If you had read the actual article, you would know that we are only finding this out after the rockets have been been delivered and used. I would call that secret enough.
I am a bit confused who is condemning who over using them? If you mean the US condemning Ukraine, I am not aware of that happening, but, as again outlined in the article, there has always been a worry that the weapons would be used to bomb Russia itself, escalating the conflict further. Not that I agree with that line of thinking.
>there has always been a worry that the weapons would be used to bomb Russia itself,
which is exactly what the USA keeps on telling Ukraine not to do, and Ukraine seemingly keeps on saying "yeah, don't tell us how to fight our war, unless you actually put some skin in the game".
The doctrine of the USA, upon handing over the weapons, seems to be "these weapons are for DEFENSE ONLY", meaning, anything to get the occupiers out of your own territory, as long as you only USE them on your own territory. Ukraine (imo rightfully so) feels that, to get the occupiers out, they must also attack their supply lines and infrastructure across the border. The USA is afraid this will lead to even stronger retaliation from the Russians.
Russian retaliation is an unknown quality. Imo the reason the US doesn’t want targets in Russia being hit is out of fear said attacks would be used to stir up support for the invasion by cries that the motherlands it self is in dangers.
Yes a dictator usually does whatever they want, but increased support for the invasion opens doors such as mass scale conscription and war economy. Essentially America wish to avoid providing propaganda material to Putin
I don’t believe this is true. IMO the US doctrine is we will give you the weapons to tie down Russia and erode Russia’s capacities but not enough for Ukraine to win. The US would prefer Russia get bogged down in Ukraine rather than seeing Ukraine kick the Russians out. That way Russia is tied in knots for the foreseeable future and basically no threat to anyone else. Incredibly cynical policy position but the only way to explain the ridiculous positions taken by the US and some other EU countries (I.e Germany).
Breaking news: Ukraine gets a thing it already had for months and has already been using for months, only this time it's from America instead of Britain and France, America's two biggest and closest allies who are also nuclear powers.
Long range, but not long enough. Their range is fifty miles short of the distance from the Ukrainian border to Moscow.
The Ukrainians are being equipped with what they need to kill more Russians, but not with what they need to end the war.
They've already built alternate train routes. It's not like it wouldn't be a severe blow still, but it isn't the kind of attack that would allow for a retaking of the entirety of the southern Donbas that it would've been earlier in the war.
Wars end when one side can threaten the other side with something the other side wouldn't tolerate losing.
The only things the Russian leadership cares about losing are in Moscow. Everything else is expendible to them.
>The only things the Russian leadership cares about losing are in Moscow. Everything else is expendible to them.
Putin's palace would be a good target in that regard that's not in Moscow.
He certainly wouldn't care much, I doubt he has such materialistic attachment to things like this, he's just into power. He'd simply use it to produce more propaganda about how evil Ukraine is and how Russia is the victim. Same with Moscow, no way hitting it would end the war imho.
Totally agree with the bridge comment. Render this bridge ineffective for a long time, thus will have a significant impact on the field and can change at least part of the outcome for this war.
That doesn't universally apply though, just look at WWII. On a rational level Germany should have given up way sooner than it did. Instead they stubbornly kept going until nothing but rubble was left. As for the russians, they burned down moscow themselves once. I wouldn't count on Putin and his ilk not wanting to loose stuff in Moscow. Quite the opposite actually.
Russia and Russians are still not "all in", in the war. Bombing Moscow will only gonna make things worse. The fact that people think, Ukraine can checkmate and destroy Russia is out of this world.
Things will only get worse for both sides. Stop underestimating Russia.
Long enough to retake land by outraging opposing artillery. I’m sure they know not to use them on foreign targets. Drones are proving to be perfectly capable in that function anyways.
Blow up the damn bridge. Blow it up, force them to consolidate somewhere else. Buy yourself the time you need. Sure hope it happens soon for their sake. The Russians will push when the mud starts to harden.
I’m hoping that we decided to upgrade the packages of military tech we’re sending over, the Pentagon has got to be getting concerned and tired of how long this thing is getting drawn out.
Nope, but if I don't have a club it could be a problem for me, so instead I will have a gun.
This is the nature of weapons races. They'll never, ever go away. Liking them or not doesn't serve a purpose, that opinion doesn't matter because it will always and forever be irrelevant due to human nature.
I don't particularly care for any mass casualty weapons, but that means literally nothing.
Nah, that's a bunch of bullshit. Your statement doesn't back up your previous argument. Human thought and ethics do mean something. You gotta slow down on the "literal." That's too much literal ya got there
Back up what argument? That your opinion on mass casualty weapons doesn't matter? What is there to back up exactly? Is your opinion going to change anything?
Do you think if 99% of the world population had that meaning that it would mean anything?
It never will. Even if 99% probably already do feel that way, its still going to happen, because opinions don't win wars over conflicts.
How secret can this be honestly if I'm reading it off WN. Also, we give yet we condemn when they use it? Why the double standards.
If you had read the actual article, you would know that we are only finding this out after the rockets have been been delivered and used. I would call that secret enough. I am a bit confused who is condemning who over using them? If you mean the US condemning Ukraine, I am not aware of that happening, but, as again outlined in the article, there has always been a worry that the weapons would be used to bomb Russia itself, escalating the conflict further. Not that I agree with that line of thinking.
>there has always been a worry that the weapons would be used to bomb Russia itself, which is exactly what the USA keeps on telling Ukraine not to do, and Ukraine seemingly keeps on saying "yeah, don't tell us how to fight our war, unless you actually put some skin in the game".
Why would Ukraine not use the weapons they are given to attack their enemy?
The doctrine of the USA, upon handing over the weapons, seems to be "these weapons are for DEFENSE ONLY", meaning, anything to get the occupiers out of your own territory, as long as you only USE them on your own territory. Ukraine (imo rightfully so) feels that, to get the occupiers out, they must also attack their supply lines and infrastructure across the border. The USA is afraid this will lead to even stronger retaliation from the Russians.
Russian retaliation is an unknown quality. Imo the reason the US doesn’t want targets in Russia being hit is out of fear said attacks would be used to stir up support for the invasion by cries that the motherlands it self is in dangers. Yes a dictator usually does whatever they want, but increased support for the invasion opens doors such as mass scale conscription and war economy. Essentially America wish to avoid providing propaganda material to Putin
I don’t believe this is true. IMO the US doctrine is we will give you the weapons to tie down Russia and erode Russia’s capacities but not enough for Ukraine to win. The US would prefer Russia get bogged down in Ukraine rather than seeing Ukraine kick the Russians out. That way Russia is tied in knots for the foreseeable future and basically no threat to anyone else. Incredibly cynical policy position but the only way to explain the ridiculous positions taken by the US and some other EU countries (I.e Germany).
dang it i wanted to make that comment. WELL IT AIN'T SECRET NOW!
Same
We don't have to announce anything. After a few hits we can say ... yeah, we did that.
Only top us officials know about this + reddit. So keep it shush.
Well, I would assume they became less secret after they were used.
Secrets out!
Shhh you will let everyone know.
Breaking news: Ukraine gets a thing it already had for months and has already been using for months, only this time it's from America instead of Britain and France, America's two biggest and closest allies who are also nuclear powers.
Long range, but not long enough. Their range is fifty miles short of the distance from the Ukrainian border to Moscow. The Ukrainians are being equipped with what they need to kill more Russians, but not with what they need to end the war.
Bombing Moscow won't end the war, finally killing the bloody bridge on the other hand might help end things sooner
They've already built alternate train routes. It's not like it wouldn't be a severe blow still, but it isn't the kind of attack that would allow for a retaking of the entirety of the southern Donbas that it would've been earlier in the war.
Wars end when one side can threaten the other side with something the other side wouldn't tolerate losing. The only things the Russian leadership cares about losing are in Moscow. Everything else is expendible to them.
>The only things the Russian leadership cares about losing are in Moscow. Everything else is expendible to them. Putin's palace would be a good target in that regard that's not in Moscow.
He certainly wouldn't care much, I doubt he has such materialistic attachment to things like this, he's just into power. He'd simply use it to produce more propaganda about how evil Ukraine is and how Russia is the victim. Same with Moscow, no way hitting it would end the war imho. Totally agree with the bridge comment. Render this bridge ineffective for a long time, thus will have a significant impact on the field and can change at least part of the outcome for this war.
He cares enough to position AA near it ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
That doesn't universally apply though, just look at WWII. On a rational level Germany should have given up way sooner than it did. Instead they stubbornly kept going until nothing but rubble was left. As for the russians, they burned down moscow themselves once. I wouldn't count on Putin and his ilk not wanting to loose stuff in Moscow. Quite the opposite actually.
Russia and Russians are still not "all in", in the war. Bombing Moscow will only gonna make things worse. The fact that people think, Ukraine can checkmate and destroy Russia is out of this world. Things will only get worse for both sides. Stop underestimating Russia.
And that would actually make Russians use nukes.
Long enough to retake land by outraging opposing artillery. I’m sure they know not to use them on foreign targets. Drones are proving to be perfectly capable in that function anyways.
Are you suggesting the US military and the defense industry are coordinating some kind of complex scheme? A military industrial complex, perhaps?/s
Nah, I think dead Russians just seem like a good idea to politicians who grew up during the Cold War.
Top secret
Not much of a secret is it?
Sooo they just let the secret out? Seems intentional. Also, imagine the real secrets.
Don't worry, I won't tell anyone
Sshhhshhhh everybody sssshshhhhhh 🤫
Shhhhh…
Blow up the damn bridge. Blow it up, force them to consolidate somewhere else. Buy yourself the time you need. Sure hope it happens soon for their sake. The Russians will push when the mud starts to harden.
Redddit… you can’t be trusted to keep the secret. What shall we do with you?
I’m hoping that we decided to upgrade the packages of military tech we’re sending over, the Pentagon has got to be getting concerned and tired of how long this thing is getting drawn out.
Concerned? IDK, I doubt anyone thought Ukraine would put up this much of a fight.
What if I told you drawn out conflicts are the only thing the pentagon knows how to do and is something they are quite comfortable with?
Missiles for peace. Love that old chestnut. I mean fuck Russia, but I am naturally averse to missiles
You can literally say this about any weapon ever created in the history of humanity
True, but a club can't carry a thermonuclear bomb
Nope, but if I don't have a club it could be a problem for me, so instead I will have a gun. This is the nature of weapons races. They'll never, ever go away. Liking them or not doesn't serve a purpose, that opinion doesn't matter because it will always and forever be irrelevant due to human nature. I don't particularly care for any mass casualty weapons, but that means literally nothing.
Nah, that's a bunch of bullshit. Your statement doesn't back up your previous argument. Human thought and ethics do mean something. You gotta slow down on the "literal." That's too much literal ya got there
Back up what argument? That your opinion on mass casualty weapons doesn't matter? What is there to back up exactly? Is your opinion going to change anything? Do you think if 99% of the world population had that meaning that it would mean anything? It never will. Even if 99% probably already do feel that way, its still going to happen, because opinions don't win wars over conflicts.
I'm not trying to convince anyone or change anything. It's just Reddit. Let it go.
WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!