Ukraine Hits Russia With Western-Made Missiles for First Time
Posted by aWhiteWildLion@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 138 comments
Posted by aWhiteWildLion@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 138 comments
Hood-ini@reddit
There’s a part of me that thinks it might force Putin into negotiations but also a part that fears Ukraine might get nuked if they hit Russia too hard…
Even a tactical strike would be disastrous and escalate the situation, I hope we won’t get to see that.
Saiyan-solar@reddit
Nuking Ukraine is an admission of defeat and will enstrange his Chinese allies. It is also a surefire way to drag the entire NATO into the fight properly as nuclear debris and fallout is sure to land on NATO land, thus triggering article 5
Hood-ini@reddit
I’m not talking about a strategic strike but rather a tactical one. Debris and fallout wouldn’t be the issue.
Retaliation threats should not be taken for granted, we have no way to know for sure how NATO and China would react.
Saiyan-solar@reddit
True, but a rogue nation throwing around nukes in a tamper tantrum isn't something you want as your closest ally I think
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Nothing would be rogue or impulsive if Russians responded to an escalation with an escalation.
loggy_sci@reddit
Using a tactical nuke isn’t a proportional response to Ukraine using U.S. weapons to hit targets in Russia. How absurd.
Using a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe would cause an immediate military response from neighboring states and then likely NATO. It would draw more countries directly into the conflict.
Russia can rewrite its policy and move its nukes around but if it hit Ukraine with one all bets are off.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Nah
loggy_sci@reddit
Oh I forgot you’re Russia apologist who larps as a budget Mearsheimer clone.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
touchy touchy
Saiyan-solar@reddit
A nuke is the end of the line, the last retaliation. I think going from "your enemy striking military bases in your territory" and escalate that to "nuclear armageddon" is a tad on the rogue and impulsive part.
But then again I don't have knowledge of Russian intel and information like you seem to have
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Nuclear armageddon is a hell of a stretch lmao, do you think anyone is talking about dropping thermonuclear warheads on Kiev?
Saiyan-solar@reddit
Even a small tactical nuke, of which Russia possesses countless, would be a one way street. If no action is taken against its deployment then it will become the new norm of bombardment. From there it will just be another tactical nuclear arms race.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Why? China as nuclear state which relies on nuclear deterrence, will only benefit from Russia using nukes to deter further western involvement.
That's not how nukes work. And no, if NATO is not sending their troops to defend Ukraine in a non-nuclear conflict, they are not going to do so in a nuclear conflict.
loggy_sci@reddit
Russia using nukes would be a drastic change in the status quo and very much lead to instability. China doesn’t want this. China are happy to let this war weaken their adversaries, but not at the cost of full on nuclear conflict.
A nuke used in Europe would enrage Europeans and Americans, and would likely lead to direct involvement in the war.
hell_jumper9@reddit
Non nuclear armed countries will go nuclear if they see Russia unpunished for using nukes in this age. Suddenly, China's neighbors will go nuclear.
NearABE@reddit
Fallout is a weak argument. Using nukes in Ukraine would violate the Budapest agreement. After that UK could supply Ukraine with nuclear warheads.
rhino369@reddit
Nobody is going to supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons lol.
ShootmansNC@reddit
And the west won't destroy itself for ukraine even if Ukraine got nuked.
NearABE@reddit
No one is going to nuke Ukraine either. Anyone who thinks about nuclear weapons enough to be near one will be aware of a cascade of consequences.
lukefernendes@reddit
If Ukraine strikes Russia using long range which needs western technology and western personnel, Russia has the right to strike those satellites too. If not nuke on Earth I could see them nuking the satellites out first. Makes all weapons useless.
Usual_Ad6180@reddit
Why on earth would they waist a nuke on a satellite?
half-baked_axx@reddit
because we're all discussing fantasy scenarios detached from reality like any other Tuesday on reddit
liquid-handsoap@reddit
Lol
NearABE@reddit
It actually is a strategic move. You can load a rocket with huge amounts of mass. It does not actually go onto orbit. The nuclear charge slaps the sand/dust into orbit. Colloidal gold is particularly effective. It will spread as individual grains. Gold is dense so a 100 micron ball can punch into 0.8 mm aluminum and the vapor explode. Easily makes a pinhole in 1 to 2 mm aluminum fuel canisters or satellite bodies. Gold plasma or vapor deposition will make a thin conductive film. That can short circuit electronics. If the initial plates are cubic meter scale then you can disperse a trillion particles in the 100 micron scale. If they are shot retrograde the colloids have two opportunities to impact per orbit and collision velocities are over 10 km/s.
If Russia, China, or USA does it the nuke is unnecessary and therefore not likely. For Iran or North Korea this makes a lot more sense. Wiping out the satellites takes out everyone’s satellites.
Even aiming at specific satellites will take out everyone’s satellites through a collision cascade (called Kessler syndrome). China tested an anti-satellite over a decade ago and the debris is still a significant fraction of the tracked debris in orbit. Satellites are often lost due to debris that is too small to track. If the debris hits a critical density we lose control of too many satellites and the collisions keep happening faster.
So you can one shot almost the entire low Earth orbit satellite network. After that satellites will be limited to skimming the upper atmosphere for a few months until the run out of fuel.
lukefernendes@reddit
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-if-a-nuclear-weapon-goes-off-in-space/
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
Destroying a NATO satellite deliberately would almost certainly constitute an act of war. Add in the likely invocation of Article 5 in that situation Russia would be as fucked as a sock in a teenager's bedroom
lukefernendes@reddit
Sure, but in their own words “why would we want a world without Russia“, the nuclear Armageddon would mean most of Europe and US will turn to moons dust.
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
I can think of several reasons why the world could live without Russia
Enzo-Unversed@reddit
That would result in London get slapped by Poseidon.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Nah
Doubt
Please - nobody is going to trigger article 5 if some Ukrainain military base ceases to exist - especially considering how clean modern nukes are.
Saiyan-solar@reddit
I'm quite sure going from a 3 week military excursion to a 1000 day war to the first deployment of a nuclear weapon in combat since the bomb on hiroshima.
NATO has already stated that nuclear fallout on nato controlled lands from Russia would be counted as an attack on a nato member, this was first done when Russia was rigging the nuclear powerplant to become a dirty bomb. But I'm sure nobody will mind the first use of nuclear weapons in over 80 years in combat, just like nobody cares when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Pklnt@reddit
Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons unless they're seriously risking capitulation themselves.
Right now they have the upper hand, both in terms of territory occupied or in terms of who has the initiative.
kimana1651@reddit
Russia is not facing annihilation, they risk losing a war of aggression. It is possible to lose a war and not have your population reduced to zero and your land salted.
Using a nuke in this instance would be a level of escalation never seen before in human history.
crusadertank@reddit
Many in the west and in Ukriane have called for the dismantling of Russia as a response to the war if they lose.
You might not think Russia is facing its destruction. But that is very much how it feels inside of Russia
loggy_sci@reddit
Who in the west in positions of any actual authority have called for the dismantling of Russia?
You’re repeating domestic Russian propaganda used to manufacture consent for their war.
polymute@reddit
Are you guys suggesting Russia nukes anything close to its own territory as a first strike? When it's the obvious first step towards triggering a nuclear war (tactical nukes trigger that too, since they are in case anyone has somehow forgotten, are nukes).
That makes no sense.
kimana1651@reddit
That's what I'm saying. It's stupid. They wont use nukes, chemical, or biological warfare.
polymute@reddit
My bad, we agree then.
nekokattt@reddit
Doesn't this assume Putin isn't unhinged as fuck and lacking any form of reasonable mental state in the first place though?
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
He may be a genocidal maniac but he isn't stupid. He values one thing above all others and that's himself. He values his own life toouchbto use nukes
nekokattt@reddit
Unless he is that paranoid that he sees himself not winning in any situation.
Hood-ini@reddit
Right now they have the upper hand but Ukraine is gaining new capacities and Trump vowed to reduce the American invasion in NATO. I wish I was as confident as you guys.
Pklnt@reddit
Trump is far more likely to reduce Ukraine's capabilities first if he's going to reduce the US' involvement in NATO.
Hood-ini@reddit
I know I wouldn’t try to guess what’s Trump next move anyway …
Immediate-Spite-5905@reddit
Putin hits the big red button and the people close to him who want to live will ensure he falls out of a window in very short order
D3V1LSHARK@reddit
Then why has he not already?
Rizen_Wolf@reddit
Because the guy who has him pushed out a window will be hammered down like a tent peg by the Next Leader as an object lesson not to push The Leader out a window, or suffer the consequences. Unless of course the guy who has him pushed out a window IS the New Leader in which case the logic does not apply.
Immediate-Spite-5905@reddit
Because he hasn't pushed it yet? Self preservation is useful
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Why.
Immediate-Spite-5905@reddit
I doubt Russian oligarchs are particularly pleased with the possibility of NATO turning their residence into a very fancy glass parking lot
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Why would we do that. At the end of the day Ukraine and Ukrainians are disposable.
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
Because it's the fucking right thing to do. Calling Ukraine disposable doesn't take into account they're a people who just want to live their lives but are having to fight for their country's survival against a massive neighbouring country which has, in the past and currently, trying to commit genocide.
ShootmansNC@reddit
You're out of your mind if you believe the west would destroy itself for a proxy.
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
I never said that because I don't think Putin is dumb enough to push the big red button.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Spare me the hippie pearl clutching lmao - the right thing for us is to fight this war to the last Ukrainian, especially if they're stupid enough to oblige. Pawns get spent.
Multibuff@reddit
You remind me of Stalin. He said the same thing about North Koreans
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Was he wrong?
ZippyDan@reddit
As terrible as it is to say or even think, Russia using tactical nukes in Europe would probably be the best possible outcome for Ukraine.
Elon and Musk couldn't weasel their way into supporting Russia under those circumstances.
And even if they did, Europe would have no choice but to provide an immediate and overwhelming response. I think that would be the end of the Putin regime.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
??? So you think the best outcome for Ukraine is that it gets nuked, then Elon and Musk (haha) maybe still support Russia, so Europe unites into some EU army monolith that overwhelms Russia (which has suddenly run out of nukes) and they collectively march to Moscow and overthrow Putin? Why would any of these things happen and why would any of them be good for Ukraine besides that it wouldn't be the only smouldering crater in Europe anymore
ZippyDan@reddit
I never said anything about marching on Moscow or overthrowing Putin.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
What's the overwhelming European response that would be the end of the Putin regime that they're not already doing?
ZippyDan@reddit
Overwhelming Western air superiority in Ukraine.
If necessary, Western troops on the ground as reserves, or to defend Ukrainian airbases, while Ukrainian troops can push forward as the vanguard, under cover of Western air support, and without having to worry about defense.
Drive Russia out of Ukraine and Crimea back to pre-2014 borders.
Putin would lose all legitimacy at that point and would likely lose power.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
You just glossed over "under cover of Western air support" while what that means in practice is air strikes, dogfights for air superiority, and NATO shooting down Russian planes and directly attacking Russian troops. In what universe do you not view that as starting WWIII? Put yourself in the Russians' shoes for a moment - the West is actively attacking you. Why would you not attack them?
It's obviously not good if Russia wins in Ukraine but Ukraine wasn't even an ally pre-war and is nowhere near NATO or the EU for a vast array of reasons. I don't see the point in risking the lives of all of Europe (and America) over the Donbass, sorry
Command0Dude@reddit
The same universe where China and the USA directly fighting in Korea also wasn't WWWIII.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
China was still a backwater, virtually pre-industrial revolution at that point and was just about done with its civil war. If the Korean War resumed again today against a modern China it could easily transform into WWIII
Command0Dude@reddit
China was not some backwater lol. They were an industrialized nation. And the USSR was also giving them air support. Two nuclear powers were fighting each other over the sky in north korea and somehow the war was contained to north korea.
Almost like this idea that western air support in Ukraine = WWIII doesn't really match reality.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
I don't think China would sit still if Russia and West started going against each other in an all out war. They would certainly go for you know who, in that scenario it indeed may escalate into WWIII.
ExplanationLover6918@reddit
Voldemort????!
ZippyDan@reddit
Russia can barely push past parity with Ukraine.
Russia cannot escalate the war to WWIII.
Dogfights are no longer a reality of modern warfare. What would actually happen is Western fighters would be knocking Russian planes out of the sky like flies from long-range, and the Russians would never see it coming or going. It would be a slaughter.
Of course this involves direct conflict between NATO and Russian planes, but there is nothing Russia could do about it. It also involves direct conflict between NATO bombs and Russian troops, and again, there is nothing Russia could do about it. That impunity and utter defeat is exactly what would make Putin look weak and impotent.
It would, in effect, be war between NATO and Russia, but it wouldn't be WWIII. It would be a war that Russia would quickly lose - and pathetically because NATO would defeat them almost entirely from the air. It would simply be game over for Russia in Ukraine.
And China would not be stepping in to save Russia - not after the use of nuclear weapons. That would inspire horror and condemnation world wide. Nobody would want to be on Russia's side at that point besides maybe North Korea, Iran, and Syria - none of which would be relevant.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
NATO hasn't fought against a peer since maybe 1953, and we know how that went. Your confidence is not shared among anyone with brains who likes living. Russia has the most nuclear missiles in the world; there's something Russia could do about it if NATO starts to attack THEM (lol just defensive alliance things). There is literally no reason to further escalate this war and hoping for Russia to nuke Ukraine is the most chronically online thing I've read in years. Please take a walk outside.
ZippyDan@reddit
Yes, Ukraine buffed by the leftovers of last-gen weapons tech (and older) has been able to hold Russia to parity.
Their Air Force and air defenses have nothing that can touch F-35s. Again, it would be a lopsided slaughter. Russia has already lost a significant number of AWACS and they have no 5th fighters. They simply have no response. That is not even up for debate.
So their ground forces would get picked apart at will from the sky, and would also collapse, especially when they can barely hold parity with Ukraine as is.
As you have pointed out, the only place Russia has strength, and any option of an effective hypothetical retaliation, is their nuclear arsenal. But Russia would not dare to let loose nukes against the West as long as the West is only focused on a limited campaign of liberating Ukraine.
Putin might get desperate and stupid enough to order the use of nukes if he sees Ukraine slopping from his grasp, but his generals and the oligarchs will not. They will see the writing on the wall, and they would prefer to offer Putin up as a scapegoat and continue to lord over an intact Russia rather than go down the path of certain suicide. They aren't all going to follow Putin to certain obliteration if only Ukraine is at stake.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Lopsided slaughter?
Israel has everything you have mentioned and many more. It took them more than 1 year and total destruction of Gaza to eliminate Hamas (and city centers are still not cleared).
You are talking as if its a walk in the park. You live in a different world mate.
ZippyDan@reddit
Clearing one of the most densely populated cities in the world of terrorist infiltrators living amongst a massive civilian population is a completely different ballgame from targeting conventional military forces dug in along a largely static and distinct line of conflict across mostly rural land.
Besides, the battle against Hamas has been a lopsided slaughter. The fact that it has taken a year doesn't change that. NATO has no problem taking its time to systemically dismantle Russian defenses over a year, or however long it takes. Again, that doesn't change the fact that it would be a lopsided slaughter with NATO inflicting casualties in Russia at every turn and Russia basically impotent to answer.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Israel flattened more than half of Gaza. I hope you are not trying to say that they left the buildings standing and cleared them by going into them with soldiers.
Russia can move the population and defend cities too (building by building), and Ukraine is doing that as well.
Its very much relevant. I don't see how it is not relevant.
I agree, you mentioned this point earlier too. My response was despite this and other factors it took Israel more than a year to clear Gaza (and its not yet clear as many city centers are still held by Hamas).
This has to be a joke xD
ShootmansNC@reddit
Europe would have the choice to let it happen, which they would because they're not about to destroy themselves for Ukraine lmao.
ZippyDan@reddit
Russia is not nuking Ukraine unless they all collectively decide to commit suicide. Putin might decide to commit suicide when he sees his dream of a new Russian empire collapsing, but his generals and oligarchs will not follow him. They will depose him first.
MiamiDouchebag@reddit
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Nobody wants to get nuked over disposable proxies. The whole point of this setup is that Ukrainians are doing all the dying over there. It suits everyone well enough.
ZippyDan@reddit
Yes, Russia doesn't want to get nuked either, which is why they would never dare to nuke any NATO country.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Who is talking about nuking NATO countries here. If anyone is getting nuked it will be Ukraine.
ZippyDan@reddit
Yes, and if Ukraine gets nuked I argue it would actually end up being good for Ukraine (as tragic as that would be and as demented as that sounds) as it would absolutely demand a forceful and decisive European response.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Lol no. Ukrainians are disposable.
ZippyDan@reddit
The Western world cannot let Russia use nukes answered. That would send an even more dangerous precedent than allowing Russia to blatantly disregard territorial sovereignty unanswered.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
The response would be largely diplomatic - precisely because Ukrainians are disposable.
Nobody gives a shit about imaginary things like that.
Which countries and why.
Oh I don't know about that. Unties our hands too. Someone needs to rip off the nuclear taboo bandaid sooner or later.
moonorplanet@reddit
The immediate and overwhelming response you talk about would lead to more nukes, resulting in there being no more Europe.
ZippyDan@reddit
I disagree. Because that would also lead to no more Russia. Russia respects strength, and the only reason they would escalate to using nukes is because they (hopefully mistakenly) believe that Europe would let that slide as they have let everything go with only minimal response.
If Europe responded hard to Russian nukes, the Russians would back down. They would only nuke Ukraine because Ukraine doesn't have nukes. The same is not true for Europe.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
The overwhelming response would mean no more Russia as we know it. Why would they hold back when that would be the scenario they would be facing?
ZippyDan@reddit
Why do you assume that? The overwhelming response would be to put an end to the entire Ukrainian charade and restore Russia's pre-2014 borders. It would be more like the Russia we have known for decades, minus perhaps Putin at the head.
Eexoduis@reddit
When Russia first indicated that it planned to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine in 2022, when the invasion began to go poorly, several world leaders, primarily Lloyd Austin (SoD of US) and President Xi warned Russia that nuclear force would not be tolerated
CluelessExxpat@reddit
They are gonna do what, nuke Russia back and basically put the world under nuclear winter? I doubt thats happening.
Eexoduis@reddit
If I recall correctly, Austin threatened to use conventional weapons to level Russian military installations directly
Enzo-Unversed@reddit
Which would result in nuclear war.
studio_bob@reddit
which is itself an insane threat as such a large attack on Russia, even if technically using conventional weapons, would dramatically increase the danger of nuclear retaliation. these people are such idiots
Eexoduis@reddit
Well, handling a warmongering loose cannon despot with a hunger for his neighbor’s territory and nuclear warheads is quite the diplomatic nightmare.
Don’t know if Austin’s bluster was effective. I’d imagine Xi’s disapproval was far more effective at preventing nuclear deployment by the Kremlin.
polymute@reddit
Will be tomorrow, there regardless of Trump.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
que
usesidedoor@reddit
Ukraine won't get nuked.
lukefernendes@reddit
They have a doctrine. If they’re attacked they will.
polymute@reddit
Kursk.
lukefernendes@reddit
They revised after that very invasion. Earlier only nuclear countries could be attacked now any country. Ukraine is practically sitting on time bomb depending on how much they fuck themselves. Now with Republicans their fee checks will be gone.
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Russia is no different than China and North-Korea, they won't do shit. Just empty threats. Like when Pelosi visited Taiwan.
lukefernendes@reddit
Yeah, maybe the tactical ones that won’t make land contaminated but still burn the khokols. Heard they kept the elite ones there, great fertilizers.
usesidedoor@reddit
Russia is being targeted with long range missiles as we speak due to their invasion of a sovereign state.
Putin knows the consequences of nuclear weapon use in Ukraine will be severe.
Some have described Putin as a monkey with a grenade in his hand, but I personally don't believe he would be that deranged.
lukefernendes@reddit
If the state is in danger they will use. Khokhols want all of crimea and want Russia to pay for war and join NATO. No way Russia is going to agree to that. Either both need to negotiate or will be ended with a nuclear war where the losers will be everyone. Democrats fucked this one badly.
Israel is invading Palestine and Lebanon and committing war crimes. Why turn the deaf ear to that. Truth is Putin will use whatever he has to fight against Ukraine. He has sacrificed a lot of Russians no way he is going home without a piece of cake. Cake will be all of Ukraine.
mid_philosopher@reddit
Russia has been throwing FOABs in Ukraine so ion think they fear getting nuked.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
They have not been using FOABs.
Icy-Cry340@reddit
Ah, but you’re missing the most important aspect here.
https://i.imgur.com/DNLOfwu.jpeg
crusadertank@reddit
A lot of people are talking on the nuke part but in terms of negotiations I don't see any way this will cause that
These attacks on Russia only increase the appetite for war and push Russian people for further restrictions and land taken from Ukraine so that it doesn't happen again.
Bombing a country typically doesn't make them want peace. Generally it just makes them want more war in retaliation
The Russian people are turning more against negotiations from these attacks and that only benefits Putin
Hood-ini@reddit
Bombing a country doesn’t make them want peace but nuking a country has resulted in surrendering every time it’s been used.
While it’s still highly unlikely in my opinion, it’s still a possibility.
crusadertank@reddit
Oh yes but I was referring to bombing Russia does not push them closer to negotiations. Infact it does the opposite and only pushes for escalation
00x0xx@reddit
Russia can better retaliate by providing Iran with better missiles. Or even ICBMs. Or the Houthis.
Hood-ini@reddit
Assuming Putin is waging his war against NATO but at the moment he’s fighting Ukraine and founding Iran or Houthis makes absolutely zero sense…
00x0xx@reddit
I don't see what you mean. Russia isn't founding Iran, he's just giving them some support.
Hood-ini@reddit
If you don’t like « founding » then replace it by « give some support » in my previous comment.
Still makes absolutely zero sense for Russia in the current conflict.
Ruby_of_Mogok@reddit
Russia doesn't even need nukes to hit Ukraine hard. Winter is about to begin and Russia is capable to inflict more damage against civilian infrastructure Israel-style.
Realistic_Lead8421@reddit
Lets see how butthurt Putin gets about this and from there evaluate to what extent the red lines can be pushed. uK and France could possibly expand the allowed range for their missiles bit by bit untill Moscow comes I range.
Front_Expression_892@reddit
They already "escalated" back by updating his nuclear doctrine (once again).
Level_Hour6480@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning
Ironically, a Russian idiom.
The-Squirrelk@reddit
Putin has cried wolf so many times with regards to nukes that no one gives a crap about what his 'nuclear doctrine' is. We all know it's all bluster.
He's been in nuclear checkmate, like everyone else, since the cold war.
cdclopper@reddit
Stop reading western propaganda, its bad for your health
Oppopity@reddit
It's not western propaganda it's common sense.
Putin isn't stupid or comically evil. He's not going to commit suicide by ending the world in nuclear fire because deeper parts of Russia are being hit with missiles.
Ozymandias_IV@reddit
We can always take comfort in the fact that nothing ever happens.
Realistic_Lead8421@reddit
Well if that is all I guess we van must push ahead. That is just empty rhetoric. They are not going to risk self annihilation for the minor inconvenience of having to extend their logistic lines a bit and longer flight times fror they bombing runs. The real risk would have been asymmetrical responses such as cutting sea cables and so on.
cdclopper@reddit
Jfc what is wrong w ppl.
yungsmerf@reddit
The missiles they have right now can't quite reach the capital, only about half the range. There was so much noise even about these weapons, so I sincerely doubt they'll ever receive the Tomahawk system.
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
They've apparently got the AGM-158 JASSM in the pipeline, which most certainly would be able to reach Moscow but what they're likely going to focus on is pummeling Russian logistics (ammo dumps, rail networks, fuel stores, command headquarters etc) well behind the lines
yungsmerf@reddit
I doubt they'd receive the ones with a 900km operational range and the base variants would still fall over 100km short. But yeah, there are definitely better targets.
Left-Confidence6005@reddit
Realistically it could mean decentralizing Russian nuclear command. In other words giving lower level commanders the ability to launch nukes as there is a risk that Putin gets killed in a nuclear strike before he can authorize a retaliation strike. Spreading the nuclear codes around would be one of the worst things that could happen.
It is going to be substantially harder for the US to invade and occupy countries if giving weapons is now free game.
polymute@reddit
Show us at least one halfway credible source because this reads like (tones back language) unsubstantiated musings at best and vapid fever dreams at worst.
Pklnt@reddit
Russia can always do this, seems like this time they're not going to pull back.
iVladi@reddit
Russia talking about red lines all the time and failing to punish will eventually lead us to a situation where Russia will need to reestablished deterence using a completely over the top response which will result in a whole lot of pearl clutching from the western leaders.
Not a good look, Putin refusing to keep his red line threats seriously will 100% create problems down the road if the war continues.
studio_bob@reddit
most of the "red lines" reported in Western media were never really stated as such by the Russians, so this supposed deterioration of Russian credibility is at least in part a creation of Western propaganda
these strikes are different because the Russians have been very clear and emphatic that they regard them as direct Western involvement in the war and an attack on Russia by the West, and yes the retaliation will probably come outside of Ukraine, hitting US or Western assets abroad through intermediaries seems like a likely avenue (and is realistically more what the US has feared, rather than a direct confrontation, when talking about avoiding escalation)
iVladi@reddit
Technically NATO has likely been part of the kursk incurssion, and part of several attacks on Russian "assets", as things like storm shadow missiles cannot be launched by Ukraine millitary, and likely had third party UK assistance.
Although maybe red line rhetoric has been from the western media, certainly Russian response has talked about "appropriate responses" at minimum from all escelations, where most of the time the response has been just doing to Ukraine what NATO/Ukraine is doing to Russia, which is basically a very defencive/responsive response which is unusual given theyre the ones invading.
Sabbathius@reddit
Possibly valid, but I don't think Ukrainians marching into Kursk and occupying towns there wouldn't be considered a red line by the Russians. I mean, imagine Mexico marching across the border and annexing chunks of Texas. I feel like for most Americans it would be very much a red line. So why wouldn't it be for Russia?
studio_bob@reddit
surely the Russians were not happy about the Kursk incursion (though I suspect they have been less bothered by it than one might expect as it has benefited their main offensive push without threatening anything of great importance in Russia itself), but it didn't relate to concrete statements from the Kremlin regarding "this specific action will be interpreted as X and result in Y response" in the same way as using Western weapons on pre-war Russian territory
fwiw, I absolutely believe that part of the Ukrainian hope for the Kursk operation was that it would provoke an overreaction from Russia that would oblige the West to dramatically escalate its level of involvement. It didn't work, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that escalation is a major goal for the Ukrainians whose only hope of changing the trajectory of the war is some kind of large scale direct intervention by the West. The Russians are surely aware of this and so they must now walk a specific line where they meet these escalating provocations in a way that deters further escalation rather than justifying it, and it may be becoming quite a balancing act.
xGentian_violet@reddit
Good
EternalAngst23@reddit
Pummel their airbases. Target their aircraft aprons. Tear up their runways. Anything that prevents their jets and bombers from getting off the ground.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.