Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Deus Mortis]

This administration continues to be absolute pussies if this turns out to be true and not a trick.
https://kyivindependent.com/no-chang...te-house-says/
No changes in US policy on long-range strikes into Russia expected, White House says

The U.S. is not planning to change its policy regarding Ukraine's use of Western weapons to carry out long-range strikes into Russia, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Sept. 13.

"There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside of Russia," Kirby said.

"I would not expect any major announcement in that regard," he said, referencing speculation that such a decision would be announced following meetings between President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Washington.

While Western countries eased restrictions on the use of certain arms just across the border after a Russian offensive in Kharkiv Oblast in May, limits on long-range strikes deep inside Russia remained in place.

At the same time, there have been growing reports that the U.K. may amend its position regarding the use of its Storm Shadow missiles for long-range strikes.

The Guardian reported on Sept. 11, citing unnamed U.K. officials, that such a decision had already been made ahead of a joint trip by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy to Kyiv.

Other countries, such as Sweden, Finland, and Canada, have come out in recent days to say they fully support Ukraine using Western-supplied weapons to hit deep into Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have upped their saber-rattling in response, claiming that the move would mean NATO is directly at war with Russia.

Kirby said that the U.S. was taking the threats seriously but added that "this is not rhetoric that we haven't heard from (Putin) before."

This is with some bipartisan support too.
https://kyivindependent.com/bipartis...-restrictions/
Bipartisan calls continue for Biden to lift restrictions on Kyiv using long-range weapons against Russia

At least 20 House Democrats and five House Republicans are calling on President Joe Biden to lift restrictions on Kyiv’s use of American long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russia, according to a letter sent to the president on Sept. 10 obtained and seen by the Kyiv Independent.

The letter was sent around Congress in early September by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, co-chair of the bipartisan Ukraine Caucus.

"We write to request that you immediately end your Administration’s limitations on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons provided by the U.S. and other NATO allies to strike legitimate military targets inside Russia," the two-page letter reads.

The Biden Administration's restrictions on Kyiv are at odds with the limitations Washington has on its military and other allies using American weapons, like Israel, the Democratic-led bipartisan letter said.

Under the Biden administration’s current limitations, Kyiv can only use U.S.-provided missiles in limited cross-border strikes on Russian military targets used to launch attacks into Ukraine.

Ukraine’s now month-old incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, Rep. Kaptur wrote in the letter, has changed the nature of the war and in doing so called Russia’s bluff by testing to what extent the Kremlin would escalate if attacked. Washington’s fears of Russian escalation are yet to subside as it has not announced any changes to policy on Ukraine’s use of its weapons.

"The new offensive has also further demonstrated why the existing policy of limiting Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons to strike inside of Russia is unsustainable and inconsistent with the realities of this war," the letter reads.

Rep. Kaptur’s letter to President Biden goes on to say that relevant Russian military targets are identifiable and currently in the range of long-range weapons provided by NATO countries.

On Sep. 6 at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where President Volodymyr Zelensky lobbied for more air defenses, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Ukraine has a lot of capability to use "UAVs and other things" to address the plethora of targets in Russia.

"As we look at the battlefield currently, we know that the Russians have actually moved their aircraft that are using the glide bombers beyond the range of ATACMS. So this is an interesting argument," Secretary Austin said, referring to Zelensky’s ask to strike deeper inside Russia.

"I think for the foreseeable future, we're going to make sure that we remain focused on helping them do those things that enable them to be effective in defending their sovereign territory."

Six House Republicans on foreign affairs and intelligence committees also sent a letter to President Biden on Sept. 10 calling for the administrations to lift remaining restrictions on the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

Ninety percent of Russian aircrafts used to attack Ukraine are now beyond a 300-kilometer zone from the Ukrainian border, and thus, out of reach of ATACMS, the White House said on Sept. 4. Rep. Kaptur’s letter to President Biden did not specify how far into Russia the group would like Ukraine to be able to strike.

"(Ukraine) doesn’t have the assets of other places, NATO is critical to Ukraine’s success ultimately," Rep. Kaptur told the Kyiv Independent earlier in August.

A danger exists in allowing Russia to alter Europe’s borders, Rep. Kaptur added.

The Ukraine Caucus's letter came on the same day Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed Iran had supplied Russia with hundreds of ballistic missiles, calling it an escalation.

"We’ve warned Tehran publicly, we’ve warned Tehran privately, that taking this step would be a dangerous escalation," Blinken said on Sept. 10 in London. "Russia has now received shipments of these missiles."

Rep. Kaptur sees Russia’s alignment with Iran as a reason to up defense, not hold out.

"I know how vicious these enemies are, particularly in cahoots with one another, now Russia, Iran, China, North Korea," Rep. Kaptur told the Kyiv Independent. "That is not an equation I want to infect our country."

Rep. Kaptur and House Democrats aren’t alone in their call to President Biden. With nearly four months left in the White House, the Biden Administration has increasingly been called on to ease its restrictions on Kyiv.

In early September, Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was a finalist for Kamala Harris’s running mate, broke with a previous position and said the U.S. needs to reconsider weapons restrictions.

"I think the Democratic party is a party that supports freedom," Rep. Kaptur said to the Kyiv Independent in August, when asked if the Democratic party was as united around support for Ukraine as it seems. "Our support is strong."

[Kaleredar]

This administration continues to be absolute pussies if this turns out to be true and not a trick.
https://kyivindependent.com/no-chang...te-house-says/
No changes in US policy on long-range strikes into Russia expected, White House says


This is with some bipartisan support too.
https://kyivindependent.com/bipartis...-restrictions/
Bipartisan calls continue for Biden to lift restrictions on Kyiv using long-range weapons against Russia

Hopefully in the lead up to the election Harris starts to drive home US support for Ukraine. As far as I'm aware it's still a fairly universally supported notion among the US electorate and it's a dramatically underused pressure points the democrats have over Trump, what with him and many of his closest talking heads being bought and sold by Russia.

[Surfd]

This administration continues to be absolute pussies if this turns out to be true and not a trick.
https://kyivindependent.com/no-chang...te-house-says/
No changes in US policy on long-range strikes into Russia expected, White House says


This is with some bipartisan support too.
https://kyivindependent.com/bipartis...-restrictions/
Bipartisan calls continue for Biden to lift restrictions on Kyiv using long-range weapons against Russia

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

[Benggaul]

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

I think it's that coupled with a heavy dose of caution over a Pandora's box situation.

[Kaleredar]

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

Frankly that's more of a reason to allow it now. Let Ukraine do the damage they can and let the precedent for them using weapons further into Russia establish itself, both within the US and among other nations currently supplying aid to Ukraine.

Putin will make up whatever red line to bitch and moan about; that's all he ever does. If Trump is president again then he'll give whatever inane excuse about Putin's red lines to reduce or stop aid to Ukraine regardless of any action Ukraine takes between now and then. But it will be much more difficult for Trump to reign in weapons reach already being used (rather than just saying it can't ever happen,) and other countries will have zero reason to follow suit.

[PhaelixWW]

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

You'll notice that pretty much every other country has given the okay to use their military aid in Russia over the last couple of weeks, and since most of those countries usually follow the lead of the US, I'm guessing that the US specifically told them to go ahead. They're laying the groundwork so that it's less of a conspicuous change when they finally authorize the use of those weapons after the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly that's more of a reason to allow it now. Let Ukraine do the damage they can and let the precedent for them using weapons further into Russia establish itself, both within the US and among other nations currently supplying aid to Ukraine.

Nah. If Trump wins the election, it'll be worse for Ukraine than the loss of a few extra months of long-range weapons' use. It's better all around if the US doesn't endanger an election win for Harris with a possible escalation right now.

Even if Harris loses anyway, Biden can still make that authorization on November 6th and they'd have over two months to "establish the precedent" before the change of administration in late January.

[Kaleredar]

Nah. If Trump wins the election, it'll be worse for Ukraine than the loss of a few extra months of long-range weapons' use. It's better all around if the US doesn't endanger an election win for Harris with a possible escalation right now.

I don't get the sense that support for Ukraine is a particularly divisive issue among the general population, in that said support for Ukraine seems to be pretty high across the board.

All Trump can really whine about is "sending money to Ukraine" and "risk of escalation," both things he can't articulate into any actual words given he's Trump and both things that leave Trump with the unfortunate task of... trying to defend Russia. Something that absolutely will not sell to the American public at large.

[alach]

What they said recently was, it wasnt about worry of escalation, it was about availability and practicality.
They figure the cost of a million of a missile could be better spent elsewhere. The examples they used were; shorter ranged attacks in Crimea, helping the Ukranians develop their own long range weapons, and something else I forget. Also they said most the airfields the russians are launching the glide bombs from are hundreds and hundreds of miles away, well outside the striking distance of long range ATACMS.
Seems to make sense to me.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't get the sense that support for Ukraine is a particularly divisive issue among the general population, in that said support for Ukraine seems to be pretty high across the board.

There's a difference between support for aid in general and support for long-range strikes into Russian territory. Before the election, the GoP could try to stoke the fears of escalation and paint themselves as the party of responsible foreign policy. Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

All Trump can really whine about is "sending money to Ukraine" and "risk of escalation," both things he can't articulate into any actual words given he's Trump and both things that leave Trump with the unfortunate task of... trying to defend Russia. Something that absolutely will not sell to the American public at large.

On the contrary. Trump could easily just refuse to sign any appropriations bill to send new aid to Ukraine. What would he care about popular opinion at that point, at the beginning of a second term?

[Kaleredar]

There's a difference between support for aid in general and support for long-range strikes into Russian territory. Before the election, the GoP could try to stoke the fears of escalation and paint themselves as the party of responsible foreign policy. Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

I don't think the average American voter knows much minutia about what's going on in Ukraine beyond "Ukraine = good, Russia = bad." Hell, if you were to tell them "Biden is increasing the range of US weapons usage for Ukrainian strikes into Russia" they're less likely to have an opinion about what that means geopolitically and more likely to say something along the lines of "we weren't doing that already?"

On the contrary. Trump could easily just refuse to sign any appropriations bill to send new aid to Ukraine. What would he care about popular opinion at that point, at the beginning of a second term?

I meant as his "pushback" to the Biden administration increasing aid to Ukraine in the lead up to the election.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't think the average American voter...

You're ignoring the part where I said:

Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

Hell, if you were to tell them "Biden is increasing the range of US weapons usage for Ukrainian strikes into Russia" they're less likely to have an opinion about what that means geopolitically and more likely to say something along the lines of "we weren't doing that already?"

Except that it won't just be Biden and the Democrats framing the narrative. There's going to be endless coverage of GoP "talking points" between now and the election. They'll be able to float any alternate narrative they want, and as long as it's not an outright lie, it'll have a potential impact on the borderline voters.

At least if it's an outright lie, it can be refuted simply. But the more you have to explain that their take is not entirely accurate and the more you have to justify the policy against open fearmongering, the harder it's going to be to sway those voters to your side.

I meant as his "pushback" to the Biden administration increasing aid to Ukraine in the lead up to the election.

He has a whole cadre of water-carriers working to help him get elected, though. He doesn't have to be able to articulate it well at rallies to stoke the flames that his minions create. And as long as he doesn't actually agree to another debate, he won't have to cover it himself in any nationally-televised way.

[alach]

More on the misinformation campaign and spying stuff;
US warns RT is directly involved in Russian intelligence operations

The U.S. State Department issued a press release on Sept. 13 saying that the Russian state-run media outlet RT is not just involved in spreading propaganda and misinformation, but is actively working with Russian intelligence to target countries across the world.

"We now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities," the statement read.

"(RT) is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America."

The warning follows similar statements in recent weeks that Russia is planning information campaigns to sow division in U.S. society and undermine support for Ukraine in swing states during the upcoming presidential race. A U.S. official told Reuters that RT is attempting to push U.S. viewers toward voting for Donald Trump in the presidential election through a network of Western media personalities.

Its another reminder for folks to always check their sources carefully, but if an american presidential candidate cant even bother, whats the use.

[PhaelixWW]

Ukraine kicked off a new incursion into Russia a few days ago, a bit west of their original incursion. They likely mean to encircle some of the Russian troops engaging them on the western flank of the original incursion site.

[Benggaul]

Ukraine kicked off a new incursion into Russia a few days ago, a bit west of their original incursion. They likely mean to encircle some of the Russian troops engaging them on the western flank of the original incursion site.

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

[Sunseeker]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Among the military powers or distant foreign nations? Probably not. But theyre still dangerous for the neighbors.

[Iphie]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Look they're clearly not as dangerous as they like to appear, but they still have nukes of unknown state of usability, taking them not seriously is being a bit overconfident. As a resident of Finland I will NEVER underestimate them and I cannot imagine the Baltics or Poland will either.

[Kralljin]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

[Edge-]

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

Of course they are - they're a tiny country that was formally reliant on Russia. They're not going to have the domestic arms and technological capabilities of a major military. And they're fighting with western support, but controlled western support and far from the full might of western powers. Which still makes their defense of their nation for two years and counting against a former world power impressive.

[Kralljin]

Of course they are - they're a tiny country that was formally reliant on Russia. They're not going to have the domestic arms and technological capabilities of a major military. And they're fighting with western support, but controlled western support and far from the full might of western powers. Which still makes their defense of their nation for two years and counting against a former world power impressive.

I don't disagree but i'd still be cautious as a neighbor state to not take "Russia's military Might" seriously anymore.
Point of fact, if you're relying on Western support, you're also at the mercy of its political whims and that this stuff gets to you in the first place.

And that also does not address that this is war has yet to be decided.

[Edge-]

I don't disagree but i'd still be cautious as a neighbor state to not take "Russia's military Might" seriously anymore.

Sure, there's no point in antagonizing but at the same time it's become clear that Russia's strongest military power is having bodies to throw into the meat grinder, really. They're still a very real threat to their neighbors who don't have, or aren't confident they could secure, western support (though supporting two wars would be tough for western powers, and more so for Russia), but not quite the threat they were viewed as a few years back.

Point of fact, if you're relying on Western support, you're also at the mercy of its political whims and that this stuff gets to you in the first place.

Sorta? I mean, once it ends the aid dries up and all that, but what can western nations force Ukraine to do? What would they want to force Ukraine to do? Ukraine has already expressed clearly an interest to be a part of western treaties and alliances already.