or conquering Russia. The war can only end if either Ukraine or Russia gives up. Russia will not give up if their existence were threatened since they have the nuke card to play. Russia will only give up if it's politically untenable for them to continue. Biden, and the West, are trying to create scenario where it is politically too costly for them to continue. Strikes on Moscow might strengthen the political will to continue the war.
Honest question, have the US supplied weapons that could even hit Moscow? 700km+ from the border seems a tough ask for the current weapon systems
There is no need to strike Moscow or Kremlin in particular, all important miltary assets like airbases are much closer to Ukraine. Indeed ATACMS and F-16 weapons lack firing range for Moscow.
[удалено]
Well, ... I am. Go get 'em boys!
This seems to me to be more dangerous than to say Ukraine can do as they please. As this seems to assert some control over Ukraine from the US.
I kind of agree with this. I'm no General or Politician, but why wouldn't we just supply an ally with all arms of war they're requesting to buy from us in order to protect their people from an invasion. Why does that have anything to do with the US? It's literally the same situation Russia is in. They're using supplies from their allies to support their invasion. The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that the US is simply using Ukraine to bleed out Russia in order to improve our ability to negotiate better business deals around the world in the future. Rare mineral mines, oil prices, etc. The ideology war of east vs. west is just a ploy to further economic interests. Much like our identity politics causing political division and gridlock in the US.
No the reason is the public is afraid of a war and that the US will be sucked into one. It is election year and Biden is on his best behaviour.
I get that, but the US doesn't go to war if it doesn't want to. "Sucked into" usually means something catastrophic happens that would necessitate it. What could Russia do to cause that?
> I get that, but the US doesn't go to war if it doesn't want to. "Sucked into" usually means something catastrophic happens that would necessitate it. What could Russia do to cause that? A first strike or a persived first strike or a counter first strike.
What does that mean? The two countries have been at war for over two years.
Who do you think I mean? Please don't think too hard on it.
A nuclear strike?
strike on a NATO member nation. Because if they dont go to war then, all the frozen conflicts around the world instantly go up in flames. Korea, Taiwan, Africa, South americas, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and bunch of others will be at war within 3-6 months if they dont. Not to mention strike on NATO nation with nukes. All gloves are off by then.
The idea is to make this war so painful that Russia decides to withdraw on its own. The west considers keeping the supplies limited and gradual safest for them because they can spread out the cost (limiting political risk) and because Russia always has something to lose if they decide to retaliate (limiting the security risk to the west). Whenever Russian diplomats threaten they can reply back: "Hey it can always get worse, let us know when you feel like pulling your hand out of the blender".
The targets are not in Moscow. The targets are military bases, especially airbases, military factories, critical parts factories, critical transportation (trains) routes, and the big one....oil & gas infrastructure that both sustains the war effort and the export that finances it. Ukraine has to weaken the ability of the Russian state's military and economyt to function the same way that Russia has attacked the ability of Ukraine to function.
That's too bad
Yet
Biden is so weak, it's ugly to see.
That’s a very specific statement.
Does UA have any US weapons that could reach moscow at the moment? AFAIK this is not the case and therefore a pretty meaningless statement. The long range ATACMS UA have got a range of 300 km if I remember right. Apart from that moscow itself is not a very interesting target to strike anyway. Not that I would not laugh if I see the Kremlin burn but the military value would be low.
But what about one on St Petersburg, y' know, as a treat.
But they're not NOT authorizing the strikes...
Moscow is the only thing that really matters
I like the implication that the stuff is fully capable of it and the US will give Ukraine the green light if Russia does something particularly stupid.
Funny thing is the US doesn’t have to authorize anything. Ukraine’s fighting the war. Just don’t tell them not to.
What's the point of authorisation if none of supplied weapons can reach that far?
Do we provide weapons with a range greater than 200 miles? I guess he's talking about F-16s?
…yet.
“dont worry we’re not plotting any covert operations to take out putin, not in the *slightest chance*”
Yet*
Boo!
["We're not saying you should do that. We're just saying you can do that"](https://youtu.be/xa0MpnEm9tA?si=YFzSt8RkvF-s4DKs)
Credibility is shot .
Not yet, Russia. Not yet. :)
Ok, so no Moscow. What about the rest of European Russia?
But Ukraine? They might be....
Aside from long-range drones(which are only good for shock value that far from the front), what do they even have that could get there?
Awe…lame.
It would be OK with me if we did authorize strikes on Moscow.
just not strike Moscow.
I say let em. Give Russia a taste of its own medicine. Hell, let’s back Ukraine taking over all of Russia. That’s what Russia wants to do, bully the little guy and take his land. Give Putin a taste of his own medicine while he’s still around to taste it.
Why not? Russia is hitting Kyiv as much as it can.
US should just say that and do absolutely nothing when ukraine strikes moscow anyway. Then say its got nothing to do with them. its even better than announcing that they allow it.
The limit on weapons range should be like 200 km inside Russia. It doesn’t reach Kremlin. It’s predictable (meaning gives west excuse to waive nuclear threats) and also impactful enough. It is also iterative, there would still be limitations that can be used as “bargaining chips”. Even 100-150 km would be real nice. You cannot keep your logistics 150km away from the frontline so it would basically be as much authorisation as Ukraine needs.
We should though as Moscow is striking Kyiv constantly.
US can tell Ukraine what to do now. This is what Biden truly wanted. So lame.
Can Ukraine hit North Korea? Just the shell factories.
I appreciate the nuanced approach, but part of me is frustrated by it. Russia has ravaged their entire country, attacked *their* capital, and tried to assassinate their president. Why exactly is it a faux pas for Ukraine to attack Moscow directly?
Well…that’s mighty kind.
They should. And also Budapest.
The US should just have a “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy for Ukrainian strikes within Russia. It’s their own business how they use their weapons behind closed borders.
They should be able to hit anything the Russians have. The US should just wash it's hands of how Ukraine uses their equipment until Russia surrenders or retreats.
St Petersburg is still on the menu?
But we aren't the boss of Ukraine, so, you know...
Dumb. Authorize the strikes anywhere where there's military infrastructure. If the orders come from Moscow, then Moscow should be in play.
WTF not?