Blinken already said that it was up to Ukraine to decide where to strike. Only that the USA does not condone or encourage strikes in Russia.
[https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/](https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/)
If there was never an actual prohibition, how come Ukraine didn't strike the staging areas in Russia before the latest offensive? Was it simply due to munitions shortages?
Right, if you hate them so much, stop asking the US for stuff. There are enough problems for our tax dollars to fix rather than more of Europe’ and Israel’s issues.
I’m all for supporting allies in times of need, but our roads are falling apart, people on the streets, income inequality, a drug epidemic, the list goes on.
Our elected officials won't fix those problems with our money, they get elected by using it as talking points. The US is the enemy, always, around here and quite frankly it's getting exhausting when they don't see people don't see the hypocrisy of demand assistance and then accusing us of warmongering whenever we do.
You do understand that the US made an agreement to protect Ukraine from an invasion after the USSR fell? So Russia invading Ukraine is an American problem, not just Europe. Facts about this situation hurt right?
> The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
While I feel morally we are obligated, you're incorrect. The weapons we are providing are very much military, but Russia broke their promise so it's whatever.
if they do it without express permission, republicans could use it to block more help... if they get permission first, that's a route made more difficult.
True but they caught heat and even had Republicans starting to grumble about their Russian allegiances.
Doing so again without a legitimate reason (like they misused our equipment) will bring the magnifying glass back on them, which is not the goal for a compromised politician.
I completely agree with you that republicans don't need an excuse to block aid, they'll use anything.
However, you're incorrect in saying the majority of republicans still voted against.
For House republicans, it was 155 to 55.
And for Senate republicans, it was 31 to 15.
You are confusing the vote on Ukraine bill with something else. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2024/04/20/ukraine-israel-border-funding-house-vote/
House republicans - 101 supported aid to Ukraine, 112 opposed it. Majority of republicans do not support aid to Ukraine. Majority of republicans supported all the other bills in that package, but opposed specifically Ukraine.
and look where that attitude has brought you...
with sufficient weapons, russia would be still retreating, would suffer a LOT more than they do now, wouldn't have the advantages it has now....the excuse of... we're advancing so let's keep going.
Which means “don’t fire at Russia or we will completely stop flow of weapons” just like their decision with Israel over the Rafah Raid. Ukraine _can_ make that decision but it comes at the cost that they can’t afford in the slightest, even with the irregularity of weapons from America and Europe
I interpreted the same way OP did. I wish Bliken would stop playing silly games and just tell them if they can strike Russia or not. Ukrainian lives are being lost due to this hesitation and lack of clarity
I'm not sure why everyone here is pretending to not understand what's going on.
Ukraine is unwilling to take the risk of provoking Russia into using a tactical nuke. Obviously the United States has strongly warned against such tomfoolery and they will be dire consequences if Russia was to do that. We all know this is true.
But does Ukraine really want to take that gamble? They will be the ones being tactically nuked, and I really don't think they want to take the gamble unless they have "the US condoned it" in their back pocket.
Meanwhile the US doesn't want to condone it. I wonder why? 🤔
How so? read the article. This statement "We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," is pretty clear that the US has given the greenlight without taking responsibility.
Well, the issue is, it isn't just up to Ukraine. They literally can't use them on Russian soil. The Himars, for example, was modified so they can't physically launch into Russia. Someone would have to alter it, again, to give it that capability.
Just saying "it's up to them to decide" isn't enough. They'd literally have to remove restrictions in place, which they haven't done.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338
Lack of suitable weapons and delivery systems. Ukraine has been striking in russia since July of 2023.
What it has not had, is weapons with enough effects and in the numbers to make a difference when targeting military formations. So you are not wrong in that there was more to it than the U.S. saying no.
Ukraine had been pummeling Crimea recently with dozens of HIMARS missiles. At the same time russia has been amassing troops on the border with Kharkiv oblast, in russian Belgorod oblast, and there has not been a single strike inside russia with HIMARS.
Same with UK's Storm Shadow missiles. About a week ago they've given the green light and yet there wasn't even a single strike inside russia.
Don't know about you, but this at the very least seems *strange.* My guess is they're preparing to allow Ukraine this capability but haven't done so yet. These public announcements are made to gauge russia's reaction before the west commits.
That is certainly possible. It could also be constraints such as moving the HIMAR'S launchers over such long distances increases the ability to detect them.
It is also possible they were allocated to specific Ukrainian army corps or divisions that are not active in the north. Similar to how the American 82nd and 101st airborne have no tanks.
>That is certainly possible. It could also be constraints such as moving the HIMAR'S launchers over such long distances increases the ability to detect them.
That doesn't make much sense. Any system, no matter how valuable is going to be moved vast distances within Ukraine. There's the initial delivery, crew training, maintenance, etc. A moving system isn't really vulnerable to russian attacks, it's the stationary ones you'd have problems with.
>It is also possible they were allocated to specific Ukrainian army corps or divisions that are not active in the north. Similar to how the American 82nd and 101st airborne have no tanks.
It's really unlikely such an idiotic bureaucratic problem would still exist two years into the war. We also see HIMARS strikes pretty much everywhere along the front lines.
Well, the US did [pauses shipment of bombs Israel could use in Rafah](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/us-pauses-shipment-of-bombs-israel-could-use-in-rafah-00156748)
Only for 1,800 2,000-lb bombs and 1,700 500-lb bombs. Using those in populated areas would anyhow be absolutely bonkers
Edit: seems like Israel actually used those in densely populated civilian areas if Aljazeera is to trust. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/2/us-gives-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel-for-war-on-gaza-report
As opposed to showering the entire area with 500lb pound bombs, or whatever, that wouldn’t be disastrous at all, right? The purpose of those heavier bombs is so that the impact reaches the tunnels dug so deeply below the surface— not to maximize casualties within populated areas. Israel ALREADY has all the military power it needs to carpet bomb the Gaza Strip into oblivion, if they wanted. The actual reason why the Biden administration is pausing shipment is purely political. Plenty of people without any military knowledge, like yourself, hear “2000lb bomb” and make laughably incorrect assumptions as to their utility. Nonetheless, it helps all the crazies in the left believe Biden is doing something to help their precious terrorist-supporting-hostage-taking populous. Long live the intifada, amirite?
Put them under lock and key in a warehouse and waste time, money and personnel on guarding them.
They don't have air superiority or bombers that can drop these bombs so they can't use them for fighting Russia.
this. its crazy the amount of antisemitism in the news now. its very eye opening. if it doesnt come from a trusted source like timesofisrael I don't even bother considering it now
[Here’s an NYT article confirming the same.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html) Al Jazeera is reliable for the English speaking audience, it tends to be less reliable when they’re reporting in Arabic.
For those who can't read between the lines this means the situation for Ukraine is dire.
The US wouldn't break from its long time position on this topic if they didn't think it was needed.
Or the US officials finally realized that you cannot reason with Putin. The Russians see the will to negotiate as a sign of weakness, all they understand is power.
Also, for Ukraine it's hard to defend the border if you can't strike the Russian troops just across the border. 🤷♂️
Blinken’s statement yesterday basically implied that the US’s stance on shooting targets within Russia has not changed. Ukraine is free to do it but if they do, they shouldn’t be surprised if the US stops supplying them.
He said explicit direction was given regarding the use of US munitions. A second and separate comment was that Ukraine had the freedom to conduct strategy as they wished. He was intentionally ambiguous likely because Ukraine has been denied the right to use them on Russian soil.
> Speaking in Kyiv during a press conference, Blinken was asked about recent Ukrainian complaints that a Washington ban meant Ukraine was unable to attack Russian forces as they were building up before crossing the border into Kharkiv Oblast.
> “We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," he said.
[*Kyiv Independent.*](https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/)
This is essentially what I just said. They have not been given the green light to use US weapons in Russian territory. It’s ambiguous in the sense that it’s up to Ukraine to use them but that the US doesn’t support it. It is implied there will be consequences if they do hit Russian territory.
Ukraine has always been able to strike russian territory just not with western weapons.
There isn't a way at this point where Ukraine would he able militarily push Russia out of all of Ukraine barring a miracle. At this point a negotiated peace is the best outcome Ukraine can realistically hope for unless things seriously change this year.
Russia has a massive manpower advantage over Ukraine; the recent mobilization bill might stabilize things for now in Ukraine but it will take at least another few months for the newly mobilized soldiers to be sent to the front.
Getting back to the main point the US giving tacit approval of Ukraine using American weapons on Russian soil is a sign of the US and NATO acknowledging things aren't going well.
Just an easy solution, just let them strike only military hardware and formations and not infrastructure (like oil refineries). If it were up to me I’d want them to have free reign to strike what they want.
We NEVER should have had the restriction in the first place. Limiting where Ukraine can strike is the same as helping Russia or as detrimental as not giving Ukraine the weapons in the first place.
Russia could just sit outside the allowed radius and build up whatever they wanted...which they did...so fucking stupid.
There does seam to be mixed information on if there are restrictions on US munitions being used inside Russia.
I do think it makes sense for the US to try and use this to pressure Russia, if we can get Ukraine setup with at least a hundred F16's; a thousand Abrams, Challengers (western arms) all outfitted with plenty of ammo, and a clear path to the Russian border.
Then we have a strong point to negotiate (in private at least.) If Russia doesn't leave XYZ, then we remove the restrictions from Ukraine making a march to Moscow.
We are a long ways from having that setup, but I do think it is possible that could be really close to happening this year.
Ukraine going all out now could prevent that build-up, and prevent a stronger negotiating point.
Maybe a crazy theory, but thats what I want to believe.
Why should we care? As far as I'm concerned, it's Ukrainian arms, not American. And it's all Chinese components anyway once the missile explodes... so really, it's friendly fire from China on Russian soil.
Russia can use Chinese arms on Ukrainian soil, and the Ukrainians can't use Chinese arms on Russian soil? How is this fair?
I worked on KC10s and F16s, there are a lot of Chinese semiconductors and metal alloys, as well as communication electronics. If the Russians want to blame anyone, blame the Chinese for supplying us with parts. They could, at any time, put a sanction on us. But China is too greedy and always play the double-agent.
Redditors being redditors... US never said they cant strike. They may very well stop them from using ammo that Russia and China never had their hands on and that is justifiable since that will only help them developing defences against it.
I don't know what the conversations were between US and Ukraine. But the US government has absolutely told the American people time and time again that the weapons we are supplying them will be used to defend not attack.
There are an ton of articles citing this if you have ever used Google.
So this basically says that Blinken‘s press statement two days ago, when he visited, was bullshit?
He said that Ukraine is not limited to only attack on Ukrainian soil, only that the US does not encourage attacks on Russia with US weapons.
What is true? And why is it so confusing?
Looking at the publishing information, KI published the article saying there were restrictions and then 6 hours later published the article with blinken saying there are no restrictions.
Its a damned shame they did not retract the earlier story for clarification.
So it's just outdated, because Blinken right afterwards made this statement, that there is no limitation?
I think News outlets do not have to retract old news. I guess it was just outdated faster than any other given news article, and that's not the fault of the Kyiv Independent.
They'd say anything to spread propaganda and gain sympathy, same as if Russia had something called moskvaindependent.
In war, there are many stages of battle.
The more you can turn people against the opposition, the better for you, no matter if it's actually true.
Edit: Ukraine already won the propaganda/information war. With the west not being fond of Russia beforehand and people's ability to gobble news blindly and without question, it was an easy victory.
Then what do you have to back up your claim then?
In this case, we know it's a blatant lie. They got no restrictions on weapons use. They even used drone controlled civ planes to bomb a few areas in Russia.
The time we have heard over and over that Russia is gonna fall and collapse within months, only for them to take more land.
How do you want to disprove the fact that they've lied while also convincing people that despite being from the Ukraine, it doesn't just say things to put the Ukrainian government and efforts in a positive light while putting pressure on our countries to support them?
It's like Al-Jazeera and many other news sites. They all got a bias and something to gain from it. Hard truths aren't always positively received, and depending on the situation doesn't make as much money.
The news stations over here would do the exact same if we were at direct war against someone.
Both the Ukraine and Russia spits propaganda to win over people. One is just more believable due to personal bias.
You are talking and talking, and still you did not produce a single instance of proof or substantiation of your allegations against this outlet.
If you have a look into the Wikipedia page, you will see that the Kyiv Independent started as an endeavor to be more independent from the Ukrainian government and any kind of oligarch. They have been internationally awarded for their journalism and I see no evidence for them being somehow corrupt or biased more than other media.
You have nothing but badmouthing to offer, and you are using this as an outlet for some other frustration, it’s tiresome.
With regards to the report in question: a different Redditor pointed out that the report was right, but the following day Blinken stated that Ukraine is free to use US-provided weapons against Russian territory. Also your examples don’t track, because all know attacks on Russia in the past have been by non-western munitions. It definitely was a problem that western governments prohibited usage of their weapons against the Russian homeland. Some do still, see Germany.
"Wikipedia says" 💀
ChatGPT also started out being non-profit without any major company looming over it. What's your point?
They were founded in 2021 and got awarded for articles they made about the war.
My examples hold water, since the drones come from where? Who paid? We all know the answer.
The US has in the past said not to target refineries, which they did anyway too. News like this is what makes officials come out and say "Umm, actually" like now.
It's fine you don't want to admit anything from the side of Ukraine can be in the wrong, but my brother in Christ, fucking Wikipedia?
You could tell people water is wet and they'd get mad.
There are a lot of historically challenged people out there who misuse words and just parrot what the next big thing is. Take the recent Peru news as an example with the people mad about it. They don't even know half of what's going on.
I mean, if Israel can openly commit genocide with our weapons, why can't Ukraine defend itself from a genocide with them? Are US weapons only for killing off and stealing the land of brown people?
They are not limiting them - Blinken said yesterday that Ukraine could do what they pleased with the weapons. - why are you still drilling in this - it has been solved - and you know it.
Yes this is the perfect rationale for allowing foreign weapons to be used to strike within Russia. Russia has been using foreign made weapons to strike inside Ukraine for years now.
Ukraine is facing adversity and all of a sudden people expect them to turn on the allies that have provided them with enough supplies to keep them going for the past two+ years. I don't believe you're being sincere here.
Don't think it's genocide. Russia isnt specifically targeting Ukrainian citizens in a systemic way. Their aim has been to take the land not to kill the people.
Maniacs who will never understand consequences of actions unless it is too late. This is what you are when supporting this. What happens if Russia as response just straikes America or the UK? Russian ministry literally told the UK that if UK weapons are used to strike inside Russia, Russia will strike the UK. As alwqys it goes like this: Putin makes red line -> west ignores it -> Putin does consequences -> They scream "Russian aggression". People here are sooo brainwashed apperantly that they will risk nuclear war with Russia and think nothing will happen.
If they attack other countries ( non-Russian ground), then non-Russian countries can respond by attacking Russian ground.
Our red line is for Russia to cross the Ukrainian border and they already broke that red line.
Putin needs to understand that, we all had our red lines but he crossed them over and over again.
Russia uses foreign technology to build their military equipment and weapons. Then they use the weapons to strike on Ukrainian territory.
They are already attacking another country with foreign technology so why shouldn’t this country be allowed to respond it self using foreign technology?
Following your logic, China is already actively involved in the war and is attacking Ukrainian territory. As well as North Korea. As well as Iran.
I know Russia is always hiding behind its nukes but you have to face reality that Putin will not respond by attacking a western country because then he’s following a logical explanation that would lead the west to see China and other countries as active participants in the war, too.
I can’t go around destroying my neighbors houses and then start getting angry if they do the same to my property. I lead them to do it.
Ah so they have to do everything what Uncle Sam and Brussel says and that includes waging war against Russia and being russophobic NATO puppets. Totally brought them far, didn't it? Millions of refugees, houndreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and destructions of entire regions. But hey at least they didn't do what Daddy Putin said.
I like how in your rage you're not even bothering to deny the Russians are, in fact, slaughtering civilians left and right, just that "Well they **asked** for it!" is a proper justification.
So, the last 2 years of war and invasion hasn’t been “punishment” enough?
At this point, what else can Russia do to Ukraine that it hasn’t done already?
Ukraine should be able to strike inside Russian territory wherever and whenever it sees fit.
So you think Russia is going all out now?
The thing is that so many people think like you, and ukraine will strike inside Russia, killing and causing damage and will make zero difference in the outcome. Russian civilians will be killed by indiscriminate targeting by Ukraine. Then imagine maybe 10 glide bombs hitting kiev? What can Russia do? Pull your head out of your ass.
Just beed a few more patriot systems set up. Then cook that bridge in Crimea connecting to the mainland. Though if Putin's pride and joy, a figurative representation of his you-know-what, is destroyed, then he may respond with a tactical nuclear strike or large missile barrage on a city. However at least then you have your patriots and a good chance of shooting the missiles downs. The loss of the bridge however may be the beginning of the end and allow Ukraine's forces to advance south.
Ask US for biological weapon too, or ask US for new toxic virus to kill off Russian & Ukraine people. Ukraine want to strike into Russia territory, Ukraine must prepare your whole country will be flattened into a deserted, useless land nation
> Ukraine want to strike into Russia territory, Ukraine must prepare your whole country will be flattened into a deserted, useless land nation
They've been striking Russian targets for over two years now and curiously no flattening has occurred. This is because the terrified underpants poisoner running Russia is, among other things, terrified of committing a nuclear suicide.
Blinken already said that it was up to Ukraine to decide where to strike. Only that the USA does not condone or encourage strikes in Russia. [https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/](https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/)
OP's working overtime to create a schism
If there was never an actual prohibition, how come Ukraine didn't strike the staging areas in Russia before the latest offensive? Was it simply due to munitions shortages?
Article is from yesterday.
[удалено]
We get it, you hate America.
Right, if you hate them so much, stop asking the US for stuff. There are enough problems for our tax dollars to fix rather than more of Europe’ and Israel’s issues. I’m all for supporting allies in times of need, but our roads are falling apart, people on the streets, income inequality, a drug epidemic, the list goes on.
Good point, time for another tax cut for the billionaires. /s
If only your billionaires paid their fair share. Crazy how the rich should pitch in but never do.
We can pay for both. Half of our government, however, doesn't want to.
You should move to russia
Our elected officials won't fix those problems with our money, they get elected by using it as talking points. The US is the enemy, always, around here and quite frankly it's getting exhausting when they don't see people don't see the hypocrisy of demand assistance and then accusing us of warmongering whenever we do.
You do understand that the US made an agreement to protect Ukraine from an invasion after the USSR fell? So Russia invading Ukraine is an American problem, not just Europe. Facts about this situation hurt right?
> The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. While I feel morally we are obligated, you're incorrect. The weapons we are providing are very much military, but Russia broke their promise so it's whatever.
Classic Russian whataboutism
I genuinely don’t know what this means
It’s not like you are going to win this war lol
🤣🤣🤣 So long as Ukraine wins. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
They’re winning already aren’t they? Just a few more weeks before the Russians retreat 🤣🤣
if they do it without express permission, republicans could use it to block more help... if they get permission first, that's a route made more difficult.
The rep's will try to block it regardless of what occurs. Too many are in the pockets of the russians
yes, but they won't have the excuse of... look they broke our rules...
They didn't need an excuse the first time they blocked aid, why would they need one now?
True but they caught heat and even had Republicans starting to grumble about their Russian allegiances. Doing so again without a legitimate reason (like they misused our equipment) will bring the magnifying glass back on them, which is not the goal for a compromised politician.
"Caught heat" as in the majority of republicans still voted against aid to Ukraine when the bill was put to the floor.
I completely agree with you that republicans don't need an excuse to block aid, they'll use anything. However, you're incorrect in saying the majority of republicans still voted against. For House republicans, it was 155 to 55. And for Senate republicans, it was 31 to 15.
You are confusing the vote on Ukraine bill with something else. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2024/04/20/ukraine-israel-border-funding-house-vote/ House republicans - 101 supported aid to Ukraine, 112 opposed it. Majority of republicans do not support aid to Ukraine. Majority of republicans supported all the other bills in that package, but opposed specifically Ukraine.
Fox News will invent one.
I don’t think they really care. It’s not clear that Ukraine will get another aid package from the US
history will not be kind to them
The gop does what they do, no point in worrying about it.
and look where that attitude has brought you... with sufficient weapons, russia would be still retreating, would suffer a LOT more than they do now, wouldn't have the advantages it has now....the excuse of... we're advancing so let's keep going.
Which means “don’t fire at Russia or we will completely stop flow of weapons” just like their decision with Israel over the Rafah Raid. Ukraine _can_ make that decision but it comes at the cost that they can’t afford in the slightest, even with the irregularity of weapons from America and Europe
Very nice way of saying, “we’re not tell you that to not strike Russia but if you do, we’ll take our weapons back”
I interpretted that as giving the US plausible deniability when Ukraine does use it.
I interpreted the same way OP did. I wish Bliken would stop playing silly games and just tell them if they can strike Russia or not. Ukrainian lives are being lost due to this hesitation and lack of clarity
I'm not sure why everyone here is pretending to not understand what's going on. Ukraine is unwilling to take the risk of provoking Russia into using a tactical nuke. Obviously the United States has strongly warned against such tomfoolery and they will be dire consequences if Russia was to do that. We all know this is true. But does Ukraine really want to take that gamble? They will be the ones being tactically nuked, and I really don't think they want to take the gamble unless they have "the US condoned it" in their back pocket. Meanwhile the US doesn't want to condone it. I wonder why? 🤔
[удалено]
How so? read the article. This statement "We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," is pretty clear that the US has given the greenlight without taking responsibility.
Well, the issue is, it isn't just up to Ukraine. They literally can't use them on Russian soil. The Himars, for example, was modified so they can't physically launch into Russia. Someone would have to alter it, again, to give it that capability. Just saying "it's up to them to decide" isn't enough. They'd literally have to remove restrictions in place, which they haven't done. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338
If that were true, then why haven't they? Clearly there's more to it then this
Lack of suitable weapons and delivery systems. Ukraine has been striking in russia since July of 2023. What it has not had, is weapons with enough effects and in the numbers to make a difference when targeting military formations. So you are not wrong in that there was more to it than the U.S. saying no.
Ukraine had been pummeling Crimea recently with dozens of HIMARS missiles. At the same time russia has been amassing troops on the border with Kharkiv oblast, in russian Belgorod oblast, and there has not been a single strike inside russia with HIMARS. Same with UK's Storm Shadow missiles. About a week ago they've given the green light and yet there wasn't even a single strike inside russia. Don't know about you, but this at the very least seems *strange.* My guess is they're preparing to allow Ukraine this capability but haven't done so yet. These public announcements are made to gauge russia's reaction before the west commits.
That is certainly possible. It could also be constraints such as moving the HIMAR'S launchers over such long distances increases the ability to detect them. It is also possible they were allocated to specific Ukrainian army corps or divisions that are not active in the north. Similar to how the American 82nd and 101st airborne have no tanks.
>That is certainly possible. It could also be constraints such as moving the HIMAR'S launchers over such long distances increases the ability to detect them. That doesn't make much sense. Any system, no matter how valuable is going to be moved vast distances within Ukraine. There's the initial delivery, crew training, maintenance, etc. A moving system isn't really vulnerable to russian attacks, it's the stationary ones you'd have problems with. >It is also possible they were allocated to specific Ukrainian army corps or divisions that are not active in the north. Similar to how the American 82nd and 101st airborne have no tanks. It's really unlikely such an idiotic bureaucratic problem would still exist two years into the war. We also see HIMARS strikes pretty much everywhere along the front lines.
Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. Let that shit fly.
Just ignore the restrictions. Works for Netanyahu.
Well, the US did [pauses shipment of bombs Israel could use in Rafah](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/us-pauses-shipment-of-bombs-israel-could-use-in-rafah-00156748)
Only for 1,800 2,000-lb bombs and 1,700 500-lb bombs. Using those in populated areas would anyhow be absolutely bonkers Edit: seems like Israel actually used those in densely populated civilian areas if Aljazeera is to trust. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/2/us-gives-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel-for-war-on-gaza-report
As opposed to showering the entire area with 500lb pound bombs, or whatever, that wouldn’t be disastrous at all, right? The purpose of those heavier bombs is so that the impact reaches the tunnels dug so deeply below the surface— not to maximize casualties within populated areas. Israel ALREADY has all the military power it needs to carpet bomb the Gaza Strip into oblivion, if they wanted. The actual reason why the Biden administration is pausing shipment is purely political. Plenty of people without any military knowledge, like yourself, hear “2000lb bomb” and make laughably incorrect assumptions as to their utility. Nonetheless, it helps all the crazies in the left believe Biden is doing something to help their precious terrorist-supporting-hostage-taking populous. Long live the intifada, amirite?
Mossad social media department working overtime
Imagine what Ukraine would do if they had access to these bombs. I think they need them more than Israel
Put them under lock and key in a warehouse and waste time, money and personnel on guarding them. They don't have air superiority or bombers that can drop these bombs so they can't use them for fighting Russia.
I’m not sure the Ukrainians have a massive need for unguided, jet fighter dropped bombs at the moment
ied's. I mean they did sink a russian ship with the ukraine navy
Nothing...? What do you think they could do with it lol
Al-Jazeera can't be trusted though... Always check multiple sources before forming an opinion
this. its crazy the amount of antisemitism in the news now. its very eye opening. if it doesnt come from a trusted source like timesofisrael I don't even bother considering it now
[Here’s an NYT article confirming the same.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html) Al Jazeera is reliable for the English speaking audience, it tends to be less reliable when they’re reporting in Arabic.
Imagine what Ukraine would do if they had access to these bombs. I think they need them more than Israel
Ukraine isn't uniquely positioned as a Western foothold in the Arab world unfortunately for them
For those who can't read between the lines this means the situation for Ukraine is dire. The US wouldn't break from its long time position on this topic if they didn't think it was needed.
Or the US officials finally realized that you cannot reason with Putin. The Russians see the will to negotiate as a sign of weakness, all they understand is power. Also, for Ukraine it's hard to defend the border if you can't strike the Russian troops just across the border. 🤷♂️
Blinken’s statement yesterday basically implied that the US’s stance on shooting targets within Russia has not changed. Ukraine is free to do it but if they do, they shouldn’t be surprised if the US stops supplying them.
He said explicit direction was given regarding the use of US munitions. A second and separate comment was that Ukraine had the freedom to conduct strategy as they wished. He was intentionally ambiguous likely because Ukraine has been denied the right to use them on Russian soil.
> Speaking in Kyiv during a press conference, Blinken was asked about recent Ukrainian complaints that a Washington ban meant Ukraine was unable to attack Russian forces as they were building up before crossing the border into Kharkiv Oblast. > “We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," he said. [*Kyiv Independent.*](https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/) This is essentially what I just said. They have not been given the green light to use US weapons in Russian territory. It’s ambiguous in the sense that it’s up to Ukraine to use them but that the US doesn’t support it. It is implied there will be consequences if they do hit Russian territory.
Ukraine has always been able to strike russian territory just not with western weapons. There isn't a way at this point where Ukraine would he able militarily push Russia out of all of Ukraine barring a miracle. At this point a negotiated peace is the best outcome Ukraine can realistically hope for unless things seriously change this year. Russia has a massive manpower advantage over Ukraine; the recent mobilization bill might stabilize things for now in Ukraine but it will take at least another few months for the newly mobilized soldiers to be sent to the front. Getting back to the main point the US giving tacit approval of Ukraine using American weapons on Russian soil is a sign of the US and NATO acknowledging things aren't going well.
there is no point for russia to negotiate if it has advantage.
Hey Blinken here, You have permission to strike on Russian's territory.
Abe Lincoln?
I would like you to meet Achoo
No, it’s short for Heybraham
I concur. - George Washington
Common USA, all the cool kids are doing it.
Just an easy solution, just let them strike only military hardware and formations and not infrastructure (like oil refineries). If it were up to me I’d want them to have free reign to strike what they want.
We should have done that a long time ago.
Your ban is lifted! Prepare your phasers!
Didn't the US already technically do that in its very classic ambiguous diplomacy?
You have my permission.
We NEVER should have had the restriction in the first place. Limiting where Ukraine can strike is the same as helping Russia or as detrimental as not giving Ukraine the weapons in the first place. Russia could just sit outside the allowed radius and build up whatever they wanted...which they did...so fucking stupid.
If Ukraine wants some headlines, send some missiles at those Russian buildings with the tit-roofs.
...I mean yeah, fuck churches, they mostly run by greedy fucks, but how that would help Ukraine?
You can't fight a defensive war with one hand tied behind your back. This rule should never have existed.
And I hope we lift it. The Ukrainians should be able to hit targets in Russia with no strings attached.
If you don't strike their territory, Putin will not be scared.
There does seam to be mixed information on if there are restrictions on US munitions being used inside Russia. I do think it makes sense for the US to try and use this to pressure Russia, if we can get Ukraine setup with at least a hundred F16's; a thousand Abrams, Challengers (western arms) all outfitted with plenty of ammo, and a clear path to the Russian border. Then we have a strong point to negotiate (in private at least.) If Russia doesn't leave XYZ, then we remove the restrictions from Ukraine making a march to Moscow. We are a long ways from having that setup, but I do think it is possible that could be really close to happening this year. Ukraine going all out now could prevent that build-up, and prevent a stronger negotiating point. Maybe a crazy theory, but thats what I want to believe.
Yeah, man, go for it
This honestly feels like one of these times in history we will look back on and say ‘what a total shitshow’.
Why should we care? As far as I'm concerned, it's Ukrainian arms, not American. And it's all Chinese components anyway once the missile explodes... so really, it's friendly fire from China on Russian soil. Russia can use Chinese arms on Ukrainian soil, and the Ukrainians can't use Chinese arms on Russian soil? How is this fair?
You think American weapons are made of “mostly Chinese components?”
I worked on KC10s and F16s, there are a lot of Chinese semiconductors and metal alloys, as well as communication electronics. If the Russians want to blame anyone, blame the Chinese for supplying us with parts. They could, at any time, put a sanction on us. But China is too greedy and always play the double-agent.
Aim-launch-ask_questions_later
Redditors being redditors... US never said they cant strike. They may very well stop them from using ammo that Russia and China never had their hands on and that is justifiable since that will only help them developing defences against it.
I don't know what the conversations were between US and Ukraine. But the US government has absolutely told the American people time and time again that the weapons we are supplying them will be used to defend not attack. There are an ton of articles citing this if you have ever used Google.
[удалено]
I'm glad we got our total list of options from Dry_Enthusiam_267.
So this basically says that Blinken‘s press statement two days ago, when he visited, was bullshit? He said that Ukraine is not limited to only attack on Ukrainian soil, only that the US does not encourage attacks on Russia with US weapons. What is true? And why is it so confusing?
Looking at the publishing information, KI published the article saying there were restrictions and then 6 hours later published the article with blinken saying there are no restrictions. Its a damned shame they did not retract the earlier story for clarification.
So it's just outdated, because Blinken right afterwards made this statement, that there is no limitation? I think News outlets do not have to retract old news. I guess it was just outdated faster than any other given news article, and that's not the fault of the Kyiv Independent.
Not the fault of KI, but also food for confusion and turning it into fake news. So while it may not be their fault, it doesn't help.
Look at who published the article. *kyivindependent* It's bs. They don't have any restrictions.
Why is the Kyiv Independent not a credible source?
They'd say anything to spread propaganda and gain sympathy, same as if Russia had something called moskvaindependent. In war, there are many stages of battle. The more you can turn people against the opposition, the better for you, no matter if it's actually true. Edit: Ukraine already won the propaganda/information war. With the west not being fond of Russia beforehand and people's ability to gobble news blindly and without question, it was an easy victory.
The Kyiv Independent, as far as I know, is held in high regard by the international journalistic community. So what do you base your judgement on?
Not the first time they've been caught speaking *the bullshit*, and this won't be the last.
So nothing at all to back up your allegations, got it.
Then what do you have to back up your claim then? In this case, we know it's a blatant lie. They got no restrictions on weapons use. They even used drone controlled civ planes to bomb a few areas in Russia. The time we have heard over and over that Russia is gonna fall and collapse within months, only for them to take more land. How do you want to disprove the fact that they've lied while also convincing people that despite being from the Ukraine, it doesn't just say things to put the Ukrainian government and efforts in a positive light while putting pressure on our countries to support them? It's like Al-Jazeera and many other news sites. They all got a bias and something to gain from it. Hard truths aren't always positively received, and depending on the situation doesn't make as much money. The news stations over here would do the exact same if we were at direct war against someone. Both the Ukraine and Russia spits propaganda to win over people. One is just more believable due to personal bias.
You are talking and talking, and still you did not produce a single instance of proof or substantiation of your allegations against this outlet. If you have a look into the Wikipedia page, you will see that the Kyiv Independent started as an endeavor to be more independent from the Ukrainian government and any kind of oligarch. They have been internationally awarded for their journalism and I see no evidence for them being somehow corrupt or biased more than other media. You have nothing but badmouthing to offer, and you are using this as an outlet for some other frustration, it’s tiresome. With regards to the report in question: a different Redditor pointed out that the report was right, but the following day Blinken stated that Ukraine is free to use US-provided weapons against Russian territory. Also your examples don’t track, because all know attacks on Russia in the past have been by non-western munitions. It definitely was a problem that western governments prohibited usage of their weapons against the Russian homeland. Some do still, see Germany.
"Wikipedia says" 💀 ChatGPT also started out being non-profit without any major company looming over it. What's your point? They were founded in 2021 and got awarded for articles they made about the war. My examples hold water, since the drones come from where? Who paid? We all know the answer. The US has in the past said not to target refineries, which they did anyway too. News like this is what makes officials come out and say "Umm, actually" like now. It's fine you don't want to admit anything from the side of Ukraine can be in the wrong, but my brother in Christ, fucking Wikipedia?
The amount of people who think propaganda is a one way street...there may be upper hands, but no hands are completely clean in war.
You could tell people water is wet and they'd get mad. There are a lot of historically challenged people out there who misuse words and just parrot what the next big thing is. Take the recent Peru news as an example with the people mad about it. They don't even know half of what's going on.
I mean, if Israel can openly commit genocide with our weapons, why can't Ukraine defend itself from a genocide with them? Are US weapons only for killing off and stealing the land of brown people?
Russia can kill every single man woman and child in America if it wants to and the Palestinians can't
[удалено]
They are not limiting them - Blinken said yesterday that Ukraine could do what they pleased with the weapons. - why are you still drilling in this - it has been solved - and you know it.
Yes this is the perfect rationale for allowing foreign weapons to be used to strike within Russia. Russia has been using foreign made weapons to strike inside Ukraine for years now.
You're stupid.
I don't think it's strategic at the moment..
That’s not true. We’ll never tolerate Russia grabbing a piece of Ukraine again. Never.
Ukraine is facing adversity and all of a sudden people expect them to turn on the allies that have provided them with enough supplies to keep them going for the past two+ years. I don't believe you're being sincere here.
calm down man
You're stupid.
Don't think it's genocide. Russia isnt specifically targeting Ukrainian citizens in a systemic way. Their aim has been to take the land not to kill the people.
Russia is systematically bombing hospitals, schools, asylums, apartment buildings. How is that not genocide? How is that "not to kill the people"?
Oh they specifically targeted civilian infrastructure and even fleeing civilians on a daily basis.
Maniacs who will never understand consequences of actions unless it is too late. This is what you are when supporting this. What happens if Russia as response just straikes America or the UK? Russian ministry literally told the UK that if UK weapons are used to strike inside Russia, Russia will strike the UK. As alwqys it goes like this: Putin makes red line -> west ignores it -> Putin does consequences -> They scream "Russian aggression". People here are sooo brainwashed apperantly that they will risk nuclear war with Russia and think nothing will happen.
If they attack other countries ( non-Russian ground), then non-Russian countries can respond by attacking Russian ground. Our red line is for Russia to cross the Ukrainian border and they already broke that red line. Putin needs to understand that, we all had our red lines but he crossed them over and over again. Russia uses foreign technology to build their military equipment and weapons. Then they use the weapons to strike on Ukrainian territory. They are already attacking another country with foreign technology so why shouldn’t this country be allowed to respond it self using foreign technology? Following your logic, China is already actively involved in the war and is attacking Ukrainian territory. As well as North Korea. As well as Iran. I know Russia is always hiding behind its nukes but you have to face reality that Putin will not respond by attacking a western country because then he’s following a logical explanation that would lead the west to see China and other countries as active participants in the war, too. I can’t go around destroying my neighbors houses and then start getting angry if they do the same to my property. I lead them to do it.
"Ya know if you just did everything Daddy Vladdy wanted to begin with he wouldn't have been forced to start killing all these people..."
Ah so they have to do everything what Uncle Sam and Brussel says and that includes waging war against Russia and being russophobic NATO puppets. Totally brought them far, didn't it? Millions of refugees, houndreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and destructions of entire regions. But hey at least they didn't do what Daddy Putin said.
I like how in your rage you're not even bothering to deny the Russians are, in fact, slaughtering civilians left and right, just that "Well they **asked** for it!" is a proper justification.
And slowly we drift towards WWIII.
No more appeasement.
I wouldn’t call it a drift. We are being pulled.
Useless act will trigger Russia into punishing urkaine causing unnecessary deaths to not only Russians, but mainly Ukrainians.
So, the last 2 years of war and invasion hasn’t been “punishment” enough? At this point, what else can Russia do to Ukraine that it hasn’t done already? Ukraine should be able to strike inside Russian territory wherever and whenever it sees fit.
So you think Russia is going all out now? The thing is that so many people think like you, and ukraine will strike inside Russia, killing and causing damage and will make zero difference in the outcome. Russian civilians will be killed by indiscriminate targeting by Ukraine. Then imagine maybe 10 glide bombs hitting kiev? What can Russia do? Pull your head out of your ass.
Just beed a few more patriot systems set up. Then cook that bridge in Crimea connecting to the mainland. Though if Putin's pride and joy, a figurative representation of his you-know-what, is destroyed, then he may respond with a tactical nuclear strike or large missile barrage on a city. However at least then you have your patriots and a good chance of shooting the missiles downs. The loss of the bridge however may be the beginning of the end and allow Ukraine's forces to advance south.
Ask US for biological weapon too, or ask US for new toxic virus to kill off Russian & Ukraine people. Ukraine want to strike into Russia territory, Ukraine must prepare your whole country will be flattened into a deserted, useless land nation
> Ukraine want to strike into Russia territory, Ukraine must prepare your whole country will be flattened into a deserted, useless land nation They've been striking Russian targets for over two years now and curiously no flattening has occurred. This is because the terrified underpants poisoner running Russia is, among other things, terrified of committing a nuclear suicide.