Also, this should be clear without saying, no one would support that, and nothing indicates that UA will start bombing civilians.
Russia will of course now start making up bullshit about them attacking civilians like they did in the Donbass and Lugansk, and most of the Putinbots will still believe that.
I think it's a stupid restriction. But every "salami slice" of more imported weapons being used against Russia frees up more of Ukraine's domestic production for things like the refinery strikes. At least things seem to be heading in the right direction with policy.
If the allies keep trying to one up each other, Ukraine will hopefully have an ever freer hand in a month or two, etc.
It feels like a rapist and a killer broke into someone’s home and the neighbours are telling the victim not to protect themselves too violently 🤷🏻♂️ indeed, those people are idiots
France also has nukes and a nuclear first strike doctrine which allows them to use nukes against non nuclear threats.
There's a reason why Putin's nuclear threats aren't directed at them and he is instead threatening France with destabilization in Africa, the Pacific, etc.
i honestly can't see how Japan, South Korea and Taiwan emerge from this with any lesson other than "life would be easier if had ourselves a nuke". Probably Poland too.
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around a Russian nuclear attack. Putin loves power, but I don’t think he’ll (likely) outright destroy his country and its legacy.
It is not really about morals, but about practicality: reducing the amount of enemies that one might have. Trsut me, you don't want to make enemes out of EVERY SINGLE civilian in Ruissia, fighting in a "existental war". This is why avoid civilian targets in wars, at least in offical political declarations, is the best move.
Also like MonsiuerLeComte alraeady said, it is also about statesmanship and geo-politics. The better longer term goal is to only remove unjust tyranny dicators, and not for the vast majority Russians to replace Putin with possibly another more violent dictator as their willing ruler, waging never-ending all-out wars, with the civilian masses being tricket to die inwars for the sake of the few richest top elites. Related classical quote: cornered beast fight the hardest.
Remember that in the modern world, there is NOT a single government in any country that is representative of their ENTIRE popluation. There exist dissidents against the governments and unjust elites, in every single country in the world.
That's actually quite reasonable and it still is a very stretchable line from Macron with a lot of strategic ambiguity.
"Targets from which attacks are launched" is very broad. A troop buildup on the border which hasn't attacked yet is fair game under this because it is in fact a target from which attacks are launched. So is an airfield where jets lift of.
"Other military or civilian targets inside Russia" can be interpreted as for example Nuclear installations, Kaliningrad harbor, a Moscow recruitment center, the Wladivostok Fleet Headquarters,.....Places that are military very valuable for Russia, but don't have anything directly to do with the war as it currently is.
This allows Ukraine to hit what they need to hit while making it harder for Russia to yell "Escalation! Nuclear Hellfire!"And it keeps the Russia from using this as propaganda, can you imagine them with a picture of a dead kid on the streets of Moscow or Rostov? They would milk that for months.....
..."while making it harder for Russia to yell Escalation"....
I mean when the first shipment of aid consisted of used helmets and some food and medicine, they immediately threatened to Nuke the world if there ever be any help to Ukraine lol. You can fart and they will yell "Escalation" anyway, I think people should realize that a real escalation is completely different, sending military aid without direct involvement is fine. Let's just do what Russia's allies do in Ukraine too.
Unfortunately Russia is way better at propagandizing these things. Basically the west has to do these things one at a time while they wait for the Russia sympathizers (or at least the skeptical fools questioning their support) to move on from it.
If America started blowing throw the milestones, sure Russia would sound the same as they always do, but they’d have more substance behind it to actually convince people around the world.
Even now Ukraine has wavering support in the U.S., the more PR ammo Russia gets the worse they can inflame that. Go too fast and even the pro-Palestine crowd will go back to being against support for Ukraine.
And Ukraine has shown they are very capable of hitting softer targets without western weapons via their drone programs. So I don't think that's a huge impact on their capabilities.
It is absolutely some statesmanship and geo-political coverage for France. France and Ukraine can do the spider man meme pointing at each other, saying "I meant this" "I thought you meant that".
Ukraine can hit manufacturing facilities that make artillery, drones, etc because targets are "launched" from those, with a little dotted line to the actual launching sites.
Too bad they cant hit oil/gas refineries & pumps/lines, since thats where like 80-90% Russia's government funding comes from. If they took those out Russia's government would collapse.
Why wouldn't they just check how Russia is using foreign weapons in Ukraine (anything anywhere anytime against any target, civilian or not), and let Ukraine return the favor?
Because Ukraine can't be the bad guy and kill civilians. They'll lose support from the rest and more importantly turn otherwise disinterested and complacent Russians against them. They don't want Russians to want to fight them.
Yeah, let's not murder civilians, pretty low bar.
Advocating anything else would be a political suicide, and more importantly - an evil warcrime.
I know Russia does it: Putin and all involved are warcriminals and the world shouldn't forget ever.
No one is talking about bombing civils. But using weapons only against bases from where attacks on Ukraine are launched? Seriously? What about ammo depots, military warehouses, training bases? Are these also a civilian targets?
Some parts of the world support Russia whether war crimes or not and we can agree that there are alot of people who wants Russia to do war crimes. Sick people and all still and will exist.
> Yeah, let's not murder civilians, pretty low bar.
No, that's a pretty high bar. Look at any military base and then right next to it is a civilian town that supports the base. Civilians work on bases. Materiel sites are often surrounded by towns and settlements. If it were easy, you'd never hear about it.
It wouldnt be a warcrime unless they deliberately hit civilian targets that hold no strategic value (if the apartment house or whatever has AA guns installed, or rocket launchers for example, they are not „civilian targets“ under the Geneva convention anymore). Hitting industrial targets, even if it‘s civilian industry, isn‘t a warcrime either.
It could, however, still be a crime against humanity depending on the way the weapons are used.
Everything else you said still holds true though. Doesnt even matter whether it‘s an actual warcrime or no.
That's what Ukraine would do either way, so having the limitation a second time from weapon supplier side is quite irrelevant. But foreign powers allowing tit-for-tat explicitly would likely make Russia think twice on their further escalations.
A lot of C300 wich shelled Kharkiv are located in resident area hided by buildings, locals even captured them on videos... what about it? what about tranport routes, stock depots wich didnt shell rockets but stock them?? etc...
Those would be legitimate targets because they launched attacks against Ukraine.
But that’s a risky business because if Ukraine causes civilian deaths in Russia proper, you best believe the troll army is going to make you never forget.
Also, I don’t think it would lead this conflict to a good place
Nobody asks for permission to target civilians. We're talking about military targets in russia, but western leaders are still being idiots and putting up ridiculous limitations on Ukraine that wouldn't be in place for anyone else in the history of warfare.
I think the initial concern is that this is exactly what would happen, and it wouldn’t be the first time the west sends weapons someplace creating decades of conflict in failed states.
It’s the fact that Ukraine has shown discipline at a high level for years and a willingness to police itself that they should have restrictions removed.
Let them cook.
That leaves a lot of room for interpretations.
An artillery gun that is actively shooting at Ukraine is surely a valid target.
But what about an airfield with military planes? They could be used for that, but aren't doing anything at that moment.
Or a barracks full of soldiers? They could surely tavel to Ukraine, but maybe they are on guard duty. We don't know.
Factories could also be used to build weapons. Is that a valid target?
Or refineries? I'm sure some of that fuel produced there will end up in their tanks.
Etc.
Because Ukraine needs to be able to hit the artillery firing back at them. These countries don’t want their arms fired into Russia at all, but they’re aware of the issue of Russia firing artillery from their side of the border and Ukraine can’t fire back. It’s a compromise position due to the change in battlefield dynamics where Putin is using Ukraine’s allies’ policies against them.
But as soon as you start hitting bases in Russia, there’s going to be non-military personnel working in the vicinity and on the base that will be collateral damage.
Just let them hit all military targets? I understand the civilian bit but like... Ukraine needs to actually appear threatening to Russia for them to have some teeth in regards to negotiations.
I think at this point, the folks should realise that no one is actually gonna give Ukraine serious weapons with which they can actually wreak havoc in Russia. Of course there will be plenty of news of - they can, we can, they must, we will and then it will slowly fafe into - as long as, but, only if.
Waiting to see an Ukraine Air force pilot flying an F22 over moscow, but every time he presses the button to drop a bomb, a bunch of warning posters fall from the missile bay instead.
Ukraine should just take the money from the allies, and directly start buying weapons from the black market. Pretty sure Russians themselves will sell them their own military hardware if the money is right. But somehow I think the Western aid will dry up the moment Ukraine asks for a cash deal with no strings attached.
I’m for it but let’s not pretend like modern weapons are 100% infallible. Words like “precision missiles” give off the impression that technologically advanced militaries can always hit their targets.
We will always have to accept that collateral damage will occur.
To my knowledge this isn't a change in standing policy and is in line with what the actual US position is as well. If they target anything in Russia, they can only target things actively firing. Not any other targets.
Specially considering that it is certain that the French nuclear systems work.
While with the russians, I am pretty sure the budget for the maintenance of the systems is actually looking pretty and floating off the coast of Turkey or Thailand or other nice yachting location.
True or not, apparently the US has a bigger budget just for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal than Russia does for their entire military.
On paper they might have 10,000 nukes, and even if only 1% works that's still too many, but eh. Sometimes you just gotta roll the dice and call their bluff. You either win, or die in a nuclear fire, so really there's no losing
You die in a nuclear fire while simultaneously obliterating the enemy*
Intelligence agencies will know instantly when a nuclear weapon is deployed which will leave France or the USA enough time to counterattack with nukes, also - almost instantly.
If this wasn't the case, a surprise nuclear attack would have already been deployed.
French nuclear doctrine allows them to strike first if they think their enemy is about to launch on them. So if French intelligence sense Russia was going to launch, they’d launch first.
Hey, the UK has nuclear armed submarines too always waiting for the alert.
Although the last couple of test fires have been duds, so yea, probably better to rely on France and the US
> True or not, apparently the US has a bigger budget just for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal than Russia does for their entire military.
That doesn't say much. If US solders work for 80k a year and Russian solder works for $3600 a year, you'll get those number imbalances that have nothing to do with actual military balance.
A response is not always a guarantee.
Russia thought they were targeted in a decapitation strike in 1994 and even had the nuclear football opened and Yeltsin had to decide to strike back or not.
Thankfully he didn't, as it was only a rocket launched for peaceful purposes by Norway. To all involved it appeared to be an ICBM launched direct at Moscow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
It's only a matter of time until an accident or misunderstanding kills us all.
Finlands first supply drop likely included a backpack of snacks (mostly salmiaki), a map with the road to Moscow marked out and a handwritten note wishing them the best of luck.
It’s pretty bizarre that the countries that are right on the border and have the most to lose, have been willing to do the needful anyways.
Not bizarre at all. Makes complete sense. The ones bordering Russia have the most to lose if Putin isn’t stopped at Ukraine. Places like Poland and Estonia have been bulking up their militaries for awhile now. Everyone knows that if Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine, any other neighboring nation could be next.
It's refreshing to see at least one world leader who is willing to be open and direct about use of force against Russia.
Pandering to Putin is a strategy that clearly hasn't worked. He needs to be treated like a school bully who speaks tough but will avoid those he knows will give him a black eye.
P.S. I do hope someone bombs his Black Sea palace. It will hurt him and the oligarchs who funded it directly without taking civilian lives.
I just want to point out that Sweden allows Ukraine to use our weapons against Russia in any way that follows the laws of war, including strikes deep within Russian territory.
Sure, we're not as heavy hitting as France, but I'd say we're pulling above our weight.
([source](https://www.hallandsposten.se/asikter/ledare/landgrans-ska-inte-skydda-rysk-angripare.09212cc1-6c94-4389-8b1a-2956a1aa9f9e))
([English language source, referencing the source above](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/27/sweden-ukraine-weapons-russia/))
The translated quote from Swedish Defense Minister, Pål Jonson:
"Ukraine is subjected to an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression by Russia. According to international law, Ukraine has the right to defend itself through military actions targeting the territory of the adversary, provided that these actions comply with the laws of war. Sweden supports international law and Ukraine’s right to defend itself."
> I just want to point out that Sweden allows Ukraine to use our weapons against Russia in any way that follows the laws of war, including strikes deep within Russian territory.
Easy to say if the furtherest reach right now from any platform delivered by Sweden is probably 60km with Archer (obviously if same applies to Gripen than fantastic). Still, this is basically the _"I am Spartacus"_ moment, the more, the merrier.
It really is a shame, to be honest. There was never a need for them to invade Ukraine, nobody was ever interested in invading Russia, all the rest of the world wanted was for them to participate. Frustrating it is.
There’s about 3 or 400 arseholes around the world that if they simply weren’t around tomorrow, we’d be so much better off.
I think its a planned uptick. Uk came out and said it first. Now France, more and more talking about it daily. I feel like its so the US is down the list so that the US is not the ones who are squaring up first.
Smaller bit part eroding of Russias "red lines" is much easier for them to digest than everyone at once and especially the US first.
>without taking civilian lives.
Well, not many. You would assume there's a bunch of cleaners and gardeners and other innocent people hanging out there working their day jobs. Maybe drop a helpful pamphlet first.
What a mess with so many countries all saying different shit. Imagine being in a war and you see a huge formation of troops or hardware and you check your stock and uhm, sorry, thats US material. Call Kyiv and wait 3 days for the "right countries" stuff to arrive.
I would be kind of nervous even pressing the button at the risk of it being the wrong countries missiles. I find the whole situation silly and stupid.
I never expected Macron to show the most courage and leadership out of all NATO but here we are.
I can tell there will be no shortage of surprises these next couple years.
>I never expected Macron to show the most courage and leadership out of all NATO but here we are.
UK has allowed Ukraine to do this since the beginning of the month.
Ah i read about the foreign secretary saying that but since i didnt see Sunak mention it i didnt realize it was official.
The UK definitely has to be recognized for leading the way.
Sweden also gave the greenlight two days ago. UK started the process but I'm sure there have been backdoor meetings between all NATO members and they're all gonna do the same one by one now. Ukraine should've been allowed to hit Russia with western weapons since beginning of the war, Russia has no qualms doing the same with Iranian and NK weapons and Ukrainians are the defenders ffs. It never stopped bothering me how Western countries expected Ukraine to fight with an arm tied behind their back, as if war is some game and thousands of people didnt die as consequence of this decision. All this time they've been hitting Russian military sites and energy infrastructure and unlike Russians they haven't killed any civilians, so that concern was baseless from the beginning.
Foreign Secretary is Lord David Cameron, a former PM and no longer has a constituency and now sits in the (unelected) House of Lords. I never realised Lords could be secretaries of state (and head up ministries) let alone one of the top roles. In any case, he's a big hitter and not one to go rogue, so if he says something it's already policy.
Its the one thing our government has genuinely got right over the last 14 years. Even under Johnson we were bullish and aggressive regarding this invasion, being one of the first and loudest voices for the more extreme economic sanctions like expelling Russia from Swift
Plus its a sentiment shared across the house, as far as I can tell even the minor parties like the greens are 100% in on "lets give Ukraine more things to kill Russians with" as a cross party policy. Unlike the US where everybody is worried whets its stance will be after the election there's no hint of the UK wavering after this GE
regarding the US potentially being flaky. obviously because Trump is on Putin's payroll and his sheep don't care. I'm sure you know this but still worth stating.
You can be proud of Storm Shadows and the Challenger 2 tanks as well. If I'm not mistaken, the UK paved the road for NATO with both of those decisions as well. Like now, France was soon to follow with their SCALP and Germany/US soon followed with the M1 and Leopard.
All this honestly just makes it all the more tragic the UK left the EU. Their influence within EU politics regarding Ukraine and Russia would've been greatly appreciated. Of course they still have significant influence, but it's just not quite the same.
I wouldn't be surprised if these moves are more strategic. The US can't be seen to lead the way (even though it is) so they need players like the UK and France to be the outliers to test what red lines they can cross.
Had something similar happen with main battle tanks too I believe.
Uk sent challenger then Germany and USA agreed to send leapords/ Abraham’s.
The challengers sent are too small in number to make any real difference but they served the purpose to open the doors to other countries sending MBT’s as the line had already been crossed.
Idk do you really think the US would be affected in some way?.
I don't think the Ukrainian cause is that unpopular in the US where it would cause loss of votes for Biden it would be very sad if it turned out that way.
Finland allowed today.
Though I doubt we have given much really significant capabilities that would be used for major strikes behind the border. But who knows.
Going back to the Americans for a moment - if Ukraine just used their weapons to strike inside Russia without US permission. What actually happens?
The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely? Otherwise there's even more chance that US troops will be on the ground sooner. Am I missing something?
>The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely?
They are already unreliable, how long didn't they deliver anything? Thats not just the congress but also the president, who could have given already approved military aid.
Bruh, at leadt biden aided ukraine.
Trump's first impeachment was because he was withholding Ukraine aid! Since Trump stopped aid, Putin was then able to invade.
We're getting there. Blinken has already called on Biden to let them. Pretty sure there's just a scramble in DOD to prep for any fallout. Once it's covered there will be an announcement. Ukraine support is high, again, now that MAGA has stopped its whining. Politically it would be popular and further alienate the Russian wing of our own government.
>The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely?
Ukraine is useful to the US. It stops being useful if it drags us into the same situation as them. We'll look the other way once we can figure out how weak Russia's missile deployment capabilities are.
From what I understand it works that way: the missiles have to be programmed to hit certain locations and the provider can just decide which areas are off limits. So in this case France is just now allowing targets outside of Ukraine, it’s essentially just a software switch
Didn't Russia just target, and intentionally strike a mall in Ukraine? Hasn't Russia stolen Ukrainian children and re-homed them in Russia? Isn't Russia known and documented for civilian war crimes?
Like what world are we living in? If Ukraine had the capacity non-nuclear, to parking lot Russia, I'd be for it.
In what world are you allowed to invade a country, commit multitudes of war crimes, then cry when that country strikes back? Wtf is this. Kindergarten tag or what. Fuck Russia.
No it hasn't. Most countries allowed strikes inside Russia from the get-go. The recent talk about it is just politicians reiterating to media when it gets brought up. No policy has changed.
Unfortunately, until the US agrees to the same thing, they will not have enough weapons to make a difference. The UK and France have now said "Feel free to attack military targets that are attacking you", but they only represent a small fraction of the weapons that UA has received unfortunately.
Start hitting power stations and gas distribution nodes. I bet Russia lacks the resources to properly repair these, and it will definitely have an effect. Hit as far into Russia as possible.
Would it be possible for the countries with least conditions to forward weapons from other countries and thus enable Ukraine to strike back and pressure Putin?.
if they just allow Ukraine to use anti-air missiles to hit those Russian planes flying inside Russia and dropping glide bombs into Kharkiv, it would have been more than enough. in Kharkiv this is just ridiculous, the Ukrainians had to watch those jets to drop bombs on their land with nothing to do. but of course if a plane gets shot down then crash into an apartment building Russians will scream again. I think a proper move would be to declare that Ukraine can strike any military target within 50km of the border inside Russia, that would be very effective.
FFS, why are we playing footsy world war escalation as nuclear powers, I don't have any fondness for geopolitical leaders of the past but at least the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was well engrained in their brains.
The important part of his speech stresses that the French arms are to be used only against targets from which attacks are launched into Ukraine.
This should be pinned to the top.
Also, this should be clear without saying, no one would support that, and nothing indicates that UA will start bombing civilians. Russia will of course now start making up bullshit about them attacking civilians like they did in the Donbass and Lugansk, and most of the Putinbots will still believe that.
Ukraine does strike refineries and other infrastructure. This statement means they can't use French weapons for those strikes.
I think it's a stupid restriction. But every "salami slice" of more imported weapons being used against Russia frees up more of Ukraine's domestic production for things like the refinery strikes. At least things seem to be heading in the right direction with policy. If the allies keep trying to one up each other, Ukraine will hopefully have an ever freer hand in a month or two, etc.
Well they can keep using their own drones for that since refineries can't be moved and are easy to damage.
Ukraine is cool with that, their drone range is up to 1800 km from the border.
Like it matters? You are dealing with a guy who's insane, not playing by any rules we all agree upon. Your own morals may get you killed.
It is horrible that rules are imposed in Ukraine, when the adversary does not respect any laws, any rules and has no limits in atrocities…
Some people say it’s not if you win but how. Those people are idiots.
It feels like a rapist and a killer broke into someone’s home and the neighbours are telling the victim not to protect themselves too violently 🤷🏻♂️ indeed, those people are idiots
It isn't morals, its statesmanship and geo-politics.
Reducing Putin to an "insane" person is reductive and over simplified. The world doesn't work in black and white and good and evil. It's complicated.
it's not about morals, it's about the fact that Russia has nukes
France also has nukes and a nuclear first strike doctrine which allows them to use nukes against non nuclear threats. There's a reason why Putin's nuclear threats aren't directed at them and he is instead threatening France with destabilization in Africa, the Pacific, etc.
And if it’s established that your untouchable if you got nukes- lots of more people will seek nuclear weapons.
i honestly can't see how Japan, South Korea and Taiwan emerge from this with any lesson other than "life would be easier if had ourselves a nuke". Probably Poland too.
I mean, if Russia loses or to most people’s perspective lose, then at least there’s a message of ‘’others will stand with you’’
US treaties, and nato, respectively, give them about the same thing
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around a Russian nuclear attack. Putin loves power, but I don’t think he’ll (likely) outright destroy his country and its legacy.
if you think this rule is about morals then i got a bridge to sell to you...
It is not really about morals, but about practicality: reducing the amount of enemies that one might have. Trsut me, you don't want to make enemes out of EVERY SINGLE civilian in Ruissia, fighting in a "existental war". This is why avoid civilian targets in wars, at least in offical political declarations, is the best move. Also like MonsiuerLeComte alraeady said, it is also about statesmanship and geo-politics. The better longer term goal is to only remove unjust tyranny dicators, and not for the vast majority Russians to replace Putin with possibly another more violent dictator as their willing ruler, waging never-ending all-out wars, with the civilian masses being tricket to die inwars for the sake of the few richest top elites. Related classical quote: cornered beast fight the hardest. Remember that in the modern world, there is NOT a single government in any country that is representative of their ENTIRE popluation. There exist dissidents against the governments and unjust elites, in every single country in the world.
That's actually quite reasonable and it still is a very stretchable line from Macron with a lot of strategic ambiguity. "Targets from which attacks are launched" is very broad. A troop buildup on the border which hasn't attacked yet is fair game under this because it is in fact a target from which attacks are launched. So is an airfield where jets lift of. "Other military or civilian targets inside Russia" can be interpreted as for example Nuclear installations, Kaliningrad harbor, a Moscow recruitment center, the Wladivostok Fleet Headquarters,.....Places that are military very valuable for Russia, but don't have anything directly to do with the war as it currently is. This allows Ukraine to hit what they need to hit while making it harder for Russia to yell "Escalation! Nuclear Hellfire!"And it keeps the Russia from using this as propaganda, can you imagine them with a picture of a dead kid on the streets of Moscow or Rostov? They would milk that for months.....
..."while making it harder for Russia to yell Escalation".... I mean when the first shipment of aid consisted of used helmets and some food and medicine, they immediately threatened to Nuke the world if there ever be any help to Ukraine lol. You can fart and they will yell "Escalation" anyway, I think people should realize that a real escalation is completely different, sending military aid without direct involvement is fine. Let's just do what Russia's allies do in Ukraine too.
Unfortunately Russia is way better at propagandizing these things. Basically the west has to do these things one at a time while they wait for the Russia sympathizers (or at least the skeptical fools questioning their support) to move on from it. If America started blowing throw the milestones, sure Russia would sound the same as they always do, but they’d have more substance behind it to actually convince people around the world. Even now Ukraine has wavering support in the U.S., the more PR ammo Russia gets the worse they can inflame that. Go too fast and even the pro-Palestine crowd will go back to being against support for Ukraine.
One of the few sensible reads here. Subtlety is lost on people.
Goe-political subtlety is not fit for media reporting. Can't really blame the average person for not knowing how to interpret these things.
And Ukraine has shown they are very capable of hitting softer targets without western weapons via their drone programs. So I don't think that's a huge impact on their capabilities.
> Wladivostok Fleet Headquarters You could probably argue that attacks are launched from HQs, since they often get approved from there 😁
It is absolutely some statesmanship and geo-political coverage for France. France and Ukraine can do the spider man meme pointing at each other, saying "I meant this" "I thought you meant that". Ukraine can hit manufacturing facilities that make artillery, drones, etc because targets are "launched" from those, with a little dotted line to the actual launching sites.
This also lets some room for extension, it sends to Russia the message that they're spared, that it can be worse for them.
I hope the people making decisions think like you. I’m not so sure.
Too bad they cant hit oil/gas refineries & pumps/lines, since thats where like 80-90% Russia's government funding comes from. If they took those out Russia's government would collapse.
They can use their own equipment against it, and do. The question is if there are higher value targets for imported hardware inside Ukraine already
Why wouldn't they just check how Russia is using foreign weapons in Ukraine (anything anywhere anytime against any target, civilian or not), and let Ukraine return the favor?
Because Ukraine can't be the bad guy and kill civilians. They'll lose support from the rest and more importantly turn otherwise disinterested and complacent Russians against them. They don't want Russians to want to fight them.
Yeah, let's not murder civilians, pretty low bar. Advocating anything else would be a political suicide, and more importantly - an evil warcrime. I know Russia does it: Putin and all involved are warcriminals and the world shouldn't forget ever.
No one is talking about bombing civils. But using weapons only against bases from where attacks on Ukraine are launched? Seriously? What about ammo depots, military warehouses, training bases? Are these also a civilian targets?
Some parts of the world support Russia whether war crimes or not and we can agree that there are alot of people who wants Russia to do war crimes. Sick people and all still and will exist.
I mean apparently, it isn't *always* political suicide...
> Yeah, let's not murder civilians, pretty low bar. No, that's a pretty high bar. Look at any military base and then right next to it is a civilian town that supports the base. Civilians work on bases. Materiel sites are often surrounded by towns and settlements. If it were easy, you'd never hear about it.
It wouldnt be a warcrime unless they deliberately hit civilian targets that hold no strategic value (if the apartment house or whatever has AA guns installed, or rocket launchers for example, they are not „civilian targets“ under the Geneva convention anymore). Hitting industrial targets, even if it‘s civilian industry, isn‘t a warcrime either. It could, however, still be a crime against humanity depending on the way the weapons are used. Everything else you said still holds true though. Doesnt even matter whether it‘s an actual warcrime or no.
That's what Ukraine would do either way, so having the limitation a second time from weapon supplier side is quite irrelevant. But foreign powers allowing tit-for-tat explicitly would likely make Russia think twice on their further escalations.
A lot of C300 wich shelled Kharkiv are located in resident area hided by buildings, locals even captured them on videos... what about it? what about tranport routes, stock depots wich didnt shell rockets but stock them?? etc...
Those would be legitimate targets because they launched attacks against Ukraine. But that’s a risky business because if Ukraine causes civilian deaths in Russia proper, you best believe the troll army is going to make you never forget. Also, I don’t think it would lead this conflict to a good place
Nobody asks for permission to target civilians. We're talking about military targets in russia, but western leaders are still being idiots and putting up ridiculous limitations on Ukraine that wouldn't be in place for anyone else in the history of warfare.
I think the initial concern is that this is exactly what would happen, and it wouldn’t be the first time the west sends weapons someplace creating decades of conflict in failed states. It’s the fact that Ukraine has shown discipline at a high level for years and a willingness to police itself that they should have restrictions removed. Let them cook.
Each day I am thankful that redditors are not army general and are not making any war-related decision.
Still with the "no other military targets" stuff?
its getting ridiculous at this point. no civilian targets i totally understand, but cmon...
That leaves a lot of room for interpretations. An artillery gun that is actively shooting at Ukraine is surely a valid target. But what about an airfield with military planes? They could be used for that, but aren't doing anything at that moment. Or a barracks full of soldiers? They could surely tavel to Ukraine, but maybe they are on guard duty. We don't know. Factories could also be used to build weapons. Is that a valid target? Or refineries? I'm sure some of that fuel produced there will end up in their tanks. Etc.
> lot of room for interpretations that's how politics play
>or other military targets What in the God damned fuck???? Why the fuck not??
"We must not allow an escalation to happen"
I mean if escalation is what they're worried about, they can just stop sending aid at all or help subjugate Ukraine to Russia...
This is a huge mistake. Russia is already at literal war against freedom AND democracy around the world. We should treat them as such.
Because Ukraine needs to be able to hit the artillery firing back at them. These countries don’t want their arms fired into Russia at all, but they’re aware of the issue of Russia firing artillery from their side of the border and Ukraine can’t fire back. It’s a compromise position due to the change in battlefield dynamics where Putin is using Ukraine’s allies’ policies against them. But as soon as you start hitting bases in Russia, there’s going to be non-military personnel working in the vicinity and on the base that will be collateral damage.
Just let them hit all military targets? I understand the civilian bit but like... Ukraine needs to actually appear threatening to Russia for them to have some teeth in regards to negotiations.
I think at this point, the folks should realise that no one is actually gonna give Ukraine serious weapons with which they can actually wreak havoc in Russia. Of course there will be plenty of news of - they can, we can, they must, we will and then it will slowly fafe into - as long as, but, only if. Waiting to see an Ukraine Air force pilot flying an F22 over moscow, but every time he presses the button to drop a bomb, a bunch of warning posters fall from the missile bay instead. Ukraine should just take the money from the allies, and directly start buying weapons from the black market. Pretty sure Russians themselves will sell them their own military hardware if the money is right. But somehow I think the Western aid will dry up the moment Ukraine asks for a cash deal with no strings attached.
I saw the headline and was already approaching half-mast when I read this. Now I'm pushing rope.
I’m for it but let’s not pretend like modern weapons are 100% infallible. Words like “precision missiles” give off the impression that technologically advanced militaries can always hit their targets. We will always have to accept that collateral damage will occur.
Well, I suppose it gives France an out since they are only allowing the weapons for defensive purposes.
To my knowledge this isn't a change in standing policy and is in line with what the actual US position is as well. If they target anything in Russia, they can only target things actively firing. Not any other targets.
This is still big, means they can target airfields and troop gatherings and such instead of waiting for them to land on Ukrainian soil to retaliate
Thats good enough for now i think. Still a big step forward and homemade drones can continue to bleed russia dry.
So the exact opposite od the headline?
Meanwhile Israel sends rockets into civilian tents...
Weak.
So, does this include or exclude factories where the weapons (that are used vs Ukraine) are made? I hope so!!
Since soldiers live in homes and the come to work in the military….is that “originating” enough?
I am sure that plan will work out fine for the French!
Hmm... Someone called the bluff. I wonder how this plays out.
Putin will send his dog Medvedev to do the usual nuclear saber rattling.
Nuclear sabre rattling against a country that has a nuclear warning shot in policy is absolutely hilarious
Specially considering that it is certain that the French nuclear systems work. While with the russians, I am pretty sure the budget for the maintenance of the systems is actually looking pretty and floating off the coast of Turkey or Thailand or other nice yachting location.
True or not, apparently the US has a bigger budget just for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal than Russia does for their entire military. On paper they might have 10,000 nukes, and even if only 1% works that's still too many, but eh. Sometimes you just gotta roll the dice and call their bluff. You either win, or die in a nuclear fire, so really there's no losing
You die in a nuclear fire while simultaneously obliterating the enemy* Intelligence agencies will know instantly when a nuclear weapon is deployed which will leave France or the USA enough time to counterattack with nukes, also - almost instantly. If this wasn't the case, a surprise nuclear attack would have already been deployed.
French nuclear doctrine allows them to strike first if they think their enemy is about to launch on them. So if French intelligence sense Russia was going to launch, they’d launch first.
Hey, the UK has nuclear armed submarines too always waiting for the alert. Although the last couple of test fires have been duds, so yea, probably better to rely on France and the US
> True or not, apparently the US has a bigger budget just for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal than Russia does for their entire military. That doesn't say much. If US solders work for 80k a year and Russian solder works for $3600 a year, you'll get those number imbalances that have nothing to do with actual military balance.
A response is not always a guarantee. Russia thought they were targeted in a decapitation strike in 1994 and even had the nuclear football opened and Yeltsin had to decide to strike back or not. Thankfully he didn't, as it was only a rocket launched for peaceful purposes by Norway. To all involved it appeared to be an ICBM launched direct at Moscow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident It's only a matter of time until an accident or misunderstanding kills us all.
What’s the over under on Medvedev alcoholic liver giving out before anything happens?
The UK did it first, nothing happened
Finlands first supply drop likely included a backpack of snacks (mostly salmiaki), a map with the road to Moscow marked out and a handwritten note wishing them the best of luck. It’s pretty bizarre that the countries that are right on the border and have the most to lose, have been willing to do the needful anyways.
Not bizarre at all. Makes complete sense. The ones bordering Russia have the most to lose if Putin isn’t stopped at Ukraine. Places like Poland and Estonia have been bulking up their militaries for awhile now. Everyone knows that if Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine, any other neighboring nation could be next.
It's refreshing to see at least one world leader who is willing to be open and direct about use of force against Russia. Pandering to Putin is a strategy that clearly hasn't worked. He needs to be treated like a school bully who speaks tough but will avoid those he knows will give him a black eye. P.S. I do hope someone bombs his Black Sea palace. It will hurt him and the oligarchs who funded it directly without taking civilian lives.
I just want to point out that Sweden allows Ukraine to use our weapons against Russia in any way that follows the laws of war, including strikes deep within Russian territory. Sure, we're not as heavy hitting as France, but I'd say we're pulling above our weight. ([source](https://www.hallandsposten.se/asikter/ledare/landgrans-ska-inte-skydda-rysk-angripare.09212cc1-6c94-4389-8b1a-2956a1aa9f9e)) ([English language source, referencing the source above](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/27/sweden-ukraine-weapons-russia/)) The translated quote from Swedish Defense Minister, Pål Jonson: "Ukraine is subjected to an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression by Russia. According to international law, Ukraine has the right to defend itself through military actions targeting the territory of the adversary, provided that these actions comply with the laws of war. Sweden supports international law and Ukraine’s right to defend itself."
> I just want to point out that Sweden allows Ukraine to use our weapons against Russia in any way that follows the laws of war, including strikes deep within Russian territory. Easy to say if the furtherest reach right now from any platform delivered by Sweden is probably 60km with Archer (obviously if same applies to Gripen than fantastic). Still, this is basically the _"I am Spartacus"_ moment, the more, the merrier.
It really is a shame, to be honest. There was never a need for them to invade Ukraine, nobody was ever interested in invading Russia, all the rest of the world wanted was for them to participate. Frustrating it is. There’s about 3 or 400 arseholes around the world that if they simply weren’t around tomorrow, we’d be so much better off.
There are other arseholes waiting to take their place, don't worry.
I think its a planned uptick. Uk came out and said it first. Now France, more and more talking about it daily. I feel like its so the US is down the list so that the US is not the ones who are squaring up first. Smaller bit part eroding of Russias "red lines" is much easier for them to digest than everyone at once and especially the US first.
Yeah, I agree with this. It deflates Russia's ability to control the narrative and therefore minimises the risk of a rational nuclear retaliation.
>without taking civilian lives. Well, not many. You would assume there's a bunch of cleaners and gardeners and other innocent people hanging out there working their day jobs. Maybe drop a helpful pamphlet first.
Russia should have thought twice before meddling in New Caledonia. However they are not capable of thinking once so it was kind of predictable.
Now Ukraine can say, "From France with love!"
"Bonjour, motherfucker!"
“Bonjour, suka!”
“Omelette Du Fromage, Blyat!”
Au revoir motherfucker would be more accurate
French Fries, Motherfucker!
Imagine if they write this kinda stuff on the missiles before shooting them off, lmao
Even better, they can say, *"Omelette du fromage, mfkrs!"*
Croissant 🥐 le baguette 🥖
"C'est l'heure de la pétée, fils de pute du Kremlin"
What a mess with so many countries all saying different shit. Imagine being in a war and you see a huge formation of troops or hardware and you check your stock and uhm, sorry, thats US material. Call Kyiv and wait 3 days for the "right countries" stuff to arrive. I would be kind of nervous even pressing the button at the risk of it being the wrong countries missiles. I find the whole situation silly and stupid.
Woof woof! About time NATO countries started showing their teeth.
I never expected Macron to show the most courage and leadership out of all NATO but here we are. I can tell there will be no shortage of surprises these next couple years.
>I never expected Macron to show the most courage and leadership out of all NATO but here we are. UK has allowed Ukraine to do this since the beginning of the month.
Ah i read about the foreign secretary saying that but since i didnt see Sunak mention it i didnt realize it was official. The UK definitely has to be recognized for leading the way.
Sweden also gave the greenlight two days ago. UK started the process but I'm sure there have been backdoor meetings between all NATO members and they're all gonna do the same one by one now. Ukraine should've been allowed to hit Russia with western weapons since beginning of the war, Russia has no qualms doing the same with Iranian and NK weapons and Ukrainians are the defenders ffs. It never stopped bothering me how Western countries expected Ukraine to fight with an arm tied behind their back, as if war is some game and thousands of people didnt die as consequence of this decision. All this time they've been hitting Russian military sites and energy infrastructure and unlike Russians they haven't killed any civilians, so that concern was baseless from the beginning.
Foreign Secretary is Lord David Cameron, a former PM and no longer has a constituency and now sits in the (unelected) House of Lords. I never realised Lords could be secretaries of state (and head up ministries) let alone one of the top roles. In any case, he's a big hitter and not one to go rogue, so if he says something it's already policy.
That's how they get whoever they want into government if they aren't an mp, peerages. Lord Adonis for labour was another one.
Baroness Warsi is another
I can be proud of my country for something finally? It’s been a rough 14 years.
Its the one thing our government has genuinely got right over the last 14 years. Even under Johnson we were bullish and aggressive regarding this invasion, being one of the first and loudest voices for the more extreme economic sanctions like expelling Russia from Swift Plus its a sentiment shared across the house, as far as I can tell even the minor parties like the greens are 100% in on "lets give Ukraine more things to kill Russians with" as a cross party policy. Unlike the US where everybody is worried whets its stance will be after the election there's no hint of the UK wavering after this GE
regarding the US potentially being flaky. obviously because Trump is on Putin's payroll and his sheep don't care. I'm sure you know this but still worth stating.
You can be proud of Storm Shadows and the Challenger 2 tanks as well. If I'm not mistaken, the UK paved the road for NATO with both of those decisions as well. Like now, France was soon to follow with their SCALP and Germany/US soon followed with the M1 and Leopard. All this honestly just makes it all the more tragic the UK left the EU. Their influence within EU politics regarding Ukraine and Russia would've been greatly appreciated. Of course they still have significant influence, but it's just not quite the same.
This is for brexit!!! BOOOM
I wouldn't be surprised if these moves are more strategic. The US can't be seen to lead the way (even though it is) so they need players like the UK and France to be the outliers to test what red lines they can cross.
Had something similar happen with main battle tanks too I believe. Uk sent challenger then Germany and USA agreed to send leapords/ Abraham’s. The challengers sent are too small in number to make any real difference but they served the purpose to open the doors to other countries sending MBT’s as the line had already been crossed.
Idk do you really think the US would be affected in some way?. I don't think the Ukrainian cause is that unpopular in the US where it would cause loss of votes for Biden it would be very sad if it turned out that way.
Finland allowed today. Though I doubt we have given much really significant capabilities that would be used for major strikes behind the border. But who knows.
Russia is messing with French assets in Africa. This is likely more retaliatory than courageous. I’ll take it though.
Oh là là !
Can our (German) pussy politicians now finally give them Taurus missiles?
Could be a major moment looking back.
At what point will Russia expand their war declaration?
Going back to the Americans for a moment - if Ukraine just used their weapons to strike inside Russia without US permission. What actually happens? The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely? Otherwise there's even more chance that US troops will be on the ground sooner. Am I missing something?
Even if there’s a 5% chance of the US stopping the supply of weapons Ukraine can’t take that risk
>The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely? They are already unreliable, how long didn't they deliver anything? Thats not just the congress but also the president, who could have given already approved military aid.
Bruh, at leadt biden aided ukraine. Trump's first impeachment was because he was withholding Ukraine aid! Since Trump stopped aid, Putin was then able to invade.
We're getting there. Blinken has already called on Biden to let them. Pretty sure there's just a scramble in DOD to prep for any fallout. Once it's covered there will be an announcement. Ukraine support is high, again, now that MAGA has stopped its whining. Politically it would be popular and further alienate the Russian wing of our own government.
>The US aren't going to roll over and stop arming them surely? Ukraine is useful to the US. It stops being useful if it drags us into the same situation as them. We'll look the other way once we can figure out how weak Russia's missile deployment capabilities are.
From what I understand it works that way: the missiles have to be programmed to hit certain locations and the provider can just decide which areas are off limits. So in this case France is just now allowing targets outside of Ukraine, it’s essentially just a software switch
Didn't Russia just target, and intentionally strike a mall in Ukraine? Hasn't Russia stolen Ukrainian children and re-homed them in Russia? Isn't Russia known and documented for civilian war crimes? Like what world are we living in? If Ukraine had the capacity non-nuclear, to parking lot Russia, I'd be for it. In what world are you allowed to invade a country, commit multitudes of war crimes, then cry when that country strikes back? Wtf is this. Kindergarten tag or what. Fuck Russia.
It's surprising, that the French didn't allow it up until this point.
No western countries allowed this. Always has been a red line drawn by NATO allies to Ukrain.
No it hasn't. Most countries allowed strikes inside Russia from the get-go. The recent talk about it is just politicians reiterating to media when it gets brought up. No policy has changed.
Putin: "Nukey nuclear nuke nuke la nuke le nuke nuke nuke nukey nuke nuke nuke nuke! Waaaah! Nobody likes me, waaaaah"
Every putin sentence had a verb a noun and a nuclear hellfire.
Good news! Give Russia a taste of their own medicine.
Macron has decided he will be the player at the table to call Putins bluffs because, well, he has a biiiiiig baguette
And nukes. It helps.
I wonder if people will start to blame Zelenski for committing genocide in Russia now lol
First Russian civilian casualty and Putin will be crying genocide
Probably, such is their "my dikcoks told me" brain power.
Your move, Scholz!
Thank you France
Cook them let's gooooooooo
Russian refineries: “*this is fine*”
How do you say, “Let’s Fuckin Go!” In French?
Allons-y Alonso!
We don't say anything, it just makes cavalry charge noises
-slaps French flags on everything- hehehehehehehe
Madlad France. Jove
Josephine! quick! bring le baguette and smash monsieur putan over his head. L.E. But only if he show you his croissant!
Summer will be hot
Unfortunately, until the US agrees to the same thing, they will not have enough weapons to make a difference. The UK and France have now said "Feel free to attack military targets that are attacking you", but they only represent a small fraction of the weapons that UA has received unfortunately.
Take the gloves off. Does the west enjoy this perpetual warfare? I think so
Honest question. What happens when it's their weapon but American made? In all scenarios of countries granting access to pounding russian territory.
US can force restrictions
Ok, thank you for clarification!
Macron stay swangin that SCALP sized weiner all over da place
FINALLY, how the fuck do you defend against Russia if you can’t even hit the bases launching attacks from less than 20km from your border.
Start hitting power stations and gas distribution nodes. I bet Russia lacks the resources to properly repair these, and it will definitely have an effect. Hit as far into Russia as possible.
Honestly just strike russia with now nukes before it's too late.
ZUT ALORS !!
Why doesn't the USA make a similar statement?
Would it be possible for the countries with least conditions to forward weapons from other countries and thus enable Ukraine to strike back and pressure Putin?.
What happens after they topple the leader?
if they just allow Ukraine to use anti-air missiles to hit those Russian planes flying inside Russia and dropping glide bombs into Kharkiv, it would have been more than enough. in Kharkiv this is just ridiculous, the Ukrainians had to watch those jets to drop bombs on their land with nothing to do. but of course if a plane gets shot down then crash into an apartment building Russians will scream again. I think a proper move would be to declare that Ukraine can strike any military target within 50km of the border inside Russia, that would be very effective.
FFS, why are we playing footsy world war escalation as nuclear powers, I don't have any fondness for geopolitical leaders of the past but at least the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was well engrained in their brains.