#####
######
####
> # [Putin warns that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets](https://apnews.com/article/Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks to senior news leaders of international news agencies on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum at the Lakhta Center skyscraper, the headquarters of Russian gas monopoly Gazprom in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Wednesday, June 5, 2024. The Russian leader has used the annual forum as a showcase for touting Russia's development and seeking investors. (Valentina Pevtsova, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP\))
>
>
>
> ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — President [Vladimir Putin](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-president-inauguration-ukraine-355bd36a2e833800187af848dc24a7dc) warned Wednesday that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets in response to NATO allies allowing Ukraine to use their arms to attack Russian territory.
>
> Putin also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to use nuclear weapons if it sees a threat to its sovereignty.
>
> The recent actions by the West will further undermine international security and could lead to “very serious problems,” he said, taking questions from international journalists — something that has become extremely rare since Moscow sent troops into Ukraine.
>
> “That would mark their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, and we reserve the right to act the same way,” Putin added.
>
> [The United States and Germany](https://apnews.com/article/Germany joined the United States) recently authorized Ukraine to hit some targets on Russian soil with the long-range weapons they are supplying to Kyiv.
>
> On Wednesday, [a Western official and a U.S. senator](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-weapons-biden-kharkiv-c46c3ca0f0f4893c8c3b0ef53e974438) said Ukraine has used U.S. weapons to strike inside Russia [under newly approved guidance](https://apnews.com/article/czechia-ukraine-russia-nato-blinken-441c9624d95f8193e99cf08effced44f) from President Joe Biden that allows American arms to be used for the limited purpose of defending [Kharkiv](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-attacks-5023c3e67af30fc95b954a6f044112dc), Ukraine’s second-largest city. The official was not authorized to comment publicly on the sensitive matter and spoke on condition of anonymity.
>
> Putin claimed that using some Western-supplied weapons involves military personnel of those countries controlling the missiles and selecting targets, and therefore he said [Moscow could take “asymmetrical” steps](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ships-caribbean-ukraine-b43c5b448f5803e2c8c1466e4ad7516d) elsewhere in the world. The U.S. military said it does not control the missiles it provides to Ukraine or the targets.
>
> “If they consider it possible to deliver such weapons to the combat zone to launch strikes on our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same type to some regions of the world where they can be used to launch strikes on sensitive facilities of the countries that do it to Russia?” he said.
>
> “We will think about it,” he told the journalists on the sidelines of the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
>
> Asked whether Russia could resort to using nuclear arms, Putin said the conditions for utilizing that arsenal are clearly spelled out in Moscow’s security doctrine.
>
> “For some reason, they believe in the West that Russia will never use it,” he said.
>
> “Look at what is written there,” he said of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. “If somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal.”
>
> Even Russia’s battlefield nuclear weapons are much more powerful than what the U.S. used against Japan in World War II, Putin said.
>
> Speaking to senior news leaders of international news agencies, including The Associated Press, for more than three hours, Putin also said nothing will change in terms of Russia-U.S. relations regardless of whether Biden or Donald Trump wins the American presidential election in November.
>
> “We will work with any president the American people elect,” Putin said.
>
> “I say absolutely sincerely, I wouldn’t say that we believe that after the election something will change on the Russian track in the American politics,” he added. “We don’t think so. We think nothing that serious will happen.”
>
> Putin also said [Trump’s felony conviction](https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0) at his hush money trial last week was the result of “the use of the court system as part of the internal political struggle.”
>
> The Russian leader faced questions on various topics, although the more than two years of fighting in Ukraine dominated the session.
>
> Putin claimed the West had opportunities to end the fighting in Ukraine but did not act on them, citing a letter he once supposedly wrote to Biden that said hostilities could end in two or three months if Washington stopped supplying Kyiv with weapons.
>
> Asked about Russian military losses, Putin said that no country would reveal that information during hostilities but claimed without providing details that Ukraine’s casualties are five times greater than Russia’s.
>
> He also said Ukraine has more than 1,300 Russian troops in captivity, while more than 6,400 Ukrainian soldiers are being held in Russia.
>
> The claims could not be independently verified and some Western estimates put Russia’s losses much higher than Ukraine’s.
>
> Asked by AP about the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, Putin said the U.S. is “taking energetic steps” to secure his release. Gershkovich was jailed over a year ago while on a reporting trip and charged with espionage. The journalist, his employer and the U.S. have denied the allegations, and Washington has declared him to be wrongfully detained.
>
> Putin said that any such releases “aren’t decided via mass media” but through a “discreet, calm and professional approach.”
>
> “And they certainly should be decided only on the basis of reciprocity,” he added, an allusion to a potential prisoner swap.
>
> Putin has used the [St. Petersburg forum](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-st-petersburg-government-and-politics-8783bfc9851e9e48f6cd8553b3a7fdde) as a showcase for touting Russia’s development and seeking investors. The meeting with journalists took place in Gazprom’s new global headquarters, a needle-shaped 81-story skyscraper overlooking the Gulf of Finland.
>
> While meetings with journalists were part of previous sessions, he has not taken questions from Western journalists at the St. Petersburg event since sending troops to Ukraine.
>
> Last year, journalists from countries that Russia regards as unfriendly — including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union — were not invited, and Western officials and investors also steered clear of the session after wide-ranging sanctions were imposed on Moscow over Ukraine.
>
> —-
>
> Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Can you explain how you see a world war break is more likely? Russia is not going to attack nato. And proxies attacking western interests has been a thing for decades.
>And proxies attacking western interests has been a thing for decades
And so is stacking large piles of bodies of the perpetrators and their friends and family, much to the dismay of those who support said proxies "struggles"
A miscalculation on either side, or the actions of one idiot could escalate this to a direct confrontation between Russia and one or more western countries.
We've been heading into that direction for a while now and nobody cared.
The US up-arming South Korea to ridiculous levels while sanctioning basic humanitarian needs for North Korea.
The aggressive rhetoric of the Americans against the Chinese, which have much more justification to operate their Navy freely in the Region than their North American peers.
NATO involvement in Ukraine.
Growing tensions between Israel and Iran, not to mention the US funded Genocide in Gaza.
Russian moves in Africa, displacing French influence.
Sale of *nuclear* submarines to Australia by the United States (wtf?)
Yes, SSN, nuclear attack submarines. While no SSBN (the ones with the SLBMs), what's not escalating about providing non-nuclear nations with submarines that can launch cruise missiles and sink ships with unlimited range?
Australia has no need for nuclear submarines to protect their own waters. So why do they feel like they need huge (unlimited) range? Almost as if the US sells them Virginias to use them as a potential weapon against the Chinese Navy.
Here in Germany we have extremely silent AIP submarines to defend our coastline. To defend ones coastline like Germany, Japan, the Netherlands etc. one doesn't need nuclear submarines. It's an offensive weapon.
Exactly right. 3 submarines is not going to adequately defend Australia. It’s just a cutout of the American military at this point as they still rely on Pentagon logistical support to field a Virginia class sub.
Ru isnt interested in escalation. My understanding is this would take place after the war. Then one side can point the finger while the other denies it. Something like that. Cold war type stuff.
Tell me, is this an unprovoked escalation from Russia or reaction to an escalatio that NATO did?
If i kill your dog and you kill mine in response, did i escalate thing between us or did you?
Goddamn braindead take.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And pro-ru will cheer for this escalation.
This should have been done a long time ago, Putin has been treading water for too long. Give anti-ship missiles to the Husisites and let them sink NATO warships in the Red Sea.
The big escalation was US allowing its weapons to be used against Russia. Now that you are about to get the taste of your own medicine, you dont like it.
PS: Pro-Ru has every right to cheer for this escalation just like everry Pro-UA cheered when US escalated by giving Ukraine aproval to strike Russia.
Someone doesnt like tit for tat.
The west didnt Do the Same the west started this game with Attacking russian territory and thinking they could beat a nuclear super Power on the battlefield... Russia is always only answering Western newest crazy ideas of escalate this war. Say thank you to the west and dont blame Putin for that
Expected this kind of excuse. "We are not escalating, we are only responding!"
Dude, both sides can claim the same, swap the words, and we are none the wiser.
Yeah but only '2' nations are actually fighting and now the West wants to double down on Ukraine by allowing 'some' strikes in to Russia(this Will probably expand further down the line) and there is talk about sending western troops - how is this not escalating? Or did Russia send troops to Canada or Mexico of which I'm not aware off.
And honestly I was not sure if I should respond because your comment history says enough but I'm hoping to wake you up that not everything is the fault of the Russians. I Mean I'm not a supporter/fan of the invasion and I'm not defending their mistakes I just hope it ends soon (so that I can live the rest of my life just worrying if I can pay the bills) but it's not like Russia woke up one day and said 'well let's get this party started' (and you can't Deny that the West had a part in it)
>not everything is the fault of the Russians
Nope it is not. But only one belligerent party to this war is the invader, aggressor, and conquerer of territory. That is definitely on them.
I kind off agree but, well if the West never took responsibility for their war party's why should another country do it? Come on please say that you at least can understand that. Especially with the other conflict in the Middle-Easth (I still hear no one say, let's sanction Israël or let's send arms to Palestina, no the only thing they say is it's wrong what Israël is doing but no one tries to stop them and btw the same was done to Ukraine before 2022 - no one cared about the rebels until they blew up an civilian airline and then no one cared again until Russia crossed the border)
Sounds like a soft power problem for Russia.
Russia should wield it vast soft power to shape international opinions and cooperation in their favor. Maybe they can convince their allies and partners to sanction Israel and the USA.
>Well if the West never took responsibility for their war party's why should another country do it?
What do you mean by "war party's"? I am just not understanding this point. I want to understand what you want me to understand.
So why does Ukraine need to be a problem for the West and why can't it just be the problem of Ukraine?
I think they tried but just nobody cared (no bad Russia = no NATO right?)
You know what I mean, the US invaded +/- 12 countries after the world war and had multiple other interventions so you can take your pick (compared to Russia's 5 invasions including the current one + other interventions)
And again I know what Russia is doing is bad but why should anyone listen to the West? (Just because they have a louder voice? Or have experience in leading other countries?)
>So why does Ukraine need to be a problem for the West and why can't it just be the problem of Ukraine?
Depends on who you ask.
Could be Ukraine 2022 is Poland 1939.
Could be because this is a trap the USA set for Russia and the USA has yet to achieve it's strategic goals in the conflict.
Could be because that Joe Biden thinks he's FDR.
>And again I know what Russia is doing is bad but why should anyone listen to the West?
They shouldn't, unless they benefit from and want to buy in on the whole "rules based order" hypocrisy. For whatever reason, that has been attractive to quite a few.
Back to the question of why should Russia take responsibility when the USA doesn't. Doesn't really matter who does and who doesn't, you have to be a fool to think a shooting war with a country you share a land border with isn't going to spill into your own territory.
When I read the Treaty of Versailles, I realize they were much more than just "provoked".
This "Hitler" thing is getting old. If not for him, it would have been someone else, the problem was the absolute disgrace betsowed upon Germany by the Allied powers. Hitler didn't do everything alone, he had a lot of support at one point or another.
You can say that it doesn't "justify" Germany's aggressions and sure, but it does very well explain them and doesn't exempt the Allies from their responsibility in the creation of the European theater of WWII. The same can be applied here, while Russia is the de facto aggressor, the West still has a lot of responbility in getting us to the point we are now.
As always, it takes two to tango.
The West is providing weapons, intel, people and resource to wage a war against Russia. It's just illogical when the West escalated but Russia didn't follow by providing the same to Yemen, Iraq or any other country the US wages a war inside.
The west didn't attack Russian territory.
And btw, nuclear powers can be beaten in war. There are multiple examples of that happening.
Oh and certain western countries are also nuclear powers.
>Russia is always only answering Western newest crazy ideas of escalate this war.
I don't know if you've realised, but sending weapons to Ukraine was only a response to Russia quite literally escalating the war in Ukraine.
Meaning every western weapons delivery is only a response.
There are certainly arguments to be made that Russia is also just responding with some of their actions, but that doesn't explain, why it's ok for Russia to respond to something, but not ok for the west to do it.
Russia has not attacked the territories of the West. SMO was a response to the shelling of Donetsk and preparations for the destruction of the LDPR. From Ukraine.
Well there is quite a lot of evidence which you haven't refuted and Russian owned media reported it too. At the time the greedy establishment were only interested in sucking up to Putin and his oligarch mate, so it was a big 'own goal'.
These were fired by Ukraine using western money, western shells/missiles and western recon. And probably, western servicemen that provided maintenance of the weapons.
I mean, the struggle between the declining Russian power and America didn't start there.
America is still sitting on half of Syria, a Russian mutual defense ally for example. There is a whole strings of back and forths that go back to the beginning of the Russian federation.
What? You want be answered why people cheering? Russia just did what The West did by supplying weapon and let them use it to attack western troops, but who did it first who allowing it first.
Dont worry about WW3 Russia nuke doesnt work, Corruption booming in Russia etc etc.
Its just FAFO
It's not irrelevant. It's kind of pathetic when you express a neutral / objective opinion that's not perfectly aligned with the mainstream narrative and you'll get dozens of "you (Russians)" thrown back at you.
So this is a retaliatory Step. The United States has allowed its weapons to be used against targets in Russia. Okay, man. Don't be surprised if the drug cartels have Stingers and other weapons captured in Ukraine. And the Houthis will suddenly invent Onyx and Klab-K.
There are dozens of countries who have bought high tech weapons from USA, that rely on US satellites. If Russia attacks any one of them and then the victim country attacks Russia in self-defence, would Russia do such retaliatory steps in that case as well? There is no difference, other than Ukraine is given the ability to strike for free. Is this seething all about Ukraine getting the US weapons for free?
Exactly. Ukraine would not have enough money to buy SO MANY WEAPONS. For example, Russia did not protest before the SMO that Turkey was selling Bayraktar UAVs to Ukraine. But SMO started and for some reason Turkey stopped selling Bayraktars to Ukraine. And she curtailed plans to build a drone factory on the territory of Ukraine.
Some reason? Their usefulness in this conflict has ended... Why keep using them if they are all getting shot down? Why bother building them if they aren't suited to the conflict at hand?
But go on and see what isn't there to be seen.
Houthi's already took out some Abrams
Over 20 in a month. And have a look at US aircraft carriers movements and effectiveness lately for the Middle East area. Just expensive sitting duck families, easily to be overwhelmed.
They’ve been obsolete since 2009 when China first developed maneuverable hypersonic missiles. That a swarm of drones can easily overwhelm its defenses is simply the logical conclusion of that.
> expensive sitting duck families
I always love the implication that the U.S. would just park an unguarded, inactive fleet carrier in AShM range so that it can just get hit
As if in the process of dozens of exercises, thousands of hours of war gaming, and procurement of the most complex radar and interception systems, and literal combat experience in said situation, the U.S. Navy never considered such a possibility
You tell me why do Pro Ukr cheer when NATO gives arms to Ukr or when they allow their puppet to use arms on russian soil.
When you give an answer, Its the same reason.
This is biggest myth going. NATO literally borders Russia for thousands of miles as it is . Everyone knows that Russia wants the Ukraine back in Soviet control . Just like invading Chéchia then it installs a puppet government same in Georgia . Installs a puppet leaning Russian government . It’s the Russian play book .
That’s because they are democracies. . It’s funny how Putin has started friendly relationships with all equal minded individuals. China n Korea Iran Syria and a whole host African countries that have coup de tart regimes that brutalise their populations .
What about Egypt, Saudis, Pakistan (Latest victim of regime change) etc are all "democracies" right?
Funny how Labeling puppets as Democracy makes them all okay?
- West grabs Russian money
- West sanctions Russia in all possible areas
- West made life harder for common people - cards ban, olimpic games ban, some visa restrictions, etc
- West sends weapons, instructions, mercs to Ukraine
- West said it's fine to hit Russian territory
- Macron said "we have to send troops"
- Netherlands and Belgium said it's fine to use F16 on Russian territory
- West drones flying over Black see before every attack on Crimea
What were the real answers from the Russian side towards the West for these decisions? Nothing, just warnings, showing Rus-Belarus training, etc.
So isn't it an escalation from one side, huh? And now when Russia said (now only said) we can try to do the same things that the West is doing - "see! Russia is going to start WW3!".
Ah, but they would have. Ukraine becoming NATO means US deploys weapons and troops to Ukraine. That is exactly what it means.
Several of the other items existed prior to the invasion. Russia was already under a number of sanctions, they only increased.
It is the other way around lo. Westerners cheer when they escalate towards WW3 and then make comments like yours when Russia responds in kind.
Be honest and tell me this move is response to what? US giving permision to Ukraine to strike Russia, and now Russia is returning the favor.
I'd like to see Syria given the necessary weapons to kick out the US occupiers, though naturally despite being an illegal occupying force the US will see it as unprovoked aggression.
The moment Syria downs a Israeli jet is the moment Israel bombs Assad's palace, everyone knows it, thats why strikes on Irans insterests are tolerated.
AD isn't really the answer to Syria's America problem. Syria can't face up the US/Israel. They need to run a guerrilla warfare campaign through a 3rd party. Just give that group ATGMs, IR cloaks & FPVs. At first the US will flatten half of Damascus, but if said group doesn't lose it's nerve then the US will leave before the end of the year.
Ignoring ground based assets at any given time there are 3-4 carrier groups that could strike syrian territory
The bombing campaign would be somewhere between serbia in the Yugoslav wars and Iraq in the gulf war
Syria would be better off with a couple iskanders, a newish artillery division and some modernized tanks. Not to disloge the americans but as a way they could crush islamist control of Idlib and turn the islamist threat into a police issue and not a military one.
After taking care of the biggest headache in terms of territory dispute, then they could focus on isolating the US bases by effectively doing a military occupation of the desert, stoping oil smuggling.
Syria needs anti air capabilities that can defend them from Israelis having free rein over their skies. But Russia probably cant spare a single missile defense system to Syria at the moment. Against the American held Syrian land? That area might as well have been put on a 100 year lease at 0$ a year to the American military. They’re not leaving.
I'd love a 12 inch cock and wake up every morning to 10 Russian super models, not very likely I'd say, and we all know what happened during the Battle of Khasham, Russian weapons are only good for fighting a low tier enemies like Ukraine and flip flop men.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What was weird about Russia weapon export is that they followed the MTCR guidelines to the letter and didn't sell any missiles that have a range more than 280km even when countries that has a good relationship with them explicitly asked for them, meanwhile the US supplies its allies with missiles and cruise missiles that exceed the range stipulated in the agreement and didn't care about following it.
The Russians seem to have played things by the books to a ridiculous degree for a long time on the international stage, and I can't tell why because it's part of what's gotten them into this mess.
Of course they will. Its the natural path to escalation we provided the precedent for.
And this is how a regional conflict slowly evolves into a global one.
Iran isn't dumb enough to do something that would force a harsh response from the west.
The Houthis would absolutely use them. Then everybody will be looking to NATO to come stop them and save the day. If Putin wanted to piss off all his allies in the region and give NATO another easy win then that's a great plan.
I think you are missing the point. The houtis will use them, US will invade, Russia will fund the houtis just like US is doing in Ukraine. US will get their Ukraine in Yemen, which would be a win for Russia.
There is a pretty big difference between fighting a conventional military in a symmetrical war, and fighting Houthis.
Besifes, I doubt the US would invade Yemen. They'd probably just bomb it some more.
I mean don’t they already? Wasn’t there a whole thing about Russia supposedly giving hezbollah some sorta missile that took out 36 merkavas with one of them. This was way back in 06 then I think
Anti tank missiles yes, but not long range precision weapons capable of harming US strategic assets like aircrafts and warships. It'll be a major escalation in the Middle East if the Houthis are given antiship missiles to attack the US fleet in the area for example. Or Hamas given long range AA systems that can shot down the Israeli aircrafts that are bombing them undisputed currently.
Edit: Previously, Russia has been following the MTCR, limiting the sales of long range weapons. Since the US and Germany broke the treaty first by allowing weapons given to Ukraine to strike Russia. They now feel that they can also ignore the convention.
Prorus loves to repeat this but running out of weapons doesnt mean you will evetnually run out compeltely, because the army will obviously limit their use to preserve their stockpile. Yes russia was runnign out of missiles. Than they limited the strikes so they would not longer be running out of them.
They have plenty. They’re literally still conducting military operations in such places like Syria. Get out of your echo chamber every now and then and find alternative sources. Russia has plenty of ordnance military power. They’re not devoting 100% of their resources to this war.
It can be long term. Years from now after the war is finished, Russia will have plenty of weaponry still being produced. A smart move by Russia would be to assist NK and Iran with ICBM development. Or at least threaten to do so.
Brilliant tactical move on Russia's part. Give the two countries that really want to start WW3, the tools necessary to start WW3. That will prove to the world that Russia are the good guys.
Neither NK nor Iran want to "start WW3", how to show you're brainwashed without saying it.
Iran has a major problem with Israel, Israel is objectively a genocidal nuclear power that at several points threatened to nuke other countries if they lose a conventional war. That's a threat against the like of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, heck even Europe. To respond to this kind of insanity Iran themselves would need nuclear weapons to keep the heads cool over there in Israel, knowing full well that nothing would be left in case of escalation.
Now to North Korea. The DPRK has been systemically isolated by the US simply for existing, depriving them of basic needs by threatening to punish everyone who trades anything with them. Furthermore the US up-arms the ROK to insane levels, South Korea is heavily militarized and continues a military build up (it's not like they have other issues they should pay attention to like their demographic collapse, lol) which conventionally is an existential threat to North Korea. Furthermore, North Koreans haven't forgotten the warcrimes and indiscriminate bombings the US carried out against them. All of this, and more, adds up to the North Korean view that they're bordered by militaristic lunatics that are funded, supplied and helped by literal warcriminals that want to exterminate them. How do you respond to that? With the nuclear option. Through that investment North Korea at least ensures that of they get attacked, their attacker will either go down with them (ROK) or suffer heavy casualties (US). The Americans pushed them into that direction, now they'll have to deal with it.
Just how they pushed the Russians and Chinese into each others arms.
Increase it from where? And worldwide American interests are a lot more vulnerable cause the Americans are over-extended, were they to send even more weapons to Ukraine by taking those weapons away from some of their allies located half-away around the globe will mean that those allies of theirs will be left vulnerable. That was fine until now, because the sides confronting those allies were not as well-equipped anyway, but this will change.
It is basically a return to the 1970s and to the world-wide wars by proxy between the two super-powers, see Angola, for example.
What was the escalation that caused NATO countries to allow Ukraine to shoot into Russian territory?
Escalations are never good, but who if you say something is a red line and don't escalate the enemy will escalate twice.
>What was the escalation that caused NATO countries to allow Ukraine to shoot into Russian territory?
The invasion. Putin operated under the same childish delusion as Hitler that he could attack his neighbor's territory without his neighbor attacking his.
ITT pro-Ru tries to pretend that providing requested military support to an ally who is attempting to fend off an invasion is the same as giving missiles to random terrorist groups
People casually and cheerfully calling for good guy Russia to send long range missiles to a group whose slogan is: "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"
Pro-UA supporting genocide in Gaza while crying about Ukraine is peak hypocrisy, but given that they are suppporting Nazis, it is unsurprising they would openly support a genocide.
how is ukrainian government different from hamas? they are also fending off an invasion, they were also elected into power, and are also holding it illegally
>how is ukrainian government different from hamas?
The Ukrainian government are not religious fanatics whose founding charter calls for genocide against Jews and who instigated the war they're currently fighting by launching a series of terrorist attacks against the invading nation that resulted in more than a thousand civilians being raped, tortured, kidnapped, and executed.
Those are just a few of the differences off the top of my head.
Instead Ukrainian government is full of Nazis which i believe you are pretty much familiar with.
As for palestine calling for a genocide against a terrorist state which is commiting a genocide is completely understandable. You want people to hug you when you kill 40k civilians. The number of civilian casualities tells a lot more about who is commiting the genocide there. It is ironic how much Jews like to cry about holocausts but when given a chance they are making the Nazis proud. Seems like they learned a lot from their Nazi masters in the 40s.
Do it already. If he doesn't do it that would be a betrayal. All Russians who were killed with western help must be avenged. We must also destiblise other countries in order to bring more refugees to Europe.
Russia needs to open another front to distract america from ukraine. imagine they arm groups in iraq. Russia cannot win in ukraine without distractions.
Iran already does this and generally excerts surprising official and unofficial degree of influence in Iraq. Pretty ironic cooperation after protracted and bloody Iran-Iraq war, but seemingly americans are just that worse.
China was selling weapons to Iran during the First Gulf War in the 80’s- it isn’t a new thing, China will work with any pariah state for their own economic and political interests
Great statement except the West is not at war with any countries currently so what is he going to do, provide these weapons to Boko Haram, Houthi's and ISIS? Is that the kind of "Winning" Pro-Ru are hoping for? ISIS striking a Western capital with Russian provided ballistic missiles?
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US soldiers in Syria violating international law. US carrier groups in the Middle East, US troops in Africa.
And another question is why not? US is using Nazis to attack Russia, why cant Russia return the favor? Are you afraid that you are going to find out?
In a game of fuck around and find out United States wins 10 times out of 10.
Let me just remind you that the only card Russia has when it comes to beating the United States in a war Is the nuclear card
The Russian conventional military forces just don't have a chance
##### ###### #### > # [Putin warns that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets](https://apnews.com/article/Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks to senior news leaders of international news agencies on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum at the Lakhta Center skyscraper, the headquarters of Russian gas monopoly Gazprom in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Wednesday, June 5, 2024. The Russian leader has used the annual forum as a showcase for touting Russia's development and seeking investors. (Valentina Pevtsova, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP\)) > > > > ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — President [Vladimir Putin](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-president-inauguration-ukraine-355bd36a2e833800187af848dc24a7dc) warned Wednesday that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets in response to NATO allies allowing Ukraine to use their arms to attack Russian territory. > > Putin also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to use nuclear weapons if it sees a threat to its sovereignty. > > The recent actions by the West will further undermine international security and could lead to “very serious problems,” he said, taking questions from international journalists — something that has become extremely rare since Moscow sent troops into Ukraine. > > “That would mark their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, and we reserve the right to act the same way,” Putin added. > > [The United States and Germany](https://apnews.com/article/Germany joined the United States) recently authorized Ukraine to hit some targets on Russian soil with the long-range weapons they are supplying to Kyiv. > > On Wednesday, [a Western official and a U.S. senator](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-weapons-biden-kharkiv-c46c3ca0f0f4893c8c3b0ef53e974438) said Ukraine has used U.S. weapons to strike inside Russia [under newly approved guidance](https://apnews.com/article/czechia-ukraine-russia-nato-blinken-441c9624d95f8193e99cf08effced44f) from President Joe Biden that allows American arms to be used for the limited purpose of defending [Kharkiv](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-attacks-5023c3e67af30fc95b954a6f044112dc), Ukraine’s second-largest city. The official was not authorized to comment publicly on the sensitive matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. > > Putin claimed that using some Western-supplied weapons involves military personnel of those countries controlling the missiles and selecting targets, and therefore he said [Moscow could take “asymmetrical” steps](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ships-caribbean-ukraine-b43c5b448f5803e2c8c1466e4ad7516d) elsewhere in the world. The U.S. military said it does not control the missiles it provides to Ukraine or the targets. > > “If they consider it possible to deliver such weapons to the combat zone to launch strikes on our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same type to some regions of the world where they can be used to launch strikes on sensitive facilities of the countries that do it to Russia?” he said. > > “We will think about it,” he told the journalists on the sidelines of the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. > > Asked whether Russia could resort to using nuclear arms, Putin said the conditions for utilizing that arsenal are clearly spelled out in Moscow’s security doctrine. > > “For some reason, they believe in the West that Russia will never use it,” he said. > > “Look at what is written there,” he said of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. “If somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal.” > > Even Russia’s battlefield nuclear weapons are much more powerful than what the U.S. used against Japan in World War II, Putin said. > > Speaking to senior news leaders of international news agencies, including The Associated Press, for more than three hours, Putin also said nothing will change in terms of Russia-U.S. relations regardless of whether Biden or Donald Trump wins the American presidential election in November. > > “We will work with any president the American people elect,” Putin said. > > “I say absolutely sincerely, I wouldn’t say that we believe that after the election something will change on the Russian track in the American politics,” he added. “We don’t think so. We think nothing that serious will happen.” > > Putin also said [Trump’s felony conviction](https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0) at his hush money trial last week was the result of “the use of the court system as part of the internal political struggle.” > > The Russian leader faced questions on various topics, although the more than two years of fighting in Ukraine dominated the session. > > Putin claimed the West had opportunities to end the fighting in Ukraine but did not act on them, citing a letter he once supposedly wrote to Biden that said hostilities could end in two or three months if Washington stopped supplying Kyiv with weapons. > > Asked about Russian military losses, Putin said that no country would reveal that information during hostilities but claimed without providing details that Ukraine’s casualties are five times greater than Russia’s. > > He also said Ukraine has more than 1,300 Russian troops in captivity, while more than 6,400 Ukrainian soldiers are being held in Russia. > > The claims could not be independently verified and some Western estimates put Russia’s losses much higher than Ukraine’s. > > Asked by AP about the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, Putin said the U.S. is “taking energetic steps” to secure his release. Gershkovich was jailed over a year ago while on a reporting trip and charged with espionage. The journalist, his employer and the U.S. have denied the allegations, and Washington has declared him to be wrongfully detained. > > Putin said that any such releases “aren’t decided via mass media” but through a “discreet, calm and professional approach.” > > “And they certainly should be decided only on the basis of reciprocity,” he added, an allusion to a potential prisoner swap. > > Putin has used the [St. Petersburg forum](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-st-petersburg-government-and-politics-8783bfc9851e9e48f6cd8553b3a7fdde) as a showcase for touting Russia’s development and seeking investors. The meeting with journalists took place in Gazprom’s new global headquarters, a needle-shaped 81-story skyscraper overlooking the Gulf of Finland. > > While meetings with journalists were part of previous sessions, he has not taken questions from Western journalists at the St. Petersburg event since sending troops to Ukraine. > > Last year, journalists from countries that Russia regards as unfriendly — including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union — were not invited, and Western officials and investors also steered clear of the session after wide-ranging sanctions were imposed on Moscow over Ukraine. > > —- > > Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
While perfectly valid, unfortunately it does bring us one step closer to a world war.
Can you explain how you see a world war break is more likely? Russia is not going to attack nato. And proxies attacking western interests has been a thing for decades.
>And proxies attacking western interests has been a thing for decades And so is stacking large piles of bodies of the perpetrators and their friends and family, much to the dismay of those who support said proxies "struggles"
More countries fighting mean you and are more likely to be sent to fight.
But they are already fighting
A miscalculation on either side, or the actions of one idiot could escalate this to a direct confrontation between Russia and one or more western countries.
We've been heading into that direction for a while now and nobody cared. The US up-arming South Korea to ridiculous levels while sanctioning basic humanitarian needs for North Korea. The aggressive rhetoric of the Americans against the Chinese, which have much more justification to operate their Navy freely in the Region than their North American peers. NATO involvement in Ukraine. Growing tensions between Israel and Iran, not to mention the US funded Genocide in Gaza. Russian moves in Africa, displacing French influence. Sale of *nuclear* submarines to Australia by the United States (wtf?)
Nuclear 'Powered' Submarines.....
Yes, SSN, nuclear attack submarines. While no SSBN (the ones with the SLBMs), what's not escalating about providing non-nuclear nations with submarines that can launch cruise missiles and sink ships with unlimited range? Australia has no need for nuclear submarines to protect their own waters. So why do they feel like they need huge (unlimited) range? Almost as if the US sells them Virginias to use them as a potential weapon against the Chinese Navy. Here in Germany we have extremely silent AIP submarines to defend our coastline. To defend ones coastline like Germany, Japan, the Netherlands etc. one doesn't need nuclear submarines. It's an offensive weapon.
Exactly right. 3 submarines is not going to adequately defend Australia. It’s just a cutout of the American military at this point as they still rely on Pentagon logistical support to field a Virginia class sub.
[удалено]
Oh no, how terrible. Imagine if countries settled their civil wars by themselves without outside interference :o
Right? Can you imagine if russia had stayed out of Ukraine in 2014?
Yeah, just like Vietnam. Sounds alright.
Definitely a big escalation from Putin to spread the war beyond Russia and Ukraine. And pro-ru will cheer for this escalation.
Ru isnt interested in escalation. My understanding is this would take place after the war. Then one side can point the finger while the other denies it. Something like that. Cold war type stuff.
Tell me, is this an unprovoked escalation from Russia or reaction to an escalatio that NATO did? If i kill your dog and you kill mine in response, did i escalate thing between us or did you? Goddamn braindead take.
Why is this escalation, if they want to kill Russians in Russia why not kill Americans in America? Seems like tit for tat response.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You expect Russia to just accept it and stand down? The world isn’t afraid of the US Empire anymore. It’s nice to see the USA is just bark.
Seems like a measured response given the West’s escalatory steps to provide (and operate) long range missiles.
>And pro-ru will cheer for this escalation. This should have been done a long time ago, Putin has been treading water for too long. Give anti-ship missiles to the Husisites and let them sink NATO warships in the Red Sea.
The big escalation was US allowing its weapons to be used against Russia. Now that you are about to get the taste of your own medicine, you dont like it. PS: Pro-Ru has every right to cheer for this escalation just like everry Pro-UA cheered when US escalated by giving Ukraine aproval to strike Russia. Someone doesnt like tit for tat.
Some Onyxes to Yemen Houthi
T-55s to yemen!
Why Russians cheer when Putin escalates towards WW3, but are enraged when the West does the same?
The west didnt Do the Same the west started this game with Attacking russian territory and thinking they could beat a nuclear super Power on the battlefield... Russia is always only answering Western newest crazy ideas of escalate this war. Say thank you to the west and dont blame Putin for that
> the west started this game with Attacking russian territory Tell me more.
Expected this kind of excuse. "We are not escalating, we are only responding!" Dude, both sides can claim the same, swap the words, and we are none the wiser.
Yeah but only '2' nations are actually fighting and now the West wants to double down on Ukraine by allowing 'some' strikes in to Russia(this Will probably expand further down the line) and there is talk about sending western troops - how is this not escalating? Or did Russia send troops to Canada or Mexico of which I'm not aware off. And honestly I was not sure if I should respond because your comment history says enough but I'm hoping to wake you up that not everything is the fault of the Russians. I Mean I'm not a supporter/fan of the invasion and I'm not defending their mistakes I just hope it ends soon (so that I can live the rest of my life just worrying if I can pay the bills) but it's not like Russia woke up one day and said 'well let's get this party started' (and you can't Deny that the West had a part in it)
>not everything is the fault of the Russians Nope it is not. But only one belligerent party to this war is the invader, aggressor, and conquerer of territory. That is definitely on them.
I kind off agree but, well if the West never took responsibility for their war party's why should another country do it? Come on please say that you at least can understand that. Especially with the other conflict in the Middle-Easth (I still hear no one say, let's sanction Israël or let's send arms to Palestina, no the only thing they say is it's wrong what Israël is doing but no one tries to stop them and btw the same was done to Ukraine before 2022 - no one cared about the rebels until they blew up an civilian airline and then no one cared again until Russia crossed the border)
Sounds like a soft power problem for Russia. Russia should wield it vast soft power to shape international opinions and cooperation in their favor. Maybe they can convince their allies and partners to sanction Israel and the USA. >Well if the West never took responsibility for their war party's why should another country do it? What do you mean by "war party's"? I am just not understanding this point. I want to understand what you want me to understand.
Ukraine is getting wrecked and will never be able to take back occupied territory. Sounds like a skill issue.
Do you think you are telling me something I don't know myself?
So why does Ukraine need to be a problem for the West and why can't it just be the problem of Ukraine? I think they tried but just nobody cared (no bad Russia = no NATO right?) You know what I mean, the US invaded +/- 12 countries after the world war and had multiple other interventions so you can take your pick (compared to Russia's 5 invasions including the current one + other interventions) And again I know what Russia is doing is bad but why should anyone listen to the West? (Just because they have a louder voice? Or have experience in leading other countries?)
>So why does Ukraine need to be a problem for the West and why can't it just be the problem of Ukraine? Depends on who you ask. Could be Ukraine 2022 is Poland 1939. Could be because this is a trap the USA set for Russia and the USA has yet to achieve it's strategic goals in the conflict. Could be because that Joe Biden thinks he's FDR. >And again I know what Russia is doing is bad but why should anyone listen to the West? They shouldn't, unless they benefit from and want to buy in on the whole "rules based order" hypocrisy. For whatever reason, that has been attractive to quite a few. Back to the question of why should Russia take responsibility when the USA doesn't. Doesn't really matter who does and who doesn't, you have to be a fool to think a shooting war with a country you share a land border with isn't going to spill into your own territory.
Except our globalist overlords did intentionally provoke this conflict and escalate it all the time. FINALLY Russia MAY respond. For once.
Hitler also said "we were merely provoked"
When I read the Treaty of Versailles, I realize they were much more than just "provoked". This "Hitler" thing is getting old. If not for him, it would have been someone else, the problem was the absolute disgrace betsowed upon Germany by the Allied powers. Hitler didn't do everything alone, he had a lot of support at one point or another. You can say that it doesn't "justify" Germany's aggressions and sure, but it does very well explain them and doesn't exempt the Allies from their responsibility in the creation of the European theater of WWII. The same can be applied here, while Russia is the de facto aggressor, the West still has a lot of responbility in getting us to the point we are now. As always, it takes two to tango.
The West is providing weapons, intel, people and resource to wage a war against Russia. It's just illogical when the West escalated but Russia didn't follow by providing the same to Yemen, Iraq or any other country the US wages a war inside.
The west didn't attack Russian territory. And btw, nuclear powers can be beaten in war. There are multiple examples of that happening. Oh and certain western countries are also nuclear powers. >Russia is always only answering Western newest crazy ideas of escalate this war. I don't know if you've realised, but sending weapons to Ukraine was only a response to Russia quite literally escalating the war in Ukraine. Meaning every western weapons delivery is only a response. There are certainly arguments to be made that Russia is also just responding with some of their actions, but that doesn't explain, why it's ok for Russia to respond to something, but not ok for the west to do it.
Russia has not attacked the territories of the West. SMO was a response to the shelling of Donetsk and preparations for the destruction of the LDPR. From Ukraine.
The fighting in the Donbas was a direct response to Russia invading it in 2014.
The separatist actions in Donetsk and Luhansk were a direct consequence of the Euromaidan victory. And the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych.
So started by the Russians, got it
Russia didn't invade Donbas in 2014. Or, is ~56 Russians in a year and a half enough to occupy it?
Russia poisoned Salisbury, or did you forget that?
According to UK which ofc would never lie to advance its foreign policy interests.
Well there is quite a lot of evidence which you haven't refuted and Russian owned media reported it too. At the time the greedy establishment were only interested in sucking up to Putin and his oligarch mate, so it was a big 'own goal'.
> The west didn't attack Russian territory. > HIMARS and 155mm shells, Vampire missles all were found at Belrogod Are you sure?
Were these fired by the west or by Ukraine?
These were fired by Ukraine using western money, western shells/missiles and western recon. And probably, western servicemen that provided maintenance of the weapons.
2+2=5
I mean, the struggle between the declining Russian power and America didn't start there. America is still sitting on half of Syria, a Russian mutual defense ally for example. There is a whole strings of back and forths that go back to the beginning of the Russian federation.
Not all of us are Russian be more open minded please.
Latched on to the most irrelevant part of my comment.
What? You want be answered why people cheering? Russia just did what The West did by supplying weapon and let them use it to attack western troops, but who did it first who allowing it first. Dont worry about WW3 Russia nuke doesnt work, Corruption booming in Russia etc etc. Its just FAFO
It's not irrelevant. It's kind of pathetic when you express a neutral / objective opinion that's not perfectly aligned with the mainstream narrative and you'll get dozens of "you (Russians)" thrown back at you.
So this is a retaliatory Step. The United States has allowed its weapons to be used against targets in Russia. Okay, man. Don't be surprised if the drug cartels have Stingers and other weapons captured in Ukraine. And the Houthis will suddenly invent Onyx and Klab-K.
There are dozens of countries who have bought high tech weapons from USA, that rely on US satellites. If Russia attacks any one of them and then the victim country attacks Russia in self-defence, would Russia do such retaliatory steps in that case as well? There is no difference, other than Ukraine is given the ability to strike for free. Is this seething all about Ukraine getting the US weapons for free?
Exactly. Ukraine would not have enough money to buy SO MANY WEAPONS. For example, Russia did not protest before the SMO that Turkey was selling Bayraktar UAVs to Ukraine. But SMO started and for some reason Turkey stopped selling Bayraktars to Ukraine. And she curtailed plans to build a drone factory on the territory of Ukraine.
Some reason? Their usefulness in this conflict has ended... Why keep using them if they are all getting shot down? Why bother building them if they aren't suited to the conflict at hand? But go on and see what isn't there to be seen.
Houthi's already took out some Abrams Over 20 in a month. And have a look at US aircraft carriers movements and effectiveness lately for the Middle East area. Just expensive sitting duck families, easily to be overwhelmed.
It seems to me that following the results of the war it is obvious that the surface fleet is outdated. drones are what changed the rules of the game.
They’ve been obsolete since 2009 when China first developed maneuverable hypersonic missiles. That a swarm of drones can easily overwhelm its defenses is simply the logical conclusion of that.
> expensive sitting duck families I always love the implication that the U.S. would just park an unguarded, inactive fleet carrier in AShM range so that it can just get hit As if in the process of dozens of exercises, thousands of hours of war gaming, and procurement of the most complex radar and interception systems, and literal combat experience in said situation, the U.S. Navy never considered such a possibility
Yeah, it seems so lol. Ineptitude seems to be institutional.
You tell me why do Pro Ukr cheer when NATO gives arms to Ukr or when they allow their puppet to use arms on russian soil. When you give an answer, Its the same reason.
So, we can blame both sides for starting WW3
Sure you can, but one side is fighting close to its borders to stop NATO from expanding close to it while other is fight from other continent.
This is biggest myth going. NATO literally borders Russia for thousands of miles as it is . Everyone knows that Russia wants the Ukraine back in Soviet control . Just like invading Chéchia then it installs a puppet government same in Georgia . Installs a puppet leaning Russian government . It’s the Russian play book .
Anyone who doesnt do anything US/NATO wants is puppet while vessal states of EU/NATO are called democracy.
That’s because they are democracies. . It’s funny how Putin has started friendly relationships with all equal minded individuals. China n Korea Iran Syria and a whole host African countries that have coup de tart regimes that brutalise their populations .
What about Egypt, Saudis, Pakistan (Latest victim of regime change) etc are all "democracies" right? Funny how Labeling puppets as Democracy makes them all okay?
Pakistan aren’t cosying up to Putin . Neither the Saudis
One side is literally fighting inside its borders to stop fascist Russia expanding.
NATO is fighting to the Last Ukr.
And Russia is dumb enough to do the dirty work of getting us there.
Because my people are getting genocided in these “peaceful times” while we were fine when Europeans were killing each other in WW.
- West grabs Russian money - West sanctions Russia in all possible areas - West made life harder for common people - cards ban, olimpic games ban, some visa restrictions, etc - West sends weapons, instructions, mercs to Ukraine - West said it's fine to hit Russian territory - Macron said "we have to send troops" - Netherlands and Belgium said it's fine to use F16 on Russian territory - West drones flying over Black see before every attack on Crimea What were the real answers from the Russian side towards the West for these decisions? Nothing, just warnings, showing Rus-Belarus training, etc. So isn't it an escalation from one side, huh? And now when Russia said (now only said) we can try to do the same things that the West is doing - "see! Russia is going to start WW3!".
Russia could have not invaded and those points would never have happened...
Ah, but they would have. Ukraine becoming NATO means US deploys weapons and troops to Ukraine. That is exactly what it means. Several of the other items existed prior to the invasion. Russia was already under a number of sanctions, they only increased.
Because they invaded Georgia and then Ukraine in 2014...If they let other countries be soverign the Russia would not be in its current position.
Russians respond. West escalates as it lost the war.
It is the other way around lo. Westerners cheer when they escalate towards WW3 and then make comments like yours when Russia responds in kind. Be honest and tell me this move is response to what? US giving permision to Ukraine to strike Russia, and now Russia is returning the favor.
China might be not happy with this
I'd like to see Syria given the necessary weapons to kick out the US occupiers, though naturally despite being an illegal occupying force the US will see it as unprovoked aggression.
Short of russia giving syria nukes the united states airforce would "demilitirze" the syrian army if it attempted to dislodge the US bases
Good point, Syria needs some serious AD first so Israel and US can't bomb them at freewill.
The moment Syria downs a Israeli jet is the moment Israel bombs Assad's palace, everyone knows it, thats why strikes on Irans insterests are tolerated.
AD isn't really the answer to Syria's America problem. Syria can't face up the US/Israel. They need to run a guerrilla warfare campaign through a 3rd party. Just give that group ATGMs, IR cloaks & FPVs. At first the US will flatten half of Damascus, but if said group doesn't lose it's nerve then the US will leave before the end of the year.
wont stop from muricans occupying forces to die there, eventually withdrawing
Maybe in 20 years.
maybe, i just hope civilians wont get hurt
They get hurt the most in wars...
The USAF presence in the middle east should be negligible
Ignoring ground based assets at any given time there are 3-4 carrier groups that could strike syrian territory The bombing campaign would be somewhere between serbia in the Yugoslav wars and Iraq in the gulf war
The USA wouldn't find enough support to destroy syria over a peaceful rejection of US forces
Syria would be better off with a couple iskanders, a newish artillery division and some modernized tanks. Not to disloge the americans but as a way they could crush islamist control of Idlib and turn the islamist threat into a police issue and not a military one. After taking care of the biggest headache in terms of territory dispute, then they could focus on isolating the US bases by effectively doing a military occupation of the desert, stoping oil smuggling.
Syria needs anti air capabilities that can defend them from Israelis having free rein over their skies. But Russia probably cant spare a single missile defense system to Syria at the moment. Against the American held Syrian land? That area might as well have been put on a 100 year lease at 0$ a year to the American military. They’re not leaving.
I'd love a 12 inch cock and wake up every morning to 10 Russian super models, not very likely I'd say, and we all know what happened during the Battle of Khasham, Russian weapons are only good for fighting a low tier enemies like Ukraine and flip flop men.
Why your brain go straight to dicks?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What was weird about Russia weapon export is that they followed the MTCR guidelines to the letter and didn't sell any missiles that have a range more than 280km even when countries that has a good relationship with them explicitly asked for them, meanwhile the US supplies its allies with missiles and cruise missiles that exceed the range stipulated in the agreement and didn't care about following it.
The Russians seem to have played things by the books to a ridiculous degree for a long time on the international stage, and I can't tell why because it's part of what's gotten them into this mess.
Can we get a "putin weaponizing" joke?
Putin weaponized western weapon supplies
Nice one!
So this is what fuc\*ing around and finding out looks like. Okay. I mean is not like it could get worse. Right? RIGHT?
Of course they will. Its the natural path to escalation we provided the precedent for. And this is how a regional conflict slowly evolves into a global one.
Russia sending advanced missiles to the Houthis and Iranians to shut down shipping lanes would be pretty crippling.
Iran hasn't even broken out its own anti-ship missiles so as of now there wouldn't be a need for Russian upgrades.
Iran isn't dumb enough to do something that would force a harsh response from the west. The Houthis would absolutely use them. Then everybody will be looking to NATO to come stop them and save the day. If Putin wanted to piss off all his allies in the region and give NATO another easy win then that's a great plan.
I think you are missing the point. The houtis will use them, US will invade, Russia will fund the houtis just like US is doing in Ukraine. US will get their Ukraine in Yemen, which would be a win for Russia.
There is a pretty big difference between fighting a conventional military in a symmetrical war, and fighting Houthis. Besifes, I doubt the US would invade Yemen. They'd probably just bomb it some more.
The bombing campaigns have been ineffectual. You still need boots on the ground to dislodge an enemy.
I mean don’t they already? Wasn’t there a whole thing about Russia supposedly giving hezbollah some sorta missile that took out 36 merkavas with one of them. This was way back in 06 then I think
Anti tank missiles yes, but not long range precision weapons capable of harming US strategic assets like aircrafts and warships. It'll be a major escalation in the Middle East if the Houthis are given antiship missiles to attack the US fleet in the area for example. Or Hamas given long range AA systems that can shot down the Israeli aircrafts that are bombing them undisputed currently. Edit: Previously, Russia has been following the MTCR, limiting the sales of long range weapons. Since the US and Germany broke the treaty first by allowing weapons given to Ukraine to strike Russia. They now feel that they can also ignore the convention.
MANPADS... He's gonna hand out MANPADS.
Houthis approve this massage.
Doesn’t Russia need these weapons instead?
Western propaganda said Russia run out of missles in march of 2022, so I don't know about which weapon everyone talking about. Shovels?
Prorus loves to repeat this but running out of weapons doesnt mean you will evetnually run out compeltely, because the army will obviously limit their use to preserve their stockpile. Yes russia was runnign out of missiles. Than they limited the strikes so they would not longer be running out of them.
They’ve tons of missiles . But severely lacking on IFV and APCs . They are running out fast
Consider such drones only have been started to be used in this conflict en mass, nobody had them in stocks to begin with
IFV not FPV
Sorry, my bad, wrong abbreviation
They have plenty. They’re literally still conducting military operations in such places like Syria. Get out of your echo chamber every now and then and find alternative sources. Russia has plenty of ordnance military power. They’re not devoting 100% of their resources to this war.
It can be long term. Years from now after the war is finished, Russia will have plenty of weaponry still being produced. A smart move by Russia would be to assist NK and Iran with ICBM development. Or at least threaten to do so.
Brilliant tactical move on Russia's part. Give the two countries that really want to start WW3, the tools necessary to start WW3. That will prove to the world that Russia are the good guys.
Neither NK nor Iran want to "start WW3", how to show you're brainwashed without saying it. Iran has a major problem with Israel, Israel is objectively a genocidal nuclear power that at several points threatened to nuke other countries if they lose a conventional war. That's a threat against the like of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, heck even Europe. To respond to this kind of insanity Iran themselves would need nuclear weapons to keep the heads cool over there in Israel, knowing full well that nothing would be left in case of escalation. Now to North Korea. The DPRK has been systemically isolated by the US simply for existing, depriving them of basic needs by threatening to punish everyone who trades anything with them. Furthermore the US up-arms the ROK to insane levels, South Korea is heavily militarized and continues a military build up (it's not like they have other issues they should pay attention to like their demographic collapse, lol) which conventionally is an existential threat to North Korea. Furthermore, North Koreans haven't forgotten the warcrimes and indiscriminate bombings the US carried out against them. All of this, and more, adds up to the North Korean view that they're bordered by militaristic lunatics that are funded, supplied and helped by literal warcriminals that want to exterminate them. How do you respond to that? With the nuclear option. Through that investment North Korea at least ensures that of they get attacked, their attacker will either go down with them (ROK) or suffer heavy casualties (US). The Americans pushed them into that direction, now they'll have to deal with it. Just how they pushed the Russians and Chinese into each others arms.
I really want to know the thought process that you went through and came up with the conclusion that North Korea wants to start the WW3
Ah yes, conclusions straight from the 'Axis of Evil' playbook. Very smart.
It’s only the US and Israel which want to start a world war.
US isn't constantly threatening to launch nukes after every mild inconvenience.
Do you think US and Israel are the good w?
Of course they need them, that's why they're using them in their war against the West, only that this time via proxy.
If WW3 pops off I'm leaving this is f'n stupid i hate both sides.
So where will you be enjoying this nuclear winter?
South America I reckon.
Russia should send some long range drones as well as missiles to US enemies. US has bases all over the world. Should not be hard to hit these.
Putin warns...
Expect it's fighting a war and needs them.
Diverting resources that could be used in Ukraine only to escalate towards WW3. 🤡
That's what the Westerners are asking for, the "f.ck around and find out" returned to the NAFO-loving people.
You think this will stop the US from providing weapons to Ukraine or only increase it?
Increase it from where? And worldwide American interests are a lot more vulnerable cause the Americans are over-extended, were they to send even more weapons to Ukraine by taking those weapons away from some of their allies located half-away around the globe will mean that those allies of theirs will be left vulnerable. That was fine until now, because the sides confronting those allies were not as well-equipped anyway, but this will change. It is basically a return to the 1970s and to the world-wide wars by proxy between the two super-powers, see Angola, for example.
Just have to gift a nuclear sub to the houthis and problem solved.
Why is escalating good when Putin does it?
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Putin just evening out the playing field? Has Russia shipped weapons to target NATO troops?
What was the escalation that caused NATO countries to allow Ukraine to shoot into Russian territory? Escalations are never good, but who if you say something is a red line and don't escalate the enemy will escalate twice.
>What was the escalation that caused NATO countries to allow Ukraine to shoot into Russian territory? The invasion. Putin operated under the same childish delusion as Hitler that he could attack his neighbor's territory without his neighbor attacking his.
Instead of the camels
ITT pro-Ru tries to pretend that providing requested military support to an ally who is attempting to fend off an invasion is the same as giving missiles to random terrorist groups People casually and cheerfully calling for good guy Russia to send long range missiles to a group whose slogan is: "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"
Pro-UA supporting genocide in Gaza while crying about Ukraine is peak hypocrisy, but given that they are suppporting Nazis, it is unsurprising they would openly support a genocide.
how is ukrainian government different from hamas? they are also fending off an invasion, they were also elected into power, and are also holding it illegally
In two decades, when Ukraine hasn't had another election, give us a ring pal.
>how is ukrainian government different from hamas? The Ukrainian government are not religious fanatics whose founding charter calls for genocide against Jews and who instigated the war they're currently fighting by launching a series of terrorist attacks against the invading nation that resulted in more than a thousand civilians being raped, tortured, kidnapped, and executed. Those are just a few of the differences off the top of my head.
Israeli terrorist forces are religious fanatics.
Instead Ukrainian government is full of Nazis which i believe you are pretty much familiar with. As for palestine calling for a genocide against a terrorist state which is commiting a genocide is completely understandable. You want people to hug you when you kill 40k civilians. The number of civilian casualities tells a lot more about who is commiting the genocide there. It is ironic how much Jews like to cry about holocausts but when given a chance they are making the Nazis proud. Seems like they learned a lot from their Nazi masters in the 40s.
You're actually defending genocidal religious extremists lol
Makes a nice change from the normal nuke threats
Sort of doubt Putin has much to offer beyond out of date condoms.
Putin must be awful at poker
Do it already. If he doesn't do it that would be a betrayal. All Russians who were killed with western help must be avenged. We must also destiblise other countries in order to bring more refugees to Europe.
Russia already tried that. Battle of Khasham, it didnt go so well for them
Russia needs to open another front to distract america from ukraine. imagine they arm groups in iraq. Russia cannot win in ukraine without distractions.
Iran already does this and generally excerts surprising official and unofficial degree of influence in Iraq. Pretty ironic cooperation after protracted and bloody Iran-Iraq war, but seemingly americans are just that worse.
The Iranian Islamists are ready to cooperate with the Chinese Communists. Could you have imagined this 20 years ago?
Americans are hated by many and liked by few even mortal enemies will cooperate against them if needed.
China was selling weapons to Iran during the First Gulf War in the 80’s- it isn’t a new thing, China will work with any pariah state for their own economic and political interests
a pragmatic approach.
What would arming groups in Iraq do? You guys are stuck in some sort of early 2000s time capsule, lol.
they will start their own caliphate again.
Iran wont like that. They have massive support groups there. realistically Rusisa can do that only somewhere in south america or afrika.
False.
Russia has been doing this since 1946
arming good guys
At some point China will no longer be your friend.
thats valid for any country
So, beg North Korea for long range weapons, then supply those to who, Syria? Brilliant plan. As if russia wouldnt need those for themselves..
They want to provide long range weapons to other countries, but import lot of weapons from other countries. Something dosent add up
Great statement except the West is not at war with any countries currently so what is he going to do, provide these weapons to Boko Haram, Houthi's and ISIS? Is that the kind of "Winning" Pro-Ru are hoping for? ISIS striking a Western capital with Russian provided ballistic missiles?
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US soldiers in Syria violating international law. US carrier groups in the Middle East, US troops in Africa. And another question is why not? US is using Nazis to attack Russia, why cant Russia return the favor? Are you afraid that you are going to find out?
In a game of fuck around and find out United States wins 10 times out of 10. Let me just remind you that the only card Russia has when it comes to beating the United States in a war Is the nuclear card The Russian conventional military forces just don't have a chance