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.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    As long as their demonstration is against military targets (and not what Israel would classify as a “military targets”), I say let them. Bomb every Russian military base within 200 miles of Ukraine into a crater. Russia only seems to respond to a show of force, unfortunately with its current leadership, so give it to them.

    I just feel bad for the Russians who have to live under Putin’s rule. I know several Russians who have fled Russia to avoid drafts or persecution. Hearing them talk about how they “probably will never be able to go home again” is heartbreaking.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      71
      ·
      4 months ago

      FFS stop bringing up Israel in threads that have nothing to do with it. There are many many threads about that subject, the need for gaza-brained people to derail every discussion to inject their propaganda into every discussion is getting really annoying, and really accomplishes nothing.

        • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          4 months ago

          Such a dogshit take. Nobody besides maybe some of the right wing brain dead mouthbreathers supports genocide. Well, that and people who support China…Weird we don’t hear the same outrage about the genocide happening there. That one doesn’t fit your narrative though does it?

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Nobody besides maybe some of the right wing brain dead mouthbreathers supports genocide.

            That’s odd, because DNC seems quite content to support it.

            Weird we don’t hear the same outrage about the genocide happening there. That one doesn’t fit your narrative though does it?

            Nobody is giving billions of dollars worth of arms to china to bomb civilians. So no shit people aren’t as outraged. What the fuck does that have to do with any narrative? You’re not making any sense.

            • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              4 months ago

              Nobody is giving billions of dollars worth of arms to china to bomb civilians. So no shit people aren’t as outraged. What the fuck does that have to do with any narrative? You’re not making any sense.

              There’s a genocide happening there but you don’t care? Why are you supporting a genocide in China???

              • LwL@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Thefuck are you on about. I take just as much issue with chinas genocide, I just take less issue with my own (and other) governments’ handling of said genocide. For one Israel is getting active support while china has frosty trade relations, but also the balance of power would allow both the EU and US to pressure Israel into stopping, which they can’t just do with china because china is a global superpower. I still kinda think they should but we all know citizens will cry about any QoL loss they might experience as a result, and that is reasonably something governments have to consider.

                • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  By your own logic you support the genocide in China. We know who you are bro, people aren’t falling for your bullshit, this isn’t .ml

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You can’t say the DNC supports genocide but also supports an immediate permanent ceasefire. These are mutually-exclusive.

              So there is a bit more nuance than you give credit as to why they denounce the collateral damage Israel is causing but continue to provide weapons. I don’t agree with the giving of those weapons, but there are substantive reasons as to why they haven’t stopped. The only people actually pulling the trigger on those weapons is the IDF. Bibi and Putin are of the same cloth.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                but also supports an immediate permanent ceasefire.

                Talk is cheap. And as you said, they’re continuing to provide weapons. Not much of an effort to prevent genocide.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Pretty obvious they’ve been trying heavily to get a permanent ceasefire.

                  You can see that by the way Trump went behind their backs and told Bibi to not take the deal.

                  I mean, what, do you actually believe Harris and Biden want to be associated with and commit genocide? If the decision were that simple, during an election year, wouldn’t you think they just — you know — would stop sending the aid? What is their motive?

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            4 months ago

            Just someone that thinks anyone that disagrees on anything with them must support genocide. It’s become typical in with the self-righteous in the pro-Palestine crowd. And then they wonder why most of society is starting to ignore them.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Maybe don’t use the phrases “gaza brained people” and “propaganda” as a description if you don’t want people to think you’re siding with israel.

              Feel free to confirm that you don’t support israel/support an end to the genocide.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                4 months ago

                Nah, there’s been enough spamming Israel hatred on this Ukraine thread. Please express your hatred towards Israel and it’s people to your daily Israeli hate threads so we don’t spam this thread about Ukraine with it any more than it already has been. Gaza might be the only thing your brain can have in it, but other people have other things they want to discuss.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I haven’t been making any posts about it, only comments, and even then fairly rarely. Maybe once a month or two. I haven’t said or implied any hatred for Israel’s people. If you can’t even be honest about what I’m saying, the rate at which I am saying it, etc, who are you trying to fool?

                  And lastly I’ll take your lack of condemnation of Israel’s actions after being explicitly prompted to as support for their actions, as support for their genocide or palestinians. So much for the whole “jUsT SOmEoNE thaT THinks AnyoNE tHAt DiSAGREes ON AnyThING WIth THem muST suPPoRt genoCIde”

                • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  They only referenced the fact that Israel has been targeting civilian populations while repeating the “we only strike military targets” discourse. In no way did they suggest they hated israelis.

                  I also think it’s important to condemn the actions of Israel while refraining from hating their population.

  • drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    As a Russian, I am surprised that this is still a question. Like, duh, it’s a war, not a hockey game, bomb right away, what the fuck are you waiting for. I have serious doubts about it turning the tide of war, though, but who am I to tell them what to (not) do.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Obviously it’s a great option for Ukraine in the context of the current war. However what do you say to concerns that Russia might take that as direct involvement by other countries, escalating the war to something much bigger? WWIII is not an ok option for any of us, nor is Russia losing a comforting choice

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        As long as there are no troops under the NATO flag inside Russian territory, I think we’re in the clear. They can be deployed to defend Ukraine no problem because Putin claims that they already are. Any country can also join under their own volition - I’m pretty sure Russian military had already had direct engagements with French troops in Africa and nobody even batted an eye.

        My concern is based on the assumption that nobody actually cares about Ukraine enough to send their military in. Under this assumption, Ukraine is massively outnumbered and the only reason it isn’t steamrolled yet is because Russia can’t really deploy their entire military under the risk of massive draft dodging and revolts. Everybody who gave any shit about Donbas is already on the frontline. The only way for Russian government to gather more is by inviting Ukraine to bomb civilian targets in it’s own territory. By doing it, they can draft more troops under the pretense of defending the motherland, rather than just dying in a pointless conquest.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Attacks launched deeper into Russia deplete ammo from the Ukrainian front lines. It’s a real change in strategy.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You mean by disrupting the supply lines? Because Russia has a shitton of supplies, it’s just that they’re nowhere near Ukraine.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Because Russia has a shitton of supplies

          I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY.

          they’re nowhere near Ukraine

          The article is discussing whether bombs can reach all the way to Moscow. This doesn’t seem to be about cutting supply lines. It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war.

          But then that’s the exact same strategy Russians ran against the Ukrainians after their initial offensives stalled, and it hasn’t appeared overly successful either.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY

            Oh no, it’s just that there is a market for such “news”. Russia pumps out exactly the same kind, but in reverse, about how Ukraine’s going to fall any moment now for the past two and a half years. But reality is that the situation is at a stalemate, with Ukraine getting infused with boatload of weapons once in the while, while Russia has a steady and self-sufficient production but is short on soldiers willing to fight in unjustified conquest.

            It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war

            Oh nooo… This is going to have exactly the opposite effect. I was previously writing a huge comment detailing how even if targeting out only the military targets, there’s always a risk of collateral damage and how each mistake can result in even more Russian troops in the trenches, but then threw it all out to clarify what you’ve meant. If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?

              You just have to few every baby Russian as a future Enemy Combatant in the same way Israelis view every baby Palestinian as a future terrorist.

    • Antmz22@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The west is stopping Ukraine from doing this for their own good.

      The west wants to drag out the war to bleed out Russia.

      Seriously Striking Moscow (for example) would almost certainly result in a swift, all out retaliation from Russia towards Ukraine.

      The western media might not like to portray it as such, but this is still largely an excursion using older equipment and avoiding mass mobilization, preferring to send “endesirables” like criminals or the poor, for Russia, while Ukraine has been running out of equipment and men.

      This is a case of “fog of war” or not seeing the forest for the trees with Ukraine, the west isn’t as biased in their analysis of the situation.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Dude, Russia is not holding back it’s equipment. A lot of it is being tracked behind spotted on parade and such in Moscow and then blown up on the front. They didn’t even have optics for the vast majority of their troops despite the big advantage of the newer AK platform they adopted being that optics fit on them. You’d never see the US, for example, send that many troops to fight without optics, even assuming they’re holding back.

        If Russia is holding equipment, they’re stupid. They should have just deployed it to the front and ended the war. They didn’t do this, and the reason is obvious: it doesn’t exist. They’re sending shit from the Cold War to the front because that’s what they’ve got. They aren’t some amazing superpower that’s just playing nice with poor little Ukraine. They want this war over desperately, so they would end it if they could.

        • Antmz22@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          A lot of it is being tracked behind spotted on parade and such in Moscow and then blown up on the front.

          That doesn’t mean it’s all the best equipment. Both sides have a lot of equipment moving through the country then blowing up on the Frontlines, the difference is only one is constantly telling the media that they are running out of equipment and men, and that’s Ukraine not Russia.

          You’d never see the US, for example, send that many troops to fight without optics, even assuming they’re holding back.

          The US (while not particularly caring for them once they do return) notoriously doesn’t like losing its own militarys lives in war.

          Russia is literally sending criminals, unwanted immigrants, and dissidents to the front lines with no expectations of them to return.

          If Russia is holding equipment, they’re stupid. They should have just deployed it to the front and ended the war. They didn’t do this, and the reason is obvious: it doesn’t exist.

          Except they did do this initially and they made huge ground gains basically sweeping the entire Donbas region. It wasn’t until Ukraine recovered and changed the dynamic from quick “special military operation” to entrenched warfare when Russia pulled out the older equipment to lessen the effects of their bleeding.

          I’ve been alive since (longer than) 2022, I’ve seen the stages of the war and I’ve seen the statements put out from both sides.

          I remember when Russia was steamrolling through Donbas and Ukraine was panicking so much they considered a peace deal until Boris Johnson talked them out of it with the promise of continuing support.

          I’ve seen the continuous desperate calls from Ukraine for more equipment and the increasing conscription which is upsetting their population.

          Then I realize I’ve seen none of that from Russia, and the EU still respects Russias ability, so why would I conclude that Russia is in the same boat as Ukraine with a rapidly expiring military?

          They aren’t some amazing superpower that’s just playing nice with poor little Ukraine. They want this war over desperately, so they would end it if they could.

          They aren’t playing nice with Ukraine, for the 100th time. Idk why y’all insist on this specific childish reduction of “playing nice”.

          They are playing strategic with all of NATO. They want to win the war, but they don’t want to show their full hand to NATO, especially if it’s weaker than they want people to believe and would leave them weakened for a potential counter.

      • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They’re saving their best troops for if their initial assault fails defending the border defending Moscow city limits

        • Antmz22@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They’ve always been saving their best for if NATO gets directly involved. Something none of the parties involved (outside of Ukraine themselves) want, because everyone knows that it would be a difficult war and not a stroll through Moscow.

          However if Ukraine was to start posing an actual threat to the core of the nation, they wouldn’t continue waiting around being cautious until they lost because of it.

          Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.

            Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.

            People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.

            • Antmz22@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              They’re not “just holding back”. They’re just not going all out because of similar “domestic political concerns” as the western countries. It would also come at a much greater cost to foreign politics as you risk upsetting allies who now have to sell that to their own people to justify providing support.

              Keeping a steady defense of a buffer zone between them and NATO is a much easier sell than a full military invasion attempt especially if, as you suspect, their full potential isn’t as great as some think. Hence why it started as a “special military operation”

              I don’t dismiss that potentially part of the reason they arent going full speed is that their power isn’t as good as they portray and many believe, and they don’t want to expose that weakness.

              • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                4 months ago

                You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
                You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.

                Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.

        Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team, and then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.

        That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.

        • Antmz22@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.

          Yes at the very beginning they just wanted to make a strong push for the “Special Operation” grab and we saw the results, they weren’t good for Ukraine but Ukraine still did better than Russia expected.

          When Russia realizes the “special operation” was actually going to have to be a war of attrition, they decided to scale back and basically just hold the area while using up old equipment and draining Ukraine which has much less reserved.

          Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team

          Hence why in the initial attempt at taking the country, as you say yourself, they used newer equipment. They switch to older equipment only when they realized it was going to be a long battle regardless. It’s worth noting the Ukraine was largely using older equipment as well with that being what the west was supplying. Using older equipment first isn’t a unique or rare strategy.

          Also Russia doesn’t care if they lose the Z team, they fully expect to go through Z, Y, V etc. The hope is Ukraine won’t be able to last long enough for them to start running into trouble.

          then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.

          Or it’s a great way to weaken the enemy and send the better troops to clean up. The entire C team might be less valuable than half the B team.

          That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.

          I believe it’s both. The entire invasion has been a show of incompetence from the beginning, but Russia just has the ability to out force Ukraine if need be. They just have to feel justified/like that’s their best option.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.

            I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.

            Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.

            If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.

            Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.

            If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
            I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
            They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
            They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Just a heads up, you betray your Russian supporting roots saying the Ukraine so openly. I’m assuming you accidentally typed it by habit, because most of the time you addressed them properly, but they aren’t just some regional dependant of Russia. They are an independent nation.

            Russia is losing its troops and equipment. That’s why they aren’t using modern stuff anymore. You can find pictures of the modern stuff destroyed on the battlefield if you’re interested. They sent it in. They just got held back and their equipment was lost. It’s not a mystery. It’s publicly viewable to anyone curious.

            • Antmz22@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Just a heads up, you betray your Russian supporting roots saying the Ukraine so openly. I’m assuming you accidentally typed it by habit, because most of the time you addressed them properly,

              Yeah …okay Sherlock Holmes. lol atleast you read it though.

              It’s worth noting the Ukraine was largely using older equipment as well

              Afaik this is the only time I “betrayed my Russian supporting roots”…with Autocorrect changing a missed T in “that” from “tha” to “the” as in

              It’s worth noting that Ukraine was largely using older equipment…

              Russia is losing its troops and equipment.

              Yes Russia is losing troops and equipment. We know that the troops being sent are largely “undesirables” though so I don’t think it’s unusual to assume the equipment might be as well.

              They sent it in. They just got held back and their equipment was lost. It’s not a mystery. It’s publicly viewable to anyone curious.

              Yes, I stated that they previously used newer equipment when they thought they could just make a rushed victory, but when proven wrong and that it would be a stalemate for a long time anyway and they would have to bleed ukraine and be bled, they chose to bleed mostly older equipment.

              I mean, admittedly I’m not in the Russian stock rooms so I can’t say for certain, but neither are you.

              I refuse to partake in flippant dismissal of the military might of a power which we know has ramped up production of modern equipment while still mainly using older equipment, because it makes us feel good and safe to do so.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        Seriously Striking Moscow (for example) would almost certainly result in a swift, all out retaliation from Russia towards Ukraine.

        A large portion of the Russian military has been held in reserve for defense, on the grounds that a full NATO invasion could decapitate the regime (a la Iraq in 2003).

        Lemmyites are convinced the Russian military is entirely exhausted and these suicide incursions represent territory Ukrainians can actually hold. But there’s much more of a long game at play, as Europe and Russia wage a proxy was of attrition across Central Europe, Central Africa, and the Middle East.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The only thing I’m convinced of is the fact that you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops agent. You may not be one but at minimum you’re doing their work for them.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops

            I’m old enough to remember “Baghdad Bob” from the '03 Iraq invasion. We used to make fun of that shit, but now everyone talks like him.

            Russian media insists they’re on the cusp of total victory. Ukrainian media insists the Russians are on the verge of collapse. And disagreeing with either one means you’re a spook.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re resorting to personal attacks against an argument which doesn’t take a lot of effort to check the validity of. Get out of your bubble.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, the whole “they’re not sending their best” Spiel was debunked in the first 6 months. The Russian equipment losses favored high end stuff at the beginning of the war and has been declining ever since. And the Russians have been activating older stuff ever since. Which is visible in the loss data.

          A lot of conscripts are indeed not in the war, but judging by performance of the Kursk defense, there is reason to doubt the ability of these forces. Although quantity is a quality by its own right.

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        but this is still largely an excursion using older equipment and avoiding mass mobilization

        I’m more inclined to think that that Russia is a paper tiger and the mass corruption in the country has fucked up any modern equipment they have to the point of unusability.

        • Antmz22@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          And you are certainly free to think so.

          I disagree. If Russia didn’t still have plenty left in the tank, Europe wouldn’t be so scared of upsetting them.

          Idk why I’m downvoted so heavily for not thinking Russia is a weak baby when the care being taken by Europe and the West with regards to this war suggests that the people who know best agree.

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If it’s not his bunker, he doesn’t care. Or his palace.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Got no arguments from me here. Bring him hell I say.

    What are they gonna do? Bomb your cities, schools, hospitals?

    Think we’re past the point of asking for permission at this point.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I realize that this Kursk offensive by Ukraine was probably also used to show allied nations, “See? We literally just invaded and took over a bunch of land in Russia and they did nothing different. Give us permission.”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was intended to draw Russian forces away from the south, where the Ukrainians were unable to reclaim territory.

      Ukraine wrecked a bunch of facilities up north, but they’re far too drawn out up there to hold any territory. It’s more war of attrition at a faster pace.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        True there are several reasons for their offensive into Kursk: 1) Negotiation leverage 2) Diversion of resources for Russia 3) Adding an air-defense buffer, 4) Breaking into the echo-chamber of domestic Russian propaganda, etc. but I just thought of this one to add to the list. Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.

          An enormous influx of new equipment and “advisors” from NATO states can improve your position substantially.

          Might be a bit early to declare it a great strategy, as we’re still waiting to see what pays out.

  • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Sooner or later Ukraine will start manufacturing their own such weapons. They have demonstrated time and again that they the ability to be creative and do what the world never expected of them.

    Holding them back at this point is just prolonging the war.

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Holding them back at this point is just prolonging the war.

      “Oh noooo!” - Military Industrial Complex

    • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      No. Ukraine is not the US or Russia, it is more on the scale of Germany. It does not have an industrial base outside the range of Russian bombardment (which was also a problem for Germany in ww2). Any advanced weapons systems they use will have to come from outside.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Ukraine

        In 2012, Ukraine’s export-oriented arms industry had reached the status of world’s 4th largest arms exporter.[1]Since the start of the war in Donbas, Ukraine’s military industry has focused more on its internal arms market and as a result slipped to the 9th spot among top global arms exporters by 2015,[2]11th spot by 2018,[3] and the 12th spot among global arms exporters by 2019.

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          https://archive.ph/HjueX

          The intensity of the war pre in 2014-2022 is nowhere near what it is now. They’ve had to scramble to even manufacture enough shells let alone weapons systems. The article mentions as well that the new manufacturing capacities have been targeted by Russian artillery.

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    4 months ago

    This guy wants blood so bad , I wonder which business he is “representing”

  • Thespiralsong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ukraine is being attacked, give them money!

    Ukraine is holding off Russia, give them money!

    Ukraine is attacking Russia directly…? Uhh… give them money!

    • Destide@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Russia still in their territory give them money well actually give them a lot of stuff we were going throw away. I don’t think someone knows how this works

      • Thespiralsong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I know how it works. It’s just gross. Watching seemingly endless money get poured into a war machine so we can get right up on russias border… And at the end of the day, Flint Michigan still has undrinkable water. Guess I’m just getting a bit tired of suffering getting the lion share of our tax dollar.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      A big difference is that unlike Russia, they didn’t immediately annex the region, without even controlling the capital. They even announced that annexation isn’t happening. They plan on returning this buffer zone/bargaining chip, once they have a guarantee that Russia will put an end to the endless invasions they’ve been partaking in since the federation’s inception. Or at least on their territory, but it would be nice if they stopped being a terrorist state.

      Also Ukraine has proven to be a MUCH more merciful invader than Russia, it’s not even comparable. Actually proving the smallest amount of basic needs and help with evacuation for the occupied population. As opposed to RAPING THEM TO DEATH! Russia’s army manages to commit worse atrocities while running away than the invading Ukranian force, it’s honestly unbelievable… Plundering their own. You can’t make this shit up.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      As long as there are unwanted Russian military in your country, you are free to attack Russia back.

      Ukraine didn’t start this war, but we will keep giving them aid until they win it.

      If they have to blow up Russia in the process, that is on Putin who can stop the war at any moment.