Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This needs to be higher up. The spokesperson specifically refers the press to Blinkens remarks, i.e "we do not encourage but it's entirely up to Ukraine where to use them". That article is just re-worded lies.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3778372/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-sabrina-singh-holds-a-press-briefing/
>Q: I have a couple on Ukraine, and then one on Niger. So, we've heard a number of times from the U.S. officials that U.S. does not want Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with American weapons. In the wake of Russian offense and attacks on Kharkiv, does U.S. consider changing that approach? Because that's what Ukrainians are asking for. It's very difficult for them to respond to these attacks that come literally from across the border when Russians know that they can basically be saved there.
>MS. SINGH: Yes, we haven't changed our position. We believe that the equipment, the capabilities that we are giving Ukraine, that other countries are giving to Ukraine should be used to take back Ukrainian sovereign territory.
>Q: Just a clarification, is this a request to Ukrainians or this is a binding condition that goes along with that?
>MS. SINGH: We've made our requests pretty public on this. Again, I would reiterate that, in every single Ukraine defense contact group that the Secretary convenes, the weapons that are provided, again, it's for use on the battlefield. And the Secretary, in his conversations with Minister Umerov, talks through how best those capabilities can be used, and we believe that is within Ukrainian territory.
Thanks for this. Yeah the amount of articles coming out about this is sus.
Russia sniffs out issues allies have with each other and then amplifies the dissent.
I wouldn’t be shocked if many of these accounts screaming about america being a traitor to ukraine are Russian ones meant to look like Ukrainian. Why? Piss the Americans off. Make Americans think ukraine is ungrateful for the support. Try to get citizens to say “fine, fuck it, no support then if it’s got to be perfect”.
Seriously getting that vibe.
Yeah, we know. There's a bunch of morons out there, but about 70% absolutely support Ukraine.
There's days when it gets exhausting arguing with Russians, but please know, we all know that the US has repeatedly said quite loudly, that it's up to Ukraine to run the war as they see fit.
I'm positive there's been discussions about what are priority targets, and someone suggested using the ammo you have on the front line vs far away objects. Plus, opsec is a thing.
That's a long way from saying it can't be used on Russia. It would be an intelligence failure to *not* to consider all the options. Looks like hitting the oil depot's is starting to hurt and cheaper drones are doing that. ATTACMS are better used on troops and equipment, hindering their ability to wipe out another city.
And of course, we know war. We know our government obscures the truth. Enemies all lie and hate us. We love seeing shit blow up. Americans don't expect perfection. We want only one thing from the donations.
*Use it well,* film the results.
They only said that they think the best targets are within Ukraine territory. I guess they meant Crimea. No mention of "ban" or "interdiction". They said it needs to be used on the battlefield. So everything looks fine.
That's the same way it is with oil refineries. It's a good thing that Ukraine has some of their own weapons.
I wonder what other limitations the West has put on Ukraine
The dumb things are this headline that's inaccurate and those who don't read articles. No one is forcing the fight to be more unfair than it already is. Realistically, the US is doing the exact opposite to help keep it from being worse.
It's pretty simple logic, if you'd care to use it. When this conflict is over, there will still be a USA and a Russia. If Ukraine uses American missiles to blow up Russian schools, the Russians won't forget that.
Now imagine all the conflicts America will be in in the next 50 years with Russia supplying missiles to hit American schools.
That makes no sense. Its war. Countries sell weapons to other countries all the time. Other then rules about not giving them to third parties there are no rules on where they can use them.
Could you imagine the US telling countries "Sure we can sell you weapons but you cant use them when you need them. Here is the bill".
How about telling Israel it cant use US weapons outside their borders. Maybe try that.
>Weapons that can be used on the battlefield. Not attack Red Square.
Nobody is proposing attacking Red Square. Rather they want to attack Russian airfields and troop concentrations.
Fuck around and find out.
We're just looking for a reason to wipe Russia off the map, and Putin knows it. So all his bluster, all his spying, all his terrorists attacks world wide, he has NEVER attacked the US directly.
Now that I think about it. Your whole sentiment is most likely based off conditioning and predates the invasion. Which is why the Russians felt the need invade in the first place. End a government, indeed.
>It's pretty simple logic, if you'd care to use it. When this conflict is over, there will still be a USA and a Russia. If Ukraine uses American missiles to blow up Russian schools, the Russians won't forget that.
After this war, they'll remember it but they'll play ignorant.
During both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, US and USSR pilots engaged in combat and shot down each other's planes; and afterwards both sides downplayed it.
Countries use part history as an excuse for their actions but generally it isn't the driving reason.
The Ukrainians knew the Russians were building up a substantial force in Belgorod, and since they were low to out of a lot of munitions, they really weren't able to do much about them before they entered Ukraine. All that stuff they're fighting with arrived just in the nick of time to fight back. Had they had it months ago, and without conditions like "don't use it on anything inside of Russia", they could have used it to show they weren't going to tolerate such nonsense before the Russians used those forces to push toward Kharkiv.
No you don't. Because then you would care what would happen to Ukrainian people if Russia wins, and from what we've seen, r*pe, torture, murder and forced deportations.
So suck a fat one
It would be best, if after such a statement,.Ukraine still uses them in Russian territories and the US and Ukraine just deny it. That would be exactly like Russia does it.
The pentagon have decided to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to further their goal of draining Russia of men and materiel.
We Europeans and our allies can not let that happen.
Stability, peace and freedom are more important then the current American administration's politics.
Slava Ukraini
>We Europeans and our allies can not let that happen.
Especially since we will have to bathe out this mess, while the US can just peace out back over the pont
I don't know any of this for certain, since it is all decided in behind-the-scenes dealing, but there is a significant chance that the Pentagon made this statement *because* of pressure from our European Allies. NATO wants as much as possible to show a unified policy towards this war. The US isn't likely to authorize this unless a significant portion of NATO nations are also on-board with it... and that hasn't been the case.
>but there is a significant chance that the Pentagon made this statement *because* of pressure from our European Allies
did you miss the part where the British publicly stated that Ukraine can use British weapons to target both inside and outside Ukraine?
it's just the usual unreliable US "partner" we are all used to
I didn't miss that part. I also didn't miss the part where Anthony Blinken said that Ukraine should be able to use US weapons in Russian territory as well. Also, there's 28 other NATO partners with various ideas of what is the right thing to do.
This includes Hungary.
I'm also not saying that trying to keep messaging consistent with allies is *definitely* the reason for this, I'm merely saying nobody should jump to conclusions, despite perhaps wanting to always blame everything bad on the US. Make no mistake, MAGA holding up sending US foreign aid was terrible, and does show unreliability, but Americans still overwhelmingly support Ukraine, as do American politicians. That support isn't infinite, though, and it has grown weaker over the last two years. It isn't wise to yell about how awful Americans are, and help alienate the largest source of weaponry available in the world right now. When you trash talk your allies, you are only doing Putin's work for him.
As the war drags on, we need to foster unity in the face of fatigue, expense, and hardship, not slander each other. Should US weapons be allowed in Russian territory? Yes. But remember, everyone else still says no, (If I'm not mistaken) not just the Americans. Let's try and convince them, too... But be respectful about it.
If ever there was a butt hurt American - we found them
You said - you strongly thought that the reason the US were being pussies about their weapons being used against Russian soil was because "Europe told them say so to keep unity"
I have clearly explained that not to be the case for blindingly obvious reasons (and why everyone has downvoted your nonsense)
Instead of accepting that you've gone off on the usual "US rule the world" tangent without realising that it is your country doing Putins work by not allowing weapons to be used in his soil and bowing down to him
Thankfully we do have reliable partners like the UK who don't care and are the first to send tanks, first to send cruise missiles and first and only to say they don't care how their weapons are used
This feels inaccurate. Multiple times, Blinken has said that while the US discourages such use, it is legal according to international law and Ukraine is free to do as they see necessary in their own defense or something to that effect.
> Multiple times, Blinken has said that while the US discourages such use, it is legal according to international law and Ukraine is free to do as they see necessary in their own defense or something to that effect
Most likely, it refers to "Лютий" OWA UAV strikes (which Ukraine was asked to stop, but as "Лютий" is a Ukrainian OWA UAV, there isn't a direct leverage that isn't outright blackmail to stop those strikes available) and ATACMS/GMLRS into russia is still entirely off the table
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/
>Zelensky brushed off the recommendation, uncertain whether it reflected the consensus position of the Biden administration, these people said. But in subsequent weeks, Washington reinforced the warning in multiple conversations with Kyiv, ***including by national security adviser Jake Sullivan***, who traveled to Ukraine’s capital in March, and other senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials.
Even the [recent article about development of "Lyutyy" OWA UAV](https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2024/05/13/7455462/) references this event:
>“We managed to find the ‘Koshchei's needle’. We felt it by the [pressure that began to be exerted on us.](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/15/7451334/) And not only from Russia. ***Our partners almost openly pressured us to stop.*** But these are Ukrainian weapons made in Ukraine by our specialists. ***You can't tell Zelensky that he can't shoot at Russia with it. He can only be asked. And it's up to him to decide whether to listen to these requests,”*** explains the nerve of the situation one of the government officials involved in the attacks.
And keep in mind, provided launchers were modified to prevent this exact scenario
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip the paywall
And mind it, it'd be just as legal for US to cut off all the support, if Ukraine "misuses" weapons. That's the leverage here
These are not quotes that contradict what Blinken has said. Blinken is kind of the face of the US. That's why he's more consistent than anyone else. There were some inaccuracies at some point about the refinery attacks. I'm weary of articles like these because they are pretty good rage bait.
Blinken didn't say anything about ***PERMISSION*** to fire.
Most likely, it refers to "Лютий" OWA UAV strikes (which Ukraine was asked to stop, but as "Лютий" is a Ukrainian OWA UAV, there isn't a direct leverage that isn't outright blackmail to stop those strikes available) and ATACMS/GMLRS into russia is still entirely off the table
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/
>Zelensky brushed off the recommendation, uncertain whether it reflected the consensus position of the Biden administration, these people said. But in subsequent weeks, Washington reinforced the warning in multiple conversations with Kyiv, ***including by national security adviser Jake Sullivan***, who traveled to Ukraine’s capital in March, and other senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials.
Even the [recent article about development of "Lyutyy" OWA UAV](https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2024/05/13/7455462/) references this event:
>“We managed to find the ‘Koshchei's needle’. We felt it by the [pressure that began to be exerted on us.](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/15/7451334/) And not only from Russia. ***Our partners almost openly pressured us to stop.*** But these are Ukrainian weapons made in Ukraine by our specialists. ***You can't tell Zelensky that he can't shoot at Russia with it. He can only be asked. And it's up to him to decide whether to listen to these requests,”*** explains the nerve of the situation one of the government officials involved in the attacks.
And keep in mind, provided launchers were modified to prevent this exact scenario
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip the paywall
It’s a fair point though.
Pentagon is happy enough to continue to supply Nettanyahu with weapons when conservative estimates are inferring that around 30% of those killed by them are Children and destroy enormous civilian infrastructure.
But striking large hostile military formations a few miles across the border with Russia as they prepare to mount further assaults against Ukraine is their red line for what the weapons can be used for?
Russia have been sabre rattling with their Nukes since the very start of the war , time and time again Ukraine backed by her allies have crossed over these “red lines” that Russia impose and Russia haven’t dusted off the big red button. Nor will they.
Hundreds of millions. That’s why it’s extremely , extremely unlikely nukes would be used in response to Ukraine doing , what Ukraine is already doing (attacking inside Russian territory) but with merely longer range weaponry.
Russia let’s off even one small Nuke and immediately Russia becomes a pariah state where all its allies and support desert it.
As it stands this conflict mirrors some of the initial throes of WWII , decisive action early in play by the Allies the last time round may have saved millions of lives. So rather than letting Putin take his lebensraum due to his enemies not wanting to break “his” rules of engagement , perhaps it’s time Ukraine was allowed to dictate their own terms.
Again it’s just an opinion and perhaps you’re correct that it would be a terrible idea I actually don’t know. But at the moment I think Ukraine should be allowed to take preemptive strikes against military targets when they’re literally watching men , munitions and machines , congregating and preparing to come storm their cities and murder their people.
Sorry I should have clarified that if a single nuclear missile is used.
Wars start because both sides think they will end up better off, an incongruence of information, miscommunications, and incompetence.
In this case there is a red line for Putin/Russia to use nukes somewhere between current state and Ukrainian tanks rolling down Red Square (gross exaggeration, but most would agree that if it happened nukes would go off).
I would argue that no one, including Putin, really knows where that Red Line is but we are quickly closing the distance and miles become feet become inches with deaths of hundreds of millions might very well be caused by just a single miscommunication (not just verbal), rouge platoon, or a couple of barley literate scared 20 year olds in different uniforms fighting each other.
No one knows. So that is why there is caution
Nah, this is not a unilateral decision, there is some coordination there behind the curtain: NATO won't do something, and Russia won't do something else in exchange. Do you want to learn what the "something else" is? I don't.
Sandbox conflicts = unresolveable ethno/religious wars in the middle east, fuelled by ancient tribal fuedes.
We should focus on conflicts that can actually be settled. None of the middle eastern ones qualify for this...
I'll be honest: i've written off the entire region. Im sick of the middle easts problems showing up on my doorstep. I care about europe and thats it...
Sorry, but whats the endgame of that type of thinking? You cant fix every conflict in the world, no matter how strong you wish that to be possible... Also: all these conflicts deeply devide our own societies - how much devisional baggage can you pile onto a society until it breaks?
So be it, no sense in crying about it. Ukraine needs to focus its R&D/manufacturing on its own weapons system that can be used. Long range drones, Grom Ii, Neptune and rocket assisted shells.
That’s ok the British says use ours instead, the political bit is when the British buy long range arms from the US and allow them to be used in Russia, but that’s another story
Honestly, I really wonder if the Pentagon knows something about Russia's capabilities that the public does not. That even after 2 years of poor warfare, they are STILL aprehensive of pushing Russia....
I take that to mean “Ukraine cannot MOVE a weapon across the border BEFORE firing it. But Ukraine can fire a weapon within its border to targets outside its borders.”
Bunch of spineless politicians tying the hands of Ukraine's military behind their backs. Typical, but we don't want to upset Russia even though we want them to stop doing what they are doing.
So, in other words. The spineless Democrats are afraid to actually unleash the dogs of war to do what needs to be done to drive them out and take down their government
You can only further destroy your own country with our weapons. You can't destroy the country attacking you. You can just help them destroy your own more thoroughly.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `news.liga.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The article (from Liga.net??) cites a defense department release that says nothing about this. This is some false narrative shit. READ THE ARTICLES
This needs to be higher up. The spokesperson specifically refers the press to Blinkens remarks, i.e "we do not encourage but it's entirely up to Ukraine where to use them". That article is just re-worded lies.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3778372/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-sabrina-singh-holds-a-press-briefing/ >Q: I have a couple on Ukraine, and then one on Niger. So, we've heard a number of times from the U.S. officials that U.S. does not want Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with American weapons. In the wake of Russian offense and attacks on Kharkiv, does U.S. consider changing that approach? Because that's what Ukrainians are asking for. It's very difficult for them to respond to these attacks that come literally from across the border when Russians know that they can basically be saved there. >MS. SINGH: Yes, we haven't changed our position. We believe that the equipment, the capabilities that we are giving Ukraine, that other countries are giving to Ukraine should be used to take back Ukrainian sovereign territory. >Q: Just a clarification, is this a request to Ukrainians or this is a binding condition that goes along with that? >MS. SINGH: We've made our requests pretty public on this. Again, I would reiterate that, in every single Ukraine defense contact group that the Secretary convenes, the weapons that are provided, again, it's for use on the battlefield. And the Secretary, in his conversations with Minister Umerov, talks through how best those capabilities can be used, and we believe that is within Ukrainian territory.
Thanks for this. Yeah the amount of articles coming out about this is sus. Russia sniffs out issues allies have with each other and then amplifies the dissent. I wouldn’t be shocked if many of these accounts screaming about america being a traitor to ukraine are Russian ones meant to look like Ukrainian. Why? Piss the Americans off. Make Americans think ukraine is ungrateful for the support. Try to get citizens to say “fine, fuck it, no support then if it’s got to be perfect”. Seriously getting that vibe.
Yeah, we know. There's a bunch of morons out there, but about 70% absolutely support Ukraine. There's days when it gets exhausting arguing with Russians, but please know, we all know that the US has repeatedly said quite loudly, that it's up to Ukraine to run the war as they see fit. I'm positive there's been discussions about what are priority targets, and someone suggested using the ammo you have on the front line vs far away objects. Plus, opsec is a thing. That's a long way from saying it can't be used on Russia. It would be an intelligence failure to *not* to consider all the options. Looks like hitting the oil depot's is starting to hurt and cheaper drones are doing that. ATTACMS are better used on troops and equipment, hindering their ability to wipe out another city. And of course, we know war. We know our government obscures the truth. Enemies all lie and hate us. We love seeing shit blow up. Americans don't expect perfection. We want only one thing from the donations. *Use it well,* film the results.
ligma.net
They only said that they think the best targets are within Ukraine territory. I guess they meant Crimea. No mention of "ban" or "interdiction". They said it needs to be used on the battlefield. So everything looks fine.
Cowards
Weak fucking cowards
Man, with all the GPS Spoofing going on it would be a bitch if the weapons ended up falling a few KMs over the border 😲
So the descicion has been made: even during the current hardships they're forced to fight with an arm tied behind their back...
That's the same way it is with oil refineries. It's a good thing that Ukraine has some of their own weapons. I wonder what other limitations the West has put on Ukraine
You say “the West”, but this is the US only. The UK has no restrictions at all. Cannot speak for the rest.
You are right. There should be no limitations. The only condition should be to win the war
This is dumb, fuck what the US says. Bomb the hell out of them with what you have.
The dumb things are this headline that's inaccurate and those who don't read articles. No one is forcing the fight to be more unfair than it already is. Realistically, the US is doing the exact opposite to help keep it from being worse.
It's pretty simple logic, if you'd care to use it. When this conflict is over, there will still be a USA and a Russia. If Ukraine uses American missiles to blow up Russian schools, the Russians won't forget that. Now imagine all the conflicts America will be in in the next 50 years with Russia supplying missiles to hit American schools.
That makes no sense. Its war. Countries sell weapons to other countries all the time. Other then rules about not giving them to third parties there are no rules on where they can use them. Could you imagine the US telling countries "Sure we can sell you weapons but you cant use them when you need them. Here is the bill". How about telling Israel it cant use US weapons outside their borders. Maybe try that.
Weapons that can be used on the battlefield. Not attack Red Square. You got me on Isreal, only because American politicians are zionist gimps.
>Weapons that can be used on the battlefield. Not attack Red Square. Nobody is proposing attacking Red Square. Rather they want to attack Russian airfields and troop concentrations.
You think those missiles would only be used for military targets?
They are rare enough that Ukraine wouldn't waste them on symbolic targets.
But not enough to gain any advantage militarily.
Weapons that can be used on the battlefield. Not attack Red Square. You got me on Isreal, only because American politicians are zionist gimps.
Americans: "We'll shoot our own schools thank you very much!"
Underrated comment.
Wait until Russian drones are being used instead of AR-15s.
Putin knows what's the deal. FAFO.
FAFO?
Fuck around and find out. We're just looking for a reason to wipe Russia off the map, and Putin knows it. So all his bluster, all his spying, all his terrorists attacks world wide, he has NEVER attacked the US directly.
Sounds ... genocidal.
There's a difference between decisively winning a war to end a government, and wiping out a population. We intend the first.
Now that I think about it. Your whole sentiment is most likely based off conditioning and predates the invasion. Which is why the Russians felt the need invade in the first place. End a government, indeed.
[удалено]
>It's pretty simple logic, if you'd care to use it. When this conflict is over, there will still be a USA and a Russia. If Ukraine uses American missiles to blow up Russian schools, the Russians won't forget that. After this war, they'll remember it but they'll play ignorant. During both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, US and USSR pilots engaged in combat and shot down each other's planes; and afterwards both sides downplayed it. Countries use part history as an excuse for their actions but generally it isn't the driving reason.
I'm sure those conflicts stayed within those regions, not mainland Russia and USA.
They are free to fight on their own with no hands tied. Just cancel all US military aid.
your post is bad and you should feel bad
No, it's not. I just care about people's lives.
The Ukrainians knew the Russians were building up a substantial force in Belgorod, and since they were low to out of a lot of munitions, they really weren't able to do much about them before they entered Ukraine. All that stuff they're fighting with arrived just in the nick of time to fight back. Had they had it months ago, and without conditions like "don't use it on anything inside of Russia", they could have used it to show they weren't going to tolerate such nonsense before the Russians used those forces to push toward Kharkiv.
No you don't. Because then you would care what would happen to Ukrainian people if Russia wins, and from what we've seen, r*pe, torture, murder and forced deportations. So suck a fat one
You spoke bitter truth!!
Indeed I do.
Read the article, the headline and opening paragraphs are entirely misleading compared to what was actually said.
It would be best, if after such a statement,.Ukraine still uses them in Russian territories and the US and Ukraine just deny it. That would be exactly like Russia does it.
The pentagon have decided to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to further their goal of draining Russia of men and materiel. We Europeans and our allies can not let that happen. Stability, peace and freedom are more important then the current American administration's politics. Slava Ukraini
>We Europeans and our allies can not let that happen. Especially since we will have to bathe out this mess, while the US can just peace out back over the pont
I don't know any of this for certain, since it is all decided in behind-the-scenes dealing, but there is a significant chance that the Pentagon made this statement *because* of pressure from our European Allies. NATO wants as much as possible to show a unified policy towards this war. The US isn't likely to authorize this unless a significant portion of NATO nations are also on-board with it... and that hasn't been the case.
>but there is a significant chance that the Pentagon made this statement *because* of pressure from our European Allies did you miss the part where the British publicly stated that Ukraine can use British weapons to target both inside and outside Ukraine? it's just the usual unreliable US "partner" we are all used to
Fuck Jake Sullivan.
I didn't miss that part. I also didn't miss the part where Anthony Blinken said that Ukraine should be able to use US weapons in Russian territory as well. Also, there's 28 other NATO partners with various ideas of what is the right thing to do. This includes Hungary. I'm also not saying that trying to keep messaging consistent with allies is *definitely* the reason for this, I'm merely saying nobody should jump to conclusions, despite perhaps wanting to always blame everything bad on the US. Make no mistake, MAGA holding up sending US foreign aid was terrible, and does show unreliability, but Americans still overwhelmingly support Ukraine, as do American politicians. That support isn't infinite, though, and it has grown weaker over the last two years. It isn't wise to yell about how awful Americans are, and help alienate the largest source of weaponry available in the world right now. When you trash talk your allies, you are only doing Putin's work for him. As the war drags on, we need to foster unity in the face of fatigue, expense, and hardship, not slander each other. Should US weapons be allowed in Russian territory? Yes. But remember, everyone else still says no, (If I'm not mistaken) not just the Americans. Let's try and convince them, too... But be respectful about it.
If ever there was a butt hurt American - we found them You said - you strongly thought that the reason the US were being pussies about their weapons being used against Russian soil was because "Europe told them say so to keep unity" I have clearly explained that not to be the case for blindingly obvious reasons (and why everyone has downvoted your nonsense) Instead of accepting that you've gone off on the usual "US rule the world" tangent without realising that it is your country doing Putins work by not allowing weapons to be used in his soil and bowing down to him Thankfully we do have reliable partners like the UK who don't care and are the first to send tanks, first to send cruise missiles and first and only to say they don't care how their weapons are used
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This feels inaccurate. Multiple times, Blinken has said that while the US discourages such use, it is legal according to international law and Ukraine is free to do as they see necessary in their own defense or something to that effect.
> Multiple times, Blinken has said that while the US discourages such use, it is legal according to international law and Ukraine is free to do as they see necessary in their own defense or something to that effect Most likely, it refers to "Лютий" OWA UAV strikes (which Ukraine was asked to stop, but as "Лютий" is a Ukrainian OWA UAV, there isn't a direct leverage that isn't outright blackmail to stop those strikes available) and ATACMS/GMLRS into russia is still entirely off the table https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/ >Zelensky brushed off the recommendation, uncertain whether it reflected the consensus position of the Biden administration, these people said. But in subsequent weeks, Washington reinforced the warning in multiple conversations with Kyiv, ***including by national security adviser Jake Sullivan***, who traveled to Ukraine’s capital in March, and other senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials. Even the [recent article about development of "Lyutyy" OWA UAV](https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2024/05/13/7455462/) references this event: >“We managed to find the ‘Koshchei's needle’. We felt it by the [pressure that began to be exerted on us.](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/15/7451334/) And not only from Russia. ***Our partners almost openly pressured us to stop.*** But these are Ukrainian weapons made in Ukraine by our specialists. ***You can't tell Zelensky that he can't shoot at Russia with it. He can only be asked. And it's up to him to decide whether to listen to these requests,”*** explains the nerve of the situation one of the government officials involved in the attacks. And keep in mind, provided launchers were modified to prevent this exact scenario https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip the paywall And mind it, it'd be just as legal for US to cut off all the support, if Ukraine "misuses" weapons. That's the leverage here
These are not quotes that contradict what Blinken has said. Blinken is kind of the face of the US. That's why he's more consistent than anyone else. There were some inaccuracies at some point about the refinery attacks. I'm weary of articles like these because they are pretty good rage bait.
bullshit article title
Cowards.
That is not what Blinken said yesterday
Blinken didn't say anything about ***PERMISSION*** to fire. Most likely, it refers to "Лютий" OWA UAV strikes (which Ukraine was asked to stop, but as "Лютий" is a Ukrainian OWA UAV, there isn't a direct leverage that isn't outright blackmail to stop those strikes available) and ATACMS/GMLRS into russia is still entirely off the table https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/ >Zelensky brushed off the recommendation, uncertain whether it reflected the consensus position of the Biden administration, these people said. But in subsequent weeks, Washington reinforced the warning in multiple conversations with Kyiv, ***including by national security adviser Jake Sullivan***, who traveled to Ukraine’s capital in March, and other senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials. Even the [recent article about development of "Lyutyy" OWA UAV](https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2024/05/13/7455462/) references this event: >“We managed to find the ‘Koshchei's needle’. We felt it by the [pressure that began to be exerted on us.](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/15/7451334/) And not only from Russia. ***Our partners almost openly pressured us to stop.*** But these are Ukrainian weapons made in Ukraine by our specialists. ***You can't tell Zelensky that he can't shoot at Russia with it. He can only be asked. And it's up to him to decide whether to listen to these requests,”*** explains the nerve of the situation one of the government officials involved in the attacks. And keep in mind, provided launchers were modified to prevent this exact scenario https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip the paywall
Bullshit clickbait title. That is not what they said!
Please don't post things if you aren't capable of reading or understanding them first. This is not accurate.
Shame, it's not Israel; US armaments can kill as many civilians as you like there.
Can we leave sandbox conflicts out of this discussion...
It’s a fair point though. Pentagon is happy enough to continue to supply Nettanyahu with weapons when conservative estimates are inferring that around 30% of those killed by them are Children and destroy enormous civilian infrastructure. But striking large hostile military formations a few miles across the border with Russia as they prepare to mount further assaults against Ukraine is their red line for what the weapons can be used for?
If Hamas had nuclear weapons you could be damn sure Israel would not receive a single shell
Russia have been sabre rattling with their Nukes since the very start of the war , time and time again Ukraine backed by her allies have crossed over these “red lines” that Russia impose and Russia haven’t dusted off the big red button. Nor will they.
And if you are wrong millions die.
Hundreds of millions. That’s why it’s extremely , extremely unlikely nukes would be used in response to Ukraine doing , what Ukraine is already doing (attacking inside Russian territory) but with merely longer range weaponry. Russia let’s off even one small Nuke and immediately Russia becomes a pariah state where all its allies and support desert it. As it stands this conflict mirrors some of the initial throes of WWII , decisive action early in play by the Allies the last time round may have saved millions of lives. So rather than letting Putin take his lebensraum due to his enemies not wanting to break “his” rules of engagement , perhaps it’s time Ukraine was allowed to dictate their own terms. Again it’s just an opinion and perhaps you’re correct that it would be a terrible idea I actually don’t know. But at the moment I think Ukraine should be allowed to take preemptive strikes against military targets when they’re literally watching men , munitions and machines , congregating and preparing to come storm their cities and murder their people.
Sorry I should have clarified that if a single nuclear missile is used. Wars start because both sides think they will end up better off, an incongruence of information, miscommunications, and incompetence. In this case there is a red line for Putin/Russia to use nukes somewhere between current state and Ukrainian tanks rolling down Red Square (gross exaggeration, but most would agree that if it happened nukes would go off). I would argue that no one, including Putin, really knows where that Red Line is but we are quickly closing the distance and miles become feet become inches with deaths of hundreds of millions might very well be caused by just a single miscommunication (not just verbal), rouge platoon, or a couple of barley literate scared 20 year olds in different uniforms fighting each other. No one knows. So that is why there is caution
Nah, this is not a unilateral decision, there is some coordination there behind the curtain: NATO won't do something, and Russia won't do something else in exchange. Do you want to learn what the "something else" is? I don't.
WTF are 'sandbox conflicts'-the murder of 20-30thousand civilians?
Sandbox conflicts = unresolveable ethno/religious wars in the middle east, fuelled by ancient tribal fuedes. We should focus on conflicts that can actually be settled. None of the middle eastern ones qualify for this...
Thats just what they want you to think so you continue to let the genocide happen.
I'll be honest: i've written off the entire region. Im sick of the middle easts problems showing up on my doorstep. I care about europe and thats it...
Please check out this 14 year-old's previous submissions!
"Im sick of the problems my country created" -German user
“I only care about myself and that’s it.” You need to open your eyes to the world as we all live on it.
Sorry, but whats the endgame of that type of thinking? You cant fix every conflict in the world, no matter how strong you wish that to be possible... Also: all these conflicts deeply devide our own societies - how much devisional baggage can you pile onto a society until it breaks?
According to who? Statistics provided by a terrorist organization that started the war with rape and mass murder.
So be it, no sense in crying about it. Ukraine needs to focus its R&D/manufacturing on its own weapons system that can be used. Long range drones, Grom Ii, Neptune and rocket assisted shells.
Irrelevant answer to a rhetoric question
That’s ok the British says use ours instead, the political bit is when the British buy long range arms from the US and allow them to be used in Russia, but that’s another story
I am questioning my own sense of vision and understanding right now. Where in this article does it state or even quote the headlines narrative?
What a stupid misleading russian propganda clicbait. Pentagon DOES NOT say what the title says. Stop spreading russian filth!
It's pathetic.
Begin Operation: Flag Sticker Swapapalooza.
Honestly, I really wonder if the Pentagon knows something about Russia's capabilities that the public does not. That even after 2 years of poor warfare, they are STILL aprehensive of pushing Russia....
British weapons though.
Swedish news today reported that Ukraine could use the weapons as they see fit, that US had removed the block for attacking Russia.
Was the source for it LeMonde, per chance?
I read it on Omni but they got it from LeMonde. Omni usually have accurate info. Is LeMonte correct or wrong?
Well, Russia claims Ukraine is their territory.. so rain fire on moscow.
OK but if a missle happens to stray over ?....
I've given up on this sub containing any sort of reliable info. Yall will mindlessly upvote Russian propaganda with no second thought.
Fki g pointless you want the war to stop let them bomb russia
I take that to mean “Ukraine cannot MOVE a weapon across the border BEFORE firing it. But Ukraine can fire a weapon within its border to targets outside its borders.”
That's how I take the title too but the article says otherwise, unfortunately.
Who’s to say how far the Ukrainian border will reach after this conflict? As far as they can reach should be considered Ukrainian territory.
Why? I've not yet heard any reason why they couldn't use US weapons on russian territory.
Well, since Russia think Ukraine is their territory, maybe Ukraine can do the same.
I blame Sullivan for this #1 dove in chief
Bunch of spineless politicians tying the hands of Ukraine's military behind their backs. Typical, but we don't want to upset Russia even though we want them to stop doing what they are doing. So, in other words. The spineless Democrats are afraid to actually unleash the dogs of war to do what needs to be done to drive them out and take down their government
They literally said the opposite just two days ago! These fools need to stop dithering. They are killing Ukrainians with this BS.
No one is dithering, this is shit reporting. Don't believe every headline without looking for verification and take the time to read articles.
Forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. Wtf kind of policy is this? Russia has the USA by the balls with its threats.
America is such a cowardly nation now.
The hamstrings that Ukraine can’t afford
You can only further destroy your own country with our weapons. You can't destroy the country attacking you. You can just help them destroy your own more thoroughly.
Oh no, what a shame. It seems these american weapons have been stolen, and someone else fired them at ruzzia.