Biden authorizes Ukraine to use US-supplied missiles in Russia

[Bebe 17,289]

13 minutes ago, King of the Fall said:

Nope, based on what you cited, the majority of the news you consume is pro genocide, pro false statements and pro destruction of an independent Ukranian state. You accuse me of parroting Russian propaganda for wanting the best possible outcome for Ukraine's future as an independent state. Once Ukraine is destroyed and all your delusions about Russia running out of men and equipment or their economy collapsing have been proven to be the fantasies we all know they are, history will validate what I was telling you

Have a fantastic day!

That’s not all the news I consume friend, it’s what I could send to that was easy to read and copy instead of sending video essays or trying to find specific articles. I’m hardly going to link you Hasan videos when he gets Ukraine so wrong.

When we are in the middle of an information war I’d also prefer to quote articles that at least have a factual basis, even if I disagree with certain opinions. 

I look forward to agreeing with you on the topic of Israel/Palestine in a related thread. Hopefully you have numbers and sources that support your views in that thread!  I’m glad to hear you are against some forms of imperialism at the very least.

Realistically, once Trump takes office the situation likely drastically changes anyway. Ukraine requires the support of the US, so if Trump is pushing for an end to the conflict that results in Russia taking the Ukrainian territory it wants that’s what’s likely to happen. Unfortunately I don’t think US and NATO support lasts long enough under Trump to see what I have been discussing come to fruition. 

 

[Bronco 24,872]

6 hours ago, King of the Fall said:

You failed to prove that Russian red lines have been crossed previously

Russian Red Lines all linked to non-nuclear & nuclear threats to NATO which NATO nations have crossed: 

March 2022 - Putin said a red line for Russia was the continued resupply of Ukraine with Western Arms. Said the consequence would be Russia firing into NATO states to hit convoys. Didn't happen, line has been crossed repeatedly. 

June 2022 - Putin demanded no long-range missiles to be supplied to Ukraine. They were, they've been used and Western allies have increasingly expanded the range of missiles supplied. All without consequence. 
Also demanded no western-made missiles were to be fired into Russia. This first happened in Dec 2023. No consequence.

September 2022 - Putin declared Germany's supply of lethal weaponry to Ukraine crossed a Russian Red line. Nothing further happened or said. 

September 2022 - Putin claimed that the setbacks on the frontlines suffered by Russia would result in a Nuclear Holocaust. It's Nov 2024 and no Nuclear weaponry has been used. 

Jan 2023 - Stated red line was the deployment of Modern Western tanks to Ukraine. When this happened in the same month the consequence was Putin saying "it's an extremely dangerous" action and took no further action. 

May 2023 - Red line was F-16s being deployed. They were in July. Nothing. 

June 2023 - Red line is No HIMARS or Storm Shadow attacks on Russian territory pre-2014. They was crossed in June 2024. Nothing. 

September 2023 - Red Line is the use of ATACMS on Russian Territory. Crossed October 2023. Consequence was a strong speech where it was labeled "another mistake". As of November 2024, no actual action taken by Russia as a result. 

The whole point of Putin's red lines when he sets them out (always around the time news emerges that the West is about to do something for Ukraine) is to stop the thing he states happening. The problem is we are now nearing the 3rd anniversary of the invasion by Russia, and not a single Russian red line that has been crossed has led to any action by Putin. So no one believes him or believes his bravado whenever he speaks on them. 
You rightly say that he's deliberately vague. But he's being deliberately vague because he knows that he's unable to respond to the crossing of these red lines without creating a situation where the war expands against him. And he knows, like we all do, that Xi Jinping would not join into support him directly because Xi is far too smart for that and likely wants Putin hobled or replaced entirely with an easier to control puppet. 

The only uncrossed red lines are the deployment of any direct support into Ukraine by NATO. And there's zero chance of it happening at this point. I do agree with you that the conflict has reached stalemate status. The best case scenario at this point is that a peace deal reverts Ukraine back to the post-2014 borders, pre-2022 invasion. 

[4th Time Around 5,059]

29 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Russian Red Lines all linked to non-nuclear & nuclear threats to NATO which NATO nations have crossed: 

March 2022 - Putin said a red line for Russia was the continued resupply of Ukraine with Western Arms. Said the consequence would be Russia firing into NATO states to hit convoys. Didn't happen, line has been crossed repeatedly. 

June 2022 - Putin demanded no long-range missiles to be supplied to Ukraine. They were, they've been used and Western allies have increasingly expanded the range of missiles supplied. All without consequence. 
Also demanded no western-made missiles were to be fired into Russia. This first happened in Dec 2023. No consequence.

September 2022 - Putin declared Germany's supply of lethal weaponry to Ukraine crossed a Russian Red line. Nothing further happened or said. 

September 2022 - Putin claimed that the setbacks on the frontlines suffered by Russia would result in a Nuclear Holocaust. It's Nov 2024 and no Nuclear weaponry has been used. 

Jan 2023 - Stated red line was the deployment of Modern Western tanks to Ukraine. When this happened in the same month the consequence was Putin saying "it's an extremely dangerous" action and took no further action. 

May 2023 - Red line was F-16s being deployed. They were in July. Nothing. 

June 2023 - Red line is No HIMARS or Storm Shadow attacks on Russian territory pre-2014. They was crossed in June 2024. Nothing. 

September 2023 - Red Line is the use of ATACMS on Russian Territory. Crossed October 2023. Consequence was a strong speech where it was labeled "another mistake". As of November 2024, no actual action taken by Russia as a result. 

The whole point of Putin's red lines when he sets them out (always around the time news emerges that the West is about to do something for Ukraine) is to stop the thing he states happening. The problem is we are now nearing the 3rd anniversary of the invasion by Russia, and not a single Russian red line that has been crossed has led to any action by Putin. So no one believes him or believes his bravado whenever he speaks on them. 
You rightly say that he's deliberately vague. But he's being deliberately vague because he knows that he's unable to respond to the crossing of these red lines without creating a situation where the war expands against him. And he knows, like we all do, that Xi Jinping would not join into support him directly because Xi is far too smart for that and likely wants Putin hobled or replaced entirely with an easier to control puppet. 

The only uncrossed red lines are the deployment of any direct support into Ukraine by NATO. And there's zero chance of it happening at this point. I do agree with you that the conflict has reached stalemate status. The best case scenario at this point is that a peace deal reverts Ukraine back to the post-2014 borders, pre-2022 invasion. 

The majority, if not all of these "red lines" you mentioned are not actually red lines in terms of official Russian policy. Rather they are just vague statements about the fact he might do something or claiming that tensions had been escalated which is different than what has been said about the idea of strikes. Saying something is "extremely dangerous" etc is not actually setting a red line which is why the United States has been so hesitant to greenlight strikes inside Russia until now. Putin never clearly defined anything you cited as a red line in terms of representing an existential threat to the Russian state. I disagree with you that the war is currently in stalemate because the frontlines are moving every day and it's also worth noting that Ukraine has not actually fired any of these missiles that Biden greenlighted yet into Russian territory so we don't know if he will respond or not. Putin is not stupid enough to start WWIII, especially with Trump coming back into office but I would not put it past him to strike us in other ways or empower our enemies globally.

 I suspect that Trump is going to just pull back from supporting Ukraine and allow Russia to keep the territory they claim and Ukraine will be forced to agree to neutrality and an army reduced in size unfortunately. 

[Bronco 24,872]

1 hour ago, King of the Fall said:

The majority, if not all of these "red lines" you mentioned are not actually red lines in terms of official Russian policy. Rather they are just vague statements about the fact he might do something or claiming that tensions had been escalated which is different than what has been said about the idea of strikes. Saying something is "extremely dangerous" etc is not actually setting a red line which is why the United States has been so hesitant to greenlight strikes inside Russia until now. Putin never clearly defined anything you cited as a red line in terms of representing an existential threat to the Russian state. I disagree with you that the war is currently in stalemate because the frontlines are moving every day and it's also worth noting that Ukraine has not actually fired any of these missiles that Biden greenlighted yet into Russian territory so we don't know if he will respond or not. Putin is not stupid enough to start WWIII, especially with Trump coming back into office but I would not put it past him to strike us in other ways or empower our enemies globally.

 I suspect that Trump is going to just pull back from supporting Ukraine and allow Russia to keep the territory they claim and Ukraine will be forced to agree to neutrality and an army reduced in size unfortunately. 

Honestly I think you're just defining these things very narrowly to suit your perspective of the conflict. All of the red lines I've mentioned were things where Putin or the Kremlin publicly went out and made statements that if X came to pass then it would force escalation by Russia in some format. The reality is that Russia never once escalated in response to having a red line crossed. 

Yes they were vague. Like I said, Russia were intentionally vague about how they would be respond because it was political bluster by a state which knew it couldn't act. The reality is that the Russian army relies on Cold War era equipment, expected an easy win and has come up wanting. Trying to position Russian bluster having nothing to back it up as "not official policy" is just hand wringing and not realistic in IR. 

Also he said it was "extremely dangerous" *after* the red line was set and *after* the red line was crossed. That was his only response to the red line he stated being crossed. 

The lines have been shifting regularly, back and forth over the summer. That's the definition of a stalemate. No side this year has ended the main period of direct land conflict in a position where it's had significant gains or caused significant pushback. And we're entering into the deepest part of the winter season now which over the course of the conflict we've seen both sides unable to make offensive land pushes in this period due to the ground conditions. The long range capabilities opened up to Ukraine will likely give the Ukranians an easier time of fortifying their own gains/existing defenses and possibly slow down and delay the Russians doing the same. We will see as they used them for the first time today and hit Bryansk's weapons arsenal. But we know how Putin will respond, because his red line on their usage has been communicated in the exact way as every other red line that got crossed and ignored. He won't do **** besides firing a few more rockets at Ukraine. 

[4th Time Around 5,059]

46 minutes ago, Bronco said:

The lines have been shifting regularly, back and forth over the summer. That's the definition of a stalemate. No side this year has ended the main period of direct land conflict in a position where it's had significant gains or caused significant pushback. And we're entering into the deepest part of the winter season now which over the course of the conflict we've seen both sides unable to make offensive land pushes in this period due to the ground conditions. The long range capabilities opened up to Ukraine will likely give the Ukranians an easier time of fortifying their own gains/existing defenses and possibly slow down and delay the Russians doing the same. We will see as they used them for the first time today and hit Bryansk's weapons arsenal. But we know how Putin will respond, because his red line on their usage has been communicated in the exact way as every other red line that got crossed and ignored. He won't do **** besides firing a few more rockets at Ukraine. 

What do you mean the lines have been shifting? With the exception of the Kurk offensive that was initially successful before being stopped in it's tracks and is now being pushed back, it has been a series of Russian advances, especially in heavily fortified central Donbas that Ukraine has been unable to stop. We are talking about a war of attrition and just because the rate of advances is not massive does not mean the war is stalemate. A stalemate would imply the front is static and that nobody has an edge which is untrue in regards to the war in Ukraine. The Kursk offensive is totally irrelevant to what is happening on the main front anyway and the main front has been a series of Ukranian defeats for months now which is starting to acelerate. You are correct that the Russians initially underestimated the size and quality of the Ukranian army and went in with far too small of a strike force but the situation is entirely different now. Also, your claim that the Russian army relies on cold war era equipment is a lie and not born out of any video evidence from the front. I suppose you also subscribe to idea of "meatwave" attacks despite zero video evidence showing such things and tons of footage showing the opposite?

I don't think the west should allow itself to be blackmailed by threats but you seem awfully confident in your assesment that Putin wont do anything besides launch missiles at Ukraine despite the fact that an actual red line is being crossed this time and when I say red line, I mean that this in plain writing as part of Russian deterence doctrine. Ask yourself this, if this whole discussion about missiles is no different than any other so called "red line" why has the Biden administration and the pentagon been so opposed to the idea till now? I'm not saying Putin is going to use nukes but there are other ways to retaliate. We are talking about an entirely different situation than giving Ukraine a bunch of weapons and money this time because the missiles can only be operated and fired with the assistance of the United States.

[4th Time Around 5,059]

Hey @Broncodid you see the post from @Morphine Prince just now? Still so convinced it's just another bluff when Russia now has their position as official state policy and in writing? I really hope you are correct or that Putin will wait it out until Trump gets in office at least

[Bronco 24,872]

@King of the Fall I'm just going to do one single response rather than quoting at length as you know what you wrote lol 

This is the assessed frontline in the war based on the work of the ISW. 

Here's a BBC reproduction with better demonstration of the Russian advances. 

And finally, heres an ISW map assessment published via the BBC showing the pre-War state. The March 2022's invasion and sudden gains. The state of the war by the end of the first Summer. And the current front lines.
It is undeniable that there have been Russian gains in 2024. They are minimal in comparison with the gains from their blitz offense and as of yet the Russians have been unable to make any significant comparable gains. They aren't able to cross the river and expand beyond Kherson, they've made next to 0 progress on the Kharkiv stretch of the front and haven't even attempted to push back into Kyiv via Belarus and end the war.

The main gains we can see are in the Pokrovsk region, but if you look at the 2nd map I've inserted look at the number of "bulges" in the front line. Front line "bulges" are notoriously tricky land to retain and progress from because you create a scenario where the enemy can encircle you - which is what happened to the Ukranians in Bahkmut. The consistent part of the war in Ukraine has been that the winter months see a stagnation of the conflict as the ground becomes impassable in many areas by any heavy machinery - limiting any ground campaigns to infantry which can be easily dispatched by established ground artillery in defended areas.
So I say that the war is stagnating beyond the usual winter pause because the overall reality of the war is that Russia is not making significant or terratorially important gains and Ukraine is not currently capable of a concerted offensive to recapture the eastern territories. The map has been stable since Nov 2022 near enough.

I continue to believe that Putin won't use nuclear weapons for 3 reasons.

One, like the US, the main stockpile of its nuclear weaponry is dated cold war era stock. And although it will never be admitted in public channels, everyone in the US & Russia defensive realm don't even know if the stocks they have are fully operational and all of our defensive weaponry should an enemy deploy theirs is equally untested by serious assault and no nation knows if its enough to survive. 

Secondly, because Putin has made numerous nuclear postures during the course of this conflict. But at no point has taken the step of utilizing small nuclear weapons that would be limited in direct effect to Ukraine. And realistically, we all know the west would have let him and been glad to see the end of the Ukraine war. And I do think today's doctrine revision is just posturing. Because the timeline of the nuclear risk in this war has been nothing but posturing and failure. 
27th Feb 2022 - Putin orders the Nuclear forces into a special mode of combat duty. 
20th April 2022 - Russia carries out testing of a new ICBM the RS28 Sarmat - but followed New START to the letter. 
24th April 2022 - Lavrov tells Blinken that further support could lead to a scenario involving Russia's "full arsenal". 
April/May 2022 - Germany deploys armed tanks to Ukraine's army. Putin announces that Russiaa would respond with prompt preemptory action possible only with the nuclear arsenal to any similar moves by other nations. It has yet to do so despite this happening repeatedly. 
Sept/Oct 2022 - US intelligence recieves information that Russia was preparing a nuclear strike on Ukraine to repel the Ukranian offensive which recaptured Kharkiv and was pushing into Kherson.
Sept 21st 2022 - Putin makes several comments suggesting an planned tactical nuclear strike. Lavrov repeated them. Medvedev makes a more explicit threat days later.
1st October 2022 - Kadyrov calls for Russia to use low-yield nuclear weaponry in response to the loss of Lyman. 
Late October 2022 - Shoigu accues Ukraine of preparing a dirty bomb, widely seen as Russia establishing justification for a strike. 

Jan 2023 - Volodin states "If Washington & NATO supply weapons that will be used to strike civilian cities and attempt to seize our territories, as they threaten, this will lead to retaliatory measures using more powerful weapons". We're a year on, no strikes have happened despite multiple incursions on Russian territory by Ukraine.
Feb 2023 - Putin withdraws from New START, but later then rowed back this position & committed to the 1988 Ballistic Missile Launch Notification agreement.
March 2023 - Putin announces plans to install Russian nuclear weaponry in Belarus and carried out RS-24 Yars testing. 
June 2023 - Karaganov calls for the use of Nuclear weapons against NATO in Europe.

Now for the most important bits
20th September 2024 - Russia tests its new RS-28 Sarmat for a second time, this has been generally accepted to be an attempt at Nuclear blackmail to prevent the deployment of Storm Shadow & ATACMS.
The test failed and destroyed the launch silo and all of it's surrounding military facilities.

So we know that these threats have been made by Putin or his inner circle repeatedly for 2 years. We also know that the latest generation of their weaponry isn't working. And the RS-24 Yars have never been used in active conflict, only tested sparingly since their 2007 development.

Finally, for Russia to launch nuclear weaponry at any other target than Ukraine - Putin would have to believe that either NATO is preparing to launch a fullscale invasion of Russia (likely through Poland or the Baltic nations) or that his life was in danger. Because anything other than low-yield tactical strikes on Ukrainian territory would lead to instant retaliatory launches by all NATO nuclear nations (US/UK/France) using the arsenals in those nations & the shared NATO arsenals in Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands & Germany because MAD is absolutely still the official policy of all Nuclear states & Nuclear sharing states. 

The deployment of Storm Shadow & ATACMS is the final gasp of this conflict before the inevitable ceasefire & peace process begins within the next 18 months. Putin knows NATO isn't preparing to launch an assault because he knows Trump won't support it and Biden has zero capability to get permission to do so before January. So there is no risk to NATO nations from Russia, unless Putin has truly lost his mind at this point - and I am genuinely of the belief that Xi Jingping would have Putin removed if they had any belief he was preparing to attack NATO. All out war is not China's style of imperialism currently. 

There is a risk to Ukraine that Russia finally deploys low-yield tactical strikes, but on the cost/benefit analysis of such a move I just don't see Putin doing it. Occupying the uncaptured territory in Ukraine is not in Russia's interest if it can achieve a peace agreement where the existing front-line is turned into the new land borders. Occupying resistant territory is always a nightmare for the occupier as you spend most of your local resources on surpressing local resistance (this is an issue already has in territory it safely occupies in Ukraine). And it doesn't achieve the goal of this offensive, making NATO back down. 
A nuclear strike in Ukraine would make European nations significantly more militarily minded and would lead to a stronger military presence in the border states - aka exactly what Putin wants to prevent. I'd also argue that a nuclear strike by Russia would massively undermine the espionage work done by Russia in western Europe through the likes of Farage, Le Pen & AfD. Because most supporters of those Russian backed groups believe the narrative that NATO is the nuclear aggressor, if Putin does engage in the first nuclear strike since Japan was bombed that destroys the decades of work Russian intelligence has done to build up pro-Russian puppet orgs. 

[4th Time Around 5,059]

13 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I continue to believe that Putin won't use nuclear weapons for 3 reasons.




 

Excellent post as a whole and I agree with many of your points but why does a reponse have to be nuclear in nature?  I never said that I thought it would be likely that Russia actually uses nukes. But I do think it's a possibility they would use some sort of conventional weapon or at least supply our enemies but I suppose you could argue they have already been doing that.

You and I are totally on the same page that a negotiated settlement upon roughly the borders that exist now is the most likely outcome. I'm just concerned about all the trouble Russia could stir up even if they don't use a nuke, especially since so much of our attention is tied down supporting Israel in the middle east right now.

[Bronco 24,872]

8 minutes ago, King of the Fall said:

Excellent post as a whole and I agree with many of your points but why does a reponse have to be nuclear in nature?  I never said that I thought it would be likely that Russia actually uses nukes. But I do think it's a possibility they would use some sort of conventional weapon or at least supply our enemies but I suppose you could argue they have already been doing that.

You and I are totally on the same page that a negotiated settlement upon roughly the borders that exist now is the most likely outcome. I'm just concerned about all the trouble Russia could stir up even if they don't use a nuke, especially since so much of our attention is tied down supporting Israel in the middle east right now.

I was mainly talking about the response in the context of today's announcement by Putin tbf. 

I don't think we'll see a conventional response because if he were to launch a conventional response for attacks on Russian soil, he'd have done them already after the repeated incursions by Ukraine this year which was done largely using new supplies from the west. 

I don't think any form of attack on non-Ukrainian soil is beneficial to Russia's agenda. The attack on Ukraine itself in 2022 really undermined a lot of the established work by Russia in European nations as it created a rally around the flag narrative. An example being it allowed German politicians the room to start seriously looking at military expansion for the first time since WW2 & Reunification. In the UK it equally changed the public mood into one that was heavily pro-Defence investment. 

Any further aggression by Russia would only amplify what remains of that rally the flag energy and could seriously undermine the likes of AfD & Le Pen just as they are in line for ridiculous gains in the next elections. And tbh, I do think that an attack on NATO territory would lead to the few establishment Republicans left in power to finally make an actual stand against Trump and we'd yet again see a European war where the Americans join late lol

So I truly believe Putin is confined to military responses against Ukraine itself. And if Russia was capable of capturing the remaining Ukrainian territory held by Ukraine, it would have done so by now. 

That said, Russia has again started cutting power & internet cables in the Baltic sea so they're absolutely going to roll out some more sabotage attempts in the next few months. 

[NCgaga 4,345]

I can’t wait for the USA to pull out of this so Europe can do their part to help Ukraine. And if Russia takes over Ukraine because USA pulled out, well god Help Europe because Putin will only try to advance Westward. Europe was warned, and they wanted to sit it out so the US could send more and more money. Good Luck Europe! 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

14 hours ago, Bronco said:

@King of the Fall

It is undeniable that there have been Russian gains in 2024. They are minimal in comparison with the gains from their blitz offense and as of yet the Russians have been unable to make any significant comparable gains.

So I say that the war is stagnating beyond the usual winter pause because the overall reality of the war is that Russia is not making significant or terratorially important gains and Ukraine is not currently capable of a concerted offensive to recapture the eastern territories. The map has been stable since Nov 2022 near enough.

 

That's a heavily distorted view, Russia continues to make territorial gains and they are significant. Russia is gaining new villages every week. The Blitzkrieg conquests were just border post controls and mayoral office holders, without the majority of the population there living practically according to newly introduced Russian law. These territories were conquered, but not Putin-Russified. And they were not heavily fortified. Over the months, since the end of 2022 and in the course of 2023, Russian laws have actually been successfully introduced in the remaining red zones, they apply to the population there and the school system has been completely changed away from the Ukrainian one and now they are heavily fortified. The occupied Ukrainian territories, which are Putin-Russianized and well fortified, are larger than ever before and Putin is more successful than ever before  in Ukraine. It is not a stalemate anymore. Russia used the stalemate-time to heavily fortify and Russify the territories, and during the stalemate time they became truly/more Russian in meaning. And here, I agree with @King of the Fall that Ukraine is never ever gonna get these territories back. Very different than the blitzkrieg conquests.

In addition, Putin has recently recorded significant conquests. The city of Donetsk bordered directly on the front line in Nov 2022. Putin has now created a hinterland for Donetsk City, in which the metropolis is surrounded by up to 30 km of newly-won land that is being russified right now. Donetsk City is the metropolis of the Donbas, and it now has a hinterland in all directions. One square mile in the NYC suburbs is more valuable than 10 square miles in the outer lying corners of New York State, same for Donetsk's suburbs. One square miles along the Florida coast is more valuable than 10 square miles in the middle of the US, same for the Azov Sea compared to northeastern Ukraine.

Here 31st December 2023:

Here 19th November, right now:

 

 

It's like @King of the Fall describes: Russia wins, Ukraine loses.

I, btw, also agree, that Putin won't use nuclear weapons and your reasons explain them well.

[Bronco 24,872]

@AyeshaErotica I perhaps overplayed it saying that Russia hasn't made any significant progress. Because I definitely agree that Russia at this point has truly colonized the Donetsk & Luhansk regions and defensively has little issue holding Mariupol & Kherson. And have expanded defensive lines around them. I don't see any realistic scenario currently save a full out war intervention from NATO where these areas are returned.

But I personally feel like you're overplaying Russian progress this year. Ukraine's been in its weakest position since 2022 this year due to turmoil in its main defensive partners from NATO & increased apathy from many others. Russia's gains while defensively important for the region they hold, haven't shown any major ability to push beyond defensive range. And I do stand by the fact Russia is increasingly opening itself up to defensive bulges which are typically bad for business. 

Personally, I am slowly getting the feeling Russia is preparing for the all but guaranteed peace talks coming in 2025/26. And it's goal is for the settlement to be drawn along the existing frontline. The aggression from the Russian offensive is gone, and they are very very slowly starting to filter out alternative messaging about "success" in Russian media.

And I think we all agree at this point that the frontline as it stands is the likely peace scenario.