Biden backs down, won't send MLRS to Ukraine

[Dennis 8,391]

After initial reports from the NYT and WPO that Ukraine may soon receive long-range artillery systems that are able to defend Donbass more effectively, and after Putin's warnings that such transfer of weapons would be a red line for Russia, Biden appears to have backed down, pledging to not send any weapons that "can strike into russia" (I mean Russia borders Ukraine so practically anything can "strike into" russia?")

Ukraine has requested such systems because the artillery it currently has allow it to strike only from 10-20 miles away from the russian troops which increase the likelihood of encirclment.

 

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

8 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Biden appears to have backed down, pledging to not send any weapons that "can strike into russia" (I mean Russia borders Ukraine so practically anything can "strike into" russia?")

 

Well the difference might be that these long-range systems can hit targets as far away as Moscow, which would be a bigger ''red ''line'' or even seen as a casus beli by Russia. According to wiki, the maximum fire range of these arms is up to 300kms which is insane, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Well the difference might be that these long-range systems can hit targets as far away as Moscow, which would be a bigger ''red ''line'' or even seen as a casus beli by Russia. According to wiki, the maximum fire range of these arms is up to 300kms which is insane, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System. 

Oh now it makes sense. 

[Dennis 8,391]

28 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Well the difference might be that these long-range systems can hit targets as far away as Moscow, which would be a bigger ''red ''line'' or even seen as a casus beli by Russia. According to wiki, the maximum fire range of these arms is up to 300kms which is insane, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System. 

Yes but only if the U.S ships such missiles with the MLRS. To not mislead people what you're quoting is the ATACMS which are quite literally balistic missiles that can be used on a rocket launcher, not the type of artillery Ukraine is requesting.

The MLRS already has configurations for lower range. And even then, Ukraine as an ally should be trusted to not use it against Moscow if the US requests it. It's not the time for games.

[heygurlhi 3,200]

5 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Yes but only if the U.S ships such missiles with the MLRS.

The MLRS already has configurations for lower range. And even then, Ukraine as an ally should be trusted to not use it against Moscow if the US requests it. It's not the time for games.

Ukraine is desperate and deperate folks tend usualy not to be as trustworthy 

[Dennis 8,391]

5 minutes ago, heygurlhi said:

Ukraine is desperate and deperate folks tend usualy not to be as trustworthy 

First of all, as I explained what the user said is misleading, because that's ATACMS not the M30/31 Ukraine is requesting. ATACMS are ballistic missiles. And they'd have to be shipped by the U.S to Ukraine for Ukraine to be able to use MLRS with them.

Second, it's such a silly argument to refrain from helping an ally defend their territory because "they're desperate and desperate people cant be trusted". I won't even bother entertaining this argument.

[NFRatwell 23,290]

Government officials who start war think it’s “crossing the line” when their lives are at threat instead of the brainwashed / forced soldiers… lol. Totally ok with wasting lives until the bombs are headed their way. What a joke. Can we normalize politicians who make these choices fighting on the battlefield? I’d love to see how politicians around the world respond to that. 

[CannaeDrive 3,412]

Ok then, in that case you better send more long range heavy artillery, Ukraine needs it.

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

21 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Yes but only if the U.S ships such missiles with the MLRS. To not mislead people what you're quoting is the ATACMS which are quite literally balistic missiles that can be used on a rocket launcher, not the type of artillery Ukraine is requesting.

The MLRS already has configurations for lower range. And even then, Ukraine as an ally should be trusted to not use it against Moscow if the US requests it. It's not the time for games.

So without those additions they can be used only for distances of 30kms? That is not much, but I specifcally remember Ukraine asking to be send artilery systems that could hit Moscow and Crimea. If US won't send these than can only fire 30kms it's safe to say Ukraine won't get nothing that would come close to Moscow.

[Dennis 8,391]

26 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

So without those additions they can be used only for distances of 30kms? That is not much, but I specifcally remember Ukraine asking to be send artilery systems that could hit Moscow and Crimea. If US won't send these than can only fire 30kms it's safe to say Ukraine won't get nothing that would come close to Moscow.

70km. And I don't think Ukraine explicitly asked for systems that could hit Moscow?

As for Crimea it's literally Ukranian land? I don't think it's a good idea for Ukraine to try to take it back before the Donbass, but it'd be ridiculous to not send weapons that can reach crimea since its literally part of Ukraine and borders Ukranian cities?

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

2 minutes ago, Dennis said:

70km. And I don't think Ukraine explicitly asked for systems that could hit Moscow?

As for Crimea it's literally Ukranian land? I don't think it's a good idea for Ukraine to try to take it back before the Donbass, but it'd be ridiculous to not send weapons that can reach crimea since its literally part of Ukraine and borders Ukranian cities?

I remember the news about Ukraine potentially asking for artilery that had the ability to hit Moscow from the NW tip of Ukraine, not artilery explicity meant to hit Moscow. I think a while ago and I forgot the source but I may try to look into what that was about.

On the second point, according to Russian law, Crimea is an integral part of the Russian Federation. The danger that comes with an attack on Crimea is that Ukraine will head into a territory Russia nominally considers part of itself. Russia's doctrine is to use nuclear weapons in response to existential threatens and there is a possibility Ukraine reclaiming Crimea would be seen as such. From Russia's lenses, Crimea is the same as Belgorod or Rostov-on-Don.

[Dennis 8,391]

13 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

On the second point, according to Russian law, Crimea is an integral part of the Russian Federation. 

Ok so if Russia declares Donbass russian territory I guess Ukraine should lay down arms to not be nuked?
 

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

16 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Ok so if Russia declares Donbass russian territory I guess Ukraine should lay down arms to not be nuked?

You known I am pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia just like you, but we can't just be blind to the fact that Russia sees Crimea as a de jure and de facto Russian territory. Crimea is different to Donbas or the territories occupied after 24 February.

You may call me too balanced but if I were Zelensky I would stop at Crimea if retaking it would possibily trigger Russia's nuclear doctrine, yes. But it seems that Ukraine's intention is eventually reclaim its 1991 borders, meaning, retake Crimea and Sevastopol and this is anxiety-inducing to me.

[Dennis 8,391]

2 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

You known I am pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia just like you, but we can't just be blind to the fact that Russia sees Crimea as a de jure and de facto Russian territory. Crimea is different to Donbas or the territories occupied after 24 February.

And Ukraine is today most undermined by people who claim to be "pro-Ukraine", like its supposed allies who continue to pay Putin tens of billions of $ every month, and refuse to send Ukraine weapons to defend itself.

I think it's more sensical to stop paying attention to whatever Russia sees as red line or consider its territory and start focusing more on what international law says.

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

Just now, Dennis said:

And Ukraine is today most undermined by people who claim to be "pro-Ukraine", like its supposed allies who continue to pay Putin tens of billions of $ every month, and refuse to send Ukraine weapons to defend itself.

I think it's more sensical to stop paying attention to whatever Russia sees as red line or consider its territory and start focusing more on what the international law says.

Saying retaking Crimea is something that can have dangerous consequences because Russia sees it as an integral part of itself is different to Germany and France being mild on Russia, therefore alleviating the economic repercussions of the sanctions. There is no way Russia will give up on Sevastopol because it's one of its most strategic bases that do not freze in the winter, so Putin using nukes to defend it in 100% in the realm of the possibilities. As I said, I am pro-Ukraine therefore I say the risks of retaking Crimea are just too big, because there is a high possibility 1) Russia might declare war; 2) immediatelly or eventually use nukes.