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
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.
Many of the posters on here have no clue about the area and culture.

They are also so political leaning thinking they can't believe their candidate may have self serving interests.
 
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.
Well that's exactly what is happening.
 
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.
If their nukes work as well as their tanks, I'm not very worried.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
US and Russian astronauts just rode a Russian rocket to hop onto the ISS the other day.



But you want to convince yourself their ICBMs won’t work?

Bad bet.
They will work fine....assuming they can reach their target. I feel like our missile defense capabilities are better than advertised. Not to say nothing would get through and certainly if they launched everything they had we couldn't cover that, but a limited attack would be very tough to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
If their nukes work as well as their tanks, I'm not very worried.
The Soviets never cared much for accuracy. They built more throw weight.

Think of the impact of 3 nukes out of thousands working on Europe and 2 in US.

Your right, not very much to worry about.
 
Whatever facilities the Russians have targeted in Ukraine, it should work both ways. The best opportunity to rid the world of Putin would arrive when Russian civilians feel the effects of the war instead of getting their news from the media he controls.
Because you know they won’t shoot back? Maybe warmongering by the left will change when they feel the effects also.
 
Whatever facilities the Russians have targeted in Ukraine, it should work both ways. The best opportunity to rid the world of Putin would arrive when Russian civilians feel the effects of the war instead of getting their news from the media he controls.
I know Poltava. I've been right there where the building was hit. The building which is for military training had a small hospital right beside it, also military. In Kremenchuk, I've been to the mall that was hit. The Ukrainians were housing weapons. I know refugees who were fired on by Ukrainian forces to keep them from leaving. I have a photo of myself with a beret on from students in training. A personal friend had his home damaged nearby.

I am pro Ukraine. Very good friends there. The FOG OF WAR is real.

If Ukraine can do it all themselves, then I am for hitting Russia. They can't. Terrible situation.

But I also know some of you can't handle reality without name calling.

Not willing to sacrifice Des Moines for Kyiv. We hit Russia with Burisma. You want to stare at a nuke for Biden?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82
The argument seems to be that Putin is bluffing and we should call his bluff.

In fact that's exactly what Seth Jones, Director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington just said on BBC News.

What happens if he isn't bluffing?

Does Putin strike us as the kind of guy who would accept defeat while he has nukes sitting on the shelf?
 
This used to be a non political space. Feel free to create your own thread to post BS.

+2
Go ahead and beat you chest. How is jumping up and down cheering missile strikes on Russia not political? Under the Soviets, the leadership post Stalin was at least reasonable. Both sides backed down with the Cuban Missile Crisis if you really know history. Both sides knew there was some logic behind the reason.
 
The argument seems to be that Putin is bluffing and we should call his bluff.

In fact that's exactly what Seth Jones, Director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington just said on BBC News.

What happens if he isn't bluffing?

Does Putin strike us as the kind of guy who would accept defeat while he has nukes sitting on the shelf?
I think he's smart enough to know when to fight another day. But we don't know which day he choses.

Putin does bluff. Like in Grozny and Debeltsevo when he promised safe passage to withdrawing forces. Yes he bluffs sometimes.

The Russian culture is filled with half truths, which also means there is truth in what they say. Which half are you betting on with your life? Rhetorical question for others.
 
Apparently the reason Starmer is trying to get Biden to sign off is that their Storm Shadow missiles have several critical US components.

The UK has given Ukraine a free hand with wholly UK-made weapons but Washington doesn't want Putin to be able to point to US components after major strikes in Russia.

That could change, of course, but logically wouldn't until we're ready to give Ukraine a free hand with our own weapons.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: h-hawk
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.
You might be the worst of your group.
 
Apparently the reason Starmer is trying to get Biden to sign off is that their Storm Shadow missiles have several critical US components.

The UK has given Ukraine a free hand with wholly UK-made weapons but Washington doesn't want Putin to be able to point to US components after major strikes in Russia.

That could change, of course, but logically wouldn't until we're ready to give Ukraine a free hand with our own weapons.
It’s more than that, the weapons rely on US satellite navigation and that is directly contributing to military action against the Russians. US troops fly and maintain those satellites. It is basically an act of war.
 
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.
It’s cool that the orcs target Kiev?
You play the both sides, don’t cross the line, provoke nukes consistently.
Bull crap. Orcs can target civilians in Kiev?
Pissoff.
 
You're a trumper.
You mean he supports a 34 times convicted felon, convicted Financial Criminal? Tried to overthrow democracy and then lost his nerve when he failed? A man held liable for sexual abuse. A man that paid $260,000, at least, to two porn prostitutes to shut them up about having an affair with him? You mean a man that regularly cheats on his wife? You mean a man that was going to build a wall, you mean a man that was going to make Mexico pay for it? But couldn't... cause we built no wall. You mean a man that lost the popular vote to Hillary by three and a half million votes, then lost to Joe by 8 and 1/2 million votes? And then created the biggest lie in history to try to assuage his shattered ego? You mean a man that tried to blackmail a state official into 'finding' thousands more votes in his favor? You mean a man that stole state top secrets documents, hid them in his bathroom and then lied about it? He supports someone like that? Nobody is THAT stupid... or?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT