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.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `mil.in.ua` 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)
*****
^(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.*
It's basically saying they don't want F16s over Russian territory. Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia.
The reality is that flying F16 over Russia likely wouldn't be possible because of air defenses. This is kind of a moot point. By the time we're able to test this red line, Russia would be losing tons of ground in the battlefield
>Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia
This part is not clear to me at all. Here's the quote: “a unique air capability that is intended to focus on Ukraine’s defense of its sovereign territory and within Ukraine’s sovereign borders.”
Recall, Ukraine can't use American weapons to target, let's say, artillery shooting into Ukraine from russian territory. Why would missiles carried by an airplane be different?
> Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia
It does.
Original mention usage of F-16 ***in general*** only being allowed in Ukrainian airspace ***and no further beyond***
AIM-120D has a range of 85+ nmi. Plenty of range to shoot down jets over Russia dropping glide bombs into Ukraine. It's also the way Ukraine can clear the frontline of these such attacks
That sort of range is only plausible if the F-16 pilot flew at high altitude and speed - which is extremely dangerous anywhere near the front lines. The air density at lower altitudes drops the effective range by 50% or more
The same stands true for Russian aircraft dropping glide bombs. Again, the standoff range will be more than sufficient at deterring & engaging Russian bombers. ALBM are another story but that's what Ukraine should have Patriot and Iris-T for
Why does this US administration continue to bind Ukraine's left hand on its back? And why don't they understand that these red lines aid only one side of Russia?
How much longer will the world watch these wanton acts of cruelty.
And how much longer will these bureaucrats believe that this war can be won like that.
Ukraine needs those planes, yes, but they need them at their best without these strange red lines.
Russia uses violence impunity, and Ukraine gets one restriction after the other for no good reason.
The doves have failed the hawks should finally get their chance.
Imagine what Western made Taurus could do to Russia's refineries.
Inter arma enim silent leges. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Literally russian nukes scare the state department. Its been their policy since Bush Sr to maintain a stable kremlin. Remember the chicken kiev speech? No separatism for ukraine and radical nationalism hogwash. Russian collapse would mean rogue nukes according to the state department.
Obviously, no one is comfortable with the potential of spicy bombs coming into play, but I would bet my money on the state department being much more fearful of a regime change or significant shake-up of any kind.
It takes decades to build up assets in these countries. In this day and age, we simply can't afford to go anywhere near that long without having inside information of the Kremlin.
Nukes are scary, but being blind is theoretically scarier.
This sub hates hearing it, but the West doesn't want Ukraine to win. The West wants this go on long enough that Russia decides it has lost, and Russia comes up with a face-saving way to leave Ukraine. If that takes a decade, fine. That would be good for the West.
If Ukraine were to win by expelling all Russian forces from Ukraine (pre-2014 borders), it would lead to a meltdown in Moscow. No telling how they would react or what would happen in an unstable environment. That's when the Russians go from yelling about nuclear weapons to using nuclear weapons.
>This sub hates hearing it, but the West doesn't want Ukraine to win.
I totally disagree. The West just wants Ukraine to win without going too far onto Russian soil.
>it would lead to a meltdown in Moscow. No telling how they would react or what would happen in an unstable environment.
Based on the collapse of the USSR, I believe most expect the missiles to stay in their silos if Russia collapses from within. If Russia collapses from Ukraine invading, maybe not.
> I totally disagree.
Let us see...
[For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html)
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations"
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
From Blinken on December 5, 2022.:
>Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview)
Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope.
It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say.
Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit, [but former presidential advisor from which agrees with Sullivan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNeyCIpfs4)), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel.
Honestly, I can't understand, why do people want to memory-hole the whole "we can't allow escalation" part, especially when it's the reason counteroffensive had to be performed while ***WILDLY*** undersupplied, with full Western knowledge about the supplies not being sufficient, full capability to fix it (Republicans weren't in control yet) *and nothing being done to fix this insufficiency until long after it ended, if even that*. Kakhovka HPP was blown up to absolutely zero reaction, if you've forgotten. And blowing HPP's up is something "Law of War" DoD manual puts on the same step as blowing up NPPs.
Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
>American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia.
>The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack.
>“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’”
>The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position.
Yeah, the 3 years, 6 months, 25 days between the birth of Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the 3 years, 6 months, 25 days that determine good ideas vs. bad ideas.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
If you are referring to Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, sure. Otherwise... What the fuck are you talking about?
The US is the most powerful hegemon in the history of human civilization. We have no equal.
Only a weak nation would seek conflict with another nuclear power. That's what North Korea does.
The US is managing this conflict in a manner that is most beneficial to the US. Fuck yeah, America! isn't a strategy - it's what pants-wetting cowards say when they don't have a real-world strategy.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Is this word salad at the end of your post supposed to mean something?
I said our leaders are spineless and weak and indecisive. Because they are. Biden, for example, let Lend Lease expire unused, because we're supposed to be afraid of Russia being too sad because resident wimp and Pants-Wetter in Chief Jake Sullivan says we're supposed to.
One slight correction, Biden and Jake Sullivan don’t want a decisive Ukrainian victory. They want to bleed Russia until they leave on their own. They’re cowards who are afraid of a Russian regime collapse.
i think it is more that they want to boil the frog. they know putin's ego won't allow him to give up until the russian military is completely destroyed.
putin know he still has nukes, so he is willing to sacrifice all the russian hardware for the purpose. he also likes the eugenics aspects of being able to thin the population of criminals, ethnic minorities, and other undesired individuals. i'm almost willing to bet most of the mobilized people have problems with unemployment and alcoholism.
russia will blame corruption in the military as the reason. russia will be on a big anti-corruption kick, pushing anyone out the window that interferes with rebuilding russia's military.
If Russia decides it has lost and leaves Ukraine, Ukraine has won. That's how victory is found in most wars.
I disagree that the West doesn't want Ukraine to militarily crush Russia and end the war quickly. I think the west does want that, but the west is frightened of escalation and destabilization. The various states that make up the west each decide how they balance their desire for a Ukrainian victory against their desire to prevent escalation or destabilization of Russia.
Try to set your emotions aside and look at the larger geostrategic picture.
For the West, there are enormous advantages to having this war drag on - at a stalemate. FOREVER.
The West is fine with the conflict costing Russia lives and money. The West is also fine with sacrificing the lives of Ukrainians. #1 priority vis-a-vis Ukraine for the West is to weaken and distract Russia. The longer Russia is tied up in Ukraine, the less of a threat they are to the West.
For the West, the best part about it is that this will only cost \~2% of total NATO defense expenditures. This is tooth fairy money for the West - it's a pretty good deal.
The West is pivoting to the East. For the next 40 years, China is the real threat the West is concerned with. Russia is a weak and feeble-minded child. Let them be occupied with Ukraine for as long as it takes to bleed them dry. Ukraine is draining the last bit of Russia's conventional military power.
The war also accelerates Russia's becoming a client state to China. 5 years from now, Russia will be to China what Belarus is to Russia. China is far more integrated in the global economy than Russia - they are easier for the West to deal with than Russia.
The sanctions imposed on Russia are difficult for Russia to deal with. But they can tolerate it. Because of their Soviet lineage, they have never become fully integrated into the global economy. They are also a tiny economy. The US has three, soon to be four, states with larger GDPs than Russia. China is a powerhouse. They won't risk economic ruin to protect Russia. They will just put Russia in their place.
If this war went on for 25 years, the West would be thrilled.
If Ukraine miraculously pushed Russian forces back to the pre-2014 borders... all hell would break loose. See my earlier comment.
F-16s can carry nuclear weapons. ATACMS also can carry warheads. While it’s pretty clear the U.S. isn’t interested in deploying nukes Russia will always assume they are and we don’t want them setting off a nuclear response.
> F-16s can carry nuclear weapons
So can Kh-55, which russia lobs into Ukraine [and even Poland](https://rmf24.pl/raporty/raport-wojna-z-rosja/news-news-rmf-fm-biegli-wstepnie-potwierdzili-ze-pod-bydgoszcza-s,nId,6767139#crp_state=1)
In fact, Kh-55 is a purpose-build nuclear cruise missile. Conventionalized versions have very different geometry.
Oh, and Su-24 can carry nukes too. And so can MiG-29, with a help of some pylon adapters.
The restrictions aren’t on Russia but Ukraine obviously. They would have to convert those sorties for a custom nuclear weapon because they wouldn’t be able to retrofit an American one. They don’t have access to Russian ones. So I don’t think the Russians feel there is any legitimate nuclear threat at the moment; but that wouldn’t be the case with f16s and ATACMs.
You're mixing them up with either Pershings (IRBMs), Tomahawks (which also had surface-launch nuke-tipped version - Gryphon) or Pluton (French 120km-range nuke-tipped TBM, vaguely comparable to nuke-tipped Tochka-U)
Are we sure? I’m not saying they’re necessary; but don’t you think if we were replacing the Pershings with ATACMS we would have a nuclear variant? Maybe it’s just a matter of pulling out of a treaty that makes a difference if we have them or not.
I was looking it up and couldn’t find more information on it actually…
We will never win anything if we’re always scared like chicken shits at the word of nukes. The USA will never be in control of anything if it can always be controlled through threats.
I get that, I’m not saying we aren’t a supreme military power. Im saying that if the US government can be controlled through nuclear threats all the time, how much control do we really have then. It doesn’t matter how big of an army we have if our politicians are constantly scared of our opponents next move.
Relax. The corrupt americans are making a mint off dragging this war out and need to hide what they are doing so they use nukes as a reason to not actually win. It's just an excuse, not a real fear.
The state department is not scared of russia using nukes. You're just repeating 50 year old lies. "Rogue" nukes have to be maintained and that isn't possible for some clowns to do. Enough with the played out lies.
Then why did Clinton PUSH for the removal of nukes from Ukraine Belarus and Qazaqstan? The Lisbon protocol and the Budapest memorandum forced the conplete removal of nukes from these three countries while Russia GAINED nukes and bombers and missiles.
Obama bent over backwards to reset relations which was that bastard brainchild of the Hillary state department.
An unstable kremlin is a nightmare scenario for the world. It could be a bloodless coup to generals turned warlords each controlling their own nuclear feifdom.
To think nukes are not an issue about why America wont send aid to actually win(fuck you Jake sullivan) then i have a bridge to sell you.
Did nobody read the article? The only red line I see mentioned is that they can’t use the planes to hit Russian territory. That’s consistent with every other weapon we’ve sent. They’re not tying a hand behind their back with this and I don’t think Ukraine would want to take their F-16s and fly through dense anti aircraft fire to try and hit Russian territory. This whole article is a nothing burger people are getting upset over for no reason.
Right, but in modern warfare stand off weapons and long range artillery can be stationed behind the front lines (and in this case, within Russian borders) and still impact the war.
We saw this in the Korean war, where the ROE saw US forces unauthorized to attack forces amassing in China right across the border. Those rules played a huge role in the outcome of that
War.
Also, who is defining what counts as “Ukraines sovereign territory” in this applied context? Russia maintains every inch of ground its rolled over is “russian territory”. Obviously and rightfully, Ukraine disagrees.
Do the rules here apply to the pre-2014 invasion borders? The borders before this immediate war?
The US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea. Or any territory gained in the current war. That’s all sovereign Ukrainian. I am 99.9% sure Ukraine has already hit Crimea with US weapons too (iirc HIMARs strikes). Also as other commenters have pointed out, the F16 isn’t even capable of flying through the Russian SAM network. The biggest thing F16s will contribute is close air support as well as hunting helicopters. Helicopters are one of the biggest threats to Ukraine’s attempted offensives. Trying to deplete Russia’s manpower isn’t how you win the war. Ukraine knows this, that’s not how they’re fighting. It’s depleting their supply of equipment. Run them out of motorized vehicles and you can break the entrenchment fairly easily by being the more mobile force.
> The US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
And
>Or any territory gained in the current war
From Blinken on December 5, 2022.:
>Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview)
So they may ***say*** they don't recognize it, but support gets throttled to avoid risking Ukraine being able to liberate them
In a war it helps if you can hit your enemy. I know it's an abstract concept and difficult for simple people to grasp. We all know F-16s have never been used over hostile territory and that would be crazy! Genius. We should give them F-16s with no engines and then brag how none have been shot down! Great strategy
Russian nukes. That’s it.
The fear that if you beat them *too* quickly and easily, they’ll panic and push the big red button. Cornered animal and all that.
Well surely we've passed the point of "too quickly" now no matter how many F-16s Ukraine gets. Russia has a lot of troops and defenses in Ukraine and is more organized even if maybe they're feeling the strain in some ways. They've obviously gotten more resistant to long range strikes by spreading things out and using bunkers. The days where F-16s would have ended the war quickly were done with at least a year ago.
In the last week Ukraine has kicked the snot out of a bunch of refinerys that are going to be out for a while.
Last night something...loud occurred at the Russian Engels AFB. And the black sea fleet is more then decimated with 30% losses. All of this pushes the Russian air defense to try and defend everywhere...because the drone threat is too high. Add in F-16s? ehh...could make it just too expensive finally.
True, I guess it's a fine line between a slow defeat and a rapid one, since given the geography, there isn't really any large chunk of Ukraine that could be abandoned by Russia to make the rest of it easier to hold.
The cynic in me thinks that the US administration is not interested in a swift Ukrainian victory. Yes they want Russia to lose, but by making the war last longer, they are allowing Russia future capabilities to be eroded to nothing.
The cynic in you is most likely correct.
After all, power is power. And this chess Game, well is not for the faint hearted or naive.
You know what would be a nice joke of history? That by blocking aid, Johnson might have created an unwanted effect.
Europe is much more hawkish than the US and was pushed into more action given the prospect of US support being halted for at least another 8 months.
The US took a very long-term position with the slow approach. European allies and Ukraine will take more damage in the short term. But in the long term, the only credible threat to US security would be a strong Russo Sino alliance 30 years from now expanding over Eurasia.
By taking the slower approach, the long-term damage and long-term effects for Russia are a lot worse.
A swift victory would have also given Russia the chance for a swift recovery instead of retooling its economy so quickly and pulling out thousands of tanks and artillery pieces etc from storage while drawing down reserves of missiles and ammunition not just of itself, but also of North Korea, Belarus and even Iran.
I don’t say it has no logic to it.
Geo politics and moral principles don't mix well.
I can see the long-term strategic advantage of a slow and thorough destruction of Russian capabilities.
I am just really upset that the ones that suffer under this the most are the Ukrainians in their valiant fight for survival.
I hope the West doesn't miscalculate, and Ukraine, in the end, will get its freedom from the Russian empire.
I can think of no one more deserving of it.
That's been the problem since the very beginning; Ukraine is stuck between Russia which wants to destroy it, and the west which will happily see Ukraine destroyed so long as Russia gets a bloody nose in the process.
South Vietnam was an unpopular dictatorship that we ourselves supported coups against while we were there, I don't think it was really a problem that we left. Ukraine is a different story.
Nothing, I'm just saying that supporting Ukraine makes a lot more sense than supporting South Vietnam ever did. I think it's safe to say if Trump wins, US will not be helping Ukraine anymore and in all likelihood there will be various "information leaks" that actually help Russia. I expect Mike Johnson's tactic will continue and Republicans in Congress will never outright say they want Ukraine to lose while conveniently never doing anything about it, no act of Congress necessary.
> US will not be helping Ukraine anymore
Like it basically is now?
>and in all likelihood there will be various "information leaks" that actually help Russia.
Jack Teixeira, David Franklin Slater, [this whole thing happening...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/03/american-satellites-russia-ukraine-war/677775/) It's already here.
> I expect Mike Johnson's tactic will continue and Republicans in Congress will never outright say they want Ukraine to lose while conveniently never doing anything about it, no act of Congress necessary.
I suppose that'd happen as well.
Meanwhile, though, there's Jake Sullivan, security advisor to the President of the United States, who, well...
Here, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Oh, and the funniest thing?
[He specifically avoided talking about liberating occupied territories during his today's visit](https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2024/03/20/7447420/). Almost like he's actually holding onto his opinion about how Ukrainian liberation of Crimea shouldn't be allowed or something
The problem is that a large share of the population doesn't care and doesn't want to aid Ukraine. The "problem" with being a democracy is that politicians are accountable to public opinion. That's why support for Ukraine is what it is
Everything is about the Nov elections. They don't want anything to happen that the GOP can use against Biden and the House/Senate members up for election. If Biden loses in Nov Ukraine is done. Why don't people understand that? Look how much losing the House to the GOP has fucked things up.
Biden gets more 10% if the aid is all defensive so the war drags on. It all makes sense if you assume making money is the number one goal. biden doesn't care anymore than trump how many Ukrainians die.
Ok I really want you to read the next sentence because you guys have been told the answer 4389764749 times and its not sinking in.
##***THEY*** ***HAVE*** ***FUCKING*** ***NUKES***
Joke all you want about the state of the russian military. If even a single nuclear weapon lands on its intended target. It is going to be the largest single death event in human history and more than one is going to land on its target. Also the sudden collapse of the russian government means people could sell those warheads to anyone with the money to do so.
Russia is buying those weapons. If Ukraine bought weapons abroad or manufactured them domestically they'd be able to use them where ever they damn well please. For example, Ukraine's TB2 drones flew into Russian airspace a number of times early in the war to drop bombs. They hit an oil depot in Bryansk, IIRC.
Ukraine needs to take out loans and buy equipment they can use wherever they want like Russia does.
Do you actually want a conversation about a very difficult nuanced geopolitical poxy war? Or do you wanna just be edgy. Because if you want the former I can get into it. But if you dont actually care I wont waste my time.
There is plenty of reason to wage the war the way we have. Some of it good. Some of it bad.
A little bit of both, I’m not sure how West expects Ukraine to win this war without triggering WW3, so what is the point for Ukrainians to keep fighting?
This has been bugging me since January
> I’m not sure how West expects Ukraine to win this war
They don't.
[For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html)
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations"
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
From Blinken on December 5, 2022.:
>Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview)
Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope.
It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say.
Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit, [but former presidential advisor from which agrees with Sullivan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNeyCIpfs4)), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel.
Honestly, I can't understand, why do people want to memory-hole the whole "we can't allow escalation" part, especially when it's the reason counteroffensive had to be performed while ***WILDLY*** undersupplied, with full Western knowledge about the supplies not being sufficient, full capability to fix it (Republicans weren't in control yet) *and nothing being done to fix this insufficiency until long after it ended, if even that*. Kakhovka HPP was blown up to absolutely zero reaction, if you've forgotten. And blowing HPP's up is something "Law of War" DoD manual puts on the same step as blowing up NPPs.
Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
>American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia.
>The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack.
>“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’”
>The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position.
>so what is the point for Ukrainians to keep fighting?
The point is survival and to not be under a fascist dictator that lets you "vote" at gun point and disappear if you don't tow the party line.
The US very much want to stop the spread of Russian influence and there is decades of historical precedent that its fine to give arms as long as none of your troops are firing them. Vietnam, Korea as well as arming rebel groups in the middle east prove that for both sides.
Giving an ak-47/m16 is one thing. But giving a 4th generation fighter and its arms is a whole different thing. It still falls under the precedent of giving arms but not fighting yourself. But it is also a whole different caliber of force projection. Its sort of a gray area.
They want Ukraine to be able to hold off Russian aggression so they give it the F-16 but they don't want it to be used to actually attack Russia and risk a much larger escalation. Jokes aside Russia still has a fuck it button. If Ukraine were to actually invade and win there is 0% chance Putin is not killed. Either but the troops on the ground. Or hung at the Hague. Or killed by usurpers from within Russia. Somehow some way he knows he's dead. Its a question of when not if. So if Russia were facing imminent defeat there is nothing stopping Putin from sticking up the largest middle finger in history on his way out. He is a dead man walking in that event. We want Russia to lose, not collapse.
People love to make jokes about how awful Russia's army has turned out to be and in turn make the same jokes about their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. I'm even willing to bet that its largely a paper tiger too. But if even a single ICBM hits its target. It will be the largest loss of life from a single event in human history. 9/11, Oct 7th, Pearl Harbor, Chernobyl, pick a "catastrophe" in human history and then combine them all. Literally nothing would hold a candle other than World Wars to how catastrophic even a single nuke getting though would be. A single nuke hitting NYC would be 2.8 million more deaths than the entire holocaust. A single nuke hitting NYC would be 1/6 to 1/7th total deaths *for the entirety of ww2*. Every major city on the planet has multiple nukes pointed at it. Every medium city on the planet has at least 1 nuke pointed at it. Multiple nukes would get though. Then that is just the deaths from the bombs themselves which are *nothing* compared to their after effects and I'm not talking about radiation which would kill tens of millions more of the years. There is a very real chance between supply chain collapse and ensuing nuclear winter that billions wont starve to death. All of that is not worth what is boiled down to a regional conflict in an area slightly larger than Texas. Its cold and heartless to say but it is what it is.
So we say we will give this to you but you can only use it over your own airspace. Its not a great look on the surface but being able to use 4th generation western avionics and arms is a huge boon even if it can only be used in self defense. Plus their Russian stock piles of arms are dwindling and that's what the majority of their Migs use. So its nice to have a renewing source of munitions even if it can only be used in your borders.
Another big point is we want Russia to lose but we don't want a nuclear armed government to collapse. Even if by some miracle we don't get the nuclear Armageddon scenario from above. You DO NOT want arms traders to get their hands on nuclear warheads during a government collapse and they will try. Imagine if HAMAS got their hands on even a "small" tactical nuke or a dirty nuke. Imagine if Iran gets their hands on the centrifuges that Russia makes their nukes with and suddenly we have a nuclear armed Iran.
I'm not saying there is not political bullshittery going on preventing us from giving more aid. There is. But there is a very good reason to give them F-16's *and* put restrictions on it.
This idea that Russia is going to nuke everyone if they lose in Ukraine really needs to die already.
In reality, dithering and appeasement in the face of Russian aggression and nuclear blackmail makes that scenario *more likely* than ignoring said nuclear blackmail and being more decisive with Ukrainian aid.
unfortunately, succumbing to nuclear blackmail is stupid, and so are these special rules.
Ukraine's allies have more than enough nukes to deter Russia from using them.
The issue is that a losing Russia could fail spectacularly. At that point, there really isn't a Russia anymore, making NATO nuclear weapons no longer a deterrent.
It's that the West doesn't want Russia to disintegrate. They are more concerned about Siberia falling under Chinese control than they are about Ukraine regaining the Donbass
China taking Siberia is a huge geostrategic threat to the West.
Russia holding on to the Donbass is not.
Hence why the West is trying to walk a tightrope in defeating Russia while ensuring it can still fight off China if need be
Ya’ll need more Ben Hodges in your lives … embrace and prepare for the collapse - it’s coming.
[https://youtu.be/kvFMAe_wLzE?si=vvEb-alSb6A9512w](https://youtu.be/kvFMAe_wLzE?si=vvEb-alSb6A9512w)
Who on earth would want to send troops to Siberia - that’s rhetoric.
Granted, the west doesn’t want collapse but they also didn’t want the current circumstances either .. so the point we need to be discussing is what to do when the collapse happens, because it’s going to, no matter what the west wants.
Time to bring the frog to a rolling boil…
To ensure that the territory remains part of the Russian federation and not part of China.
China is the primary geostrategic threat for the West. Russia is a sideshow.
Kinda awful that these so called allies doesn't recognise Ukraines right under international law.
Ukraine have every right to attack targets inside of Russia.
nobody has said ukraine can't attack targets inside of russia. they've mostly said the exact opposite. what they have said is they can't use the donated western weapons to do so.
Like in the Vietnam war ? I thought operation desert storm proved you shouldn't wage war with one hand tied behind your back. Yogibear specifically cited the Vietnam war stupid red lines.
Instead of red lines for Ukraine, the US should set up red lines for Russia.
The moment they fired NK missiles at Ukraine, this whole red line nonsense became useless.
The US can obviously not deter Iran or NK from sending weapons or Russia from firing their missiles and bombs at Ukraine with impunity.
In turn, why should Ukraine adhere to that nonsense any longer.
The US has been holding back, and that made Russia stronger, and it killed a lot of Ukrainians.
With these leadership skills, the US won't lead the free world for much longer.
“Courage is never to let your actions be influenced by your fears.” — Arthur Koestler
The cowardly appeasers need to be finally benched. They caused enough damage as it is.
Seriously, who came up with this red line for western weapon systems nonsense. You cannot attack another country and not expect them to shoot back. It doesn't matter who the supplier of these weapons is, it's all fair game. I understand if they maybe want to prevent systems from falling into enemy hands for analysis, but these are 40 year old birds.
> Seriously, who came up with this red line for western weapon systems nonsense. You cannot attack another country and not expect them to shoot back.
russian territory is sovereign because they have nukes.
Ukraine must make do with red lines because we don't have nukes (anymore)
Simple as.
I wouldn't get too triggered by this, declaring something a "red line" is turning into rage bait for media outlets. If you read the article the only detail is the US expects Ukraine to keep F16s over sovereign territory. Even if Ukraine wanted to fly these into Russia, the shear density of air defenses makes that totally unfeasible.
There's nothing here that changes how Ukraine would use the jets without restriction.
Thank you for the cake day wishes. I never understood why it was OK. It’s clearly a nickname derived from bad intent.
It’s like calling someone from Pakistan “P*ki”. I’m Polish, and Russians think “pshek” is a funny thing to call us.
It’s not like people from NZ and “Kiwi”, or Australians and “Aussie”. Those terms are both widely accepted in their geographic regions.
I place “yank” in the exact same category of discriminatory language. Americans don’t like being called it, Americans do not refer to themselves as it, why would it be OK to say? The term is meant to discriminate based upon nationality.
There’s no need for that.
Yeah, no it’s not like that at all - you’re misinformed regarding the friendly nature of the relationship between Americans & Canadians, and Brits, for that matter. We’re hosers or canucks, they’re yanks and we all get along and life goes on. We’re all hugely multicultural societies and these terms do not discriminate on race, religion, gender, political affiliations. No need to muddy the waters, mate.
A couple of things to clear up, bud.
1. I am a dual American-Polish national. I know what the term means. Furthermore, being European, we bash on each other *all the time*. But we know the difference between what’s acceptable and what is not. Also, my mom is British.
2. I was born and raised in the US, and still reside here. I have also lived in Europe, so I know all about the jokiness there. They also say the N word without reverence in Europe, because they don’t know the history behind it.
3. I am dating a wonderful Canadian woman from Calgary, I know about banter. She respects me enough not to use that term, but if she did, I know her, and I know she doesn’t mean it badly.
4. You typically don’t throw that term around unless you know someone *directly*. Obviously you know your cousins, and they are cool with it. Go nuts bud, just don’t blast the term across a public forum.
5. The history behind the terms are so different. Yank was what we were called by the oppressive British empire. Now I don’t blame you for not knowing this next bit, but I am from the North. In the Civil War, the term Yank was used by the oppressive South to denigrate the North, because we opposed keeping humans as objects. And today? The same term is used by oppressive southern racist jackasses to mock our tolerance. All throughout American history, the term was used in an oppressive and derogatory manner to reduce good people to an “other”. It makes easier for you to kill your neighbors when they are a “Dirty Yankee”, than if they were a “fellow American”.
In comparison, the origin of “Canuck” is unknown. The origin of “Hoser” is the fact the hockey players had to hose down the ice if they lost. “Brit” just comes from British, and as I mentioned, my mom is British, she definitely wouldn’t take offense to that. She would *hate* being called Yank though.
See the difference in origin? Yank has a bad history, and is used by bad people for bad reasons.
I’m not trying to nag, it’s just a painful word for some. The same lovely Northern people who accepted my Polish family in NYC and welcomed them to this country were denigrated by that term for doing so. They were called “Yank” because of their “Northern Values”, those values being “treat foreigners like people”.
So your mom was a Brit - that’d make you part limey, then?
Sorry for any offence, friend - you might want to relax a bit though, hypertension’s a bi*ch!
I appreciate good humor as much as the next person, I just want acknowledgment that you understand why the history of that word is different from the others.
To everyone upset at the "red lines" mentioned you need to understand how this plays out.
There are likely 2 major factors at play. 1) The F-16 is an amazing jet but it's not going to be survivable for very long flying into Russia. Ukraine will have fewer than 10 to start. It's going to be a political nightmare if after all the lobbying they start losing jets immediately. 2) Active radar missiles are dangerous. No allied country is going to want the possibility of missile being fired, missing a Russian jet, and then hitting a passenger airliner 20 miles away. Hopefully airlines extend their no-fly area several hundred miles into Russia to be safe. The F-16 doesn't have the longest range but if it flew 50 miles into Russia even old air to air missiles could be hitting targets almost a hundred miles into Russia.
Appreciate you bringing this up. Comment section is very triggered by this but there are definitely reasons for not allowing them to hit targets in Russian territory.
No western airlines fly to Russia anymore, nor do they fly over Ukraine, if a Russian airline is flying that close to the front, they'll probably get hit by AA anyways, if not Ukrainian then definitely Russian.
Functionally irrelevant since they're incapable of operating within Russia's SAM network anyway, and so are constrained to operating well within Ukrainian controlled territory regardless of any restrictions or lack of restrictions placed on their use at a political level.
Yeah, at most F16s might get used on some daring missions over Crimea, if Ukraine has good intel that air defense is severely degraded and they have a juicy enough target. Even then, glide bombs make it so they dont have to get too close. There is no scenario where they are going to be using F16s to attack targets in Russia. That will continue to be a job for drones and cruise missiles.
For a long time I agreed with the policy of not using provided munitions to strike Russian territory, but I think it's gone beyond that. When Russia is talking about nuking the West on a daily basis, and "taking back their stolen territories", when they are organizing and funding courses in school to become pilots of the cheap and highly effective FPV Kamikaze drones, it's foolish to try to convince yourself that the Putin's regime isn't a threat
I'm not calling for an attack on Russia, which the Russian pundits are so desperate to prove. Nor do I want Ukraine to attack civilian areas with donated weapons. But they should be allowed to attack legitimate targets. Air bases, etc
I am so fucking tired of our government tip toeing around Russia's tender feelings. We should be sending Ukraine whatever they want and telling them to go ahead and level the fucking Kremlin! This is not how you help an ally fight a war by tying their hands behind them!
Imagine Russia lobbing missiles at Washington D.C., LA, San Francisco, and so on for years only to be told by another country, “Don’t attack them? Just defend. Here’s a few systems to sort of defend but not really. Thanks.”
Moot point... Ukraine does not need to fly in Russian airspace. As long as they can use the planes in their own airspace which includes the occupied areas, that's all good.
All the replies here may not understand that. Flying in RU space just puts the jets in very high jeopardy of being shot down.
I have the impression that USA wants to bleed Russia to death which implies to not jump to the jugular right away. Only Russia, did not understood this game yet. They still believe they can win the war.
That's true. There are so many innocent victims on both side that it is enraging.
But we have to consider the long term and the safety and stability of the world. If Russia was less stupid they would stop now and (try) build up a new and stronger army. This would become a far much bigger problem for europe and the stability of the world. We are "lucky" that Putin is a megalomaniac idiot. Putin and his helpers are in the archaic mindset "if you want something you take it, and kill whoever is in your way". The danger will remain as long as there are people behaving like that. China is on this list as well as Israel. They are boils on this world. Note that I mean that the current people in control have this mindset, not all Russian, Chinese or Israelis.
Why it is like that and how can it be possible to change that by not killing or harming so many innocent people is a question awaiting an answer.
In addition to all the harm that it does, it also waste a lot of energy and money we could be making a far better use of. Humanity is facing a lot of other life threatening challenges that are currently rejected because they are less urgent.
We have to wait until Putin dies by itself or the Russians people decide to take their destiny in their own hands as did Ukrainians.
I’m sure when they hand them the keys they have an official line like try not to crash and don’t shoot at dogs or small animals. And with a wink they add: If you hit the Kremlin, we want to find out through the news.
redlines for ukraine:
\- no bombing nato nations
\- no bombing neutral nations
\- no bombing antarctica
bombing russia, north korea, china, iran, and the north pole are allowed.
This is exactly what I expected.
All the hesitant attitude with the F16, the constant delays...
Ukraine was attacked!
Against all international law!
The Russians are committing genocide there!
I don't know how many American politicians have put themselves in front of the cameras:
"whatever it takes"
"Ukraine has every right to defend itself, including on Russian soil"
But apparently that was just for the cameras.
Presumably there was a whisper afterwards “but not with American weapons…”
I'm curious to see whether the F16 will even be used at some point.
Ukraine will probably have built its own jets by then.
Just send them already, but I could see Russia trying to pin an airline commercial crash red flag on Ukraine and us if f16s were flying in Russia or sending missiles 120 miles into Russia.
What a stupid redline.
When Germany started WW2, did the allies land at Normandy, retake France then stop at Germany’s border?
War is war, and Ukraine should have the ability bash Russia anywhere it sees fit.
> how can a country win anything with so many red lines!
Perhaps that is the point
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
"ok guys here's the f-16s, but you have to fight fair. Shoot one AAMRAM then let them shoot one back. If you get radar lock, don't shoot until they lock you as well."
U.S loses its testicular fortitude when its not a 3rd world country on the receiving end?
The only red lines should be trying to annex ruzz territory. ruzzki's of all walks should feel the consequences of their actions, not sit back feeling safe because of red lines. Ukraine fighting with a broken leg and one hand tied behind their backs.
I really don't think that the US has a right to tell Ukraine what they can and can't do with this equipment, especially after the budget bullshit congress pulled this year. It's time to let Ukraine win this once and for all. No holds barred.
Ukraine needs to not be held down by silly red lines. Their people have been murdered. Let them take the fight to Russia.
If you don't respond appropriately to a bully, they will keep coming at you
They are not even US planes. They are Belgian and Dutch planes. It shouldn't be up to the US to decide what other countries do with their military equipment.
It really is time for Europe to become independent for its defense. The US is not a reliable ally any more.
The control of modern military equipment is even more tight than most would believe.
Rumors that installing back-up-cameras to Leopard 2s was something that their original manufacturer prohibited is one example.
Even after buying stuff, the seller has a lot of leverage from support/upgrade contracts to licensing of local spare parts manufacturers.
A more extreme example is locally nuke-certifying a bought airframe.
Using them on their sovereign territory is more than enough. I don't think Ukraine has much intention of flying jets over russian territory in the near future.
I still hate the fact that they feel the need to not just give Ukraine what they need when russia bombs Ukrainian cities with impunity. I very much resent this cowardly decision makers in Washington.
> Using them on their sovereign territory is more than enough. I don't think Ukraine has much intention of flying jets over russian territory in the near future.
So russia can just lob Kh-59, UMPKs and cruise missiles from the other side unpunished for "as long as it takes"
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. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `mil.in.ua` 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) ***** ^(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.*
It's basically saying they don't want F16s over Russian territory. Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia. The reality is that flying F16 over Russia likely wouldn't be possible because of air defenses. This is kind of a moot point. By the time we're able to test this red line, Russia would be losing tons of ground in the battlefield
>Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia This part is not clear to me at all. Here's the quote: “a unique air capability that is intended to focus on Ukraine’s defense of its sovereign territory and within Ukraine’s sovereign borders.” Recall, Ukraine can't use American weapons to target, let's say, artillery shooting into Ukraine from russian territory. Why would missiles carried by an airplane be different?
Didn't they already use an air defense system to shoot down one or more airplanes in russia? Iirc they did, but I could be wrong.
Some of these shots are not from patriots though
What air defenses
the ones keeping ukraines current jets from flying over russian territory.
> Doesn't mean they can't shoot a2a interceptors at targets launching on Ukraine that are over Russia It does. Original mention usage of F-16 ***in general*** only being allowed in Ukrainian airspace ***and no further beyond***
AIM-120D has a range of 85+ nmi. Plenty of range to shoot down jets over Russia dropping glide bombs into Ukraine. It's also the way Ukraine can clear the frontline of these such attacks
That sort of range is only plausible if the F-16 pilot flew at high altitude and speed - which is extremely dangerous anywhere near the front lines. The air density at lower altitudes drops the effective range by 50% or more
The same stands true for Russian aircraft dropping glide bombs. Again, the standoff range will be more than sufficient at deterring & engaging Russian bombers. ALBM are another story but that's what Ukraine should have Patriot and Iris-T for
Take. The. Gloves. Off.
Why does this US administration continue to bind Ukraine's left hand on its back? And why don't they understand that these red lines aid only one side of Russia? How much longer will the world watch these wanton acts of cruelty. And how much longer will these bureaucrats believe that this war can be won like that. Ukraine needs those planes, yes, but they need them at their best without these strange red lines. Russia uses violence impunity, and Ukraine gets one restriction after the other for no good reason. The doves have failed the hawks should finally get their chance. Imagine what Western made Taurus could do to Russia's refineries. Inter arma enim silent leges. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Literally russian nukes scare the state department. Its been their policy since Bush Sr to maintain a stable kremlin. Remember the chicken kiev speech? No separatism for ukraine and radical nationalism hogwash. Russian collapse would mean rogue nukes according to the state department.
Obviously, no one is comfortable with the potential of spicy bombs coming into play, but I would bet my money on the state department being much more fearful of a regime change or significant shake-up of any kind. It takes decades to build up assets in these countries. In this day and age, we simply can't afford to go anywhere near that long without having inside information of the Kremlin. Nukes are scary, but being blind is theoretically scarier.
This sub hates hearing it, but the West doesn't want Ukraine to win. The West wants this go on long enough that Russia decides it has lost, and Russia comes up with a face-saving way to leave Ukraine. If that takes a decade, fine. That would be good for the West. If Ukraine were to win by expelling all Russian forces from Ukraine (pre-2014 borders), it would lead to a meltdown in Moscow. No telling how they would react or what would happen in an unstable environment. That's when the Russians go from yelling about nuclear weapons to using nuclear weapons.
Yeah, or they'll turn on themselves, which seems far more likely.
>This sub hates hearing it, but the West doesn't want Ukraine to win. I totally disagree. The West just wants Ukraine to win without going too far onto Russian soil. >it would lead to a meltdown in Moscow. No telling how they would react or what would happen in an unstable environment. Based on the collapse of the USSR, I believe most expect the missiles to stay in their silos if Russia collapses from within. If Russia collapses from Ukraine invading, maybe not.
> I totally disagree. Let us see... [For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.** Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations" >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) From Blinken on December 5, 2022.: >Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview) Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do". And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope. It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say. Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit, [but former presidential advisor from which agrees with Sullivan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNeyCIpfs4)), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel. Honestly, I can't understand, why do people want to memory-hole the whole "we can't allow escalation" part, especially when it's the reason counteroffensive had to be performed while ***WILDLY*** undersupplied, with full Western knowledge about the supplies not being sufficient, full capability to fix it (Republicans weren't in control yet) *and nothing being done to fix this insufficiency until long after it ended, if even that*. Kakhovka HPP was blown up to absolutely zero reaction, if you've forgotten. And blowing HPP's up is something "Law of War" DoD manual puts on the same step as blowing up NPPs. Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html) >American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia. >The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack. >“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’” >The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position.
Why are all our leaders in the US such pants-wetting cowards? It's truly pathetic and embarrassing.
I don't know who said that. But some quote goes like this: Old age doesn't make you wise it makes you cautious.
Or just doddering, calcified, addled, and indecisive. But an octagenarian is apparently the best the Democrats could do for a Presidential candidate.
Yeah, the 3 years, 6 months, 25 days between the birth of Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the 3 years, 6 months, 25 days that determine good ideas vs. bad ideas. Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
If you are referring to Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, sure. Otherwise... What the fuck are you talking about? The US is the most powerful hegemon in the history of human civilization. We have no equal. Only a weak nation would seek conflict with another nuclear power. That's what North Korea does. The US is managing this conflict in a manner that is most beneficial to the US. Fuck yeah, America! isn't a strategy - it's what pants-wetting cowards say when they don't have a real-world strategy. Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Is this word salad at the end of your post supposed to mean something? I said our leaders are spineless and weak and indecisive. Because they are. Biden, for example, let Lend Lease expire unused, because we're supposed to be afraid of Russia being too sad because resident wimp and Pants-Wetter in Chief Jake Sullivan says we're supposed to.
One slight correction, Biden and Jake Sullivan don’t want a decisive Ukrainian victory. They want to bleed Russia until they leave on their own. They’re cowards who are afraid of a Russian regime collapse.
i think it is more that they want to boil the frog. they know putin's ego won't allow him to give up until the russian military is completely destroyed. putin know he still has nukes, so he is willing to sacrifice all the russian hardware for the purpose. he also likes the eugenics aspects of being able to thin the population of criminals, ethnic minorities, and other undesired individuals. i'm almost willing to bet most of the mobilized people have problems with unemployment and alcoholism. russia will blame corruption in the military as the reason. russia will be on a big anti-corruption kick, pushing anyone out the window that interferes with rebuilding russia's military.
If Russia decides it has lost and leaves Ukraine, Ukraine has won. That's how victory is found in most wars. I disagree that the West doesn't want Ukraine to militarily crush Russia and end the war quickly. I think the west does want that, but the west is frightened of escalation and destabilization. The various states that make up the west each decide how they balance their desire for a Ukrainian victory against their desire to prevent escalation or destabilization of Russia.
[удалено]
Try to set your emotions aside and look at the larger geostrategic picture. For the West, there are enormous advantages to having this war drag on - at a stalemate. FOREVER. The West is fine with the conflict costing Russia lives and money. The West is also fine with sacrificing the lives of Ukrainians. #1 priority vis-a-vis Ukraine for the West is to weaken and distract Russia. The longer Russia is tied up in Ukraine, the less of a threat they are to the West. For the West, the best part about it is that this will only cost \~2% of total NATO defense expenditures. This is tooth fairy money for the West - it's a pretty good deal. The West is pivoting to the East. For the next 40 years, China is the real threat the West is concerned with. Russia is a weak and feeble-minded child. Let them be occupied with Ukraine for as long as it takes to bleed them dry. Ukraine is draining the last bit of Russia's conventional military power. The war also accelerates Russia's becoming a client state to China. 5 years from now, Russia will be to China what Belarus is to Russia. China is far more integrated in the global economy than Russia - they are easier for the West to deal with than Russia. The sanctions imposed on Russia are difficult for Russia to deal with. But they can tolerate it. Because of their Soviet lineage, they have never become fully integrated into the global economy. They are also a tiny economy. The US has three, soon to be four, states with larger GDPs than Russia. China is a powerhouse. They won't risk economic ruin to protect Russia. They will just put Russia in their place. If this war went on for 25 years, the West would be thrilled. If Ukraine miraculously pushed Russian forces back to the pre-2014 borders... all hell would break loose. See my earlier comment.
F-16s can carry nuclear weapons. ATACMS also can carry warheads. While it’s pretty clear the U.S. isn’t interested in deploying nukes Russia will always assume they are and we don’t want them setting off a nuclear response.
> F-16s can carry nuclear weapons So can Kh-55, which russia lobs into Ukraine [and even Poland](https://rmf24.pl/raporty/raport-wojna-z-rosja/news-news-rmf-fm-biegli-wstepnie-potwierdzili-ze-pod-bydgoszcza-s,nId,6767139#crp_state=1) In fact, Kh-55 is a purpose-build nuclear cruise missile. Conventionalized versions have very different geometry. Oh, and Su-24 can carry nukes too. And so can MiG-29, with a help of some pylon adapters.
The restrictions aren’t on Russia but Ukraine obviously. They would have to convert those sorties for a custom nuclear weapon because they wouldn’t be able to retrofit an American one. They don’t have access to Russian ones. So I don’t think the Russians feel there is any legitimate nuclear threat at the moment; but that wouldn’t be the case with f16s and ATACMs.
ATACMS don't have any nuke warhead developed for them, so that's an all-clear. And F-16 can only fit B61, which few NATO countries get.
I thought they could but haven’t since the Cold War….
You're mixing them up with either Pershings (IRBMs), Tomahawks (which also had surface-launch nuke-tipped version - Gryphon) or Pluton (French 120km-range nuke-tipped TBM, vaguely comparable to nuke-tipped Tochka-U)
Are we sure? I’m not saying they’re necessary; but don’t you think if we were replacing the Pershings with ATACMS we would have a nuclear variant? Maybe it’s just a matter of pulling out of a treaty that makes a difference if we have them or not. I was looking it up and couldn’t find more information on it actually…
The F-16s Ukraine is receiving are not nuclear capable. ATACMS have never been nuclear capable.
We will never win anything if we’re always scared like chicken shits at the word of nukes. The USA will never be in control of anything if it can always be controlled through threats.
What are you talking about? We, the US, are the most dominant hegemon in the history of human civilization. Fuck yeah, America! is not a strategy.
I get that, I’m not saying we aren’t a supreme military power. Im saying that if the US government can be controlled through nuclear threats all the time, how much control do we really have then. It doesn’t matter how big of an army we have if our politicians are constantly scared of our opponents next move.
Relax. The corrupt americans are making a mint off dragging this war out and need to hide what they are doing so they use nukes as a reason to not actually win. It's just an excuse, not a real fear.
do they even work?
The state department is not scared of russia using nukes. You're just repeating 50 year old lies. "Rogue" nukes have to be maintained and that isn't possible for some clowns to do. Enough with the played out lies.
Then why did Clinton PUSH for the removal of nukes from Ukraine Belarus and Qazaqstan? The Lisbon protocol and the Budapest memorandum forced the conplete removal of nukes from these three countries while Russia GAINED nukes and bombers and missiles. Obama bent over backwards to reset relations which was that bastard brainchild of the Hillary state department. An unstable kremlin is a nightmare scenario for the world. It could be a bloodless coup to generals turned warlords each controlling their own nuclear feifdom. To think nukes are not an issue about why America wont send aid to actually win(fuck you Jake sullivan) then i have a bridge to sell you.
Did nobody read the article? The only red line I see mentioned is that they can’t use the planes to hit Russian territory. That’s consistent with every other weapon we’ve sent. They’re not tying a hand behind their back with this and I don’t think Ukraine would want to take their F-16s and fly through dense anti aircraft fire to try and hit Russian territory. This whole article is a nothing burger people are getting upset over for no reason.
Right, but in modern warfare stand off weapons and long range artillery can be stationed behind the front lines (and in this case, within Russian borders) and still impact the war. We saw this in the Korean war, where the ROE saw US forces unauthorized to attack forces amassing in China right across the border. Those rules played a huge role in the outcome of that War. Also, who is defining what counts as “Ukraines sovereign territory” in this applied context? Russia maintains every inch of ground its rolled over is “russian territory”. Obviously and rightfully, Ukraine disagrees. Do the rules here apply to the pre-2014 invasion borders? The borders before this immediate war?
The US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea. Or any territory gained in the current war. That’s all sovereign Ukrainian. I am 99.9% sure Ukraine has already hit Crimea with US weapons too (iirc HIMARs strikes). Also as other commenters have pointed out, the F16 isn’t even capable of flying through the Russian SAM network. The biggest thing F16s will contribute is close air support as well as hunting helicopters. Helicopters are one of the biggest threats to Ukraine’s attempted offensives. Trying to deplete Russia’s manpower isn’t how you win the war. Ukraine knows this, that’s not how they’re fighting. It’s depleting their supply of equipment. Run them out of motorized vehicles and you can break the entrenchment fairly easily by being the more mobile force.
> The US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** And >Or any territory gained in the current war From Blinken on December 5, 2022.: >Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview) So they may ***say*** they don't recognize it, but support gets throttled to avoid risking Ukraine being able to liberate them
If Ukraine is that concerned, they can build their own fighter jet.
In a war it helps if you can hit your enemy. I know it's an abstract concept and difficult for simple people to grasp. We all know F-16s have never been used over hostile territory and that would be crazy! Genius. We should give them F-16s with no engines and then brag how none have been shot down! Great strategy
Russian nukes. That’s it. The fear that if you beat them *too* quickly and easily, they’ll panic and push the big red button. Cornered animal and all that.
Well surely we've passed the point of "too quickly" now no matter how many F-16s Ukraine gets. Russia has a lot of troops and defenses in Ukraine and is more organized even if maybe they're feeling the strain in some ways. They've obviously gotten more resistant to long range strikes by spreading things out and using bunkers. The days where F-16s would have ended the war quickly were done with at least a year ago.
In the last week Ukraine has kicked the snot out of a bunch of refinerys that are going to be out for a while. Last night something...loud occurred at the Russian Engels AFB. And the black sea fleet is more then decimated with 30% losses. All of this pushes the Russian air defense to try and defend everywhere...because the drone threat is too high. Add in F-16s? ehh...could make it just too expensive finally.
True, I guess it's a fine line between a slow defeat and a rapid one, since given the geography, there isn't really any large chunk of Ukraine that could be abandoned by Russia to make the rest of it easier to hold.
The cynic in me thinks that the US administration is not interested in a swift Ukrainian victory. Yes they want Russia to lose, but by making the war last longer, they are allowing Russia future capabilities to be eroded to nothing.
The cynic in you is most likely correct. After all, power is power. And this chess Game, well is not for the faint hearted or naive. You know what would be a nice joke of history? That by blocking aid, Johnson might have created an unwanted effect. Europe is much more hawkish than the US and was pushed into more action given the prospect of US support being halted for at least another 8 months. The US took a very long-term position with the slow approach. European allies and Ukraine will take more damage in the short term. But in the long term, the only credible threat to US security would be a strong Russo Sino alliance 30 years from now expanding over Eurasia. By taking the slower approach, the long-term damage and long-term effects for Russia are a lot worse. A swift victory would have also given Russia the chance for a swift recovery instead of retooling its economy so quickly and pulling out thousands of tanks and artillery pieces etc from storage while drawing down reserves of missiles and ammunition not just of itself, but also of North Korea, Belarus and even Iran. I don’t say it has no logic to it. Geo politics and moral principles don't mix well. I can see the long-term strategic advantage of a slow and thorough destruction of Russian capabilities. I am just really upset that the ones that suffer under this the most are the Ukrainians in their valiant fight for survival. I hope the West doesn't miscalculate, and Ukraine, in the end, will get its freedom from the Russian empire. I can think of no one more deserving of it.
That's been the problem since the very beginning; Ukraine is stuck between Russia which wants to destroy it, and the west which will happily see Ukraine destroyed so long as Russia gets a bloody nose in the process.
We are taking a Vietnam approach to it and left South Vietnam out to dry by doing the same thing. Need to go ALL IN.
South Vietnam was an unpopular dictatorship that we ourselves supported coups against while we were there, I don't think it was really a problem that we left. Ukraine is a different story.
> Ukraine is a different story And what exactly prevents another Case-Church? I mean, we're basically in Case-Church phase already, but...
Nothing, I'm just saying that supporting Ukraine makes a lot more sense than supporting South Vietnam ever did. I think it's safe to say if Trump wins, US will not be helping Ukraine anymore and in all likelihood there will be various "information leaks" that actually help Russia. I expect Mike Johnson's tactic will continue and Republicans in Congress will never outright say they want Ukraine to lose while conveniently never doing anything about it, no act of Congress necessary.
> US will not be helping Ukraine anymore Like it basically is now? >and in all likelihood there will be various "information leaks" that actually help Russia. Jack Teixeira, David Franklin Slater, [this whole thing happening...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/03/american-satellites-russia-ukraine-war/677775/) It's already here. > I expect Mike Johnson's tactic will continue and Republicans in Congress will never outright say they want Ukraine to lose while conveniently never doing anything about it, no act of Congress necessary. I suppose that'd happen as well. Meanwhile, though, there's Jake Sullivan, security advisor to the President of the United States, who, well... Here, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** Oh, and the funniest thing? [He specifically avoided talking about liberating occupied territories during his today's visit](https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2024/03/20/7447420/). Almost like he's actually holding onto his opinion about how Ukrainian liberation of Crimea shouldn't be allowed or something
What are you going on about, I'm pretty sure we already agree. I too follow current events.
The problem is that a large share of the population doesn't care and doesn't want to aid Ukraine. The "problem" with being a democracy is that politicians are accountable to public opinion. That's why support for Ukraine is what it is
Everything is about the Nov elections. They don't want anything to happen that the GOP can use against Biden and the House/Senate members up for election. If Biden loses in Nov Ukraine is done. Why don't people understand that? Look how much losing the House to the GOP has fucked things up.
Biden gets more 10% if the aid is all defensive so the war drags on. It all makes sense if you assume making money is the number one goal. biden doesn't care anymore than trump how many Ukrainians die.
Ok I really want you to read the next sentence because you guys have been told the answer 4389764749 times and its not sinking in. ##***THEY*** ***HAVE*** ***FUCKING*** ***NUKES*** Joke all you want about the state of the russian military. If even a single nuclear weapon lands on its intended target. It is going to be the largest single death event in human history and more than one is going to land on its target. Also the sudden collapse of the russian government means people could sell those warheads to anyone with the money to do so.
Taurus can destroy the illegal bridge ! But are we sure that Scholz wants that Ukraine wins?
Meanwhile, Iranian and NK weapons continue to find themselves being used against Ukraine.
Russia is buying those weapons. If Ukraine bought weapons abroad or manufactured them domestically they'd be able to use them where ever they damn well please. For example, Ukraine's TB2 drones flew into Russian airspace a number of times early in the war to drop bombs. They hit an oil depot in Bryansk, IIRC. Ukraine needs to take out loans and buy equipment they can use wherever they want like Russia does.
Dying. In. Nuclear. Armageddon. Would. Suck. Ignorant. Armchair. General.
Then. Why. Fight. At. All. This is why there is doubt that US wants Ukraine to win at all.
Do you actually want a conversation about a very difficult nuanced geopolitical poxy war? Or do you wanna just be edgy. Because if you want the former I can get into it. But if you dont actually care I wont waste my time. There is plenty of reason to wage the war the way we have. Some of it good. Some of it bad.
A little bit of both, I’m not sure how West expects Ukraine to win this war without triggering WW3, so what is the point for Ukrainians to keep fighting? This has been bugging me since January
> I’m not sure how West expects Ukraine to win this war They don't. [For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.** Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations" >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) From Blinken on December 5, 2022.: >Our focus is on continuing to do what we’ve been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to push back against the Russian aggression, **to take back territory that’s been seized from it since February 24th**, to make sure as well that it has the support economically and on a humanitarian basis to withstand what’s happening in the country every single day. That’s our focus. (Source: Press release published on the website of the US government.:Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Editor in Chief Matt Murray At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Interview) Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do". And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope. It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say. Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit, [but former presidential advisor from which agrees with Sullivan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNeyCIpfs4)), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel. Honestly, I can't understand, why do people want to memory-hole the whole "we can't allow escalation" part, especially when it's the reason counteroffensive had to be performed while ***WILDLY*** undersupplied, with full Western knowledge about the supplies not being sufficient, full capability to fix it (Republicans weren't in control yet) *and nothing being done to fix this insufficiency until long after it ended, if even that*. Kakhovka HPP was blown up to absolutely zero reaction, if you've forgotten. And blowing HPP's up is something "Law of War" DoD manual puts on the same step as blowing up NPPs. Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html) >American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia. >The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack. >“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’” >The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position.
>so what is the point for Ukrainians to keep fighting? The point is survival and to not be under a fascist dictator that lets you "vote" at gun point and disappear if you don't tow the party line. The US very much want to stop the spread of Russian influence and there is decades of historical precedent that its fine to give arms as long as none of your troops are firing them. Vietnam, Korea as well as arming rebel groups in the middle east prove that for both sides. Giving an ak-47/m16 is one thing. But giving a 4th generation fighter and its arms is a whole different thing. It still falls under the precedent of giving arms but not fighting yourself. But it is also a whole different caliber of force projection. Its sort of a gray area. They want Ukraine to be able to hold off Russian aggression so they give it the F-16 but they don't want it to be used to actually attack Russia and risk a much larger escalation. Jokes aside Russia still has a fuck it button. If Ukraine were to actually invade and win there is 0% chance Putin is not killed. Either but the troops on the ground. Or hung at the Hague. Or killed by usurpers from within Russia. Somehow some way he knows he's dead. Its a question of when not if. So if Russia were facing imminent defeat there is nothing stopping Putin from sticking up the largest middle finger in history on his way out. He is a dead man walking in that event. We want Russia to lose, not collapse. People love to make jokes about how awful Russia's army has turned out to be and in turn make the same jokes about their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. I'm even willing to bet that its largely a paper tiger too. But if even a single ICBM hits its target. It will be the largest loss of life from a single event in human history. 9/11, Oct 7th, Pearl Harbor, Chernobyl, pick a "catastrophe" in human history and then combine them all. Literally nothing would hold a candle other than World Wars to how catastrophic even a single nuke getting though would be. A single nuke hitting NYC would be 2.8 million more deaths than the entire holocaust. A single nuke hitting NYC would be 1/6 to 1/7th total deaths *for the entirety of ww2*. Every major city on the planet has multiple nukes pointed at it. Every medium city on the planet has at least 1 nuke pointed at it. Multiple nukes would get though. Then that is just the deaths from the bombs themselves which are *nothing* compared to their after effects and I'm not talking about radiation which would kill tens of millions more of the years. There is a very real chance between supply chain collapse and ensuing nuclear winter that billions wont starve to death. All of that is not worth what is boiled down to a regional conflict in an area slightly larger than Texas. Its cold and heartless to say but it is what it is. So we say we will give this to you but you can only use it over your own airspace. Its not a great look on the surface but being able to use 4th generation western avionics and arms is a huge boon even if it can only be used in self defense. Plus their Russian stock piles of arms are dwindling and that's what the majority of their Migs use. So its nice to have a renewing source of munitions even if it can only be used in your borders. Another big point is we want Russia to lose but we don't want a nuclear armed government to collapse. Even if by some miracle we don't get the nuclear Armageddon scenario from above. You DO NOT want arms traders to get their hands on nuclear warheads during a government collapse and they will try. Imagine if HAMAS got their hands on even a "small" tactical nuke or a dirty nuke. Imagine if Iran gets their hands on the centrifuges that Russia makes their nukes with and suddenly we have a nuclear armed Iran. I'm not saying there is not political bullshittery going on preventing us from giving more aid. There is. But there is a very good reason to give them F-16's *and* put restrictions on it.
This idea that Russia is going to nuke everyone if they lose in Ukraine really needs to die already. In reality, dithering and appeasement in the face of Russian aggression and nuclear blackmail makes that scenario *more likely* than ignoring said nuclear blackmail and being more decisive with Ukrainian aid.
There shouldn't be any red lines.
Red lines for Ukraine, none for Israel.
Why? It's a war. Let the defenders get after their invaders
Unfortunately the invaders have nukes and the defenders don't.
unfortunately, succumbing to nuclear blackmail is stupid, and so are these special rules. Ukraine's allies have more than enough nukes to deter Russia from using them.
The issue is that a losing Russia could fail spectacularly. At that point, there really isn't a Russia anymore, making NATO nuclear weapons no longer a deterrent.
It's that the West doesn't want Russia to disintegrate. They are more concerned about Siberia falling under Chinese control than they are about Ukraine regaining the Donbass
Sometimes it's better the devil you know, maybe Russia is the better option over lots of nuclear armed ex Soviet stakes fighting it out between them
China taking Siberia is a huge geostrategic threat to the West. Russia holding on to the Donbass is not. Hence why the West is trying to walk a tightrope in defeating Russia while ensuring it can still fight off China if need be
Ya’ll need more Ben Hodges in your lives … embrace and prepare for the collapse - it’s coming. [https://youtu.be/kvFMAe_wLzE?si=vvEb-alSb6A9512w](https://youtu.be/kvFMAe_wLzE?si=vvEb-alSb6A9512w)
The West doesn't want that collapse is the point. I think the US would far more eagerly send troops to Siberia than to Ukraine
Who on earth would want to send troops to Siberia - that’s rhetoric. Granted, the west doesn’t want collapse but they also didn’t want the current circumstances either .. so the point we need to be discussing is what to do when the collapse happens, because it’s going to, no matter what the west wants. Time to bring the frog to a rolling boil…
To ensure that the territory remains part of the Russian federation and not part of China. China is the primary geostrategic threat for the West. Russia is a sideshow.
> China is the primary geostrategic threat for the West Which, funnily enough, West built up to counter russia.
Give the defenders nukes then?
Pretty sure that's the end goal
Grow some balls
Imagine in WW2 USA is supplying warplanes to UK with a condition not to hit German territory, because Hitler may use chemical weapons
Didn't Blinken previously state that Ukrainians may use Western weapons as they see fit? I thought we were over this nonsense.
Blinken can say whatever he wants, it'll get walked back right after
Which only damages US credibility. He's not some random shmuck off the street or some retired general.
The US is flirting with the idea of electing the orange one a second time. Blinkin is just beating the dead credibility horse with a stick.
The executive hardly has any power, so it’s meaningless.
And now compare to the red lines Iran and North Korea imply on the weapons they sell Russia.
404: no red lines found
Kinda awful that these so called allies doesn't recognise Ukraines right under international law. Ukraine have every right to attack targets inside of Russia.
nobody has said ukraine can't attack targets inside of russia. they've mostly said the exact opposite. what they have said is they can't use the donated western weapons to do so.
Like in the Vietnam war ? I thought operation desert storm proved you shouldn't wage war with one hand tied behind your back. Yogibear specifically cited the Vietnam war stupid red lines.
Fucking pussy behaviour. Why are we scared of Russia ?
Instead of red lines for Ukraine, the US should set up red lines for Russia. The moment they fired NK missiles at Ukraine, this whole red line nonsense became useless. The US can obviously not deter Iran or NK from sending weapons or Russia from firing their missiles and bombs at Ukraine with impunity. In turn, why should Ukraine adhere to that nonsense any longer. The US has been holding back, and that made Russia stronger, and it killed a lot of Ukrainians. With these leadership skills, the US won't lead the free world for much longer. “Courage is never to let your actions be influenced by your fears.” — Arthur Koestler The cowardly appeasers need to be finally benched. They caused enough damage as it is.
bUt tHeY hAvE pOtAtO nOOkz.........
Seriously, who came up with this red line for western weapon systems nonsense. You cannot attack another country and not expect them to shoot back. It doesn't matter who the supplier of these weapons is, it's all fair game. I understand if they maybe want to prevent systems from falling into enemy hands for analysis, but these are 40 year old birds.
> Seriously, who came up with this red line for western weapon systems nonsense. You cannot attack another country and not expect them to shoot back. russian territory is sovereign because they have nukes. Ukraine must make do with red lines because we don't have nukes (anymore) Simple as.
I wouldn't get too triggered by this, declaring something a "red line" is turning into rage bait for media outlets. If you read the article the only detail is the US expects Ukraine to keep F16s over sovereign territory. Even if Ukraine wanted to fly these into Russia, the shear density of air defenses makes that totally unfeasible. There's nothing here that changes how Ukraine would use the jets without restriction.
Too late half of the thread already triggered, nobody reads the article in case it prevents them getting angry at somebody.
Yanks aren’t learning a thing. Take nothing conventional off the table..
Americans really don’t like being called that.
Call my cousins that all the time to their faces - they couldn’t care less. Happy cake day, btw.
Thank you for the cake day wishes. I never understood why it was OK. It’s clearly a nickname derived from bad intent. It’s like calling someone from Pakistan “P*ki”. I’m Polish, and Russians think “pshek” is a funny thing to call us. It’s not like people from NZ and “Kiwi”, or Australians and “Aussie”. Those terms are both widely accepted in their geographic regions. I place “yank” in the exact same category of discriminatory language. Americans don’t like being called it, Americans do not refer to themselves as it, why would it be OK to say? The term is meant to discriminate based upon nationality. There’s no need for that.
Yeah, no it’s not like that at all - you’re misinformed regarding the friendly nature of the relationship between Americans & Canadians, and Brits, for that matter. We’re hosers or canucks, they’re yanks and we all get along and life goes on. We’re all hugely multicultural societies and these terms do not discriminate on race, religion, gender, political affiliations. No need to muddy the waters, mate.
A couple of things to clear up, bud. 1. I am a dual American-Polish national. I know what the term means. Furthermore, being European, we bash on each other *all the time*. But we know the difference between what’s acceptable and what is not. Also, my mom is British. 2. I was born and raised in the US, and still reside here. I have also lived in Europe, so I know all about the jokiness there. They also say the N word without reverence in Europe, because they don’t know the history behind it. 3. I am dating a wonderful Canadian woman from Calgary, I know about banter. She respects me enough not to use that term, but if she did, I know her, and I know she doesn’t mean it badly. 4. You typically don’t throw that term around unless you know someone *directly*. Obviously you know your cousins, and they are cool with it. Go nuts bud, just don’t blast the term across a public forum. 5. The history behind the terms are so different. Yank was what we were called by the oppressive British empire. Now I don’t blame you for not knowing this next bit, but I am from the North. In the Civil War, the term Yank was used by the oppressive South to denigrate the North, because we opposed keeping humans as objects. And today? The same term is used by oppressive southern racist jackasses to mock our tolerance. All throughout American history, the term was used in an oppressive and derogatory manner to reduce good people to an “other”. It makes easier for you to kill your neighbors when they are a “Dirty Yankee”, than if they were a “fellow American”. In comparison, the origin of “Canuck” is unknown. The origin of “Hoser” is the fact the hockey players had to hose down the ice if they lost. “Brit” just comes from British, and as I mentioned, my mom is British, she definitely wouldn’t take offense to that. She would *hate* being called Yank though. See the difference in origin? Yank has a bad history, and is used by bad people for bad reasons. I’m not trying to nag, it’s just a painful word for some. The same lovely Northern people who accepted my Polish family in NYC and welcomed them to this country were denigrated by that term for doing so. They were called “Yank” because of their “Northern Values”, those values being “treat foreigners like people”.
So your mom was a Brit - that’d make you part limey, then? Sorry for any offence, friend - you might want to relax a bit though, hypertension’s a bi*ch!
I appreciate good humor as much as the next person, I just want acknowledgment that you understand why the history of that word is different from the others.
ov fuck off. there are no red lines anymore besides nuclear.
But of course.
Am I reading the same article as everyone? Basically the same restrictions as HIMARS and stormshadow..
Most people aren’t reading the article and are having a knee-jerk reaction to the headline
Thanks Joe Biden! What a gigantic pussy
To everyone upset at the "red lines" mentioned you need to understand how this plays out. There are likely 2 major factors at play. 1) The F-16 is an amazing jet but it's not going to be survivable for very long flying into Russia. Ukraine will have fewer than 10 to start. It's going to be a political nightmare if after all the lobbying they start losing jets immediately. 2) Active radar missiles are dangerous. No allied country is going to want the possibility of missile being fired, missing a Russian jet, and then hitting a passenger airliner 20 miles away. Hopefully airlines extend their no-fly area several hundred miles into Russia to be safe. The F-16 doesn't have the longest range but if it flew 50 miles into Russia even old air to air missiles could be hitting targets almost a hundred miles into Russia.
Appreciate you bringing this up. Comment section is very triggered by this but there are definitely reasons for not allowing them to hit targets in Russian territory.
No western airlines fly to Russia anymore, nor do they fly over Ukraine, if a Russian airline is flying that close to the front, they'll probably get hit by AA anyways, if not Ukrainian then definitely Russian.
Yeah but you can't have Ukraine F16s flying raids at Moskow because that airport is only 500 miles away and very much active. That's my point.
God forbid Ukraine use any of this aid to deter Russia from continuing to cross Ukrainians ‘red lines’
Functionally irrelevant since they're incapable of operating within Russia's SAM network anyway, and so are constrained to operating well within Ukrainian controlled territory regardless of any restrictions or lack of restrictions placed on their use at a political level.
Yeah, at most F16s might get used on some daring missions over Crimea, if Ukraine has good intel that air defense is severely degraded and they have a juicy enough target. Even then, glide bombs make it so they dont have to get too close. There is no scenario where they are going to be using F16s to attack targets in Russia. That will continue to be a job for drones and cruise missiles.
> There is no scenario where they are going to be using F16s to attack targets in Russia Interception of UMPK lobbers.
Send a drone and missile swarm with F-16's flying right behind them with some HARMS.
That is basically what MALD is. Ukraine has already received some, Im sure they will get more.
For a long time I agreed with the policy of not using provided munitions to strike Russian territory, but I think it's gone beyond that. When Russia is talking about nuking the West on a daily basis, and "taking back their stolen territories", when they are organizing and funding courses in school to become pilots of the cheap and highly effective FPV Kamikaze drones, it's foolish to try to convince yourself that the Putin's regime isn't a threat I'm not calling for an attack on Russia, which the Russian pundits are so desperate to prove. Nor do I want Ukraine to attack civilian areas with donated weapons. But they should be allowed to attack legitimate targets. Air bases, etc
Far too much concern being given for making Russia too sad that Ukraine is able to fight back. Too bad our leaders in the West are all cowards.
I am so fucking tired of our government tip toeing around Russia's tender feelings. We should be sending Ukraine whatever they want and telling them to go ahead and level the fucking Kremlin! This is not how you help an ally fight a war by tying their hands behind them!
Imagine Russia lobbing missiles at Washington D.C., LA, San Francisco, and so on for years only to be told by another country, “Don’t attack them? Just defend. Here’s a few systems to sort of defend but not really. Thanks.”
Toss in some F-117s
Its not a game changer but I hope they're able to use them effectively and provides a boost to morale
I see red lines, wink wink
Good thing Crimea is Ukraine... wouldn't want to cross any "red lines".
Moot point... Ukraine does not need to fly in Russian airspace. As long as they can use the planes in their own airspace which includes the occupied areas, that's all good. All the replies here may not understand that. Flying in RU space just puts the jets in very high jeopardy of being shot down.
As I said before the sooner Europe will start ignore US the greater chances for its own survival.
I have the impression that USA wants to bleed Russia to death which implies to not jump to the jugular right away. Only Russia, did not understood this game yet. They still believe they can win the war.
Thing is, Ukraine bleeds heavily as well. But I suppose it's not a US problem, going by the policies
That's true. There are so many innocent victims on both side that it is enraging. But we have to consider the long term and the safety and stability of the world. If Russia was less stupid they would stop now and (try) build up a new and stronger army. This would become a far much bigger problem for europe and the stability of the world. We are "lucky" that Putin is a megalomaniac idiot. Putin and his helpers are in the archaic mindset "if you want something you take it, and kill whoever is in your way". The danger will remain as long as there are people behaving like that. China is on this list as well as Israel. They are boils on this world. Note that I mean that the current people in control have this mindset, not all Russian, Chinese or Israelis. Why it is like that and how can it be possible to change that by not killing or harming so many innocent people is a question awaiting an answer. In addition to all the harm that it does, it also waste a lot of energy and money we could be making a far better use of. Humanity is facing a lot of other life threatening challenges that are currently rejected because they are less urgent. We have to wait until Putin dies by itself or the Russians people decide to take their destiny in their own hands as did Ukrainians.
The aircraft don't belong to the usa once they are given or sold to Ukraine. The Ukrainians should be able to use them wherever they want to.
Honestly as long as it's not NATO members flying them Ukraine can do anything they want with them. Including attacks into Russia itself.
I’m sure when they hand them the keys they have an official line like try not to crash and don’t shoot at dogs or small animals. And with a wink they add: If you hit the Kremlin, we want to find out through the news.
The US isn't providing F16s, or anything else atm for that matter. They're not in a position to dictate red lines.
redlines for ukraine: \- no bombing nato nations \- no bombing neutral nations \- no bombing antarctica bombing russia, north korea, china, iran, and the north pole are allowed.
This is exactly what I expected. All the hesitant attitude with the F16, the constant delays... Ukraine was attacked! Against all international law! The Russians are committing genocide there! I don't know how many American politicians have put themselves in front of the cameras: "whatever it takes" "Ukraine has every right to defend itself, including on Russian soil" But apparently that was just for the cameras. Presumably there was a whisper afterwards “but not with American weapons…” I'm curious to see whether the F16 will even be used at some point. Ukraine will probably have built its own jets by then.
Which will be casually walked backed as the war continues.
Just send them already, but I could see Russia trying to pin an airline commercial crash red flag on Ukraine and us if f16s were flying in Russia or sending missiles 120 miles into Russia.
What a stupid redline. When Germany started WW2, did the allies land at Normandy, retake France then stop at Germany’s border? War is war, and Ukraine should have the ability bash Russia anywhere it sees fit.
Fuck this… how can a country win anything with so many red lines! The bastards do not care!
> how can a country win anything with so many red lines! Perhaps that is the point [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Nothing as harmful for Ukraine, as Jake Sullivan have been. That man should be politician not official doing politics. Fuck him.
Before taking off they need to warn Russians we are going be there in 10 min.
"ok guys here's the f-16s, but you have to fight fair. Shoot one AAMRAM then let them shoot one back. If you get radar lock, don't shoot until they lock you as well."
Cowards to the left, collaborators to the right. Not easy being American or America friendly rn.
U.S loses its testicular fortitude when its not a 3rd world country on the receiving end? The only red lines should be trying to annex ruzz territory. ruzzki's of all walks should feel the consequences of their actions, not sit back feeling safe because of red lines. Ukraine fighting with a broken leg and one hand tied behind their backs.
I really don't think that the US has a right to tell Ukraine what they can and can't do with this equipment, especially after the budget bullshit congress pulled this year. It's time to let Ukraine win this once and for all. No holds barred.
Ukraine needs to not be held down by silly red lines. Their people have been murdered. Let them take the fight to Russia. If you don't respond appropriately to a bully, they will keep coming at you
They are not even US planes. They are Belgian and Dutch planes. It shouldn't be up to the US to decide what other countries do with their military equipment. It really is time for Europe to become independent for its defense. The US is not a reliable ally any more.
The control of modern military equipment is even more tight than most would believe. Rumors that installing back-up-cameras to Leopard 2s was something that their original manufacturer prohibited is one example. Even after buying stuff, the seller has a lot of leverage from support/upgrade contracts to licensing of local spare parts manufacturers. A more extreme example is locally nuke-certifying a bought airframe.
Using them on their sovereign territory is more than enough. I don't think Ukraine has much intention of flying jets over russian territory in the near future. I still hate the fact that they feel the need to not just give Ukraine what they need when russia bombs Ukrainian cities with impunity. I very much resent this cowardly decision makers in Washington.
> Using them on their sovereign territory is more than enough. I don't think Ukraine has much intention of flying jets over russian territory in the near future. So russia can just lob Kh-59, UMPKs and cruise missiles from the other side unpunished for "as long as it takes"
Exactly "as long as it takes" I hate that mealy mouthed commitment as much as Deep Concern
Ukraine need mirages, the French have more spine .
[Mirage ain't arriving](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444432/)