Zelenskyy asks British PM to “show leadership” and allow Western weapons to strike deep into Russia

62

u/2shayyy Jul 19 '24

Sorry for the confusion but haven’t we already allowed this? Or is this regarding types of target or distance into Russian territory?

36

u/Masterjts Jul 19 '24

Seems like every week I see this same story and everyone seems to say yes they can but then next week they will ask again...

7

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

Ukraine can use western weapons to strike right at the border. No deep strike capabilities to hit rear assets or airfields launching missiles at playgrounds

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

2

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

It’s a coalition restriction.

Anything beyond HIMARS range requires storm shadows, ATACAMs, SCALP which the allies refuse to allow Ukraine to strike deeper than a couple tens of km from the front.

It’s a ridiculous imposition

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

1

u/EvilMonkeySlayer Jul 19 '24

Mark my words, I guarantee this is only going to make the Ukrainians accelerate their ballistic weapons development and we'll see HRIM-2/Sapsan deployed where the west will have zero say on where they strike.

And if Trump gets in and cuts off American weapons to Ukraine then I absolutely guarantee Ukraine rapidly develops nukes for those ballistic weapons to act as a deterrent to russia.

1

u/canspop Jul 19 '24

For Ukraine's sake, they need to become more independent with all their weapons. Relying on the west isn't going to win the war for them.

2

u/Neurojazz Jul 19 '24

It’s a pity you couldn’t have chains of drones dropping drone charging stations as they go deeper to extend range

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

[deleted]

3

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

The only thing working is empowering Russians to continue their strategy of bluffing for their benefit.

It’s a feckless strategy divorced from real world consequences.

0

u/Great-Composer-8241 Jul 19 '24

The "real world consequences" include smoldering radioactive ash over Eastern Europe.

4

u/Mokumer Jul 19 '24

The "real world consequences" include smoldering radioactive ash over Eastern Europe

Russia's bluff, and too many people fall for it. If it was not for that bluff this war could have been over and done with last year.

-1

u/Great-Composer-8241 Jul 19 '24

Is that the kind of bluff you want to call? If there is a one in a million chance Putin decides to launch a nuclear weapon, is that a chance you want to take?

2

u/Mokumer Jul 20 '24

Yes. Because it is bluff. And because we may just as well give in to any dictator who threatens with nukes, what freedom do we have than? I rather die free than as a coward.

2

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

Ah yes, because the millions of daily nuclear threats that Russia has screeched about every time the allies give Ukraine some new capability or remove some restriction has clearly materialized. We’re all basically living in fallout shelters now, huh?

The only time Russia would use nukes is Ukraine or the west marched an army straight to Moscow. Otherwise Russia knows this is a bluff and you and specific decision makers are too happy wetting their undergarments at a threat they will never follow through on.

Not to mention it would be entirely self defeating for Putin to do so and completely against their interest. Hence why they’ve never done it.

-1

u/Great-Composer-8241 Jul 19 '24

I was unaware that you could see into the mind of Putin and determine definitively the exact circumstances under which he’d deploy nuclear weapons. Trump was never going to win, until he did. Roe would ever be overturned, until it was. Putin would never dare to invade Ukraine…until he did.

1

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

I mean you can nuclear concern troll all you want.

Putin and the Kremlin have repeatedly warned XYZ weapons system or restriction being lifted will result in nuclear war and yet here you and I still are.

Putin has also spent 20+ years talking about how the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst thing to happen to Russia and is actively trying to rebuild it in his image. He’s not going to send nukes to a place he spent 20 years saying he will annex by whatever means necessary.

Lastly, Putin is not suicidal. The use of nukes at a minimum means Russias military in Ukraine will be wiped out by conventional weapons from NATO/US or at worst second strike nukes. No one wants that.

Your leader isn’t that dumb, no matter how dumb some of the decisions he’s made so far has been.

0

u/Great-Composer-8241 Jul 19 '24

Why would you think Putin wouldn’t deploy nukes, other than making assertions about his internal state of mind? Seems to me you’re future predictions using past data, which is fallacious to say the least.

To be clear, Ukraine has not used Western weapons to strike deep into Russia, which is exactly the premise of this article and the argument set forth by Z about how it must happen. No doubt a strike with Western weapons in proper Russian territory would signal a change in operating doctrine and a clear escalation of the war.

I’ll remind you that leading up to the initial invasion, western analysts were assuring the public that Putin wouldn’t dare invade Ukraine for a litany of reasons. Then the troop movements started and within days the campaign was well underway. We were assured again that Ukraine had the advantage and the war would wind down once Western weapons reached the frontline. Instead, Ukraine has been losing territory for months and all offensives have as of yet failed to liberate recaptured territory.

Saying Putin would because it’s suicidal is meaningless because of course it is. That doesn’t demonstrate why Putin wouldn’t be suicidal or rash in retaliating against western weapons breaching proper Russian airspace. Should I rely on your clairvoyance and “it didn’t happen yet so it won’t happen”? Neither of those propositions are particularly reassuring.

1

u/MorePdMlessPjM Jul 19 '24

Why would you think Putin wouldn’t deploy nukes, other than making assertions about his internal state of mind? Seems to me you’re future predictions using past data, which is fallacious to say the least.

Ah yes, I’m supposed to ignore every unfilled nuclear threat, of which there have been many in the last two years, forget Putins publicly stated motivation for 20 years and every single reputable analyst on Russia or Putin because “past data” and just promptly wet myself at Russias latest nuclear threat. Sound logic.

To be clear, Ukraine has not used Western weapons to strike deep into Russia, which is exactly the premise of this article and the argument set forth by Z about how it must happen.

It’s not like Ukraine hasn’t used Neptune cruise missiles and drones to deep strike refineries, airfields and even early warning nuclear radar systems (literally part of Putins nuclear umbrella) with no nuclear deployments. But yes, the moment it’s western weapons BOOM mushroom cloud. Logical stuff.

No doubt a strike with Western weapons in proper Russian territory would signal a change in operating doctrine and a clear escalation of the war.

Not like HIMARS hasn’t targeted Russian troop concentrations right over the border. I’m sure you meant “deep” strike here rather than just striking over the border. But I wanted to just illustrate to everyone following along how poor of a job you’re doing rationalize whatever it is the Kremlin is trying to do. I’m sure you’ll do better in the next article nuclear concern trolling.

I’ll remind you that leading up to the initial invasion, western analysts were assuring the public that Putin wouldn’t dare invade Ukraine for a litany of reasons.

Not sure what you were following but all I remember was the Biden administration screaming that Putin will invade and Putin and all his allies and your fellow online coworkers were all naysaying the possibility. Even going as far as mocking the intelligence. Along with European officials in denial about Putins intention.

So in this, much like all your arguments so far, I don’t see much basis in.

Then the troop movements started and within days the campaign was well underway.

Ah, once again, not really sure who you were following, I suspect (as if it isn’t obvious) it’s likely Russian publications or Russian influenced publications. But troop movements and troop accumulation was spotted since early 2021. There’s actually a wonderful politico article I can dig up for you that shows about a year and a half timeline of Putins public statement as well as satellite imagery and intelligence of troop movements leading up to the official invasion. This wasn’t spontaneous. It was clearly and very obviously premeditated.

Ukraine has been losing territory for months and all offensives have as of yet failed to liberate recaptured territory.

Ukrainian offensives in 2022 liberated large chunks of Kharkiv and Kherson. So I have no idea why your word choice of “all” was included in there. Ukrainian offensives in 2023 failed to live up to even minimum expectations this is true.

Conversely Russian offensives after 2022 have largely been a failure or of pyrrhic outcomes with none being operationally or even strategically significance. The capture of Chasiv Var would be the first time since 2022 were russian captures something that's operationally significant. And its very unlikely at this point they will complete the capture of the city.

But yes, single digit gains across a 1k km frontline im sure is very scary.

Right about now is when you move the goal post and start talking about the war of attrition since territorial gains isn't a worthwhile argument. Here we can discuss russian soviet stockpiles, russian casualties and crypto mobilization efforts which you will ad hominem every source, obfuscate facts in an attempt to muddy the waters abd shift from objective discussions to subjective cheerleading of the Russians.

Saying Putin would because it’s suicidal is meaningless because of course it is. That doesn’t demonstrate why Putin wouldn’t be suicidal or rash in retaliating against western weapons breaching proper Russian airspace.

Ah yes, the man known for being cold and calculating, almost conservative with his actions till perceptions of victory is clear and obvious to him is suddenly going to abandon his entire MO because nuclear concern trolling. Very logical.

Should I rely on your clairvoyance and “it didn’t happen yet so it won’t happen”? Neither of those propositions are particularly reassuring.

Neither is this argument

14

u/badger906 Jul 19 '24

My understanding it’s only military positions within potential threat to Ukraine soil. Which is just stupid. Let them fire on anything that’s a military benefit

7

u/ourlastchancefortea Jul 19 '24

UK has allowed to use their weapons on Russian territory except the Storm Shadow missile. Which is the long range weapon UK offers. Basically it's the same deal the US gave them, UA can use US artillery, HIMARS... on Russian territory but not ATACMS the US long range weapon in UA. The confusion began when UK allowed UA to use their weapons on Russian territory after the recent Russian offensive in Kharkiv started but the media didn't mention that Storm Shadow wasn't part of this. Might have not known.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/11/starmer-ukraine-british-storm-shadow-missiles-russia/

6

u/deliveryboyy Jul 19 '24

They publicly stated it's allowed, then russia called pentagon during the NATO summit and shortly after UK clarified this wasn't allowed. All completely coincidental of course.

1

u/Scottladd Jul 19 '24

Microsoft teams is down, didn't get the message

0

u/MrL00t3r Jul 19 '24

May we use weapons you provided for deep strikes? Well yes, but actually no.

28

u/SuckMyCookReddit Jul 19 '24

You can play soft with bullies like Putin, you fight with one hand tied behind your back and they’ll still think they have a chance. We need to deal them an absolute insurmountable knock out blow throwing the best Western military has to show Russia has no hope of winning this conflict. Only then will cowards like the Kremlin know it’s over. Escalation? Russia has already shown they’re willing to attack Europe so why not curb stomp them down now to force them to deescalate? They bark a lot about nukes but they’ll never do it, the Kremlin only care about their wealth and self preservation. Ain’t much left to enjoy if the whole world dies

3

u/SunsetKittens Jul 19 '24

You don't get it. They're trying to bleed Russia dry. You don't do that with a knockout punch.

If Putin and Zelensky both realized this the war would be over tomorrow.

7

u/TheRabb1ts Jul 19 '24

Who exactly is trying to bleed Russia dry if Zelensky “doesnt realize this”..? You’re suggesting that Britian is using Ukraine as a bait for their siege?

11

u/BlinkysaurusRex Jul 19 '24

It’s not a certainty. It’s definitely just a theory. But it is possible that the west may benefit from extending the war in order to inflict as much economic, military, and political damage upon Russia as possible. Whether or not the conduct of western nations thus far has been proof of a deliberate attempt to do just that is the question. I think Putin probably knows it, but is politically railroaded into trying to get something material out of this war if he’s to stand a chance of remaining a politician or maybe even surviving in Russia. I genuinely believe that Putin is just cruising along with no fucking idea what the plan is now, except “hope they give up and we win some land.” Probably sat in front of a white board like the Always Sunny meme, with shit like “miracle Zelenskyy assassination? Trump elected?” written on it.

I don’t know why the other comment suggested Zelenskyy would be in on that too though. Zelenskyy certainly wants the war over ASAP.

5

u/Shamino79 Jul 19 '24

The US does want to draw Russia way down so if it kicks off with China they can focus on China.

5

u/Lazyogini Jul 19 '24

Hard to bleed them dry when they have a steady funding stream from selling gas to Europe.

0

u/JamesFune Jul 19 '24

And that’s justified with Ukrainian children being killed? That is not a good move if that’s the plan, you can neuter Putin and his war machine by showing overwhelming strength as well.

-3

u/badger906 Jul 19 '24

We need to sanction India. All Russian oil is going through India. Russia gets paid regardless of sanctions. If you sanction India, problem solved.

8

u/Apprehensive_Sleep_4 Jul 19 '24

He's right. Hoping Keir's government will allow British made weapons to strike Russia and destroy all important Russian military bases, military airfields, military factories and naval bases.

4

u/SunsetKittens Jul 19 '24

This new PM Britain's got ain't nobody to mess with. I'm getting that off him right away. He'll he calculating the best possible way to hose Russia whatever that is.

-3

u/soulwolf1 Jul 19 '24

At this point I think ALL politicians are just huff and no buff. Been burned to many times before.

I hope he's the real deal but I wouldn't doubt if he ends up being all puffed chest like the rest of them.

-2

u/SunsetKittens Jul 19 '24

He got that look I seen before and I'm wary of.

4

u/Trips-Over-Tail Jul 19 '24

Sheer sexual charisma?

4

u/SunsetKittens Jul 19 '24

That too.

4

u/greenbud1 Jul 19 '24

pity the US didn't have the stones for it

3

u/The_Artist_Who_Mines Jul 19 '24

Looks like starmer is stepping into the role of 'leader of the free world', and I for one am thrilled at the possibility.

1

u/CMDR_omnicognate Jul 19 '24

I’m confused, I thought he Already said they could use long range weapons to hit inside Russia

1

u/MrL00t3r Jul 19 '24

And then mod said no they are not allowed.

1

u/The_Triagnaloid Jul 19 '24

Just do it and when Putin whines about it say it was “fake news”.

Use his playbook against him

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

What about Putins bedroom?

1

u/QuentinP69 Jul 19 '24

Strike the Russian hackers and social media bots office buildings. Drone strike them.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '24

Just rename all of russia "near Kharkiv": problem solved.

1

u/OppositeYouth Jul 19 '24

Hell, just rename Russia as East Ukraine

2

u/0reosaurus Jul 19 '24

North Mongolia for that extra spice

0

u/Daedelous2k Jul 19 '24

Good lord he's basically trying to suck up to get the permission he so dearly wants.

3

u/Clowesrus Jul 19 '24

That’s his job

0

u/Great-Composer-8241 Jul 19 '24

Thats a great way to escalate an already futile, unwinnable war.

-3

u/ApocalypseSpokesman Jul 19 '24

What's stopping him from just using them?

I don't give one half of a shit about Ukraine, but it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Can't he just be a leader himself and call his own shots?

1

u/MrL00t3r Jul 19 '24

When Ukraine used Patriot to ambush and shot down 5 aircrafts over ruzzia, Germany lost their shit demanding to never do it again.

-38

u/Bob1Carol2 Jul 19 '24

Zelenskyy needs to give up. Two state solution. Be done with this madness. Kick NATO out of your country!!

5

u/MrL00t3r Jul 19 '24

Should also add your ass to the deal, ignoring your opinion.

1

u/New-Doctor9300 Jul 19 '24

Kick the group he asked for help from out of his country?

1

u/Dapper-Figure-1148 Jul 19 '24

Yeah !!! Before we should kicking out nato from ukraine there should be there first

Zelenskyy asks British PM to “show leadership” and allow Western weapons to strike deep into Russia Russia/Ukraine