ADVERTISEMENT

US Will Allow Ukraine to Strike Deep Inside Russia (with a caveat)

Do you approve of letting Ukraine hit deep inside Russia?


  • Total voters
    72
Nov 28, 2010
86,667
41,013
113
Maryland
Probably (decision today). But probably not not with US-made weapons.

Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia​


The topic will be on the agenda Friday with the first official visit to Washington by Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer.

President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn’t use arms provided by the United States, European officials say.
The issue, which has long been debated in the administration, is coming to a head on Friday with the first official visit to the White House by Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer.

Britain has already signaled to the United States that it is eager to let Ukraine use its “Storm Shadow” long-range missiles to strike at Russian military targets far from the Ukrainian border. But it wants explicit permission from Mr. Biden in order to demonstrate a coordinated strategy with the United States and France, which makes a similar missile. American officials say Mr. Biden has not made a decision, but will hear from Mr. Starmer on Friday.

If the president approves, the move could help Ukraine hold the line after it seizes Russian territory, as it did during its surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. But Mr. Biden has hesitated to allow Ukraine to use American weapons in the same way, particularly after warnings from American intelligence agencies that Russia could respond by aiding Iran in targeting American forces in the Middle East.

On Thursday, White House officials insisted there was no imminent decision on the use of the American-made surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems — known as ATACMS. But Mr. Biden himself has signaled that a loosening of restrictions is coming. He was asked on Tuesday whether he was ready to grant the increasingly insistent requests from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

“We are working that out right now,” he said.

more here:

 
I suppose that any people under attack have the natural right of self-defense, and that that defense is pretty useless in this case if they can't target artillery or supply lines within Russia. I guess I would also prefer that US arms are probably never used by other nations...so I guess that's a somber 'yes'.
 
Last edited:
I go back to this A Biden should have never been on the payroll of Burisma.

The Fog of War.
 
finger-fist.gif
 
If a country is able to get weapons to defend itself they should be allowed to use them as long as they don't violate rules of engagement. Can Ukraine say Russia you can't buy drones from Iran? Stupidest thing I have heard of. The firm and hard line is troops, and honestly I would have them join Nato tomorrow and put troops on the ground and regain the border. Russia would do nothing.
 
If a country is able to get weapons to defend itself they should be allowed to use them as long as they don't violate rules of engagement. Can Ukraine say Russia you can't buy drones from Iran? Stupidest thing I have heard of. The firm and hard line is troops, and honestly I would have them join Nato tomorrow and put troops on the ground and regain the border. Russia would do nothing.

I think it's probably less about actual permission and more about projecting diplomatic unity with the most powerful nation in the world. That's a pretty big bargaining chip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: l.todd and Torg
[more from OP article]

If Mr. Biden permits the British and French to go ahead, and if he follows in coming weeks by allowing the use of the ATACMS, it could well be his final acceleration of the military aid to Ukraine.

Quietly, Republican leaders in the Senate, especially Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, have been urging an aggressive response — a sharp split with former President Donald J. Trump, who refused in Tuesday night’s presidential debate to declare that he wants Ukraine to win, or to say that Russia should get out of the 20 percent or so of Ukraine it has taken since war began.
 
“Easing the restrictions on Western weapons will not cause Moscow to escalate,” 17 former ambassadors and generals wrote in a letter to the administration this week. “We know this because Ukraine is already striking territory Russia considers its own — including Crimea and Kursk — with these weapons and Moscow’s response remains unchanged.”
 
What was the name of the WW3 movie in the 80s where Des Moines gets nuked and the guy is I think north of the city playing his guitar on the top of his car stuck in traffic?
 
Russia/Putin stated that if the US were to allow long range they/he would consider they are at war with NATO. I don't think it really matters if the long range missiles are from the US or not.

Are you fine with Russia using Iran and Chinese missiles to hit Ukraine?
 
Last edited:
The U.S. should not play a role in allowing "Ukraine to Strike Deep Inside Russia".

If Ukraine wants to strike into Russia with their own weapons or with that of another country's weapons (ie...the U.K.), it has nothing to do with the U.S.
Are you saying we should do nothing to restrain Ukraine (or the UK)?
 
Ummm right! You win!

WW3 for 200!

So, you found the edit button. Nice.

What is hysterically funny is how many of you experts have ever spent much time in the Russian/Ukrainian cultures and YET you are experts.
 
Last edited:
I voted yes but my definition of "deep" doesn't include Moscow. Just want them to be able to hit supply, marshaling area's and airfields.
During the meeting, Mr. Austin asked Mr. Umerov several questions about which sites inside Russia Ukraine would target, probing to make sure Ukraine would focus on military sites like airfields, but not power plants or other civilian infrastructure. Mr. Austin also queried his Ukrainian counterpart about what objective such targeting could accomplish.

Mr. Austin continues to believe that the use of U.S. weapons for long-range strikes into Russia won’t turn the tide of the war, in part because there are not enough ATACMS — or British and French missiles — to sustain an attack.

At Ramstein, a U.S. air base in Germany, last Friday, Mr. Austin added that loosening the reins on Ukraine’s use of ATACMS would not resolve one of the biggest problems facing Ukrainian cities and troops — so-called glide bombs launched from Russian attack planes deep inside Russia.

“As we look at the battlefield currently, we know that the Russians have actually moved their aircraft that are using the glide bombers beyond the range of ATACMS,” Mr. Austin said.
 
Absolutely. I also find it hilarious how people think “but muh tax dollars are going to Ukraine”

No they aren’t. We are giving them decades old, expired tech while investing money into our own domestic MIC companies (RTX, GD, Boeing…etc) to replace and improve the tech. JOBS. It literally cannot be more win win. Will this get us closer to all out NATO vs Russia, yes. Will it get Russia closer to the negotiation table seriously, yes as well. It is all win win with the assumed risk.
 
What, if anything, should we do about this?

Russia already uses Iranian, Chinese and North Korean weapons and components against targets in Ukraine,” said Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.​
Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters on Tuesday that the new shipment of short-range ballistic missiles from Iran to Russia set a dangerous precedent that is likely to lead to more shipments.​
“One has to assume that if Iran is providing Russia with these types of missiles that it’s very likely it would not be a one-time good deal,” he said. “That this would be a source of capability that Russia would seek to tap in the future.”​
 
Absolutely. I also find it hilarious how people think “but muh tax dollars are going to Ukraine”

No they aren’t. We are giving them decades old, expired tech while investing money into our own domestic MIC companies (RTX, GD, Boeing…etc) to replace and improve the tech. JOBS. It literally cannot be more win win.

Win - win for the politicians and brass that enjoy the revolving door at the MIC, maybe, but Americans are getting nothing for the explosions on the other side of the world. We’re turning tax money into smoke, instead of schools or something we could actually use.
 
No one is afraid of Putin and his shitty army except for trump.

If tiny were president, there would be no Ukraine.
Their army is definitely not the fearsome thing the Russians possess, but that won’t stop people from insisting the US is the only thing preventing Russian tanks from visiting the French coast.

They’re at once impossibly weak, but also extremely scary. Quite the balancing act the neocons have to maintain with these competing narratives.
 
It seems like the logical progression after that would be Russia striking deep inside a NATO country. I imagine there are people “on our side” who would be thrilled to have such an emboldening/escalating event take place.
I think we need to decide whether we are assisting out of altruism or self-interest. If it’s the former, then Ukraine should let it fly and we should practice our duck and cover. If it’s the latter the answer is no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT