64
Honestly it's fucking ridiculous at this point. Giving them weapons but limiting their use. I can't think of other times this has happened.
It's somewhat analogous to the policy the US used with Finland around World War 2.
In the Winter War, the Soviet Union invaded Finland, attempted to annex it. The US provided financial support and some other aid to Finland. Then Germany attacked the Soviet Union and the US wound up on the same side of the war as the Soviet Union. They were both on the Allied side. However...the Soviet Union and the US didn't agree on Finland.
Stalin demanded that the UK and US attack Finland. The UK did some rather limited pro forma airstrikes. The US told Stalin that he could shove right off with that.
As long as Finland was defending its own territory, the US was okay with it. But then Finland -- who was conducting an offensive in conjunction with Germany -- pushed back Soviet forces far enough that it could head outside its borders into the Soviet Union, and even more problematically started heading towards cutting supply lines linking supplies from the US to Soviet troops fighting against invading German forces.
That was a different story.
The US told Mannerheim that if Finland started cutting into the Soviet Union and severed those supply lines, that'd be it -- it would enter the conflict against Finland. It'd support Finland defending Finnish territory, but not hauling off into Soviet territory.
Is a policy of limited support in Ukraine the right one? I don't know. But I don't think that limiting support, saying that one can fight forces that have invaded without restriction but can't go clobber things in the other country with said weapons is intrinsically unreasonable. The "you can use weapons that cross the border to hit Russian forces that are taking advantage of that policy to attack you from safety in Russian territory" isn't really a fundamental rewriting of that policy. It's just refining it so that Russia can't exploit the border to stage forces.
I don't think that it is likely that the US will move on this policy. That is, the US has probably decided, after a lot of deliberation in the bureaucracy among experts, that it is not looking to have a war in Russia. As long as Russia is sending forces into Ukraine, then those are fair game. If Ukraine wants to cut into Russia with its resources, okay, the US doesn't own those resources. If someone else wants to provide resources to do that, okay, that's their resources.
I think that Ukraine has decided that -- especially as Russia is attacking their power generation infrastruture -- that conducting a strategic campaign against power generation infrastructure and fossil fuel infrastructure in Russia is fair game. Okay, that's their call. But I don't think that that's something that the US is bound to back; the US can say "we don't want to have a strategic bombing campaign against Russia's infrastructure". The flip side of "the US doesn't tell Ukraine what to do" is "the US isn't obligated to back every policy that Ukraine adopts".
They are only asking to target places that are being used to actively attack them though. Airfields and the like. So I don't personally see a difference between attacking across the border at troops vs aircraft.
They are only asking to target places that are being used to actively attack them though.
Are they? Because I see Ukraine using drones against infrastructure and sending them against the City of Moscow itself. That isn't wrong of them however it does lead to legitimate questions about where exactly they would strike with other weapons.
Yeah they've been very upfront about their targets. They want to attack places that are actively being used to attack them
Ukraine has drawn up a list of targets they would strike with the US weapons. And they have so far been using the US weapons only to strike targets allowed by the US. Even when it has been clearly against Ukrainian interests. I'd say that they can be trusted to only go after the targets they say. Ukraine cannot afford to lose western support.
I think what is preventing the US and allies from allowing strikes on deep Russian targets is the same as it ever was. The fear of escalation. And what they are trying to do is to slowly cook the frog. Small incremental increases in allowances.
Rain down black fire on those orcs
Wait. Germany didn't send any long range weapons, or did I miss something?
Correct, but Germany would be able to send them and give permissions for them being used to strike into Russia.
As far as I know they aren't able to do that, since Taurus would require German military personal on the ground in Ukraine to program them, which is not possible without a NATO or UN mandate, as per the German post war constitution. Also, Ukraine does not have a compatible launch platform for them either.
You only need those soldiers, when you want to control, which targets Ukraine can strike. Otherwise it would be possible to train up Ukranians to do it
However given that Ukraine is on record to have blown up Nord Stream, which has obvious value to Germany as well, this is highly unlikely to happen. Taurus could also be used to strike Germany from Ukranian aerospace after all.
Five if you count russia preventing them by leaving ukraine.
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)
Ukraine
8237 readers
365 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS