- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Ukraine wants permission from the west to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to destroy targets deep inside Russia, believing this could force Moscow into negotiating an end to the fighting.
Senior figures in Kyiv have suggested that using the Anglo-French weapons in a “demonstration attack” will show the Kremlin that military sites near the capital itself could be vulnerable to direct strikes.
The thinking, according to a senior government official, is that Russia will consider negotiating only if it believes Ukraine had the ability “to threaten Moscow and St Petersburg”. This is a high-risk strategy, however, and does not so far have the support of the US.
Ukraine has been lobbying for months to be allowed to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia, but with little success. Nevertheless, as its army struggles on the eastern front, there is a growing belief that its best hope lies in counter-attack.
Do it now, ask forgiveness later. It’s the American way.
I assume the risk is if they do strike without approval, the critical support they’re receiving could end
Nah, more like chewed out. 🤠
I’ve been chewed out before.
Jolly Rancher
I can’t believe you’ve done this
And nukes is a risk too, perhaps
It’s Israel’s playbook and it works literally every time
Israel doesn’t even ask for forgiveness.
“Ukraine has the right to defend itself”
They never do anything wrong so of course they never need too…
Might be the American way, but it’s mainly Europe that will take the heat in an all out war against Russia.
Also, how does it end? Anyone really thinks Putin will surrender after 3-4 missiles hit Moscow? Come on.
The message wouldn’t be to Putin directly. It would be to those both in his power base, or capable of disrupting it.
The goal would be to push Russians to the point they deal with Putin internally, and/or put putin in a position where he needs to end the war to stabilise his own position. It’s all about making the right people feel the effects.
Oh, and as a European, I think the risk is acceptable. If Putin struck at a NATO country, the results would likely be swift and short. The only unknown would be Russian nukes, and even those are far more of an unknown than most people think.
An all out war is unlikely, since if NATO involvement was going to kick that off it would have done so by now.
The next point of escalation that could start something bigger would be stuff like NATO openly sending troops or actively providing fire support.
US hesitation to allow our hardware to be used for this type of attack is much more to do with the political issues surrounding the war being framed as a proxy war instead of defensive support.
The electorates support for “saving the day” and “superior US hardware helping keep a country free” is high. Support for a protracted and complex proxy war without clear right and wrong sides is exhausting and hits too many Iraq/Afghanistan buttons for people to care.
Asking for and publicly being denied permission to bomb targets adjacent to the capitol does just as well at communicating “we can bomb your capitol” as actually doing it.
It’d be a little harder for a lot of civilians to be indifferent towards this whole war if it saunters up and starts banging on their front door
Edit: it’s a metaphor. Dude asked how 3-4 bombs would end the war and most things in a war aren’t meant to outright end it. Right now the whole thing is ‘out of sight out of mind’ for most people but if targeted strikes on infrastructure hit local news you bet you’re ass it’d be demoralizing
Who would miss the kremlin anyway?
I know it’s ludicrous to need to ask for permission. I’m sure they won’t get it.
Do you think they would continue being funded and given the equipment if they don’t?
Just ask Cambodia
Removed by mod