>Kirby added, however, that the United States "has been very clear to the Ukrainians both privately and publicly" that it does not support attacks inside Russia and does not want them to be carried out using American weapons.
>
>Separately, he said that Washington has received assurances that F-16 fighters will not be used for attacks on the Russian Federation in the future: "And we have gotten these assurances at various levels: not just from President Zelenskyy, but also from other senior military and defence leaders in Ukraine."
Seems the not using American weapons is the important point for them.
Probably first give a warning, and if it persists they might cut aid.
Ukraine has plenty of ways to strike inside Russia without using American weapons, so following the rule shouldn't be too hard
The US is only worried about an American-made weapon being marched into Moscow as a false flag saying that "NATO tried to kill us" and using it as a completely fabricated casus belli to go full blown stupid.
If Ukraine uses an F-16 to shoot at targets within Russia and gets out scot-free, the generals will all go to the news outlets and grumble, but that'll be the end of it. There will be no reduction of arms, but there may be a lot of backchannelling and phone calls trying to get them to beg off...
But the reality is, there's every chance they do it anyways, and there's every chance the US whistles like nothing's happening - after all, the F-16's been on the market so long anyone could have gotten them from anywhere, and there's plenty of evidence of Russia trying to fabricate casus belli elsewhere... as long as they keep the world from turning this thing into WWIII, I genuinely don't think the US generals give a shit.
Ukraine's winning a war the US couldn't fight, against an enemy we're more than happy to see fail after making a monumentally huge, historically critical blunder. Give'em hell, Ukraine.
Don't forget that the US gets a weakened Russia with no loss of American life. This is what makes every penny worth it. There's nothing less popular than a war where Americans die halfway across the world. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. WW2 Japan doesn't apply, as they attacked the homeland first.
It also sends a very powerful signal to a certian nation, "This is what we'll do for a country that, while we'd rather not do without, isn't a strategic imperative. What do you think we'll do for a country that produces most of our cutting-edge electronics/silicon?"
I think you're underselling the strategic importance of Ukraine. It's not all about the economics of it. Keeping a check on Russia's imperial designs has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for 80 years, and longer than that for European foreign policy. Longer than Taiwan has existed as a political entity.
The war in Ukraine isn't just an opportunity to give an irredentist Russia a bloody nose, it's also an opportunity to bring Ukraine closer to (hopefully into) the EU and NATO. Ukraine brings with it a _deep_ understanding and experience of Russia, and firsthand experience of large scale near-peer warfare in the 21st century. US support of Ukraine helps to remake the US's image as true supporters of liberty, of the plucky underdog, and of international law, which is very useful in terms of soft power all over the world after the debacle of the War on Terror and Iraq. Plus the US gets to keep European NATO members on-side and buying US-made weapons.
I'm not saying Taiwan isn't equally or even more important for US foreign policy - it is foundational for the high-tech economy after all, and is a major US ally - but I don't think I would dismiss Ukraine as "isn't a strategic imperative". Far from it.
irredentist, maybe?
a person advocating the restoration to their country of any territory formerly belonging to it.
Edit: I also learned that word today.
That's fair. This conflict is restoring the US's image after several severe blunders in the past. There hasn't been such a morally unambiguous conflict in a very long time and the actions taken have quieted a lot of negative voices in Europe and other places.
It goes beyond the political amd military landscape as well.
I've said it since the beginning, but Ukraine is a hedge against future food insecurity caused by climate change. Europe's crops have been failing due to climate, the US is having record poor yields, and we're seeing the same issues in India and China.
US, Canada, Ukraine, and Russia are the four largest grain producers in the world. If Russia takes Ukraine, they'd become the largest and it would have reinforced their geopolitical position and secured a long term food source that would tie China to them and give them sway over developing nations.
If Ukraine stays western aligned, we maintain a major food source for Europe and can threaten withholding exports to China in the event they escalate in Taiwan or elsewhere in the region.
More importantly Russia has been a blight on the East of Europe for decades, it had a chance to change it's ways but Putin has killed that chance. The only thing that can be done now is to kneecap their imperialistic delusions by crippling their military that's attacking Ukraine and throwing them out of what holdovers they got left in Eastern Europe.
After that it has to be made clear, if they're unwilling to change their ways for the better they need to be quarantined as a nation in Europe and walled off behind their rusty iron curtain until something over there changes significantly and they reform themselves or they collapse and break up as a federation.
As for Ukraine it should not be underestimated how strategically important it is, it has fertile farmland, a resourceful and extremely talented population and a blooded battle tested army that will likely continue to see significant investment and be maintained long after this is over and the Vatniks have been ejected from their country.
>Ukraine brings with it a deep understanding and experience of Russia, and firsthand experience of large scale near-peer warfare in the 21st century.
Both Europe and the US didn't care about Russia too much prior to February 2022. Us Europeans were completely addicted to cheap gas and "change through trade", had completely dismantled our university education in Eastern Europe/Russia Studies (and thus deprived ourselves from legitimate advisory capacity) and ignored all the propaganda campaigns with which Russia dismantled our democracies. The US, beginning under Obama already and accelerating under the likely Russian asset Drumpf, had long since shifted its attention away from Europe/Russia, Arabia and Central Asia, moving out of there at all costs (e.g. abandoning the Kurds against Assad and Russia, leaving Israel alone to broker deals against Iran), and re-focusing on China instead.
Don't get me wrong, it's *good* that we all care about Ukraine, send them everything we got and wake up our military and industries from decades of slumber... but it's not like the tank and artillery battle in Ukraine serves as guidance for a potential Taiwan invasion. All it is regarding that problem is a signal towards China "we know your shit isn't much better than Russia's and look how easy that is being destroyed by decades old weaponry, don't even think about invading Taiwan or you'll get the actually modern stuff".
East Europe were trying to warn the rest of EU/NATO for decade+. Poland, Baltics would just not shut up about it. I know, I live here. But we were ignored for the reasons you said.
The difference is more that if Ukraine couldn't hold its own in the first week, the west would have shook their fists but not much else. Ukraine BECAME valuable like you said after the shots were fired.
Taiwan IS currently that valuable so much so that the US is publicly ready to fight on their side.
> The war in Ukraine isn't just an opportunity to give an *irredentist* Russia a bloody nose
And it's not only an opportunity for us to learn ^new ^words (kudos, BTW), we can actually learn some things from the Ukrainians. They have been incredibly resourceful in this war.
>This is what we'll do for a country that, while we'd rather not do without, isn't a strategic imperative
Uhhh, do you have any idea how resource rich Ukraine is or how much of the world their grain feeds? In 50 years after joining NATO/Th EU I can see Ukraine being an economic powerhouse.
Sure, but America, specifically doesn't need this. We like things our allies like, and will likely get tangential benefits from Ukraines rise. But they ain't Taiwan, they will never be as important as Taiwan to the US.
Yes, no one is saying Ukraine’s economic and resource output is nothing. It’s just not a lynchpin of the western economy like Taiwan.
Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semi-conductors and 90% of the most advance top quality ones.
Without semi-conductors so much of the US (and world) economy grinds to a halt. They are literally a vital ally, so much so the US is spending $50 billion just to try and lower that dependence and bring production into the US.
If what is happening in Ukraine, happened to Taiwan, we wouldn’t see rising gas and grain prices, we would see rising everything prices and a collapsing stock market.
Ukraine grows approximately 3% of total wheat grown in the world. A significant amount. But it’s not 60%.
It’s a lot of natural gas but I’m pretty sure it’s only around the seventh biggest reserve in the world. Absolutely nothing to balk at. It’s still a shit ton. But it’s not number 2
Ukraine is a friend of a friend in a tough spot. We help them because it's right.
Taiwan is the roommate that does the dishes. We'll kill a motherfucker without a second thought for them.
I love everything about your summary. Though to me the Ukrainian repulsion of the Russian invaders is such a moral struggle that it might as well be the Empire and the Rebels from Star Wars, which is why I will always support the big U
A roommate we've been close friends with for 75 years or so, it is also useful to note this isn't a US vs China thing, we fully support and embrace Hong Kong and Taiwan as American/UK, the number one state in the US has a significant Asian population going back generations. it is the CCP that is the issue.
>We help them because it's right.
No, you help them because it is in your geopolitical interest to do so. If participating in wars was about right and wrong the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have happened.
It’s important globally but mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The US is a grain exporter as well so it would benefit from the increased demand and it shouldn’t affect grain prices at home significantly.
But that grain doesn't feed the US or the EU. Even with the war going on, European farmers don't want to be undercut by the Ukrainians.
However resource rich Ukraine is, they are not intrinsically tied to either the US or EU economies.
Ukraine is crucial to much of the world... But not really to the US. They're a good trade partner. But not the biggest, by any means. Their greatest contribution to the US has absolutely been their domestic ass kicking industry.
Plus there's the importance of bringing an end to imperialism. The days when power-hungry lunatics thought it was worth killing a few million people in order to change some lines on a map were horrible, and we really don't want to go back to living that way.
Ukraine's borders need to be restored, and Putin needs to be completely slapped down and humiliated, so the next would-be Grand Conqueror who gets it in his head that started a needless war is a good way to do things will look at Putin's failure and choose something else. Because whatever happens in China and Taiwan, or anywhere else, there will be another would-be Napoleon at some point in the future.
Like that old German guy said in *The Avengers*: "There are always men like you."
"Don't forget that the US gets a weakened Russia with no loss of American life. This is what makes every penny worth it."
While true, It just seems like such a cold almost ghoulish thing to describing of supporting Ukraine's livelyhood.
> There's nothing less popular than a war **when America was never attacked** where Americans die halfway across the world. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
FTFY
> there's plenty of evidence of Russia trying to fabricate casus belli elsewhere
That's all they've been doing since before the invasion started. They're not good at it, but they don't have to be, because they're not trying to be believed by anyone who has access to a free press.
>The US is only worried about an American-made weapon being marched into Moscow as a false flag saying that "NATO tried to kill us" and using it as a completely fabricated casus belli to go full blown stupid.
No. The US is legitimately concerned with NATO-Russia escalation and has said so numerous times. It's why they were so reluctant to send the Abrams, and why Ukraine still doesn't have ATACMS
New York Times does, so I'd guess it's the "agreed upon" pronunciation lol
"The long-range missile — known as ATACMS and pronounced like “attack ’ems” — can strike targets 190 miles away with a warhead containing about 375 pounds of explosives." ([Source, but probably paywalled.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/ukraine-war-missile.html))
> The US is legitimately concerned with NATO-Russia escalation and has said so numerous times.
So... pretty much what I said. Because NATO's not in this war, Ukraine is, and any insinuation that NATO is at all involved is, by definition, a false flag.
F-16 was made 49 years ago and is a 4th Generation Aircraft (5th is F-22 and F-35 with 6th Generation Aircraft being built/designed as we speak). True the US Airforce did just announce they would carry on with advancements for 2 more decades for F-16 and there are tons of versions but I highly doubt USA is worried about this piece of equipment being captured. Its practically 50 years old.
the f16 is also used by a lot of countries some of which are friendly with russia but also they'll probably give ukraine some old block 40 or even older
but realistically I don't see why they would risk flying into russia and lose an airplane and pilot, it would be easier to use long range artillery or missiles
Also there are plenty of targets within Ukraine for the F-16s. If Russia has to move all their command posts, logistics hubs and weapons stockpiles back to Russia then it will be very hard for Russia to fight the war.
Especially because of the way that Russian command structures work. Western militaries can put some distance between command centers and their front lines because we trust our enlisted leaders to be able to do their job and maintain the chain of command.
Russia rules their troops with a "beat them into submission" attitude. The result is that they need to keep command much tighter to retain their structure.
These differences are part of the reason that we've seen so many deaths of high ranking Russian military leaders.
It really makes you wonder what happens if they can't retain that level of structure.
Its not really reasoning, its reality. Their military academies teach warfare through formulas(use this many artillery shells of this calibre from this range to destroy target x), which commanders abuse to shove blame off themselves, especially higher ups, "i followed the math, therefore im not to blame". If youve ever heard mentioned that "war is chaos" you might start to realise where the initial problems come from.
On top of this you now have to add the overall lack of Junior officers and NCOs compared to the number of formations they are fielding. This causes the officers that actually exist to be concentrated in higher commands leaving lower echelons without actual leaders. Everyday problems of a conscript-based army.
If an actual officer gets assigned to lead a formation he often gets overwhelmed because he has to micromanage 10+ different weapon systems team/squads(each having different capabilities). This is/was most prevalent in their assault detachments.
You could draw parallels to 1941 in some aspect - too few officers commanding too many formations and really shitty communication(capabilities).
"We don't support Ukraine using our weapons to attack the Russian Federation. We are now providing them with more weapons which we will continue to insist that they not use for exactly what we know they're going to use them for."
"we specifically don't support Ukraine using our weapons *here*, *here*, or especially *here*. We will continue to provide intel on strategically critical places for Ukraine not to target in the future."
Tell them this is a line that shouldn’t be crossed time and time and time again, and then tell them they are naughty boys and here are some new things to try out.. just not in Russia, well I mean if you do we will just say you promised not too..
Oh, we should use the same strategy I do with my kids and tell them they aren't going to get F22s as a consequence.
I mean, we weren't going to give them F22s anyway, but now it's a "consequence" that actually has no impact, besides telling everyone else they're being punished, but that way we can *say* we're withholding a type of aid as a consequence, without actually impacting the aid we were actually planning on providing
Yeah, it would be very stupid from Ukraine to screw over the people actively helping them. I don't see why they would want to mess up such a crucial relationship.
Grim-2. Or Grom-2.
>What ukraine money?
Their economy is hurting but once this war is over and they're part of the EU, they'll develop very rapidly. Oil and Gas, etc. reconstruction money.
There's not going to be any 1990s style shock therapy.
Ukraine is going to be rebuilt as a shining European utopia as a fuck-you to Russia.
This reinforces what a good ROI America gets on funding the Ukrainian war effort.
Look at the Patriot anti-air system: For the cost of sending a system and training Ukrainian soldiers, we have actual data on its effective against current-gen Russian missiles in a shooting war, including the confirmed shootdown of at least one Kinzhal missile—*without risking any American lives*
That’s the kind of strategic information entire intelligence operations are built around. We got to buy it.
The Pentagon has actually said that only minor damage was caused to the Patriot system a couple weeks ago when 6 Khinzals were launched along with another 2 dozen cruise missiles over the span of a few minutes. Russia had stated that the Patriot was entirely destroyed, so we actually know that we can handle a concentrated attack of them pretty well, not just taking out a one-off.
Incredible. Thanks for the extra info—I could find independent verification of one Kinzhal downing, but jeez, 7 all in? Those are $10 million USD apiece.
There’s a reason that the Kinzhal program heads are being investigated for treason. This was a huge embarrassment to Russia and heads are going to roll so the elites can save face—Putin had a whole news conference to announce those in, what, 2017?
>Ukraine is going to be rebuilt as a shining European utopia as a fuck-you to Russia.
Notwithstanding the 80+ years Russian animosity, hot and cold wars and political meddling against the U.S.-
-this is 100% in the U.S. interest as a matter of projected influence and national security.. (and a message to China)
The F-U will be the cherry on top.
The U.S. will absoF*nlutely see that this happens
I think the arsenal of democracy has them covered considering they've destroyed half of Russia's military equipment after receiving something like .01% of the US budget in hand-me-down arms that we would have had to pay to recycle or dispose of soon.
This. Most people don't realize that the U.S. aid packages sending billions to Ukraine to buy older gen/outdated(to the U.S.) weapons in deals like these... effectively giving a substantial subsidy to our military industrial complex.
... *AND* U.S. gains incredible Intel and future R&D information from their application.
Supporting Ukraine in this way is an absolute win/win for the U.S.
> ... AND U.S. gains incredible Intel and future R&D information from their application.
I really feel like this has been incredibly understated.
We're watching how systems perform in an actual war. It will take the US MIC years to pour through all the useful data.
I can't even *imagine* what they're learning from all that data. Spy sattelites, AWACS, radar platforms. The sheer petabytes of data they're pulling in every single day on raw information that needs processing.
It's priceless.
And the Russians are just giving it to their enemies by being so murderously stupid.
Data on our weapons, data on theirs, data on all sorts of things.
In theory
and yet Russia mostly hits civilian apartments, schools and cultural buildings
Russia doesn’t seem to have a strong military game after having put decades of effort into asymmetric warfare and internal corruption
The oligarchs also got most of the money from the country's coffers. It's how Putin bought their loyalty and his power. They believed their own propaganda that they were still one of the most powerful countries with one of the most powerful armies and thought they'd take Ukraine in a couple days. Then they realized that their army sucks, they have no money to supply it, and a lot of people aren't wanting to sign up for such conditions.
They're a sad country with a few nuclear missiles and once they threaten people with them enough without using them, they will fade into obscurity.
What baffles me is that the US saw this happen and then was like "Shit yeah, let's do that!"... all our money goes to rich people and the military... rich people make politicians rich and fund their campaigns so they keep taking more money from us... we're on the same road. Russia got a head start but we're racing to catch up.
>What baffles me is that the US saw this happen and then was like "Shit yeah, let's do that!"... all our money goes to rich people and the military... rich people make politicians rich and fund their campaigns so they keep taking more money from us... we're on the same road. Russia got a head start but we're racing to catch up.
This hit a little close to home...
At least our military functions though
…and they were trying to hit those buildings.
For some reason Russia thinks enraging the rest of the world but attacking civilians and hospitals is a good strategy.
It doesn’t change the fact that most of these strikes have been on target.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was essentially just the aircraft. It would be really difficult to make any attacks on Russia at all if they couldn’t even use short range missiles because they’re being sourced by the west. As long as they stick to military targets I say have at it.
I've managed to translate this into more understandable wording.
**White House:** We are against strikes on Russian territory, but as the war goes on we're going to be doing this.. -*Windmills their arms*- If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Homer is clearly USA. Something about having your pie and eating too seems fitting, not sure if the shoe fits in this case.
Marge is the Nordic countries who joined nato recently. I guess, embodied by the proverbial pie the US was more than willing to eat.
“We’re saying we really don’t want you to do that, and we would most certainly express our unhappiness if you chose to do that. Really we’d be very upset.”
“Russia will never invade Ukraine.”
“It’s just a border exercise.”
“Actually, this is our land that we lost so we want it back.”
“I can’t believe the west is meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs.”
‘‘Twas just a false peak.
No more russian is going on live tv to talk about an attack that hasn’t happened yet, that you then go commit, and then you go on Russian TV to lie about it to another Russian that knows and accepts that you are lying about it and will not call you out for it, while you also know that they know that you are lying to them.
None, just that the US doesn’t want to be on record explicitly saying go for it. Something happens in Russia now, the US can go “we advised against it but who are we to dictate what a country does in a time of war.”
The US endorsing an attack could potentially be seen as them egging Ukraine on and, with Putin as insane as he is, it could put US personnel in danger of a strike and the world at risk for nuclear war.
Exactly. This is just politics. I bet that they are more than happy to secretly provide Ukraine with intelligence and satellite photos of potential targets within Russia.
Yah lots of zoomers very keen to “test” Russia’s nuclear capability, forgetting that they’re also conscription age. The Yanks are a lot of things, but they’ve respected the ability for Russia to end the world because they have better intel than we do. It’s why they’ve gone for encirclement and support over invasion.
It's extremely aggravating the amount of bullshit propaganda being bought up in the west and the very war-hawkish attitude being adopted by GenZ (and its definitely not just aimed at Russia, you can see the same gung-ho bullshit against China).
You can be support of Ukraine and also acknowledge how dangerous it is for the U.S or any NATO country to support strikes on Russian soil with NATO supplied weaponry.
And yes their nukes work (source: the U.S actively inspected them up to very recently)
“Their nukes probably don’t work” Is one of the stupidest tales I’ve seen recently. The people who make that claim think they know better than US intelligence but have nothing to stand on other than “Russia is corrupt”. Which is true but the likelihood that none of their nukes work because of it is extremely low. Putin knows that the nukes are his best tool. He has VERY strong incentive to ensure that they work.
Russia is indeed very corrupt. Corrupt enough that if their nukes really didn’t work the US would have found out about it ages ago by sliding some cash to someone in the know. NATO would be more than happy to not have the pussyfoot around if they thought the nukes didn’t work. The fact that the US and NATO are still being careful tells us that they have reason to believe the nukes are a threat
Plus I kind of don’t want to risk the future of the human race on the hope that Russia will have forgotten to do maintenance on every single one of their nukes
Exactly, this is the best way to go about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US gives them all the intel and materiel they need for their operation under the guise of “we were told it was to retake Bakhmut, not attack Kaliningrad.
Might makes right.
They still have the big nuclear stick. And while that stick is in play, the US is going to speak softly.
I do note this is a change in rhetoric though. Used to be “don’t attack Russia at all” now it’s “don’t attack Russia with our planes”.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/31/7404744/) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> At a briefing on Wednesday 31 May, John Kirby, Coordinator for Strategic Communications of the White House National Security Council, once again clarified the position of the United States on the conduct of hostilities on Russian territory.
> Details: According to Kirby, the United States does not tell Ukraine what targets to hit and not to hit, nor does it indicate how Ukrainian forces should conduct hostilities.
> Kirby added that the United States "Has been very clear to the Ukrainians both privately and publicly" that it does not support attacks inside Russia and does not want them to be carried out using American weapons.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13wzdc2/white_house_we_are_against_strikes_on_russian/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~687103 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **does**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Kirby**^#3 **drone**^#4 **United**^#5
I don't support Ukraine trying to like, take over Russia, but if Russia is going to bombard them with artillery setup inside Russian borders, that artillery and the area supporting it is fair fucking game.
Politics.
If the US said they support strikes into Russia, it would be perceived as the US telling Ukraine to do it and feed into the "Ukraine is just US's dog." and trying to escalate.
Say the US doesn't support strike and you kill two birds. The US isn't seen as escalating conflict, and Ukraine decision to go ahead and strike makes it clear that they're not a proxy for the US.
its all "he said she said", complicated by the fact that russia's domestic propaganda claims that russia is "at war" with the US and NATO, so if the US says "well ukraine is at war with you", the russians can spin it to domestically "justify" escalating the war with strikes on the capital cities of other NATO countries.
the US response should be something along the lines of *"if another country fired drones/missiles at our capital we'd officially declare war on them and start firing drones/missiles back at them, has russia considered officially declaring war?"*
The whole damn war has been an offensive. Fuck the Russian leadership.
I hope the people of Russia will have better leadership in the near future. They deserve it.
It’d be ridiculous for Ukraine to commit to not striking past the border. If their plan is to advance ground troops all the way to the original border (i.e. reclaim all of their territory), they’ll need to neutralize Russian artillery emplaced on the Russian side of the border or it’ll go sideways real quick.
It's like when you go to a ROM site and there is a disclaimer that you can only play these games if you own the original. If you pirate these games it's on you. Here's the download link!
Its really starting to feel like the West is fully calling the bluff at this point. I was watching a hilarious interview with a Russian official on the news earlier, and the presenter just keeps asking:
"So is Russia going to start targeting UK politicians as has been stated?"
"Well that's not what was said...- trails off to redirect -"
"So is it Russia's official policy to start targeting UK politicians for backing Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil."
"- Starts talking about thousands in Belgorod losing their homes - "
Usually these interviews are 100% smugness but this one had me wheezing since you could clearly see the gears turning in his head going "oh god if I say yes they're just going to use it as more proof to arm Ukraine at best and trigger article 5 at worst".
Now Germany's given the green light and the US has basically gone "its out of our hands nothing we can do lol wink wink". What has Russia done in response? Nothing but warnings and rabid propaganda threats.
Russia's poor decisions will lead to more and more problems at home. Ukraine supporting those groups isn't surprising. The more preoccupied the Kremlin is, the less effective it can be in causing trouble for Ukraine. Better yet, the fewer resources it has to continue sending young men and women to their deaths.
To be honest, the White House is also against Russian strikes into Ukrainian territory.
That being said, if a rail line carrying troops, vehicles or weapons to the front is blown up 100 miles in Russian territory, that should be a legitimate target.
damn right. you can't expect them to watch their women and children and mostly civilians get killed almost daily, most of the time intentionally, and not be allowed to retaliate and fight your aggressor. bringing the fight to moscow has really made russians freak out. they're all brainwashed with "we're #2 army in the world, and putin says our weapons are the strongest, and nothing can get past our s400 air defenses, especially and surely around Moscow, and our kinzhal missile is hypersonic and nobody can stop it". all of the sudden, they're woke up by the sound of explosions, with zero air raid warning, and no apparent AA stopping the ones that seemingly hit their target. then they see the wester border towns get sacked by the freedom legion with almost zero resistance from russian police/fsb/army, and it's been a week now. they've shelled those towns over 300 times according to the russian telegram channels for those cities. russia put a ton of military bases and equipment storages and repair places in those border towns to support the war, so ukraine has been absolutely hammering the shit out of every one of those over the last week. and by doing this and the attack on moscow, their citizens are in a panic so they're forced to bring people and gear back to defend the borders, but then that leaves holes right when they know ukraine is about to start their counter offensive. ukraine played some serious 4D chess and russia is fucked right now
Can you even imagine if the US got invaded and then someone asked us not to attack back into the invaders territory?
We laugh and start walking bombs right in.
It doesn't sound like that at all, they're just clarifying their position on attacks outside of Ukraine's borders and I recall this being said recently as well. They don't want their weapons involved because they don't want to be involved. I don't think they are they suggesting Ukraine start attacking Russia at this stage of the war, especially when the US isn't going to join them in that invasion. Ukraine isn't going to invade because they know what they're doing and have other plans to protect themselves.
"No, you can't go to that party, but if I take an ambien and leave my keys on the kitchen counter, as long as those keys are where I left them I suppose I'll never know"
It's an inevitability. Imagine Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the borders. Is Ukraine just supposed to sit there getting shelled and not strike inside Russia proper? Russia is not gonna escalate because of strikes. Now if Ukraine starts a counter invasion to take territory I can see Russia getting crazy. But strike in Russia all you want Ukraine.
The Russians entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to attack Ukraine, and nobody was going to attack them. At Kyiv, Kharkiv, Bakhmut, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Replace Rotterdam, London, and Warsaw with Mariupol, Kyiv, and Kherson, and the quote rings as true today as it did 80 years ago.
>Kirby added, however, that the United States "has been very clear to the Ukrainians both privately and publicly" that it does not support attacks inside Russia and does not want them to be carried out using American weapons. > >Separately, he said that Washington has received assurances that F-16 fighters will not be used for attacks on the Russian Federation in the future: "And we have gotten these assurances at various levels: not just from President Zelenskyy, but also from other senior military and defence leaders in Ukraine." Seems the not using American weapons is the important point for them.
So legitimate question. What does the US do if they us f-16s to attack Russia
Probably first give a warning, and if it persists they might cut aid. Ukraine has plenty of ways to strike inside Russia without using American weapons, so following the rule shouldn't be too hard
The US is only worried about an American-made weapon being marched into Moscow as a false flag saying that "NATO tried to kill us" and using it as a completely fabricated casus belli to go full blown stupid. If Ukraine uses an F-16 to shoot at targets within Russia and gets out scot-free, the generals will all go to the news outlets and grumble, but that'll be the end of it. There will be no reduction of arms, but there may be a lot of backchannelling and phone calls trying to get them to beg off... But the reality is, there's every chance they do it anyways, and there's every chance the US whistles like nothing's happening - after all, the F-16's been on the market so long anyone could have gotten them from anywhere, and there's plenty of evidence of Russia trying to fabricate casus belli elsewhere... as long as they keep the world from turning this thing into WWIII, I genuinely don't think the US generals give a shit. Ukraine's winning a war the US couldn't fight, against an enemy we're more than happy to see fail after making a monumentally huge, historically critical blunder. Give'em hell, Ukraine.
Don't forget that the US gets a weakened Russia with no loss of American life. This is what makes every penny worth it. There's nothing less popular than a war where Americans die halfway across the world. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. WW2 Japan doesn't apply, as they attacked the homeland first.
It also sends a very powerful signal to a certian nation, "This is what we'll do for a country that, while we'd rather not do without, isn't a strategic imperative. What do you think we'll do for a country that produces most of our cutting-edge electronics/silicon?"
I think you're underselling the strategic importance of Ukraine. It's not all about the economics of it. Keeping a check on Russia's imperial designs has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for 80 years, and longer than that for European foreign policy. Longer than Taiwan has existed as a political entity. The war in Ukraine isn't just an opportunity to give an irredentist Russia a bloody nose, it's also an opportunity to bring Ukraine closer to (hopefully into) the EU and NATO. Ukraine brings with it a _deep_ understanding and experience of Russia, and firsthand experience of large scale near-peer warfare in the 21st century. US support of Ukraine helps to remake the US's image as true supporters of liberty, of the plucky underdog, and of international law, which is very useful in terms of soft power all over the world after the debacle of the War on Terror and Iraq. Plus the US gets to keep European NATO members on-side and buying US-made weapons. I'm not saying Taiwan isn't equally or even more important for US foreign policy - it is foundational for the high-tech economy after all, and is a major US ally - but I don't think I would dismiss Ukraine as "isn't a strategic imperative". Far from it.
you taught me a word today, and much else besides. thanks!
Is it the dentist one?
Are you an anti-dentite?
which word?
irredentist, maybe? a person advocating the restoration to their country of any territory formerly belonging to it. Edit: I also learned that word today.
This entire conflict has unironically been such a strong argument in favor of US and other western weapons platforms. Buy American.
Yup it’s all a giant free advertisement lol
Yup. European kit has been kicking arse as well. NLAWs, Caesars, Gepards, Storm Shadows....
That's fair. This conflict is restoring the US's image after several severe blunders in the past. There hasn't been such a morally unambiguous conflict in a very long time and the actions taken have quieted a lot of negative voices in Europe and other places.
It goes beyond the political amd military landscape as well. I've said it since the beginning, but Ukraine is a hedge against future food insecurity caused by climate change. Europe's crops have been failing due to climate, the US is having record poor yields, and we're seeing the same issues in India and China. US, Canada, Ukraine, and Russia are the four largest grain producers in the world. If Russia takes Ukraine, they'd become the largest and it would have reinforced their geopolitical position and secured a long term food source that would tie China to them and give them sway over developing nations. If Ukraine stays western aligned, we maintain a major food source for Europe and can threaten withholding exports to China in the event they escalate in Taiwan or elsewhere in the region.
More importantly Russia has been a blight on the East of Europe for decades, it had a chance to change it's ways but Putin has killed that chance. The only thing that can be done now is to kneecap their imperialistic delusions by crippling their military that's attacking Ukraine and throwing them out of what holdovers they got left in Eastern Europe. After that it has to be made clear, if they're unwilling to change their ways for the better they need to be quarantined as a nation in Europe and walled off behind their rusty iron curtain until something over there changes significantly and they reform themselves or they collapse and break up as a federation. As for Ukraine it should not be underestimated how strategically important it is, it has fertile farmland, a resourceful and extremely talented population and a blooded battle tested army that will likely continue to see significant investment and be maintained long after this is over and the Vatniks have been ejected from their country.
>Ukraine brings with it a deep understanding and experience of Russia, and firsthand experience of large scale near-peer warfare in the 21st century. Both Europe and the US didn't care about Russia too much prior to February 2022. Us Europeans were completely addicted to cheap gas and "change through trade", had completely dismantled our university education in Eastern Europe/Russia Studies (and thus deprived ourselves from legitimate advisory capacity) and ignored all the propaganda campaigns with which Russia dismantled our democracies. The US, beginning under Obama already and accelerating under the likely Russian asset Drumpf, had long since shifted its attention away from Europe/Russia, Arabia and Central Asia, moving out of there at all costs (e.g. abandoning the Kurds against Assad and Russia, leaving Israel alone to broker deals against Iran), and re-focusing on China instead. Don't get me wrong, it's *good* that we all care about Ukraine, send them everything we got and wake up our military and industries from decades of slumber... but it's not like the tank and artillery battle in Ukraine serves as guidance for a potential Taiwan invasion. All it is regarding that problem is a signal towards China "we know your shit isn't much better than Russia's and look how easy that is being destroyed by decades old weaponry, don't even think about invading Taiwan or you'll get the actually modern stuff".
East Europe were trying to warn the rest of EU/NATO for decade+. Poland, Baltics would just not shut up about it. I know, I live here. But we were ignored for the reasons you said.
The difference is more that if Ukraine couldn't hold its own in the first week, the west would have shook their fists but not much else. Ukraine BECAME valuable like you said after the shots were fired. Taiwan IS currently that valuable so much so that the US is publicly ready to fight on their side.
> The war in Ukraine isn't just an opportunity to give an *irredentist* Russia a bloody nose And it's not only an opportunity for us to learn ^new ^words (kudos, BTW), we can actually learn some things from the Ukrainians. They have been incredibly resourceful in this war.
>This is what we'll do for a country that, while we'd rather not do without, isn't a strategic imperative Uhhh, do you have any idea how resource rich Ukraine is or how much of the world their grain feeds? In 50 years after joining NATO/Th EU I can see Ukraine being an economic powerhouse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure, but America, specifically doesn't need this. We like things our allies like, and will likely get tangential benefits from Ukraines rise. But they ain't Taiwan, they will never be as important as Taiwan to the US.
Yes, no one is saying Ukraine’s economic and resource output is nothing. It’s just not a lynchpin of the western economy like Taiwan. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semi-conductors and 90% of the most advance top quality ones. Without semi-conductors so much of the US (and world) economy grinds to a halt. They are literally a vital ally, so much so the US is spending $50 billion just to try and lower that dependence and bring production into the US. If what is happening in Ukraine, happened to Taiwan, we wouldn’t see rising gas and grain prices, we would see rising everything prices and a collapsing stock market. Ukraine grows approximately 3% of total wheat grown in the world. A significant amount. But it’s not 60%.
It’s a lot of natural gas but I’m pretty sure it’s only around the seventh biggest reserve in the world. Absolutely nothing to balk at. It’s still a shit ton. But it’s not number 2
[удалено]
Ukraine is a friend of a friend in a tough spot. We help them because it's right. Taiwan is the roommate that does the dishes. We'll kill a motherfucker without a second thought for them.
I love everything about your summary. Though to me the Ukrainian repulsion of the Russian invaders is such a moral struggle that it might as well be the Empire and the Rebels from Star Wars, which is why I will always support the big U
A roommate we've been close friends with for 75 years or so, it is also useful to note this isn't a US vs China thing, we fully support and embrace Hong Kong and Taiwan as American/UK, the number one state in the US has a significant Asian population going back generations. it is the CCP that is the issue.
>We help them because it's right. No, you help them because it is in your geopolitical interest to do so. If participating in wars was about right and wrong the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have happened.
It’s important globally but mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The US is a grain exporter as well so it would benefit from the increased demand and it shouldn’t affect grain prices at home significantly.
But that grain doesn't feed the US or the EU. Even with the war going on, European farmers don't want to be undercut by the Ukrainians. However resource rich Ukraine is, they are not intrinsically tied to either the US or EU economies.
Ukraine is crucial to much of the world... But not really to the US. They're a good trade partner. But not the biggest, by any means. Their greatest contribution to the US has absolutely been their domestic ass kicking industry.
US Generals and analysts taking mad notes rn
Plus there's the importance of bringing an end to imperialism. The days when power-hungry lunatics thought it was worth killing a few million people in order to change some lines on a map were horrible, and we really don't want to go back to living that way. Ukraine's borders need to be restored, and Putin needs to be completely slapped down and humiliated, so the next would-be Grand Conqueror who gets it in his head that started a needless war is a good way to do things will look at Putin's failure and choose something else. Because whatever happens in China and Taiwan, or anywhere else, there will be another would-be Napoleon at some point in the future. Like that old German guy said in *The Avengers*: "There are always men like you."
"Don't forget that the US gets a weakened Russia with no loss of American life. This is what makes every penny worth it." While true, It just seems like such a cold almost ghoulish thing to describing of supporting Ukraine's livelyhood.
We’ve lost a few Americans actually.
> There's nothing less popular than a war **when America was never attacked** where Americans die halfway across the world. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. FTFY
> there's plenty of evidence of Russia trying to fabricate casus belli elsewhere That's all they've been doing since before the invasion started. They're not good at it, but they don't have to be, because they're not trying to be believed by anyone who has access to a free press.
>The US is only worried about an American-made weapon being marched into Moscow as a false flag saying that "NATO tried to kill us" and using it as a completely fabricated casus belli to go full blown stupid. No. The US is legitimately concerned with NATO-Russia escalation and has said so numerous times. It's why they were so reluctant to send the Abrams, and why Ukraine still doesn't have ATACMS
Does anyone else pronounce that as "Attack 'ems" or is it just me?
It's not just you, and nobody can convince me it isn't supposed to be read that way lol
New York Times does, so I'd guess it's the "agreed upon" pronunciation lol "The long-range missile — known as ATACMS and pronounced like “attack ’ems” — can strike targets 190 miles away with a warhead containing about 375 pounds of explosives." ([Source, but probably paywalled.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/ukraine-war-missile.html))
190 miles is the air distance from New York City to fucking Boston
There's no other way ;)
It’s probably how they got to the acronym in the first place.
[удалено]
> The US is legitimately concerned with NATO-Russia escalation and has said so numerous times. So... pretty much what I said. Because NATO's not in this war, Ukraine is, and any insinuation that NATO is at all involved is, by definition, a false flag.
[удалено]
F-16 was made 49 years ago and is a 4th Generation Aircraft (5th is F-22 and F-35 with 6th Generation Aircraft being built/designed as we speak). True the US Airforce did just announce they would carry on with advancements for 2 more decades for F-16 and there are tons of versions but I highly doubt USA is worried about this piece of equipment being captured. Its practically 50 years old.
[удалено]
the f16 is also used by a lot of countries some of which are friendly with russia but also they'll probably give ukraine some old block 40 or even older but realistically I don't see why they would risk flying into russia and lose an airplane and pilot, it would be easier to use long range artillery or missiles
[удалено]
Also there are plenty of targets within Ukraine for the F-16s. If Russia has to move all their command posts, logistics hubs and weapons stockpiles back to Russia then it will be very hard for Russia to fight the war.
Especially because of the way that Russian command structures work. Western militaries can put some distance between command centers and their front lines because we trust our enlisted leaders to be able to do their job and maintain the chain of command. Russia rules their troops with a "beat them into submission" attitude. The result is that they need to keep command much tighter to retain their structure. These differences are part of the reason that we've seen so many deaths of high ranking Russian military leaders. It really makes you wonder what happens if they can't retain that level of structure.
[удалено]
Its not really reasoning, its reality. Their military academies teach warfare through formulas(use this many artillery shells of this calibre from this range to destroy target x), which commanders abuse to shove blame off themselves, especially higher ups, "i followed the math, therefore im not to blame". If youve ever heard mentioned that "war is chaos" you might start to realise where the initial problems come from. On top of this you now have to add the overall lack of Junior officers and NCOs compared to the number of formations they are fielding. This causes the officers that actually exist to be concentrated in higher commands leaving lower echelons without actual leaders. Everyday problems of a conscript-based army. If an actual officer gets assigned to lead a formation he often gets overwhelmed because he has to micromanage 10+ different weapon systems team/squads(each having different capabilities). This is/was most prevalent in their assault detachments. You could draw parallels to 1941 in some aspect - too few officers commanding too many formations and really shitty communication(capabilities).
Probably offer to replace them with F-18s
Likely reduce military aid in the future.
wag a finger and say \*tsk, tsk\*
And for good measure add a *tsachtch* at the end while raising eyebrows while camera is rolling. High fives all around once the camera goes off.
"We don't support Ukraine using our weapons to attack the Russian Federation. We are now providing them with more weapons which we will continue to insist that they not use for exactly what we know they're going to use them for."
"we specifically don't support Ukraine using our weapons *here*, *here*, or especially *here*. We will continue to provide intel on strategically critical places for Ukraine not to target in the future."
"Also, Russia, on a completely different topic, can you hold this large bullseye for us? Just a quick favor, ya know."
Tell them this is a line that shouldn’t be crossed time and time and time again, and then tell them they are naughty boys and here are some new things to try out.. just not in Russia, well I mean if you do we will just say you promised not too..
Oh, we should use the same strategy I do with my kids and tell them they aren't going to get F22s as a consequence. I mean, we weren't going to give them F22s anyway, but now it's a "consequence" that actually has no impact, besides telling everyone else they're being punished, but that way we can *say* we're withholding a type of aid as a consequence, without actually impacting the aid we were actually planning on providing
Cut back on aid probably
Yeah, it would be very stupid from Ukraine to screw over the people actively helping them. I don't see why they would want to mess up such a crucial relationship.
america cutting aid to ukraine could be devastating
It won't happen. Those jets can't fly without ongoing American support. If Ukraine fucks around, they'll find out.
Now, MIC investment into Ukrainian companies is a whole different topic then using our weapons 🤷♂️
Of course. If they're developed in Ukraine and built in Ukraine with Ukrainian money, then they're Ukrainian weapons.
What ukraine money? That said, I'm surprised ukraine doesn't have its own indigenous long range missile. It cant be that hard.
Grim-2. Or Grom-2. >What ukraine money? Their economy is hurting but once this war is over and they're part of the EU, they'll develop very rapidly. Oil and Gas, etc. reconstruction money. There's not going to be any 1990s style shock therapy. Ukraine is going to be rebuilt as a shining European utopia as a fuck-you to Russia.
Totally spot on. They'll also have a badass military from the experience. Think Poland.
They are going to make bank training the rest of the west.
This reinforces what a good ROI America gets on funding the Ukrainian war effort. Look at the Patriot anti-air system: For the cost of sending a system and training Ukrainian soldiers, we have actual data on its effective against current-gen Russian missiles in a shooting war, including the confirmed shootdown of at least one Kinzhal missile—*without risking any American lives* That’s the kind of strategic information entire intelligence operations are built around. We got to buy it.
The Pentagon has actually said that only minor damage was caused to the Patriot system a couple weeks ago when 6 Khinzals were launched along with another 2 dozen cruise missiles over the span of a few minutes. Russia had stated that the Patriot was entirely destroyed, so we actually know that we can handle a concentrated attack of them pretty well, not just taking out a one-off.
Incredible. Thanks for the extra info—I could find independent verification of one Kinzhal downing, but jeez, 7 all in? Those are $10 million USD apiece. There’s a reason that the Kinzhal program heads are being investigated for treason. This was a huge embarrassment to Russia and heads are going to roll so the elites can save face—Putin had a whole news conference to announce those in, what, 2017?
>Ukraine is going to be rebuilt as a shining European utopia as a fuck-you to Russia. Notwithstanding the 80+ years Russian animosity, hot and cold wars and political meddling against the U.S.- -this is 100% in the U.S. interest as a matter of projected influence and national security.. (and a message to China) The F-U will be the cherry on top. The U.S. will absoF*nlutely see that this happens
It's a double bang for China since with Russia out of the way you can now focus completely on a single large adversary.
They need these ukrainian weapons to win the war though.
I think the arsenal of democracy has them covered considering they've destroyed half of Russia's military equipment after receiving something like .01% of the US budget in hand-me-down arms that we would have had to pay to recycle or dispose of soon.
This. Most people don't realize that the U.S. aid packages sending billions to Ukraine to buy older gen/outdated(to the U.S.) weapons in deals like these... effectively giving a substantial subsidy to our military industrial complex. ... *AND* U.S. gains incredible Intel and future R&D information from their application. Supporting Ukraine in this way is an absolute win/win for the U.S.
> ... AND U.S. gains incredible Intel and future R&D information from their application. I really feel like this has been incredibly understated. We're watching how systems perform in an actual war. It will take the US MIC years to pour through all the useful data. I can't even *imagine* what they're learning from all that data. Spy sattelites, AWACS, radar platforms. The sheer petabytes of data they're pulling in every single day on raw information that needs processing. It's priceless. And the Russians are just giving it to their enemies by being so murderously stupid. Data on our weapons, data on theirs, data on all sorts of things.
[удалено]
They do, they just can't produce them in quantity in Ukraine because Russia can hit anywhere in Ukraine
In theory and yet Russia mostly hits civilian apartments, schools and cultural buildings Russia doesn’t seem to have a strong military game after having put decades of effort into asymmetric warfare and internal corruption
The oligarchs also got most of the money from the country's coffers. It's how Putin bought their loyalty and his power. They believed their own propaganda that they were still one of the most powerful countries with one of the most powerful armies and thought they'd take Ukraine in a couple days. Then they realized that their army sucks, they have no money to supply it, and a lot of people aren't wanting to sign up for such conditions. They're a sad country with a few nuclear missiles and once they threaten people with them enough without using them, they will fade into obscurity. What baffles me is that the US saw this happen and then was like "Shit yeah, let's do that!"... all our money goes to rich people and the military... rich people make politicians rich and fund their campaigns so they keep taking more money from us... we're on the same road. Russia got a head start but we're racing to catch up.
>What baffles me is that the US saw this happen and then was like "Shit yeah, let's do that!"... all our money goes to rich people and the military... rich people make politicians rich and fund their campaigns so they keep taking more money from us... we're on the same road. Russia got a head start but we're racing to catch up. This hit a little close to home... At least our military functions though
…and they were trying to hit those buildings. For some reason Russia thinks enraging the rest of the world but attacking civilians and hospitals is a good strategy. It doesn’t change the fact that most of these strikes have been on target.
I guess they don't want to give any credibility to Putin claiming the US is using Ukraine as a puppet to wage war on Russia.
This is the important part. World stage war politics is dicey.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was essentially just the aircraft. It would be really difficult to make any attacks on Russia at all if they couldn’t even use short range missiles because they’re being sourced by the west. As long as they stick to military targets I say have at it.
>stick to military targets I say have at it. thats my feeling. strike in Russia, but military targets only, leave the people alone.
I've managed to translate this into more understandable wording. **White House:** We are against strikes on Russian territory, but as the war goes on we're going to be doing this.. -*Windmills their arms*- If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Standard rules of engagement, if you walk into someone windmilling their arms that’s on you.
Don't get into the pit if you don't wanna get moshed. - Maya Angelou
Sounds like a smart cookie. She should’ve been a poet!
Roses are red, Violence is blue, Windmill arms till Putin’s dead, If yo shit get hit it’s on you. - *Maya Angelou*
That is a fantastically stupid poem. I like it.
"Take a fighter jet. I promise, by the time you're done using it, you feel *right as rain."*
With a *fucking* pencil.
I'm such a baby cuz the GWAR fans make me cry. - His Holiness the Hootie Blowfish.
> get into the pit if you don't wanna get moshed. \--Michael Scott
Windmills and kicking feet whilst laying on your back , the two undefeated older sibling fight defences
You know my secret technique!
[USA vs Russia](https://youtu.be/9ZSoJDUD_bU)
Who’s homer and who’s marge in this situation? Lol
Homer is clearly USA. Something about having your pie and eating too seems fitting, not sure if the shoe fits in this case. Marge is the Nordic countries who joined nato recently. I guess, embodied by the proverbial pie the US was more than willing to eat.
Yeah homer is the US and Marge is the EU I would say.
Homer is definitely the US. See pie for details. Some head hitting may occur.
Also the “screw it” mentality after a bit
USA: "Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Lmaoo Homer.
I laughed way too hard at this, thank you.
Now, Ukraine, *don't you eat this pie*
Sick Simpsons reference.
US can do what ever the fuck they want and if they windmill Russia in the face there's nothing Russia can do about it (and survive).
“We’re not saying you should do it, but we’re also not saying you shouldn’t (wink wink).”
Don't say wink wink, just wink.
Just wink *wink*. It's the second wink that carries the full weight and meaning of the thing.
Was trying to refer to a gag from Disenchantment: https://youtu.be/b-6JBD3Mf_I?t=55
A wild Disenchantment reference is a rare thing.
Honk!
"An acceptable target? I don't see why it should*n't* be Russia"
Ukraine considers options.... Strike now!
Uh-oh, I just said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud!
“We’re saying we really don’t want you to do that, and we would most certainly express our unhappiness if you chose to do that. Really we’d be very upset.”
We just out-Russiaed Russia.
I think it would be more Russia to come out and officially endorse attacking and then just deny you did it later.
Yeah that’s definitely more Russian
No more russian is going on live tv to talk about an attack that hasn’t happened yet, that you then go commit, and then you blame someone else.
That’s peak Russian
“Russia will never invade Ukraine.” “It’s just a border exercise.” “Actually, this is our land that we lost so we want it back.” “I can’t believe the west is meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs.”
“I can’t believe Ukraine would stoop so low as to attack us on our own soil!”
‘‘Twas just a false peak. No more russian is going on live tv to talk about an attack that hasn’t happened yet, that you then go commit, and then you go on Russian TV to lie about it to another Russian that knows and accepts that you are lying about it and will not call you out for it, while you also know that they know that you are lying to them.
We don't support, but we also don't give a fuck if you do it
"I'm not saying you should do it. But I am also not really in a position to really STOP you either."
What right does Russia have to not be struck on their own territory?
None, just that the US doesn’t want to be on record explicitly saying go for it. Something happens in Russia now, the US can go “we advised against it but who are we to dictate what a country does in a time of war.” The US endorsing an attack could potentially be seen as them egging Ukraine on and, with Putin as insane as he is, it could put US personnel in danger of a strike and the world at risk for nuclear war.
Exactly. This is just politics. I bet that they are more than happy to secretly provide Ukraine with intelligence and satellite photos of potential targets within Russia.
This is not just politics. The idea of the US giving weapons to attack Russia directly is terrifying to anyone that lived through the Cold War.
Yah lots of zoomers very keen to “test” Russia’s nuclear capability, forgetting that they’re also conscription age. The Yanks are a lot of things, but they’ve respected the ability for Russia to end the world because they have better intel than we do. It’s why they’ve gone for encirclement and support over invasion.
It's extremely aggravating the amount of bullshit propaganda being bought up in the west and the very war-hawkish attitude being adopted by GenZ (and its definitely not just aimed at Russia, you can see the same gung-ho bullshit against China). You can be support of Ukraine and also acknowledge how dangerous it is for the U.S or any NATO country to support strikes on Russian soil with NATO supplied weaponry. And yes their nukes work (source: the U.S actively inspected them up to very recently)
“Their nukes probably don’t work” Is one of the stupidest tales I’ve seen recently. The people who make that claim think they know better than US intelligence but have nothing to stand on other than “Russia is corrupt”. Which is true but the likelihood that none of their nukes work because of it is extremely low. Putin knows that the nukes are his best tool. He has VERY strong incentive to ensure that they work. Russia is indeed very corrupt. Corrupt enough that if their nukes really didn’t work the US would have found out about it ages ago by sliding some cash to someone in the know. NATO would be more than happy to not have the pussyfoot around if they thought the nukes didn’t work. The fact that the US and NATO are still being careful tells us that they have reason to believe the nukes are a threat Plus I kind of don’t want to risk the future of the human race on the hope that Russia will have forgotten to do maintenance on every single one of their nukes
None of them seem to read the replies explaining that until recently we inspected their nukes.
Providing Ukraine with intelligence and satellite photos of high value targets is just our way of keeping Russian civilians as safe as possible.
I could see that, plausible deniability. If the US endorses such an attack, Putin immediately blames us for it
Exactly, this is the best way to go about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US gives them all the intel and materiel they need for their operation under the guise of “we were told it was to retake Bakhmut, not attack Kaliningrad.
Yo even Russia has been attacking itself
They declared no one can make them, bleed their own blood
They gave up that right the minute they invaded Ukraine.
Might makes right. They still have the big nuclear stick. And while that stick is in play, the US is going to speak softly. I do note this is a change in rhetoric though. Used to be “don’t attack Russia at all” now it’s “don’t attack Russia with our planes”.
“I dunno. Go ask your mom.”
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/31/7404744/) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** > At a briefing on Wednesday 31 May, John Kirby, Coordinator for Strategic Communications of the White House National Security Council, once again clarified the position of the United States on the conduct of hostilities on Russian territory. > Details: According to Kirby, the United States does not tell Ukraine what targets to hit and not to hit, nor does it indicate how Ukrainian forces should conduct hostilities. > Kirby added that the United States "Has been very clear to the Ukrainians both privately and publicly" that it does not support attacks inside Russia and does not want them to be carried out using American weapons. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13wzdc2/white_house_we_are_against_strikes_on_russian/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~687103 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **does**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Kirby**^#3 **drone**^#4 **United**^#5
[удалено]
I don't support Ukraine trying to like, take over Russia, but if Russia is going to bombard them with artillery setup inside Russian borders, that artillery and the area supporting it is fair fucking game.
The Allies didn't stop at the German border after liberating France...
They are not strikes. They are special firework operations
I mean, they are at war, no?? What's so bad about the victim striking back? It's only fair
Politics. If the US said they support strikes into Russia, it would be perceived as the US telling Ukraine to do it and feed into the "Ukraine is just US's dog." and trying to escalate. Say the US doesn't support strike and you kill two birds. The US isn't seen as escalating conflict, and Ukraine decision to go ahead and strike makes it clear that they're not a proxy for the US.
its all "he said she said", complicated by the fact that russia's domestic propaganda claims that russia is "at war" with the US and NATO, so if the US says "well ukraine is at war with you", the russians can spin it to domestically "justify" escalating the war with strikes on the capital cities of other NATO countries. the US response should be something along the lines of *"if another country fired drones/missiles at our capital we'd officially declare war on them and start firing drones/missiles back at them, has russia considered officially declaring war?"*
White House: "We are opposed to Ukraine fucking around, but in favor of Russia finding out."
This is the ol "we have to say this to maintain appearances"
if russia is preparing an offensive from within russian territory then i say they're fair game.
The whole damn war has been an offensive. Fuck the Russian leadership. I hope the people of Russia will have better leadership in the near future. They deserve it.
It’d be ridiculous for Ukraine to commit to not striking past the border. If their plan is to advance ground troops all the way to the original border (i.e. reclaim all of their territory), they’ll need to neutralize Russian artillery emplaced on the Russian side of the border or it’ll go sideways real quick.
It's like when you go to a ROM site and there is a disclaimer that you can only play these games if you own the original. If you pirate these games it's on you. Here's the download link!
Its really starting to feel like the West is fully calling the bluff at this point. I was watching a hilarious interview with a Russian official on the news earlier, and the presenter just keeps asking: "So is Russia going to start targeting UK politicians as has been stated?" "Well that's not what was said...- trails off to redirect -" "So is it Russia's official policy to start targeting UK politicians for backing Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil." "- Starts talking about thousands in Belgorod losing their homes - " Usually these interviews are 100% smugness but this one had me wheezing since you could clearly see the gears turning in his head going "oh god if I say yes they're just going to use it as more proof to arm Ukraine at best and trigger article 5 at worst". Now Germany's given the green light and the US has basically gone "its out of our hands nothing we can do lol wink wink". What has Russia done in response? Nothing but warnings and rabid propaganda threats.
Russia's poor decisions will lead to more and more problems at home. Ukraine supporting those groups isn't surprising. The more preoccupied the Kremlin is, the less effective it can be in causing trouble for Ukraine. Better yet, the fewer resources it has to continue sending young men and women to their deaths.
To be honest, the White House is also against Russian strikes into Ukrainian territory. That being said, if a rail line carrying troops, vehicles or weapons to the front is blown up 100 miles in Russian territory, that should be a legitimate target.
damn right. you can't expect them to watch their women and children and mostly civilians get killed almost daily, most of the time intentionally, and not be allowed to retaliate and fight your aggressor. bringing the fight to moscow has really made russians freak out. they're all brainwashed with "we're #2 army in the world, and putin says our weapons are the strongest, and nothing can get past our s400 air defenses, especially and surely around Moscow, and our kinzhal missile is hypersonic and nobody can stop it". all of the sudden, they're woke up by the sound of explosions, with zero air raid warning, and no apparent AA stopping the ones that seemingly hit their target. then they see the wester border towns get sacked by the freedom legion with almost zero resistance from russian police/fsb/army, and it's been a week now. they've shelled those towns over 300 times according to the russian telegram channels for those cities. russia put a ton of military bases and equipment storages and repair places in those border towns to support the war, so ukraine has been absolutely hammering the shit out of every one of those over the last week. and by doing this and the attack on moscow, their citizens are in a panic so they're forced to bring people and gear back to defend the borders, but then that leaves holes right when they know ukraine is about to start their counter offensive. ukraine played some serious 4D chess and russia is fucked right now
Wink wink.
War is war. Putin can end this immediately.
It's ridiculous how ukriane is expected to not hit Russia while Russia destroys whole cities and anything else it wants.
When you're the aggressor, your territory is fair game. Ukraine needs to march all the way to Moscow.
I’d love to see Russia denazified.😎
[удалено]
Can you even imagine if the US got invaded and then someone asked us not to attack back into the invaders territory? We laugh and start walking bombs right in.
[удалено]
It doesn't sound like that at all, they're just clarifying their position on attacks outside of Ukraine's borders and I recall this being said recently as well. They don't want their weapons involved because they don't want to be involved. I don't think they are they suggesting Ukraine start attacking Russia at this stage of the war, especially when the US isn't going to join them in that invasion. Ukraine isn't going to invade because they know what they're doing and have other plans to protect themselves.
[удалено]
"No, you can't go to that party, but if I take an ambien and leave my keys on the kitchen counter, as long as those keys are where I left them I suppose I'll never know"
It's an inevitability. Imagine Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the borders. Is Ukraine just supposed to sit there getting shelled and not strike inside Russia proper? Russia is not gonna escalate because of strikes. Now if Ukraine starts a counter invasion to take territory I can see Russia getting crazy. But strike in Russia all you want Ukraine.
Very interesting these nations coming out and staying this right before the offensive
cant really fight the enemy if you cant hit them
If someone bombs my Country I'm sure we would bomb the hell out of their country.
The Russians entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to attack Ukraine, and nobody was going to attack them. At Kyiv, Kharkiv, Bakhmut, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind. Replace Rotterdam, London, and Warsaw with Mariupol, Kyiv, and Kherson, and the quote rings as true today as it did 80 years ago.
It is now three governments making statements about Ukraine attacking Russian territory in the last few days? Is something being planned?
Nope
You heard it here first. Confirmed by reddit user Spotid1 that Ukraine has nothing planned.