>

The uk has a drug epidemic, knife crime, middle class jobs that dont pay enough for hot water and electricity yet they wanna get involved with Ukraine.. sad leadership and sheep let it happen.
Interesting. Though of course, not ruling something out, and actually doing something are two very different things. Still, the fact that they're putting the option on the table is telling. >

It's posturing. A calculated move to make the enemy work overtime to figure out their contingencies as well as their diplomatic response. 
Obviously, from an ethical point of view, Ukraine ought to be free to launch missile strikes on Russian soil.  I think it's something that the west is saving for the possibility of a near-russian victory. >

Britian already said they are cool if they target Russian territory with the weapons they give ukraine.  
It was only the USA that apparently made that stipulation. >

USA priority was degrading the Russians military to the point they can't do something like this again for like 20 years.
That goal has been largely met so now focus is forcing them to surrender by military defeat >

I think that a generation is defined to be 27 years. It will take several generations before Russia has the population surplus and financial surplus for another war. >

You could inform yourself with the state of Germany in 1918, and the resulting colossal war paybacks, to understand that what you say does not make sense. In 1939, the same country started a war again and bulldozed most of Europe. >

You got a point, but Russia is not Germany. The latter was industrialised and a world leader in metallurgy and chemistry, etc. >

And Germany didn't have the recent tech that's been developed, nor did they have vast amounts of oil. They aren't the same but it's hard to rule out Russia coming back from almost anything, like Germany did >


And Germany didn't have the recent tech that's been developed,

To be fair, Russia apparently doesn't either lol >

Funny yeah, but I mean, they have nukes, proper encryption and communications, better weaponry, guided weapons, new armour and defence tech, and suicide drones. >

The UK has nothing to lose when it comes to Russia. The relations between London and Moscow are so far underground you'd need mining equipment to look for it. >

It is a very bad look to be pro-Russia at the moment in the UK, even before Ukraine there was so much fucking around in the UK by Russia, they have certainly got to the Find Out stage. >

Everyone cares, it’s in the news, people are angry at the corruption and furious that an oligarch is in the House of Lords & hosts summer parties with Murdoch and Johnson. >

Forcing Russia in to a defensive posture will help Ukraine regain lost ground. >

Forcing Russia in to a defensive posture will end the war faster, saving Russian lives (as well as Ukrainian lives), which will make an apocalyptic mistake less likely.
We need to push the bear back while doing as little damage as possible, which means giving Ukraine enough weapons to end the grinding positional war of attrition. Or totally ditching Ukraine (but I'm guessing that's not on the table, and even if it was they held off Russia's initial assault with very little assistance). >

That’s not how Russian strategic culture works at all. You’re looking at things from a western perspective, rather than a Russian. Attacking the country itself will dramatically increase public support and will even further upward. Russian border insecurity is their driving force. >

Yea I don't like this idea. They need to be expelled and as much as possible of their military resources destroyed or used up. Then we leave them be. No striking russian territory at this point. Direct attacks like this will get them support and also mean they will do really crazy stuff >

The US founded the academic discipline of strategic culture, specifically because of Russia. Before the IC founded this field, westerners were always baffled by the actions of other nations, especially Russia (Insert Churchill's quote on Russia here). So they embarked on trying to understand how other's view the world -- what motivates them, what scares them, what are their values and worldview? Once we invested into understanding this, the world became much more rational and predictable. 
And this is why the US is strongly against equipping Ukraine with the weapons to go across the border. The western experts know the dangers of this, because they understand what this means to Russia, and what we mean by escalation. Equipping Ukraine to routinely be able to attack within their borders, would ignite Russia on a whole new level... And Ukraine even knows this, but they don't mind. Because further escalation from Russia means more western direct involvement in the conflict. Which is why it's the responsibility of the US to try and prevent ourselves and others from initiating this enormous pandora. >

The fabled Western experts railroaded us into appeasement post 2008 and 2014 Russian chimpouts, because they haven't got slightest idea how Russia works and are not willing to ask countries that historically dealt with them. >

No they didn't... Political ideologue's' who refused to listen to the experts lead to that. Further, this "appeasement" narrative is a short sided misunderstanding of complex working and moving parts. >

Imagine thinking you can negotiate with Moscow without debilitating their armed forces.
Even if Ukraine manages to raging control over all their territories, Russia will keep up the terror campaign. >

Yes that’s the problem. You can’t destroy Russias military capacity. And they also will forever be able to rally at their borders. That’s why this war will eventually end with ceded land >

Great idea. What falls next, Georgia or Baltics? >

They remember WWII. >

Fuck WWII we remember our weekly nuclear annihilation threats we have been receiving for the past 10 years >

Ukraine is getting military technology that they would have likely never had a chance at acquiring had Russia not attacked them. Russia’s worst fears are coming to fruition because of their own actions. It just seems absolutely insane that over and over again they continue to commit atrocities against Ukrainian civilians that only convinces other nations to help them even more. Russia, as a nation is so afraid of one man they are letting him destroy their nation from the inside out. >

Getting hoisted on their own petard, isn't it how the saying goes? >

I guess constantly threatening the UK with a nuclear tsunami isn't that great of an idea. >

Putin really thought he could just casually kick the hornet's nest of soft power and get away with it
I think he mistook our distaste for Europe as actual hatred and not sibling rivalry >

It's completely legal according to international law to give Ukraine missiles that can strike up to 300 km into Russia. Ukraine needs this capability to take out the Russian military infrastructure that are being used to support the invasion of Ukraine, including the Russian air bases used to provide rapid close air support to the Russian invaders.
Russia itself has been exporting missiles with this range to every corner of the world for decades. Every crackpot dictator in the world operates Russian Scud, Tochka, Kalibr, and Iskander missiles. >

What happens at 301km ? >

It's a violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). But that's only for missiles with payloads exceeding 500kg/1,100lbs. The MTCR is also non-binding, and has nothing to do with international law. >

But what happen then ? Strong words from the "International Community" ? Do you have to go in front of a court ? If so where ? >

Politics happen, as that is all the MTCR is. The MTCR exists to help prevent the spread of platforms capable of delivery nuclear weapons. "non-binding" means having no legal enforcement. >


Britain has “not ruled out” supplying Ukraine with missiles with sufficient range to destroy missile systems in Russia which may be targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.
The answer came to light in response to a written questions asked by Lord Blencathra.
“To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to supply Ukraine with missiles with sufficient range to destroy missile systems in Russia which may be targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.”
Baroness Goldie, Minister of State fr the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The UK will keep our support to Ukraine under review and has not ruled out the possibility of providing longer range weapons systems to counter Russia’s recent indiscriminate mass targeting of civilian infrastructure.
We have provided Ukraine with military aid on the understanding that it will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law. We liaise on a daily basis with the Ukrainian Government, and they are clear that equipment provided by the UK is intended for the defence of Ukraine.” >


His Majesty’s Government

I'm not sure I'm ever going to get used to this. >

UK going all in on Crimean War 2 >

'Not ruling out' is generally the default position of the British government with stuff like this. Never box yourself into a corner, by setting needless red lines. It makes no sense to tell your enemy your intentions, especially when no one knows what's going to happen. 
Russia goes even more berserk and starts just sweeping through cities murdering? 
Well then obviously we're gunna step things up, and give Ukraine more weapons to defend themselves. 
Never rule out options prematurely. >

Eh, it's not like Russia has or will ever use nukes though. >

Which is exactly why that was such a stupid statement by Petraeus.
Russia still uses their Black Sea fleet to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. >

Now we are talking! >

Impossible.  Really is.  Putin will not withdraw from Ukraine.  That's the only ceasefire Ukraine will accept.  
The only path now is to destroy Russias ability to wage war. >

Polonium in London. Novichok in Salisbury. Paybacks a bitch >

Kudos to the UK; at last, a country that is ready to take the initiative, assume a leadership position, and take the necessary actions to end the war. To end the fighting and end the suffering, tanks and long-range missiles will be necessary. >

Striking Russian ground will probably escalate the war. If the Russian civilians see that Russia is losing, Putin doesn’t really have a way out without losing the population’s support. Plus he might actually get tactical nukes involved. 
There’s a reason why other countries like the US, UK, France still haven’t sent Ukraine missiles to strike Russia. But they clearly support Ukraine right? We redditors don’t know everything. >

It's strange though. Ukraine has already struck Russian ground. They've hit airfields deep inside Russia and destroyed strategic bombers. They've launched helicopter raids into Russia. They've sent sabotage squads into Russia. And they've hit ships in "Russian" ports. Ukraine still controls a large portion of their northern border with Russia - so they could be routinely launching artillery and rockets dozens of km into Russia already with just the weapons they already have.
3km, 30km, or 300km... What's particularly escalatory about forcing Russia to draw their strategic bombers back another step? It's just a continuation of the game of cat and mouse. >

It’ll be difficult for Russia to hide their civilian deaths. That’s what I imagine Putin is scared of. The civilian population finally finding out that Russia is doing terribly in Ukraine, so much so that Ukraine is now even able to strike back at Russian cities (not saying they’d target civilians though). 
It’s also possible that Russia will claim that it’s western countries attacking Russia, since the Russian targets located by western intelligence would then be attacked by western weapons. This would be different to the tanks being destroyed by western weapons in Ukraine
And some Russian cities (like Moscow) are a few hundred miles from Ukraine-controlled Ukraine. So I’m not sure they could reach that deep into Russian territory with current missile capabilities. >

I imagine Putin would welcome civilian deaths at home, because that would potentially bolster public support for his war. But he knows Ukraine isn't interested in giving him that, hence he's only thrown up AA defences around the Kremlin and his personal residence.
As it is, the Russian government spins the narrative as they see fit to make whatever claims they want to their domestic audience... They could easily say "if the West hadn't supplied SPG's and MLRS, we would have wrapped up our SMO by now and Ukraine wouldn't be in a position to be launching missiles at our airfields. So the West is responsible for the death and destruction being unleashed upon us"... Where the missiles were actually made might make the TV propagandists a bit more vocal, but ultimately isn't going to change what Russia's course of action.
I believe the US is still holding veto power on where it's allowing Ukraine to use systems like HIMARS (with the current 80km missiles) anyway. It wouldn't be any different for 300km missiles. >

I will settle for missiles that reach the far reaches of Crimea - including taking out that bridge to Russia....... >

There's no reason Ukraine shouldn't be able to strike at every Russian base they're being attacked from. >

And every depot and industrial facility supplying the war effort. >

Find Putin and you’ll only need to send one missile >

NEver understood why people are against Ukraine striking into russia to hit military shit. >

Because they're scared of Russia using nuclear weapons to retaliate.  Which would then elicit an equal response from NATO.  It's not an excuse to be intimidated by Russia though. >

Military targets on either side of the border are fine. Civilian infrastructure and targets is wrong. However if Ukraine starts hitting isolated military targets they'll quickly become mixed with civilian. >

But they don't have to use the long range missiles to reach Russia, that's just the fear. The long range missiles can strike further into Russian military positions.  HiMars have limited range with the missiles they've been given. >

Just give, don't announce it😁 >

I support them going after launch sites to stop rocket launches, ships who launch rockets, bridges that bring Russian troops. I do not support them attacking civilian populations and that includes the government. Doing so would gain the support of the people and not to mention potentially violate NATO. Need to deescalate Russia not the opposite. As much as I am a boxing fan, I'd rather not see it between these two countries. >

Probably the best title I've seen in a long time!! This and the whole tank situation!! Drive those fuckers out of your country and if they continue to commit such evil acts towards children and the ppl of your country then bomb those pieces of shit back! Plain and simple! >

Give Ukraine the ability to strike Moscow. >

In for a penny, in for a pound!!! >

Don’t they share a border? Any missile can reach Russia, heck a hand grenade would do it. 
Yes, I am being pedantic I know they mean reach Moscow. >

Then there's the big question: When will the US send the long-range missles for our missle system.  Plus, are we training any unkrain pilots and ground crews for f15 or f16 fighters. Planes are not recoverable and repairable like tanks.     How about a fully outfitted diesel sub, anyone ?  Just one attack sub? This is for the Black Sea, not that they're doing too bad with water going drones >

This war would be over in a week or two if this was the case. After what they've done to the Ukraine I'm pretty sure they would take the gloves off as soon as they got a hold of something like that and shove it right up Putin's keister >

I wish the UK could give them something to sink the Black Sea Fleet. >

To be fair, Russia did threaten to obliterate UK with nukes >

It’s about damn time people got serious about this >

You see, we don’t do knee-jerk reactions, but if you come on our soil and poison our civilians or even those of yours who are here, you’ll find we have very long memories and will do whatever is necessary to make life miserable for you. >

Why not you might give him something to think about when they're Homeland starts getting bombed >

Ah I see we are now at the point of your nuke bluffs are bullshit part of the poker game. Now the chips go in. >

Ok so sounds like we are going head on into WW3. >

I wonder how things would change if Ukraine started striking mainland Russia with long range missiles. Turn the tables completely. >

nukes >

Just do it, the US might finally send ATACMS then too >

Hitting the ammunition/weapon factories, storage depots, airfields. That would be a game changer for UA for sure. >

Until the aggression hits significantly within Russian territory, we will be in this war. So, when, if ever? >

Throw the ring into the fire, Isildur. >

Hopefully Moscow.  Titty for tatty so to speak. >

When is this “thinking about it” going to translate into warheads on foreheads? >

Well the UK went from "considering sending tanks" to "confirming it will send tanks" to ukraine in 5 days, and apparently they will start arriving in the next few days.
So if it follows the same timeline this could be confirmed next Tuesday with the first missiles arriving by mid-Feb (though this might just be wishful thinking) >

And when ukraine starts bombing more aggressively and directly russia because of german shipped missiles and a dying president whit a losing war the doomsday clock will be only seconds away from midnight >

Today is a very good day! >

They should. Give them missles so Ukraine can return the favor by blowing up power and utility infrastructure inside Russia >

No, leave that alone and focus on military targets. Ukraine needs to stick to the moral high ground. >

Moral high ground……they’ve been killing civilians in collateral damage by bombing the donbass since 2014. >

There is like 20 something confirmed civilian deaths in the donbas from missiles during that war. And not all of those are even from ukranian missiles. Russia has killed tens of thousands of civilians in the past few months. Theyre nothing alike and you are spouting kremlin propaganda >

That's very good news. >

Why does it feel like every major power is pussyfooting around the idea of global war? >

Because they should? Total war in this day and age is a damned sight scarier than it was 80 years ago. If it can be avoided, it should be avoided. Plus, lets be honest, aside from the USA, no-one is really in a position to engage in a total war. China can engage locally, and that's it. The West has been gradually reducing military investment since the end of the Cold War. >

Honestly, It might be a good start.
Allow Ukraine to have the weapons and intelligence to wipe Putin and his chronies off the map. They are at war after all.
Second, have Nato say "Listen russia, your leaders are dead, and we are prepared to completely back down and move on, if you return all of Ukraine to Ukraine, and begin disarming yourselves of Nuclear weapons."
In exchange, Russia gets welcomed with open arms back into the International community, and they can blame Putin/Scapegoat him and start living normally again. >

Given the sequence of events we've seen over the past year, the UK will probably end up providing these and then apply political pressure for others to do so. I hope this happens sooner rather than later because his could be a game changer for a number of reasons. >

Give ukraine 5 nukes.
Not enought to end the world, but enough to end pootin unless he leaves. >

Don't talk about it.
Just do it. >

The reason they haven't done this yet is because it remains an option on the ladder of escalation.
It is necessary to have these options on the table because it's stops Russia from doing stuff to escalate on their end (like using Nuclear weapons) >

"Not ruling out"

we neither confirm nor deny

There is no story >

A lot of people on this thread seem to think it's close to a possibility that Putin wouldn't be able to get off any nukes. I tend to think he could. At least a couple. Or make a huge dirty bobl out of a reactor. He should be taken out, surgically.. >

Now! >

Please do it so they can target moscow >

Dumb take ^^^ >

Another win for Lockheed Martin, another loss for the people on all 3 sides. >

There's only two sides, Russia and everyone else.  The only side this would be a loss for is Russia. This war can end any time they want it to, all they have to do is get the hell out of Ukraine. >

Well, that's insane. What could go wrong? >

You can't be serious. Well, it looks like your view if you are is all the rage. People have never been so ill informed and easily manipulated. See you in the radioactive wasteland I guess. >

Jesus, hurry the fuck up. The USA is bunk in this department - scared and willingly negotiating with terrorists to not provide offensive weapons to Ukraine. It’s fucking cowardly. >

The US has given more money and weapons (and even specifically “offensive” weapons to your point) than pretty much everyone else. Combined, if I’m not mistaken. 
There’s an escalation ladder for a reason. Going balls to the wall isn’t going to end well for first of all Ukraine, then Russia & then NATO and the western world. Luckily, the people in the Pentagon understand how situations like this can spiral out of control quite easily and are providing money, weapons & intelligence in a way that actually helps Ukraine fight this conflict. >

Probably not a smart idea. No need to give Putin any reasons to use nukes. >

Russia is right next to Ukraine. 
Frigging hand grenades "cam reach Russia" from Ukraine. >

Of course they can, but Russia is a massive country. They have a lot of logistical bases and military production facilities that are too deep behind Russian lines for Ukraine to hit with their present weaponry.  This would make it possible to strike those targets. >

Than that's what OP should have said. >

I'm pretty OP thought most people were intelligent enough to understand what they meant... >

Missiles to reach Russia from Ukraine? Don’t they share a border? You could hit Russia with a baseball. >


To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to supply Ukraine with missiles with sufficient range to destroy missile systems in Russia which may be targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine

Reading past the headline usually bears fruit... >

They member Litvinenko and Skripal >

give them some 2k big bois >

Knocking our their power grid would be good karma. >

Cruise missile launch >

That article has an incredibly long list of stuff we've sent >

👏they 👏need 👏blimps >

Man if Moscow was rubble or their ports, it would really strike home.  But then again the soviets may be crazy enough to fire back at the west. >

Just now Ukraine suffered yet another massive russian drone/missile strike. I wish we could actually retaliate and stop only taking those hits. >

It’s nice to get these little reminders that had Russia attacked a NATO country all this stuff would have been broken out an used immediately. No waiting a year for tanks, no having to beg for f-16’s, no getting other advanced systems dangled over them. If this stuff had been available day 1 there would not have been a day 6 of the war. >

Good. Send one right up the Kremlin’s rectum. >

U either win or loose a war. >

Everyone loses >

Providing weapons that could strike into Russia could make the aggressor desperate enough to retaliate and consider the UK as party to the war. >

And that would get the rest of NATO involved, which especially among the former communist countries, there is an eagerness to finally confront Russia. >

Of course the Brit’s would give the most passive response ever >

Tbh I don't know why this is dragging on, everyone should just get together and get on with it. Attack Russia go for Putin, it would be over by the end of the day. >

I wish someone would. You can't just let Russia put all that anti missile defense in place in Moscow and not make them use it! >

I agree with the UK. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Ukraine's special operation in Russia. Bullies don't respond to kindness. They respond when more force is applied than they were expecting. The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. You have to fight for your freedom because freedom is not free. I hope there is a quick end to this terrible war Putin started. Thoughts and prayers to the Ukrainians fighting for their country! >

All these comments but not one mentioning how this could impact the UK by Russia retaliating and attacking the UK with long range missiles? People have already forgotten about the nuclear tsunami they mentioned they could supposedly cause. >

We haven't forgot, but we realised that the energy involved to create the nuclear tsunami they stated would require more energy than every nuclear bomb on the planet combined.
And it would result in the annihilation of Russia as our nukes are off at sea at any given time. >

Idiots >

Make those missiles nuclear and watch Russia totally lose its shit. >

Watch everyone loose there shit, you cant just go nuclear >

You can never go full nuclear? >

If we use nukes Russia will use nukes. Then where all ded >

The alternative is Eussia nukes Ukraine is that what you want? >

Please stop giving Ukraine weapons. Send food, shelter and other needed rations to help the people of Ukraine. Stop funding death and destruction. >

That would just allow Russia to take over more of the country and unleash more death and destruction like has happened in Bucha and Mariupol. Helping Ukraine defend itself  and force Russia out of its territory is the only way to save lives. >

Idiots >

When you threaten nukes every day, it loses its oomph and makes Russia look like even more of a bitch. >

The US has threatened nukes for nearly 80 years now stupid >

On a weekly basis, while losing a war, while being a complete paper tiger, whilst astroturfing copium through low-IQ gullible morons?
The lowest possible tier of human intelligence just had to wean themselves off Q anon, this is just the next thing for them. >

Keep believing the lies the media feeds you fool. The fact is ukraines trained military men were dead by mid summer.  Its all untrained conscripts now that didnt even get boot camp training. Zelenski has death squad rounding up and hanging the deserters. 
Ukraine wouldnt need western tanks if they had their own left.  Those suppo edly russian vehicles destroyed were ukrainian and they fooled you and your sheep friends. Ukraines entire military force was equipment bought from russia >

Look, there's no easy way to say this.
You are dumb. Dumb as they come, in fact. Everyone you know thinks you're dumb and you're the last to catch on, because... well, you're dumb.
You clutch at "alternative" sources to try to feel smart, but take a look around. Do the other people who believe what you do seem smart or even sane? You might not be able to break your delusion long enough for an honest answer to that, because you're so breathtakingly dumb.
When you use terms like "mainstream media" and "sheep", you pay a heavy price in that you expose how dumb you are at just a cursory glance.
I didn't think I'd find one outside of Facebook, but good luck out there. You're really, really going to need it. Try not to die of COVID. >

Baa baa baa is all i hear from you. 
Why do you think theres no video of the actual fighting? There was plenty from the gulf war and afghanistan where the fighting was more intense and dangerous but none from ukraine.  Only pics and video of destroyed vehicles and buildings. 
Its because the real truth is ukraine is loosing thousands of troops every day. 
You dont even bother to think before believing the lies you are spoon fed >

Now that's just low-tier bait. Do better. >

Absolute truth
Why are the independent reporters covering the war being censored. Why did zelenski call for nato to pre emptively use a nuke on russia on video?. Why do the ukrainians need long range missiles to hit the russians when they are already in Ukraine within range of the weapons they have? Why is 21billion dollars in aid to Ukraine missing and why are ukrainian lawmakers and zelenski buying real estate overseas? Why was ukraine investing aid money into FTX before they went bankrupt and FTX was contributing huge amounts to democrats? 
This isnt a war the west wants to win. They want it to go on for 20 years like afghanistan to make money and they dont care how many ukrainian lives they sacrifice. 
Wake up! >

Everytime germany Think woooh finally chrisis over and we can get back to normality...uk comes in and pokes the beehive >

If Kim had been saying this in NK he'd be gone already. And it prob wouldn't be SK who did it. >

NK almost on a monthly basis screens videos of NYC being nukes. Ditto to Iran as well. >

That being said. I think Putin has gone way past what we would tolerate from Kim. But your right.