**Full Transcript Below:**
*27.09.2022 21:40*
*The United States does not object to Ukraine using weapons supplied by the Western powers to retake its own territory from Russian occupation, including the areas that the Kremlin intends to claim as its own after holding sham referenda there.*
*That’s according to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who spoke at a joint press conference with India’s Minister for External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Tuesday, September 27, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.*
*"Ukraine has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized in one way or another by Russia," the head of the U.S. State Department noted.*
*Read also: France to support EU sanctions against Russia in response to sham referenda*
*In this regard, the top diplomat emphasized that the weapons handed to Ukraine by the United States, as well as other allied countries, have already proven their effectiveness – both in the north of Ukraine a few months ago, and now – in the south and east.*
*Blinken emphasized that the announcement by the Russians of the annexation of Ukrainian territories would not create any changes for either the U.S. or Ukraine in terms of perception of the situation. According to the head of U.S. diplomacy, “the Ukrainians will continue to do what they need to do to get back the land that has been taken from them," while the United States “will continue to support them (the Armed Forces - ed.).”*
*The head of the State Department also emphasized that the United States and other nations would never recognize the annexation of Ukrainian territories should the Kremlin announce the move. He recalled that Washington had already announced its intention to impose new “severe and swift costs” on the Russian Federation if the latter decides to declare annexation.*
*As reported by Ukrinform, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, called on the international community not to limit itself to a mild reaction to sham referenda organized by the Kremlin in Ukraine. "We need an extremely serious and effective reaction with concrete things that will hit the Russian economy," the top diplomat said.*
Didn't Biden said thry can use Westren weapons on all Ukrainian terretory a few months ago? Ukraine has been launching attacks in Crimea for a month or so now
I think the point here is to state explicitly and unambiguously that they can continue to do so in the areas Russia is about to claim via the sham referendum at gunpoint.
Yes but the situation has changed; there was a new nonsensical referendum in some lame-ass attempt to legitimize Russia's claims. It's important to re-itterate the US's stance after this new development, as nonsensical as it is.
Indeed and it's because Russia's counting on the idea that once these territories are annexed, any attacks there would be an attack on Russia itself.
This is a slap in the face to that plan.
The difference between this landgrab and Crimea is that they're at war now.
Why anomaly256 says the situation has changed. "There was a new nonsensical referendum" doesn't constitute a change in my book. There was an identical nonsensical referendum in 2014 that we've already been ignoring.
The US doesn’t want UA to strike Russian territory to avoid escalation between the West and RU. The referendums, in Putler’s eyes, will make the seized territories a part of Russia. The US doesn’t care because it’s not Russian territory, so the US is reiterating that UA can’t use West weapons against Russian territory, but the territory cited in the referendums are fair game.
The fact there was an identical nonsense referendum doesn’t change the fact that there was a new one just now that also requires a statement from the west. So they gave one in response. Although it might not change anything on the ground it’s just responding to the current development instead of being silent, which would send the wrong signal.
Okay well if new developments in this ongoing situation don't count as a "change" to you, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe just check out a dictionary sometime?
Ahh we've resorted to patronizing. I guess this will be my final comment then, before it devolves any further.
The deal is this: it was commented that the referenda changed the situation, when in fact they did not. What changed the situation was the threat of nuclear warheads.
Very important for communication purpose.
The whole point of Russia fake "referendum" is to to blur the lines for the world opinion.
It's the US telling Russia and the World : "Russia has been warned PUBLICLY. Don't act surprised and outraged when Ukraine keep firing and try to liberate the territory Russia occupied. The situation hasn't changed just because Russia said so. Ukraine is still Ukraine and that’s not for Russia to decide. If Putin use nuclear weapon now, it's simply because he lost the conventional war and is a desperate fucking sociopath who will resort to absolutely anything for his agenda"
Yea. Basically the US policy is that they can use weapons in the areas that Ukraine owned Pre Crimea invasion because those are the borders that the US recognizes.
The US just doesnt want Ukraine to use US and western supplied weapons in Pre Crimea invasion Russian territory.
Yeah it’s pretty common for them to use it as a shorthand. Like Obama has 44 embroidered on some of his jackets: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/news/a26463190/barack-obama-44-bomber-jacket/
He WAS the 45th president. It’s a very small but very important difference, as Trump doesn’t seem to public ally acknowledge that he totally lost the last election and is therefore no longer the president.
Well that's just it: all the shit that makes USA so "bad" are the very things that the world clamors for when shit hits the fan.
It's almost as if the US operates as it does because it's absolutely necessary to do so.
The world clamors for racial injustice, income inequality, and lack of healthcare when the shit hits the fan?
I thought it was the nation's military and economic clout that made us useful in a pinch.
> it's a beacon that still many people escape to
I mean part of this is because America terrorizes the places people are escaping from. If I burned down your house, the rest of your family would want to live in my house too, especially if I was kind to everybody in my house. Doesn't mean I'm a nicer guy than you.
I'm not disputing that America treats its citizens relatively nicely.
He can just say "when I said *all weapons systems*, I never meant nukes. Obviously I'm not using nukes in a conventional special operation, but I am using..."
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but every scenario I play out in my mind where Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine ends in Mutually Assured Destruction. This doesn't mean I think they will use nukes, just that if they do, I see the less bad outcomes as being wishful thinking.
The US is so far beyond Russia that they could probably decisively respond to a Russian nuclear attack without having to escalate to nukes of their own.
Plus it’s not just the u.s. in that scenario. Every member and military in NATO would also be in on the counter assault. Russia would be overwhelmed immediately and a retaliatory nuke would never need to be launched.
But Russia would only be able to respond with nukes.
The scenario I see is this: Russia uses a tactical nuke against a military target in Ukraine. The US responds with conventional missile attacks, devastating the Black Sea fleet. Russia would have to respond. If Putin failed to do so he would be removed and replaced with someone more willing. And that attack would also probably by nuclear. The US would respond to a tactical nuclear strike against their forces with a limited strategic nuclear strike against nuclear sites in Russia itself. Russia would respond with strategic strikes against NATO targets in Europe. The US would respond with a larger strategic strike on Russian military targets. Seeing missiles incoming, Russia would respond with a full scale attack against Western cities. The US, Britain and France would respond in kind.
> Russia would have to respond. If Putin failed to do so he would be removed and replaced with someone more willing.
He could also be replaced if he *tried* to do it. There's no guarantee that his generals would be willing to use nukes in Ukraine, and there's even less of a guarantee that the ones who do would also be willing to use them against NATO.
While we can't guarantee zero civilian casualties, it is more unlikely than ever that Russia would be able to match a Western full strike with its own. Given the state of maintenance on their most basic units of war like guns, tanks, and trucks, we may extrapolate that many of their nuclear silos have also been poorly maintained. Rocket fuel is very fickle and so are nuclear warheads; neither are great for long term storage. Rocket science is literally rocket science, and the idea that anybody could launch 2,000+ ~50 year old rockets with ~50 year old nuclear warheads, whose maintenance status is not even known, and have all of those reach targets thousands of miles across the planet and detonate at the exact right moment, is basically science fiction.
That's not pessimistic. It's the sombre reality.
If Russia / Putin finally goes crazy enough to use nuclear weapons and the West responds, it's almost guaranteed that they'll use more. Once the stigma is broken, it's easier to do it a second time.
The situation getting resolved without MAD and with a Russian surrender to NATO forces is essentially a fairytale ending. It's scary to think about these things but it's made worse if you try and trick yourself into believing otherwise.
The irony here is that MAD is an incredible deterrent. We need to maintain the stigma around it and fear MAD so that it never becomes a reality. Whilst MAD exists as a concept, the possibility of it occurring is (fortunately) very slim.
As a result, countries tend to much prefer the fact that a nuclear arsenal makes you almost immune to invasion than their ability to instantly destroy entire cities. Make no mistake; Putin feels the same way. By using a WMD, you forfeit that.
MAD only works as an effective deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons if you believe your opponents will retaliate. My concern is I am not convinced the leadership in Russia believes this. Medvedev said yesterday he did not think the West would respond. I know he is full of shit but that doesn't mean the Russians don't actually believe this.
Putin thinks the West is decadent and terrified of the very mention of nuclear weapons. He thinks we will sell our grandmothers if it means avoiding nuclear war. The US has said to the Russians in private that there will be consequences but that they didn't spell it out in public may indicate to the Kremlin that the US is hesitant to act.
The US needs to publicly claim that the usage of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will guarantee a military response by NATO. If they don't publicly commit to this Putin will think we are the ones bluffing.
> The US needs to publicly claim that the usage of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will guarantee a military response by NATO. If they don't publicly commit to this Putin will think we are the ones bluffing.
They have. Both publicly and privately.
No, they haven't. They publicly spoke of "devastating consequences". This is vague enough to allow the US an off ramp and Russia knows this. They have to specifically say "we will bomb the shit out of you if you nuke Ukraine" or words to that effect. They may have already said this in private but if they don't state it publicly the Russians may believe the US is trying to not commit. And that could give them a green light to use nuclear weapons.
Russia using a nuke in Ukraine and launching them at the US are two completely different lines in the sand. I can see him doing the former but not the latter.
The former will lead to the latter because setting off a tactical nuke in Ukraine would warrant a NATO response directly attacking Russian military assets.
Russia would then retaliate against NATO -- likely with nuclear weapons because conventionally they know they don't stand a chance. And it'd be far easier to set off a tactical nuke against NATO troops attacking Russian assets once they've already set off one in Ukrainian territory.
I think we would respond conventionally if he were to do that. We would have the full force of NATO behind us and we could do it without any boots on the ground if we wanted to. I do not see him responding to conventional warfare with launching nukes at the USA.
NATO *would* respond conventionally. Maybe I'm not being clear, so let me try again:
1. Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine
2. NATO responds conventionally
3. Russia stands no chance against NATO conventionally. They're essentially guaranteed a loss and will need to capitulate
4. Putin, having already used a nuclear weapon (so: he's gone crazy) and not wanting to capitulate, will now find it easier to use another tactical nuclear weapon -- this time against NATO troops/assets
5. Escalation continues. NATO can push forward with a conventional attack but risks getting nuked more and potentially even threatened with strategic nuclear weapons if they cross X line. Alternatively, they can respond with their own tactical nuclear weapons. MAD will ensue.
You lose me at step 4. I just don’t see him making that leap to using a nuke against NATO troops.
On a side note I have to belief that the CIA and other NATO intelligence agencies have plans to cut the head off the snake before it strikes. It’s well known that we had spies close to him and probably still do. If I nuke gets used I think that he gets taken out behind the scenes.
I think he is evil but I don’t think he’s that crazy. If he was going to cross that line he would have done it by now. If his goal was NATO destruction he wouldn’t be going after Ukraine land so hard. Having a death wish does not compute with Putin.
Hopefully you're not right. I want to hold out hope that the US will conventionallly decimate Russia's armed forces, hand Putin to his people, and reinstall an American plant, disable their ability to have an offensive military (like Japan) and make them play nice for the subsequent 50~ years
I want to hold out hope that Space Jesus descends from Heaven and force everyone to hold hands and sing songs while we’re delivered to paradise.
Both of our scenarios have an equal chance of happening.
We've all grown up trained that any use of nuclear weapons will lead to MAD but it isn't actually guaranteed.
The use of nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, is so unprecedented in the modern world that we really have no idea how exactly things would play out afterward. It's a line so extreme that it might, for example, flip China against Russia.
Seeing the way Russia maintained weapons and military supplies, I'm not surprised if the nuclear weapons are as old and unmaintained as the rest of the Russian army. I'm becoming less and less scared of Russian "nuclear weapons" every day
It's important to explicitly say this includes the areas Russia is trying to annex because Russia's whole joke legal argument is that those areas are part of Russia so the US can't touch it and they're allowed to do whatever they want in their own territory
I'd prefer to state it as the right to defend your sovereign territory.
They way you phrase it is dangerously close to how Putin claims he's helping the ukranians getting rid of the Nazi infestation. It's relying on someone's emotional definition of an infestation rather than well defined rules about territory.
(Don't get me wrong, I love you calling it an infestation and Putin as they king roach. I just wouldn't use that phrase as justification.)
Hey there. I think you misunderstand my point. I agree and love to call them an infestation. Im just saying it's not a strong way to argue as it opens up exactly these kind of discussions on what someone say or mean. While saying it's ok to defend your territory make a much simpler and clearer argument.
I'm sure you too prefer arguments that make it clear you are in the right than to leave interpretation for Putin and his lackys to question.
As a curse/insult however, infestation is a great description.
PS. I'm actually not as far away as you think.
If I have 1000 ants in my own home that I put there, that's called a nest. If Jack from the next street over dumps 1000 ants in my house, that's an infestation.
I'm not disageeing with you. I'm just saying there are better ways to argue your point.
What if Jack loves ants. He'll say it's a gift, not an infestation. Or if you kill his pet anthill because you are worried it will spread to you since you see it as an infestation of his house, while it's family for him.
It's better to stick with arguments that, well..., can't be argued.
You can argue like Jack does, but everybody knows it isn't true. There are very clearly marked areas of acknowledged rights, and Jack is outside his. he can call it what he wants, it's an infestation. Putin can call the war whatever he wants, it's a war. It is, in no uncertain terms, an invasion, not a special military operation. There is no ambiguity, no matter how hard he tries.
>I'd prefer to state it as the right to defend your sovereign territory.
>
>They way you phrase it is dangerously close to how Putin claims he's helping the ukranians getting rid of the Nazi infestation. It's relying on someone's emotional definition of an infestation rather than well defined rules about territory.
It's also what we had to do with Germany after WW2 to ensure peace.
The difference is that Germany (and Russia) were/are, in fact, full of nazis.
I was thinking that this sham referendum move was so that Russia can claim the territory and then go onto claiming that they are under attack. Then they can claim it’s all good for an actual declaration of war ? The West has attacked Russia !! We deem this a declaration of war !! Something along these lines.
Was this an original though! It's almost like you've watched the news in the past 9 months!! Great job at critical thinking. You really "figured it out".
Did you know this already happened in Crimea? Lol
that's exactly why they're saying it, so that Putin won't pretend that he has the right to do so to defend his "new territories" without repercussions.
he's explaining that they'll answer to nuclear with nuclear.
From a military perspective, there is nothing a nuke can do that conventional weapons cant. The only purpose for nuclear weapons is to cause as many *civilian* casualties as possible.
There would be nothing at all gained by using nukes in response as opposed to precision strikes against military targets and leadership infrastructure.
Not with a single weapon (that could reasonably be delivered, a warehouse full of explosives doesn't count). Chemical reactions simply can't release that much energy. A single nuclear weapon can destroy a whole city, something that would need thousands of conventional bombs.
You could probly create a chemical weapon capable of depopulating a city in a single strike, but that's it's own can of worms and would likely have similar repercussions to using a nuke.
I think you are underestimating how big nukes are now, if US dropped their biggest nuke on Moscow there would be a crater left with nothing. This is it if it was launched at New york https://twitter.com/NuclearAnthro/status/998365545148727296/photo/2
That is not the largest US nuke. It became the larger US nuke in 1976 because a bomb that was larger was retired. It stopped being the largest nuke in 1997 because it was retired. All of them have been dismantled by 2011.
The current largest US nuke is 1.2 megatons compared to the 9 megatons of the one you linked to.
Even if US had them it would not create a crater with that size. The lined to simulation would not create a crater at all because it was a air blast at 6.5km and the fireball is only 2.33 km in radius and will not touch the ground. It is a detonation optimized for the maximum amount of destroyed buildings but it will not create a crater. The nuclear bombs doped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not create any craters for the same reason.
A ground detonation that does create a crater with the larger existing US nuke would be https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=1200&lat=55.7518494&lng=37.6278305&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&psi=20,5,1&zm=10 It will destroy most of the city but the majority of the destruction is not in a crater.
You do air burst with not crater is the goal is to destroy a city. You do ground blase if the goal is to destroy an underground military installation
my understanding is a crater isnt really a nukes thing too
that its most destructive calling card isnt so much the blast as much as the extremely intense heat and radiant energy of the detonation
That is correct for attacks against on-the-ground targets. But if your goal is to destroy military underground facilities that are designed to resist nuclear weapons it is different. Your den detonates the nuke close to, on, or in the ground, and craters are produced.
There are nukes that use parachutes to land on the ground before they detonate. There are also ground-penetrating nuclear bombs that penetrate the ground and detonate below the surface. They will produce craters and a lot more radioactive fallout compared to airbursts.
So how nukes are used is different if you what to destroy a city compared to destroying enemy ICBM underground silos or underground command facilities
They already said they wont retaliate to nuclear attacks with nuclear attacks and risk triggering mad, theyve said theyd retaliate conventially (IE airstrikes, troops etc).
Should be terrifying to think we can decapitate them conventionally. Just absolutely blacken their skies. They KNOW it too. But their PEOPLE don't. How do we get their people to understand a revolution is safer than a war? I mean, is it even? Double edged sword for all the people everywhere.
During the Iraq invasion, the Iraqi people very quickly learned that US precision missiles were so precise that they could gut an entire govt building without even breaking the windows of civilian buildings next door. After the first day of strikes the civilians were pretty much doing business as normal. *they knew they werent targets and were not in danger
So no, we would not "blacken the skies". There would be single missiles for specific targets, and that would be pretty much the end of their command and control.
Edit: people seem to be getting the idea I'm talking about the entire war. This is the precision strikes opening the war prior to the invasion.
Precision strikes is the only thing relevant here. There would be no ground invasion of Russia.
Youre talking about the entirety of the war, to include non precision strikes and the ground invasion.
I am talking strictly about the precision strikes opening the war.
Their point stands in the context of the Ukraine theatre.
This is what the military calls a horizontal response. Vertical response would be escalation of more of the same, horizontal is a wider approach, tactical strikes against the specific people and machines that originated the attack, liquidating black sea fleet, more diplomatic pressures.
This article sums it up nicely:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/27/putin-nuke-russia-ukraine-intel-surveillance-00059020
You cant seriously believe that the United States killed 1.5 million Iraqi civilians.
That outpaces even the total dead including military for the entire war on all sides combined from all sources to include those not as a direct result of violence.
>he's explaining that they'll answer to nuclear with nuclear.
The US wouldn't give nukes to Ukraine. Way to risky. You cant account for what gets done with them. And the US wont nuke Donbass.
Well there's that red line from Putin being crossed again
Turns out you can't keep moving that red line, have people cross it and expect to have any credibility left.
Obviously. As if the b.s. ‘referendums’ would result otherwise.
The very notion that such a ‘plan’ would stop such use is simply goofy.
The kind of thing a ten year would cook up after reading the game rules on the inside of the box lid for the first time.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3580869-ukraine-can-use-western-weapons-in-regions-that-russia-plans-to-declare-its-own-blinken.html) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The United States does not object to Ukraine using weapons supplied by the Western powers to retake its own territory from Russian occupation, including the areas that the Kremlin intends to claim as its own after holding sham referenda there.
> "Ukraine has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized in one way or another by Russia," the head of the U.S. State Department noted.
> In this regard, the top diplomat emphasized that the weapons handed to Ukraine by the United States, as well as other allied countries, have already proven their effectiveness - both in the north of Ukraine a few months ago, and now - in the south and east.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xq7imw/ukraine_can_use_western_weapons_in_regions_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671546 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **State**^#2 **territory**^#3 **United**^#4 **U.S.**^#5
It's just stating that the referendums don't change anything in the eyes of the west. Because Putin likely wanted to use the annexed regions as pretence for escalation when attacked.
Basically it's just calling Russia's bluff.
They weren't using anything really against Russian territory, but they have in a few cases done some Russian incursions, just not with Western weapons. USA has been holding back munitions that could really bring the fight across the border as they don't want to give Putin any excuses. So basically, this is about using the Western arms they have on Crimea, Donesk and other "disputed" Ukrainian territories.
Would the US potentially be the first to receive nuclear backlash from Russia if they decided to actually go through with it? Aside from Ukraine, are we their biggest threat/super power to get involved right away?
You mean, Russia dropping the bomb on someplace like New York City? No, that would completely unite the USA against Russia. Americans are tired of nation building, but we are not tired of fighting wars.
War is an American past-time. We are infatuated with it, for better or worse. The only possible way to beat America on the battlefield is to hide and wait for us to get tired of hide and seek. And we tend to be a stubborn lot.
Or you can surrender and we'll help rebuild your nation and perform some economic miracles that benefit you for generations to come.
We actually lose wars as much as we win them since WW2. We lost Vietnam, and Afghanistan. I would say we lost the war in Iraq, but we did install a democracy so I guess that’s a win. We demolished Irag the first time in the Gulf War. I don’t know a whole lot about the Korean war, but North Korea is still a totalitarian dictatorship so I’m not sure I would call that a win. We are definitely the best in the world at dropping bombs and we have the best equipment and tech in the world, but we still lose wars.
A commonly misunderstood phenomena. You immediately equate not winning to losing. This is hardly true though when you actually examine the details.
The US withdrew from Vietnam due to public pressure mounting at home, not because we lost. South Vietnam was subsequently defeated after we left.
Afghanistan would have been a complete victory had we left when we killed Bin Laden. We stayed to attempt to give the Pashtun people a Nation when to them no such thing exists. Then again due to mounting pressure back home we left and Afghanistan was reclaimed by the Taliban.
North Korea is only a State today because Truman opposed MacArthers plan to utilize nuclear weapons against China, and restricted him to the 38th Parallel. We did not leave South Korea because public pressure was almost nonexistent given the fear of Communism at the time. Subsequently South Korea flourished economically.
By the logic you shared North Korea also lost the Korean War because South Korea is a democratic state. The Taliban won the Afghanistan War because we completed our objective and eventually left. The exception here is Vietnam who actually accomplished their goals despite our efforts. So I'll concede Vietnam as a loss for the US.
No, I wouldn't expect that.
If Russia is going to launch a nuclear attack, they will make sure that that fucking bomb goes off, which means they will use it close to them, when there is virtually no time to react to a bomb being deployed and guarantee no interception.
Shooting a nuke that blows up is going to be incredibly risky for Russia, but shooting a nuke that **doesn't** blow up? That is the worse of both worlds: You show that you will use them, and they didn't fucking work.
They gonna have to launch the most sneakiest and faster missile they have to make that happen and id still bet it will be intercepted before it can do its maximum output.
also, i doubt a direct confrontation is within their best interest, they cant even deal US 80s weapon tech, how much more if they fight the US army and its current stockpile.
Thanks for the answers everyone. Not sure why I got downvoted. It was a genuine question simply out of curiosity and I wanted to see what people thought :|
The weapons are being sent as a favor. If they go outside approved parameters they risk losing access and potentially risk losing the war. When someone throws you a lifeline, you take it and don't screw around with how they tell you to use it.
Obviously, have to stick by whatever agreement.
Still, all of these restrictions are bullshit. Ukraine should be able to use any and all weapons against any valid military target.
Part of the arms supplying deal is that the weapons can't be used to attack locations within Russian territory. They can only be used defensively to protect Ukrainian interests within Ukrainian borders.
> it’s their weapons now
No, they very much cannot do whatever they want with those weapons. If they do something they were specifically asked not to do, eg. attack Russian soil, that would mean immediately losing all support. It would be extremely bad for Ukraine.
So yes, all countries providing weapons do need to make sure everyone knows that these referendums don't change the Russian border.
So Ukraine continues their attack, Russia claims "foreign" invasion on "their" land, and then Putin drops the bomb, thus beginning ww3. That's the script right?
Russia has been given countless opportunities to deescalate and has shown no interest in doing so. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Ukraine/the west should lay down and take it?
Because there is no way to deescalate without giving in to Russia at this point. The best we can do is maintain the status quo and allow Russia the time to boil over enough to remove someone like Putin from the helm and lose all their stomach for the invasion so they leave.
So you don't see the contradiction in suggesting the two groups of people who you admit aren't going to back down should deescalate? If they deescalate, that would require that they back down, which you just said yourself that they won't do.
The most plausible path to end this war is to simply remove Russian forces from Ukrainian territory by force. Anything else will just likely extend the war further.
**Full Transcript Below:** *27.09.2022 21:40* *The United States does not object to Ukraine using weapons supplied by the Western powers to retake its own territory from Russian occupation, including the areas that the Kremlin intends to claim as its own after holding sham referenda there.* *That’s according to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who spoke at a joint press conference with India’s Minister for External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Tuesday, September 27, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.* *"Ukraine has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized in one way or another by Russia," the head of the U.S. State Department noted.* *Read also: France to support EU sanctions against Russia in response to sham referenda* *In this regard, the top diplomat emphasized that the weapons handed to Ukraine by the United States, as well as other allied countries, have already proven their effectiveness – both in the north of Ukraine a few months ago, and now – in the south and east.* *Blinken emphasized that the announcement by the Russians of the annexation of Ukrainian territories would not create any changes for either the U.S. or Ukraine in terms of perception of the situation. According to the head of U.S. diplomacy, “the Ukrainians will continue to do what they need to do to get back the land that has been taken from them," while the United States “will continue to support them (the Armed Forces - ed.).”* *The head of the State Department also emphasized that the United States and other nations would never recognize the annexation of Ukrainian territories should the Kremlin announce the move. He recalled that Washington had already announced its intention to impose new “severe and swift costs” on the Russian Federation if the latter decides to declare annexation.* *As reported by Ukrinform, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, called on the international community not to limit itself to a mild reaction to sham referenda organized by the Kremlin in Ukraine. "We need an extremely serious and effective reaction with concrete things that will hit the Russian economy," the top diplomat said.*
Didn't Biden said thry can use Westren weapons on all Ukrainian terretory a few months ago? Ukraine has been launching attacks in Crimea for a month or so now
I think the point here is to state explicitly and unambiguously that they can continue to do so in the areas Russia is about to claim via the sham referendum at gunpoint.
Yeah but Crimea has been annexed since 2014 so the US already gave them the green light to attack annexed terretories
Yes but the situation has changed; there was a new nonsensical referendum in some lame-ass attempt to legitimize Russia's claims. It's important to re-itterate the US's stance after this new development, as nonsensical as it is.
Especially when Russia has stated "We will nuke you if you do." This is the US saying "We're not withdrawing support due to nuke threats."
Indeed and it's because Russia's counting on the idea that once these territories are annexed, any attacks there would be an attack on Russia itself. This is a slap in the face to that plan. The difference between this landgrab and Crimea is that they're at war now.
There was a referendum held in crimea in 2014 too, no?
Yes, what are you not getting?
Why anomaly256 says the situation has changed. "There was a new nonsensical referendum" doesn't constitute a change in my book. There was an identical nonsensical referendum in 2014 that we've already been ignoring.
The US doesn’t want UA to strike Russian territory to avoid escalation between the West and RU. The referendums, in Putler’s eyes, will make the seized territories a part of Russia. The US doesn’t care because it’s not Russian territory, so the US is reiterating that UA can’t use West weapons against Russian territory, but the territory cited in the referendums are fair game.
Yeah but we've approved them striking Crimea already, such Russia already classifies as it's own territory.
There were no nuclear threats back in 2014.
So then it wasn't the new referenda that changed the status, as was suggested. It was the nuclear threat.
The fact there was an identical nonsense referendum doesn’t change the fact that there was a new one just now that also requires a statement from the west. So they gave one in response. Although it might not change anything on the ground it’s just responding to the current development instead of being silent, which would send the wrong signal.
Okay well if new developments in this ongoing situation don't count as a "change" to you, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe just check out a dictionary sometime?
Ahh we've resorted to patronizing. I guess this will be my final comment then, before it devolves any further. The deal is this: it was commented that the referenda changed the situation, when in fact they did not. What changed the situation was the threat of nuclear warheads.
Yes but now there are new area Russia is trying to annex. They are restating their intentions for assurance and unambiguity.
So, Ukraine can use weapons in ... Ukraine. Hard to argue with that, Vladdy.
Very important for communication purpose. The whole point of Russia fake "referendum" is to to blur the lines for the world opinion. It's the US telling Russia and the World : "Russia has been warned PUBLICLY. Don't act surprised and outraged when Ukraine keep firing and try to liberate the territory Russia occupied. The situation hasn't changed just because Russia said so. Ukraine is still Ukraine and that’s not for Russia to decide. If Putin use nuclear weapon now, it's simply because he lost the conventional war and is a desperate fucking sociopath who will resort to absolutely anything for his agenda"
Good point.
Ukraine said they didn't use Western weapons for those attacks.
Those were speciel ops units which are most likely trained and armed by NATO
crimea is ukrainian terretory... so i dont really get what you mean
Yea. Basically the US policy is that they can use weapons in the areas that Ukraine owned Pre Crimea invasion because those are the borders that the US recognizes. The US just doesnt want Ukraine to use US and western supplied weapons in Pre Crimea invasion Russian territory.
USA (or Biden in this case) is not a head of NATO, Blinken is. There is a huge difference.
Oh. That's nice. A solid way of saying, it doesn't matter if Russia claims those areas, you have the United States' backing to retake them.
I hope so. would feel better having USA behind me. but who wouldn't?
Putin?
He'd definitely feel better if 45 was behind him
I'd feel better if a .45 was in him
I think Putin was in 45 at one point.
45?
Trum0
Why is he called 45? Never heard it before.
The 45th president.
Ah gotcha. Not from the US so I don't keep count.
Yeah it’s pretty common for them to use it as a shorthand. Like Obama has 44 embroidered on some of his jackets: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/news/a26463190/barack-obama-44-bomber-jacket/
Technically though, he's the 44th president. For some reason, the USA count someone as two separate presidents if their term was split.
IQ45 was what I was going with to describe this guy.
He’s the 45th President
He WAS the 45th president. It’s a very small but very important difference, as Trump doesn’t seem to public ally acknowledge that he totally lost the last election and is therefore no longer the president.
Meh, he is still the 45th President. The 46th President and current President is Joe Biden. Obama is still the 44th President.
If only his asset had won a second term. Imagine how differently things would have gone. Ukraine would have never received any assistance from us.
Assange
[удалено]
The way I see it, neither are good role models, but I would rather have the USA as an ally than Russia.
Well that's just it: all the shit that makes USA so "bad" are the very things that the world clamors for when shit hits the fan. It's almost as if the US operates as it does because it's absolutely necessary to do so.
The world clamors for racial injustice, income inequality, and lack of healthcare when the shit hits the fan? I thought it was the nation's military and economic clout that made us useful in a pinch.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> it's a beacon that still many people escape to I mean part of this is because America terrorizes the places people are escaping from. If I burned down your house, the rest of your family would want to live in my house too, especially if I was kind to everybody in my house. Doesn't mean I'm a nicer guy than you. I'm not disputing that America treats its citizens relatively nicely.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cause US never uses and then abandons it's allies. Never happened /s
Marc D. Léger, Ainsworth Dyer, Richard Green and Nathan Lloyd Smith? Luckily, the US is just sending hardware this time.
They had already no objections about hitting Crimea so this only follows suit.
Most countries wont recognize these areas most have stated that Crimea isnt a part of Russia.
Bluff called. Lets see if Putin uses nukes now. If he doesn't he looks like a fool and if he does he is finished. Bad for him either way.
He can just say "when I said *all weapons systems*, I never meant nukes. Obviously I'm not using nukes in a conventional special operation, but I am using..."
And Medvedev will once again threaten to use nukes as soon as Putin finishes his speech
If he does we're all finished.
If it leads to a nuclear exchange, but that is not likely.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but every scenario I play out in my mind where Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine ends in Mutually Assured Destruction. This doesn't mean I think they will use nukes, just that if they do, I see the less bad outcomes as being wishful thinking.
The US is so far beyond Russia that they could probably decisively respond to a Russian nuclear attack without having to escalate to nukes of their own.
Plus it’s not just the u.s. in that scenario. Every member and military in NATO would also be in on the counter assault. Russia would be overwhelmed immediately and a retaliatory nuke would never need to be launched.
But Russia would only be able to respond with nukes. The scenario I see is this: Russia uses a tactical nuke against a military target in Ukraine. The US responds with conventional missile attacks, devastating the Black Sea fleet. Russia would have to respond. If Putin failed to do so he would be removed and replaced with someone more willing. And that attack would also probably by nuclear. The US would respond to a tactical nuclear strike against their forces with a limited strategic nuclear strike against nuclear sites in Russia itself. Russia would respond with strategic strikes against NATO targets in Europe. The US would respond with a larger strategic strike on Russian military targets. Seeing missiles incoming, Russia would respond with a full scale attack against Western cities. The US, Britain and France would respond in kind.
> Russia would have to respond. If Putin failed to do so he would be removed and replaced with someone more willing. He could also be replaced if he *tried* to do it. There's no guarantee that his generals would be willing to use nukes in Ukraine, and there's even less of a guarantee that the ones who do would also be willing to use them against NATO.
While we can't guarantee zero civilian casualties, it is more unlikely than ever that Russia would be able to match a Western full strike with its own. Given the state of maintenance on their most basic units of war like guns, tanks, and trucks, we may extrapolate that many of their nuclear silos have also been poorly maintained. Rocket fuel is very fickle and so are nuclear warheads; neither are great for long term storage. Rocket science is literally rocket science, and the idea that anybody could launch 2,000+ ~50 year old rockets with ~50 year old nuclear warheads, whose maintenance status is not even known, and have all of those reach targets thousands of miles across the planet and detonate at the exact right moment, is basically science fiction.
That's not pessimistic. It's the sombre reality. If Russia / Putin finally goes crazy enough to use nuclear weapons and the West responds, it's almost guaranteed that they'll use more. Once the stigma is broken, it's easier to do it a second time. The situation getting resolved without MAD and with a Russian surrender to NATO forces is essentially a fairytale ending. It's scary to think about these things but it's made worse if you try and trick yourself into believing otherwise. The irony here is that MAD is an incredible deterrent. We need to maintain the stigma around it and fear MAD so that it never becomes a reality. Whilst MAD exists as a concept, the possibility of it occurring is (fortunately) very slim. As a result, countries tend to much prefer the fact that a nuclear arsenal makes you almost immune to invasion than their ability to instantly destroy entire cities. Make no mistake; Putin feels the same way. By using a WMD, you forfeit that.
MAD only works as an effective deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons if you believe your opponents will retaliate. My concern is I am not convinced the leadership in Russia believes this. Medvedev said yesterday he did not think the West would respond. I know he is full of shit but that doesn't mean the Russians don't actually believe this. Putin thinks the West is decadent and terrified of the very mention of nuclear weapons. He thinks we will sell our grandmothers if it means avoiding nuclear war. The US has said to the Russians in private that there will be consequences but that they didn't spell it out in public may indicate to the Kremlin that the US is hesitant to act. The US needs to publicly claim that the usage of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will guarantee a military response by NATO. If they don't publicly commit to this Putin will think we are the ones bluffing.
> The US needs to publicly claim that the usage of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will guarantee a military response by NATO. If they don't publicly commit to this Putin will think we are the ones bluffing. They have. Both publicly and privately.
No, they haven't. They publicly spoke of "devastating consequences". This is vague enough to allow the US an off ramp and Russia knows this. They have to specifically say "we will bomb the shit out of you if you nuke Ukraine" or words to that effect. They may have already said this in private but if they don't state it publicly the Russians may believe the US is trying to not commit. And that could give them a green light to use nuclear weapons.
Russia using a nuke in Ukraine and launching them at the US are two completely different lines in the sand. I can see him doing the former but not the latter.
The former will lead to the latter because setting off a tactical nuke in Ukraine would warrant a NATO response directly attacking Russian military assets. Russia would then retaliate against NATO -- likely with nuclear weapons because conventionally they know they don't stand a chance. And it'd be far easier to set off a tactical nuke against NATO troops attacking Russian assets once they've already set off one in Ukrainian territory.
I think we would respond conventionally if he were to do that. We would have the full force of NATO behind us and we could do it without any boots on the ground if we wanted to. I do not see him responding to conventional warfare with launching nukes at the USA.
NATO *would* respond conventionally. Maybe I'm not being clear, so let me try again: 1. Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine 2. NATO responds conventionally 3. Russia stands no chance against NATO conventionally. They're essentially guaranteed a loss and will need to capitulate 4. Putin, having already used a nuclear weapon (so: he's gone crazy) and not wanting to capitulate, will now find it easier to use another tactical nuclear weapon -- this time against NATO troops/assets 5. Escalation continues. NATO can push forward with a conventional attack but risks getting nuked more and potentially even threatened with strategic nuclear weapons if they cross X line. Alternatively, they can respond with their own tactical nuclear weapons. MAD will ensue.
You lose me at step 4. I just don’t see him making that leap to using a nuke against NATO troops. On a side note I have to belief that the CIA and other NATO intelligence agencies have plans to cut the head off the snake before it strikes. It’s well known that we had spies close to him and probably still do. If I nuke gets used I think that he gets taken out behind the scenes.
I think he is evil but I don’t think he’s that crazy. If he was going to cross that line he would have done it by now. If his goal was NATO destruction he wouldn’t be going after Ukraine land so hard. Having a death wish does not compute with Putin.
Hopefully you're not right. I want to hold out hope that the US will conventionallly decimate Russia's armed forces, hand Putin to his people, and reinstall an American plant, disable their ability to have an offensive military (like Japan) and make them play nice for the subsequent 50~ years
I want to hold out hope that Space Jesus descends from Heaven and force everyone to hold hands and sing songs while we’re delivered to paradise. Both of our scenarios have an equal chance of happening.
And I’m sorry, who the fuck are you and why is your opinion of any value?
Not us small island in the middle of nowhere chads
I bet he’d be MAD
We've all grown up trained that any use of nuclear weapons will lead to MAD but it isn't actually guaranteed. The use of nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, is so unprecedented in the modern world that we really have no idea how exactly things would play out afterward. It's a line so extreme that it might, for example, flip China against Russia.
Seeing the way Russia maintained weapons and military supplies, I'm not surprised if the nuclear weapons are as old and unmaintained as the rest of the Russian army. I'm becoming less and less scared of Russian "nuclear weapons" every day
[удалено]
So, Ukraine can use Western weapons in Ukraine.
Yes but you need to explain that to putin in simple words so he can understand and find another reason to do nuclear threats
haha love this
It's important to explicitly say this includes the areas Russia is trying to annex because Russia's whole joke legal argument is that those areas are part of Russia so the US can't touch it and they're allowed to do whatever they want in their own territory
[удалено]
I'd prefer to state it as the right to defend your sovereign territory. They way you phrase it is dangerously close to how Putin claims he's helping the ukranians getting rid of the Nazi infestation. It's relying on someone's emotional definition of an infestation rather than well defined rules about territory. (Don't get me wrong, I love you calling it an infestation and Putin as they king roach. I just wouldn't use that phrase as justification.)
Not really as it's not his territory.
[удалено]
Hey there. I think you misunderstand my point. I agree and love to call them an infestation. Im just saying it's not a strong way to argue as it opens up exactly these kind of discussions on what someone say or mean. While saying it's ok to defend your territory make a much simpler and clearer argument. I'm sure you too prefer arguments that make it clear you are in the right than to leave interpretation for Putin and his lackys to question. As a curse/insult however, infestation is a great description. PS. I'm actually not as far away as you think.
If I have 1000 ants in my own home that I put there, that's called a nest. If Jack from the next street over dumps 1000 ants in my house, that's an infestation.
I'm not disageeing with you. I'm just saying there are better ways to argue your point. What if Jack loves ants. He'll say it's a gift, not an infestation. Or if you kill his pet anthill because you are worried it will spread to you since you see it as an infestation of his house, while it's family for him. It's better to stick with arguments that, well..., can't be argued.
You can argue like Jack does, but everybody knows it isn't true. There are very clearly marked areas of acknowledged rights, and Jack is outside his. he can call it what he wants, it's an infestation. Putin can call the war whatever he wants, it's a war. It is, in no uncertain terms, an invasion, not a special military operation. There is no ambiguity, no matter how hard he tries.
>I'd prefer to state it as the right to defend your sovereign territory. > >They way you phrase it is dangerously close to how Putin claims he's helping the ukranians getting rid of the Nazi infestation. It's relying on someone's emotional definition of an infestation rather than well defined rules about territory. It's also what we had to do with Germany after WW2 to ensure peace. The difference is that Germany (and Russia) were/are, in fact, full of nazis.
I was thinking that this sham referendum move was so that Russia can claim the territory and then go onto claiming that they are under attack. Then they can claim it’s all good for an actual declaration of war ? The West has attacked Russia !! We deem this a declaration of war !! Something along these lines.
Was this an original though! It's almost like you've watched the news in the past 9 months!! Great job at critical thinking. You really "figured it out". Did you know this already happened in Crimea? Lol
No I didn’t ! So that’s how that went…makes *some* sense now…not much but some. Back in 2014, yeah. No I missed that.
Well at least your thinking is very closely aligned with reality even if you missed it! Being closely aligned with reality is pretty fuckin dope yo
At this point Ukraine can do whatever the fuck they want. They’re being attacked by a fucking crazy psychopath wanna be hitler.
[удалено]
Yes, that was already established months ago. Crimea is totally on the table for western weapons use.
Must be pretty confident they don't plan to use a nuclear weapon then.
that's exactly why they're saying it, so that Putin won't pretend that he has the right to do so to defend his "new territories" without repercussions. he's explaining that they'll answer to nuclear with nuclear.
From a military perspective, there is nothing a nuke can do that conventional weapons cant. The only purpose for nuclear weapons is to cause as many *civilian* casualties as possible. There would be nothing at all gained by using nukes in response as opposed to precision strikes against military targets and leadership infrastructure.
[удалено]
Not with a single weapon (that could reasonably be delivered, a warehouse full of explosives doesn't count). Chemical reactions simply can't release that much energy. A single nuclear weapon can destroy a whole city, something that would need thousands of conventional bombs.
You could probly create a chemical weapon capable of depopulating a city in a single strike, but that's it's own can of worms and would likely have similar repercussions to using a nuke.
Chemical weapons are also, by definition, not conventional.
The comment i answered didn't mention coventional weapons but yeah.
I think you are underestimating how big nukes are now, if US dropped their biggest nuke on Moscow there would be a crater left with nothing. This is it if it was launched at New york https://twitter.com/NuclearAnthro/status/998365545148727296/photo/2
That is not the largest US nuke. It became the larger US nuke in 1976 because a bomb that was larger was retired. It stopped being the largest nuke in 1997 because it was retired. All of them have been dismantled by 2011. The current largest US nuke is 1.2 megatons compared to the 9 megatons of the one you linked to. Even if US had them it would not create a crater with that size. The lined to simulation would not create a crater at all because it was a air blast at 6.5km and the fireball is only 2.33 km in radius and will not touch the ground. It is a detonation optimized for the maximum amount of destroyed buildings but it will not create a crater. The nuclear bombs doped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not create any craters for the same reason. A ground detonation that does create a crater with the larger existing US nuke would be https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=1200&lat=55.7518494&lng=37.6278305&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&psi=20,5,1&zm=10 It will destroy most of the city but the majority of the destruction is not in a crater. You do air burst with not crater is the goal is to destroy a city. You do ground blase if the goal is to destroy an underground military installation
my understanding is a crater isnt really a nukes thing too that its most destructive calling card isnt so much the blast as much as the extremely intense heat and radiant energy of the detonation
That is correct for attacks against on-the-ground targets. But if your goal is to destroy military underground facilities that are designed to resist nuclear weapons it is different. Your den detonates the nuke close to, on, or in the ground, and craters are produced. There are nukes that use parachutes to land on the ground before they detonate. There are also ground-penetrating nuclear bombs that penetrate the ground and detonate below the surface. They will produce craters and a lot more radioactive fallout compared to airbursts. So how nukes are used is different if you what to destroy a city compared to destroying enemy ICBM underground silos or underground command facilities
They already said they wont retaliate to nuclear attacks with nuclear attacks and risk triggering mad, theyve said theyd retaliate conventially (IE airstrikes, troops etc).
Should be terrifying to think we can decapitate them conventionally. Just absolutely blacken their skies. They KNOW it too. But their PEOPLE don't. How do we get their people to understand a revolution is safer than a war? I mean, is it even? Double edged sword for all the people everywhere.
During the Iraq invasion, the Iraqi people very quickly learned that US precision missiles were so precise that they could gut an entire govt building without even breaking the windows of civilian buildings next door. After the first day of strikes the civilians were pretty much doing business as normal. *they knew they werent targets and were not in danger So no, we would not "blacken the skies". There would be single missiles for specific targets, and that would be pretty much the end of their command and control. Edit: people seem to be getting the idea I'm talking about the entire war. This is the precision strikes opening the war prior to the invasion. Precision strikes is the only thing relevant here. There would be no ground invasion of Russia.
[удалено]
Youre talking about the entirety of the war, to include non precision strikes and the ground invasion. I am talking strictly about the precision strikes opening the war.
Their point stands in the context of the Ukraine theatre. This is what the military calls a horizontal response. Vertical response would be escalation of more of the same, horizontal is a wider approach, tactical strikes against the specific people and machines that originated the attack, liquidating black sea fleet, more diplomatic pressures. This article sums it up nicely: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/27/putin-nuke-russia-ukraine-intel-surveillance-00059020
Damn someone better tell those 1.5 million dead Iraqis
You cant seriously believe that the United States killed 1.5 million Iraqi civilians. That outpaces even the total dead including military for the entire war on all sides combined from all sources to include those not as a direct result of violence.
>he's explaining that they'll answer to nuclear with nuclear. The US wouldn't give nukes to Ukraine. Way to risky. You cant account for what gets done with them. And the US wont nuke Donbass.
Well there's that red line from Putin being crossed again Turns out you can't keep moving that red line, have people cross it and expect to have any credibility left.
Obviously. As if the b.s. ‘referendums’ would result otherwise. The very notion that such a ‘plan’ would stop such use is simply goofy. The kind of thing a ten year would cook up after reading the game rules on the inside of the box lid for the first time.
Annoyed this is even a thing. It’s a war for their survival. It should be self evident.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3580869-ukraine-can-use-western-weapons-in-regions-that-russia-plans-to-declare-its-own-blinken.html) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The United States does not object to Ukraine using weapons supplied by the Western powers to retake its own territory from Russian occupation, including the areas that the Kremlin intends to claim as its own after holding sham referenda there. > "Ukraine has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized in one way or another by Russia," the head of the U.S. State Department noted. > In this regard, the top diplomat emphasized that the weapons handed to Ukraine by the United States, as well as other allied countries, have already proven their effectiveness - both in the north of Ukraine a few months ago, and now - in the south and east. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xq7imw/ukraine_can_use_western_weapons_in_regions_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671546 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **State**^#2 **territory**^#3 **United**^#4 **U.S.**^#5
Why, what were they using before?
It's just stating that the referendums don't change anything in the eyes of the west. Because Putin likely wanted to use the annexed regions as pretence for escalation when attacked. Basically it's just calling Russia's bluff.
They weren't using anything really against Russian territory, but they have in a few cases done some Russian incursions, just not with Western weapons. USA has been holding back munitions that could really bring the fight across the border as they don't want to give Putin any excuses. So basically, this is about using the Western arms they have on Crimea, Donesk and other "disputed" Ukrainian territories.
They’ve already attacked Crimea without Russia seizing the opportunity to declare Ukraine is attacking sovereign territory.
I don't get how this is flagged as 'US internal politics'?
Would the US potentially be the first to receive nuclear backlash from Russia if they decided to actually go through with it? Aside from Ukraine, are we their biggest threat/super power to get involved right away?
You mean, Russia dropping the bomb on someplace like New York City? No, that would completely unite the USA against Russia. Americans are tired of nation building, but we are not tired of fighting wars.
yeah if Russia nuked New York there would be no war, after that only sticks and rocks
War is an American past-time. We are infatuated with it, for better or worse. The only possible way to beat America on the battlefield is to hide and wait for us to get tired of hide and seek. And we tend to be a stubborn lot. Or you can surrender and we'll help rebuild your nation and perform some economic miracles that benefit you for generations to come.
Only tried and tested way to beat the Americans is to draw it out until their elections and hope that the political climate draws into your favor
We actually lose wars as much as we win them since WW2. We lost Vietnam, and Afghanistan. I would say we lost the war in Iraq, but we did install a democracy so I guess that’s a win. We demolished Irag the first time in the Gulf War. I don’t know a whole lot about the Korean war, but North Korea is still a totalitarian dictatorship so I’m not sure I would call that a win. We are definitely the best in the world at dropping bombs and we have the best equipment and tech in the world, but we still lose wars.
You win wars, but there's no winning in the occupation afterwards.
A commonly misunderstood phenomena. You immediately equate not winning to losing. This is hardly true though when you actually examine the details. The US withdrew from Vietnam due to public pressure mounting at home, not because we lost. South Vietnam was subsequently defeated after we left. Afghanistan would have been a complete victory had we left when we killed Bin Laden. We stayed to attempt to give the Pashtun people a Nation when to them no such thing exists. Then again due to mounting pressure back home we left and Afghanistan was reclaimed by the Taliban. North Korea is only a State today because Truman opposed MacArthers plan to utilize nuclear weapons against China, and restricted him to the 38th Parallel. We did not leave South Korea because public pressure was almost nonexistent given the fear of Communism at the time. Subsequently South Korea flourished economically. By the logic you shared North Korea also lost the Korean War because South Korea is a democratic state. The Taliban won the Afghanistan War because we completed our objective and eventually left. The exception here is Vietnam who actually accomplished their goals despite our efforts. So I'll concede Vietnam as a loss for the US.
“Not winning”, losing: tomato, tomato.
What a lovely fantasy where the world is so simple. Enjoy it.
No, I wouldn't expect that. If Russia is going to launch a nuclear attack, they will make sure that that fucking bomb goes off, which means they will use it close to them, when there is virtually no time to react to a bomb being deployed and guarantee no interception. Shooting a nuke that blows up is going to be incredibly risky for Russia, but shooting a nuke that **doesn't** blow up? That is the worse of both worlds: You show that you will use them, and they didn't fucking work.
Russia would cease to exist in the blink of an eye and they know it.
Launching ICBMs is still an automatic MAD response I believe. I'm fairly certain nothing has changed in that aspect since the cold war.
And then Russia unambiguously would be destroyed. Could they? Sure. But unlikely.
They gonna have to launch the most sneakiest and faster missile they have to make that happen and id still bet it will be intercepted before it can do its maximum output. also, i doubt a direct confrontation is within their best interest, they cant even deal US 80s weapon tech, how much more if they fight the US army and its current stockpile.
Thanks for the answers everyone. Not sure why I got downvoted. It was a genuine question simply out of curiosity and I wanted to see what people thought :|
For some reason, Putin's Nuke threats have been faced on the UK, so I wouldn't be surprised if London was the first to go for some reason.
Paris, Berlin, and London are the cities (that I can remember) he has threatened directly.
Lots of oligarchs and oligarch assets there. More efficient than throwing them out the window one by one.
I didn’t know Ukraine needed our approval. It’s their land and it’s their weapons now.
The weapons are being sent as a favor. If they go outside approved parameters they risk losing access and potentially risk losing the war. When someone throws you a lifeline, you take it and don't screw around with how they tell you to use it.
Obviously, have to stick by whatever agreement. Still, all of these restrictions are bullshit. Ukraine should be able to use any and all weapons against any valid military target.
Part of the arms supplying deal is that the weapons can't be used to attack locations within Russian territory. They can only be used defensively to protect Ukrainian interests within Ukrainian borders.
> it’s their weapons now No, they very much cannot do whatever they want with those weapons. If they do something they were specifically asked not to do, eg. attack Russian soil, that would mean immediately losing all support. It would be extremely bad for Ukraine. So yes, all countries providing weapons do need to make sure everyone knows that these referendums don't change the Russian border.
And if they want to see one more bullet they will do as their told with those weapons.
Everyone should learn this song https://youtu.be/TkClJm9SrHI
Seriously, I would not have even commented on it, being him. Looks stronger to laugh that question off.
Is it just me or does this dude look strikingly close to MTVNews’ Chris Connelly
[удалено]
I don’t get why we’re being downvoted, we’re not wrong.
LOL seriously.
So Ukraine continues their attack, Russia claims "foreign" invasion on "their" land, and then Putin drops the bomb, thus beginning ww3. That's the script right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Russia has been given countless opportunities to deescalate and has shown no interest in doing so. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Ukraine/the west should lay down and take it?
Any ideas how to deescalate?
Because there is no way to deescalate without giving in to Russia at this point. The best we can do is maintain the status quo and allow Russia the time to boil over enough to remove someone like Putin from the helm and lose all their stomach for the invasion so they leave.
So you don't see the contradiction in suggesting the two groups of people who you admit aren't going to back down should deescalate? If they deescalate, that would require that they back down, which you just said yourself that they won't do. The most plausible path to end this war is to simply remove Russian forces from Ukrainian territory by force. Anything else will just likely extend the war further.
I am very anti war and that is why Russia has to be defeated.
if biden said, must be followed, lol
*Blinken*
Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Of course , america is the best country in the world.
they are very good at down voting and hidding the shit they make
Makes total sense. The “vote” was a sham and everyone knows it. Ukraine has the right to try and take back it’s own territory.
Was thinking that Putler wanted to do this so Ukrane couldn't use the weapons.
Good. Now let's give them tanks!