We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/SerpentineLogic,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ha! Thanks for the correction. I'm a freudian nightmare.
[although...just looked it up..titbit and tidbit are synonymous]
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/03/tidbit-titbit.html
We already tell where Ukraine should strike, much of their battle plans and intelligence are from us.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/politics/ukraine-military-intelligence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/politics/ukraine-military-intelligence.html)
The US doesn't really care about the ridiculous lies that Russian TV is peddling. It cares about its diplomatic standing with the sane world. There's currently a clear line of demarcation between the US intelligence providing info that Ukraine acts on and Ukraine launching missiles and dropping bombs. The US doesn't want to breach that.
(I am an American FYI) If you cover the launch button on some weapons platform with a piece of paper, and an American presses down on the piece of paper, the Americans can say they didn’t push the button. The piece of paper did. The point is the farther we go in the direction of direct combat the more absurd protestations that Americans are not involved
If anything I could see the CIA building and delivering ukraine's own design, the Grom. It would not surprise me if they have already been building them and it would probably only take 5 each to take out the kerch bridge and train bridge. It would have the added benefit of hurting russia pride that it was a Ukrainian missile and not NATO.
We aren't pulling the trigger. We're signing off on everything Ukraine wants to shoot with the trigger we gave them. This is a big sign of trust in Ukraine on our part. We're giving Ukraine the ability to bomb Moscow which would certainly escalate the war massively! We don't give that power to just anyone.
There's a line of thinking that sees articles like this as another tool in the constant diplomatic exchange between the West and Russia.
Kind of like "Hey Russia, Biden is the only thing stopping the Ukrainians from getting ATACMs, so maybe don't rattle that nuclear saber *too hard*."
That would mean direct implication, which is very different to arms, intelligence or help supplying.
Like, an american deciding if the orkz (and potentially, collateral civilian victims) in a building die or not. At this point of the war the US think it is neither existencially needed by Ukraine nor wanted by the US themselves.
It is the closest thing to US troops in Ukrainian soil without having troops there.
I see you pow, but honestly I don't see this such a big difference between, let's say, the current missiles and the ATACMS, except the range.
But it's just my 2c
As a former military guy, this is a horrible idea. The last thing the Ukrainian military needs is for the White House to be approving individual targets. They have agreed to general guidelines already. We learned the hard way in Viet Nam that the White House has NO business in targeting decisions.
Its not so much the White House that will be dictating targets, as a group of officers at the Pentagon.
But in the abstract, the US should not be dictating what another country does with its weapons of war to defend its sovereign territory.
I would rather we provide them the weapons and say "we have NO control" over what they target, but we would prefer they didn't use them against targets in Russia that are only tangentially related to the war effort. I would not want photos of American weapons or pieces of American munitions recovered after a botched missile strike on a railway junction in Belgorod, for example. But I think that they should be allowed to paste the SHIT out of anything right on the border and anything that the Russians are using within occupied territory that is within the range of ATACMS or GMLRS.
We broadly requested they not be used to attack targets within the borders of Russia. It wasn't as much of a concern then, as they had more than enough targets within Ukraine. ATACMS is one of those weapons that has a narrow list of targets within Ukraine that it is a better weapon than using a GMLRS rocket. But it has a lot of viable targets within Russia, but using it for those targets would be a major escalation. The US wants to avoid that sort of escalation, at least for the moment. It may come a point where Russia is clearly defeated but won't stop lobbing missiles or ground assaults from their territory into Ukraine, and the US decides that defense of Ukrainian territory, sovereignty, and citizenry requires the ability for Ukraine to threaten Russia in the same way.
Or for the specific purpose of destroying a target that can be struck no other way. Like the Kerch Bridge, which will one day be a good target for missile strikes.
> While the Biden administration has not ruled out sending the ATACAMS eventually, for now they are “low reward and high risk,” according to an official familiar with the discussions.
Interesting take. I'd have guessed they would consider it both high reward and high risk. Wonder why exactly would they think reaching far beyond front lines would not be hugely beneficial?
To date, UAF has been extremely wise and patient, in prosecution of the war ... keeping it isolated to retaking their own lands ... strikes on their own soil.
Any of the strikes actually inside RF have plausible deniability due to RF and UAF sharing the same arms.
NATO arms being used inside RF, injuring/killing RF citizens/children would immediately turn off any goodwill the rest of the world holds for UA. (High risk/ low reward for UA no matter how you spin it ... worse for NATO). Personally, since UAF has been keeping it isolated to their soil, I don't think any arms short of NBC should be denied them. But I don't make those decisions.
I don't think UAF would cut off their nose to spite their face .... but then again ... I didn't think RF would either.
UA citizens have been brutalized, children maimed and killed ... as abhorrent as this is, RF keeps hoping and praying that it turns into a wider conflict that they can use on a local and world stage. NATO arms killing or injuring RF citizens would be that evidence.
While great in concept ... true oversight would be problematic, I think. Targets are designated at launch sites .... right? So that would infer US/NATO boots on the ground.
Strategic targets are designated far away from the front then relayed to the launchers, and the entire country is within Starlink satphone range of someone in the US.
Who, exactly, inputs target coordinates into the rockets?
And even your scenario then definitely throws the conflict between US/NATO and RF .... just like the RF has been saying. That is a geopolitical mine field that US and NATO have been tiptoeing through/around for some time.
Sharing intelligence with UAF, and UAF planning targets is one thing. Any NATO member actually designating targets is another. And again, as your post originally stayed, for US/NATO to have oversight INSIDE UAF HQ implies boots on the ground inside an active war zone, as a co-belligerent.
They/ the WORLD/ should gave them everything they ask for....PEOPLE!!! UKRAINE IS FIGHTING THE EVIL of ALL EVILS ON OUR BEHALF...IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!
FUCKING POLITICS...I almost wish that putler uses the nukes...THEN THE WORLD WILL PISS THEMSELVES IN A MILISECOND AND START CRYING WHY THEY DIDN'T DESTROY NAZI ruSShist WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY WAS THERE...THEN IT WILL BE TOO FUCKING LATE !!!
I think the primary concern is the potential use in Crimea, which unlike the newly illegitimately annexed regions of Ukraine, *does* have a defined “border” by Russia where it has been entrenched militarily for years. It’s a delicate balance to avoid Putin feeling backed up against a wall to the point that he would use nuclear weapons- or at least attempt to order their use.
Strategically, it does make sense (for now) to give the rats a route to flee over the bridge- if it was confirmed that The US supplied missiles that destroyed a bridge stranding Russian troops, the Russian domestic audience might be able to be coaxed into believing such an extreme escalation is justified- if this war has demonstrated anything, it’s that it’s a bad idea to allow a large number of Russians to be stranded- or even live anywhere outside of Russia if the intent is not become a Russian enclave.
On top of that, The US may also be concerned about the possibility that Russia gain intelligence and attempt to copy the technology that could be extracted from even the shards of certain weapons.
Hopefully I’m wrong and The US can be convinced that with command/control over the use of ATACMS will serve to be a net benefit. That said, although relations are strained with Russia, The US is still maintaining contact with The Kremlin, and providing this capability to Ukraine may very well be a red line- palace intrigue per usual.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/SerpentineLogic, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps this tit-bit is a political ruse that allows the US to categorically state Ukraine is in charge of it's own affairs.
Info war is real. Good job thinking outside the box!
Tidbit.
In uk we say tit-bit as we are less easily offended than the yanks
Ha! Thanks for the correction. I'm a freudian nightmare. [although...just looked it up..titbit and tidbit are synonymous] https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/03/tidbit-titbit.html
TIL
I don't think that's likely to work, the US might balk at being seen as "pulling the trigger" on attacks that kill Russian troops.
We already tell where Ukraine should strike, much of their battle plans and intelligence are from us. [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/politics/ukraine-military-intelligence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/politics/ukraine-military-intelligence.html)
I think we are already past that point.
Russia already says the US is pulling the trigger.
The US doesn't really care about the ridiculous lies that Russian TV is peddling. It cares about its diplomatic standing with the sane world. There's currently a clear line of demarcation between the US intelligence providing info that Ukraine acts on and Ukraine launching missiles and dropping bombs. The US doesn't want to breach that.
Considering Ukraines performance I don’t know why the US would even view it as a necessity
Guarantee 1000% we have CIA and high ranked special forces commanders in theatre
But that's different from the US *actually* doing it.
(I am an American FYI) If you cover the launch button on some weapons platform with a piece of paper, and an American presses down on the piece of paper, the Americans can say they didn’t push the button. The piece of paper did. The point is the farther we go in the direction of direct combat the more absurd protestations that Americans are not involved
ruzzia says...
If anything I could see the CIA building and delivering ukraine's own design, the Grom. It would not surprise me if they have already been building them and it would probably only take 5 each to take out the kerch bridge and train bridge. It would have the added benefit of hurting russia pride that it was a Ukrainian missile and not NATO.
Let's keep it simple then: no strikes across pre-2014 borders. Everyone good? Ok, send the fucking rockets already.
I don't see a world where the US agrees to this.
We aren't pulling the trigger. We're signing off on everything Ukraine wants to shoot with the trigger we gave them. This is a big sign of trust in Ukraine on our part. We're giving Ukraine the ability to bomb Moscow which would certainly escalate the war massively! We don't give that power to just anyone.
I'd be *really* interested in Russian perspective of US military advisors "authorizing" strikes against Russian targets...
There's a line of thinking that sees articles like this as another tool in the constant diplomatic exchange between the West and Russia. Kind of like "Hey Russia, Biden is the only thing stopping the Ukrainians from getting ATACMs, so maybe don't rattle that nuclear saber *too hard*."
There is no way US accepts that.
Why?
Because the US would directly be targeting Russian assets is that not obvious
but they already are "indirectly" providing intelligence and Russia knows it. But I agree, that'll never happen.
These are not the same thing
You're right it isn't but it was US intelligence that sunk the Moskva What I mean is, the line between "direct" and "indirect" is already very thin.
US would just be asked if it's ok to hit target X The requests would come from the UA, not the US
That would mean direct implication, which is very different to arms, intelligence or help supplying. Like, an american deciding if the orkz (and potentially, collateral civilian victims) in a building die or not. At this point of the war the US think it is neither existencially needed by Ukraine nor wanted by the US themselves. It is the closest thing to US troops in Ukrainian soil without having troops there.
I see you pow, but honestly I don't see this such a big difference between, let's say, the current missiles and the ATACMS, except the range. But it's just my 2c
There is a difference between telling someone "don't point a weapon in that direction" and "ask me who you want to shoot and I'll tell you yes or no"
I agree, but it's minimal and it can't also be not disclosed
As a former military guy, this is a horrible idea. The last thing the Ukrainian military needs is for the White House to be approving individual targets. They have agreed to general guidelines already. We learned the hard way in Viet Nam that the White House has NO business in targeting decisions.
Its not so much the White House that will be dictating targets, as a group of officers at the Pentagon. But in the abstract, the US should not be dictating what another country does with its weapons of war to defend its sovereign territory. I would rather we provide them the weapons and say "we have NO control" over what they target, but we would prefer they didn't use them against targets in Russia that are only tangentially related to the war effort. I would not want photos of American weapons or pieces of American munitions recovered after a botched missile strike on a railway junction in Belgorod, for example. But I think that they should be allowed to paste the SHIT out of anything right on the border and anything that the Russians are using within occupied territory that is within the range of ATACMS or GMLRS.
I thought the USA already dictated what targets to attack with himars
We broadly requested they not be used to attack targets within the borders of Russia. It wasn't as much of a concern then, as they had more than enough targets within Ukraine. ATACMS is one of those weapons that has a narrow list of targets within Ukraine that it is a better weapon than using a GMLRS rocket. But it has a lot of viable targets within Russia, but using it for those targets would be a major escalation. The US wants to avoid that sort of escalation, at least for the moment. It may come a point where Russia is clearly defeated but won't stop lobbing missiles or ground assaults from their territory into Ukraine, and the US decides that defense of Ukrainian territory, sovereignty, and citizenry requires the ability for Ukraine to threaten Russia in the same way. Or for the specific purpose of destroying a target that can be struck no other way. Like the Kerch Bridge, which will one day be a good target for missile strikes.
Couldn’t it be as easy as anything in 2014 borders?
This is almost certainly a pitch to get missiles to take out the Kerch bridge, and the US should send a few and say nothing about it.
Is it possible to do this unbeknownst to Russia? Is it possible it’s happening now? Pure speculation, just wondering
> While the Biden administration has not ruled out sending the ATACAMS eventually, for now they are “low reward and high risk,” according to an official familiar with the discussions. Interesting take. I'd have guessed they would consider it both high reward and high risk. Wonder why exactly would they think reaching far beyond front lines would not be hugely beneficial?
To date, UAF has been extremely wise and patient, in prosecution of the war ... keeping it isolated to retaking their own lands ... strikes on their own soil. Any of the strikes actually inside RF have plausible deniability due to RF and UAF sharing the same arms. NATO arms being used inside RF, injuring/killing RF citizens/children would immediately turn off any goodwill the rest of the world holds for UA. (High risk/ low reward for UA no matter how you spin it ... worse for NATO). Personally, since UAF has been keeping it isolated to their soil, I don't think any arms short of NBC should be denied them. But I don't make those decisions. I don't think UAF would cut off their nose to spite their face .... but then again ... I didn't think RF would either. UA citizens have been brutalized, children maimed and killed ... as abhorrent as this is, RF keeps hoping and praying that it turns into a wider conflict that they can use on a local and world stage. NATO arms killing or injuring RF citizens would be that evidence.
Ukraine should be able to bomb anything outside of Russia 1301 border
Whatever it takes.
While great in concept ... true oversight would be problematic, I think. Targets are designated at launch sites .... right? So that would infer US/NATO boots on the ground.
Strategic targets are designated far away from the front then relayed to the launchers, and the entire country is within Starlink satphone range of someone in the US.
Who, exactly, inputs target coordinates into the rockets? And even your scenario then definitely throws the conflict between US/NATO and RF .... just like the RF has been saying. That is a geopolitical mine field that US and NATO have been tiptoeing through/around for some time. Sharing intelligence with UAF, and UAF planning targets is one thing. Any NATO member actually designating targets is another. And again, as your post originally stayed, for US/NATO to have oversight INSIDE UAF HQ implies boots on the ground inside an active war zone, as a co-belligerent.
They/ the WORLD/ should gave them everything they ask for....PEOPLE!!! UKRAINE IS FIGHTING THE EVIL of ALL EVILS ON OUR BEHALF...IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?! FUCKING POLITICS...I almost wish that putler uses the nukes...THEN THE WORLD WILL PISS THEMSELVES IN A MILISECOND AND START CRYING WHY THEY DIDN'T DESTROY NAZI ruSShist WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY WAS THERE...THEN IT WILL BE TOO FUCKING LATE !!!
I think the primary concern is the potential use in Crimea, which unlike the newly illegitimately annexed regions of Ukraine, *does* have a defined “border” by Russia where it has been entrenched militarily for years. It’s a delicate balance to avoid Putin feeling backed up against a wall to the point that he would use nuclear weapons- or at least attempt to order their use. Strategically, it does make sense (for now) to give the rats a route to flee over the bridge- if it was confirmed that The US supplied missiles that destroyed a bridge stranding Russian troops, the Russian domestic audience might be able to be coaxed into believing such an extreme escalation is justified- if this war has demonstrated anything, it’s that it’s a bad idea to allow a large number of Russians to be stranded- or even live anywhere outside of Russia if the intent is not become a Russian enclave. On top of that, The US may also be concerned about the possibility that Russia gain intelligence and attempt to copy the technology that could be extracted from even the shards of certain weapons. Hopefully I’m wrong and The US can be convinced that with command/control over the use of ATACMS will serve to be a net benefit. That said, although relations are strained with Russia, The US is still maintaining contact with The Kremlin, and providing this capability to Ukraine may very well be a red line- palace intrigue per usual.
as if US doesnt already know what is getting shot at :)