>

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
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.