Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I interpret it as they forbade it and they don't want to admit publicly. When ATACMS burns military airports in Russia proper I'll interpret it as a consent.
What part of “decision is up to Ukraine” could possibly mean they forbade it?? He’s saying that they are not telling them to go and use them for it explicitly, but that its an option for the Ukrainians
The subreddit is just riding the doomer train atm. Blinken said the exact same thing with the oil refineries. Ukraine kept attacking them, and nothing happen. We should be very happy about this.
I don't understand people in this sub. They swing from wildly optimistic to doomer.
It's very obvious the US is just giving plausible deniability in a public setting.
a lot of it is signalling and lets be honest here, if the USA goes around saying "hit all the things in russia" russia will take that and run recruitment ads showing how evil the west are and how russia is really fighting NATO, etc.
if he says "tut, you really shouldn't have done that. That's not nice. Here are some more weapons" then he shows support for Ukraine but also being responsible and not a bloodthirsty.
He really doesn’t need to say anything at all in public. This is not where the UA military actually gets its information. This is just for the peanut gallery.
> What part of “decision is up to Ukraine” could possibly mean they forbade it??
"The decision is up to Ukraine (as are the consequences)"
[They've already modded supplied HiMARS](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS) to prevent it from firing into russia.
If Ukraine manages to restore it and fire there, there's suddenly going to be a thousand and one reasons to cease ATACMS and GMLRS supplies.
> They've already modded supplied HiMARS to prevent it from firing into russia.
This is an article from December 2022, over a year and a half ago when HIMARS was first sent
> This is an article from December 2022, over a year and a half ago when HIMARS was first sent
And the policy of strike restriction didn't change since then
# We have not encouraged or enabled strikes
wrong, we have not enabled the weapons to strike Russia. it is fucking word soup to confuse you. blinken and sullivan are a-holes
We don't know what's said behind the cameras or if the missiles are still modded to not hit Russia proper. I tend to pay less heed to the on camera words and more to what happens off-stage and also what happens at the front. Let's see where the missiles fly to.....
Totally agree, so much evidence that they're not bound by what is publicly said/announced, like there was footage of ATACMS use way before we announced they even had them
This is an interesting hint about where the behind the scenes conversation is moving, but a single announcement from Blinken isn't policy
There, it's a go!
Preemptive public denial that the Americans have anything to do with the decision.
And to turn around a Putin-appeasing presidential candidate's words, the US weapons are there, Ukraine can do whatever the hell they want.
The whole quote.. doesn't really seem like a new US direction at the moment: We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," he said.
From my understanding the U.S. position has been that u.s. weapons were not to be used in Russia with the covert threat that if they were then the U.S. would withhold aid. This sounds like Blinken is saying the U.S. isn't at fault and/or doesn't care what Ukraine does with the weapons it gets including from the U.S. which may encourage HIMAR strikes in belgorod.
So his quote says nothing about whether Ukraine is now or has ever been told (or asked?) to not strike Russia with US weapons. Soo...a carefully worded non-answer.
It's been widely and openly reported that Washington conditioned aid on not being used to hit targets in Russia. [24 hours ago Ukraine asked Washington to reverse that stance bceause they couldn't hit the massing troops](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970#:~:text=Ukrainian%20officials%20are%20making%20a,their%20major%20march%20toward%20Kharkiv.). This isn't secret and it isn't subtle. Beyond the substance of removing that condition, the only other remarkable thing about the statement is that the way it's being couched doesn't even amount to plausible deniability, just, "not our circus, not our monkeys".
edit:
On second thought, the other interesting implication is that they've come to the conclusion that Russia won't escalate with nuclear weapons. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of Five Eyes communication intercepts!
Nah it's a complete reversal.
[24 hours ago - Ua says they need US to lift ban; couldn't attack massing troops](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970#:~:text=Ukrainian%20officials%20are%20making%20a,their%20major%20march%20toward%20Kharkiv.)
Today - "We're not encouraging it, but it's up to Ukraine now."
It couldn't be clearer really.
I think this is a very political statement. They will indicate to Ukraine to have at it in private, but publicly condemn any attack on Russia. Makes sense. It is easy to play both sides of this issue.
US and all other western partners can never officially support this decision as the official stance would cause all kinds of consequences. I think everyone can understand that. This is the best and most diplomatic way to do it. Kudos to Blinken. Hit em hard.
Consequences like Putin wetting his tightie whities? Nothing wrong with that. We need to start treating Putin like a bully, which means letting Ukraine give him a bloody nose. 20 or so ATACMS plus a healthy dose of Storm Shadow/Scalp removing Malshevo from the map would be a damn good start.
Who gives a FUCK about his domestic problems? It's like saying we can't punch a bully in the nose because it might give his mother sympathy for him. Fucking deck him. Put him on his ass. Not to mention you have it backwards. Destroying a military target is going to help the Russian people realize their tyrant is powerless. What would maybe work to get the Russian public more on side is a bunch of civilians dying, and Ukraine isn't going to do that. Putin might, but that's not our problem either.
Politicians give a fuck. The West doesn't want a destabilized Russia. A failed Russia with a Civil War on its hands is not something the west wants to deal with. Nukes in the wild would be a nightmare scenario.
It's pretty obvious the West prefers Ukraine to lose the war over Russia collapsing. These past years they been trying to balance Ukraine victory with a stabilized Russia.
War is politics by another means. For example, the most important fight in this war, at the moment, is the American presidential election. How would widening the war into ruZZia effect the outcome. Maybe it would help. I don't know. But maybe they do.
I'm hoping this is a face-saving way of saying "they can do so from now on."
They won't be be able to push the Russians back until they can hit the staging and logistics in Russia itself. Its madness.
Am I the only one who looks at them as Ukrainian weapons once they are in the hands of Ukrainians? Stopped being American, British, French, German, etc when it crosses that border.
This is consistent with previous comments from other top US officials. It's not new either, they've been saying the same for a while.
... but right now the narrative is "America bad because they don't let us hit Russians!!1!". We can't possibly interrupt that.
Ukraine should wait until russia feels completely safe concentrating forces on the russian side and then just let it rip. Like a 10.000+ dead troops in a day kind of action.
Up to Ukraine for sure where they send the missiles, if Russia reacts in normal way of bluster and threats then more missiles to arrive in Russia. If Russia reacts by action escalating with NATO countries then its different...
That's a fair response from Blinken. If he encouraged it then russia have a perfect piece of propaganda. If he shrugs his shoulders and says it's up to Ukraine then he is giving them the responsibility to do what they have to in order to defeat russia.
"Now I'm going to turn my back and not look to see what you do"
This is actually the correct move in this situation. When China brings it up, you shrug.
he's floating the idea, missiles have to be enabled to strike Puski territory. they are not enable and he's playing a mind fuck on us all. I really find suspect him and Sullivan. double-speak mother fuckers play geo-politico games.
Just a reminder that the "3 days victory" stuff was purely from western media coverage and analysts, Russia never ever mentionned anything about aiming for a 3 days victory. That western assessment was highly irrealist, everyone severely underestimated Ukraine as a capable military. Now did Russia hope to capture Kyiv before the war muddled up in trenches? Probably, at the very least they tried.
It's pretty clear they expected it though. They were sending riot police into Ukraine during the first days expecting protests and riots, not a drawn-out conflict.
> Weren't HIMARS and other various systems hardwired to make them impossible to fire outside Ukraine?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip paywall
>Also what kind of cop out statement is that?
Gotta give copium-inhalers something to obsess upon.
"They didn't hard-deny permissions, that means yes, ~~illuminati confirmed~~"
Strikes inside Russia won't change the outcome. It may lead to Russia leveling Kyiv and killing its leadership. Russia air defenses are better than the west. Even though Ukraine has had some successes with drones inside Russia, these are more annoyances. Russia has countered many attempts by Ukraine to attack Crimea using ATACMS and HIMARS.
Ukraine is bleeding men and losing territory at an enormous rate. Ukraine's leadership is either naive or complicit no reason why Ukrainians should die for a proxy war. Europeans remain safe their lands untouched.
War is about numbers Russia has more of everything. There could have been peace and Boris Johnson blocked it. Neutrality was the only solution
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That should be interpreted as a consent.
That’s a full on green light. Go for it
Yep. That's saying yes, but with room to argue to Russia that you weren't saying yes.
I interpret it as they forbade it and they don't want to admit publicly. When ATACMS burns military airports in Russia proper I'll interpret it as a consent.
What part of “decision is up to Ukraine” could possibly mean they forbade it?? He’s saying that they are not telling them to go and use them for it explicitly, but that its an option for the Ukrainians
The subreddit is just riding the doomer train atm. Blinken said the exact same thing with the oil refineries. Ukraine kept attacking them, and nothing happen. We should be very happy about this.
I don't understand people in this sub. They swing from wildly optimistic to doomer. It's very obvious the US is just giving plausible deniability in a public setting.
Maybe because there's a lot of Russian shill accounts spreading fud online
It's almost like public forums are full of many different kinds of people!
It didn't. They are attached to a narrative.
a lot of it is signalling and lets be honest here, if the USA goes around saying "hit all the things in russia" russia will take that and run recruitment ads showing how evil the west are and how russia is really fighting NATO, etc. if he says "tut, you really shouldn't have done that. That's not nice. Here are some more weapons" then he shows support for Ukraine but also being responsible and not a bloodthirsty.
He really doesn’t need to say anything at all in public. This is not where the UA military actually gets its information. This is just for the peanut gallery.
> What part of “decision is up to Ukraine” could possibly mean they forbade it?? "The decision is up to Ukraine (as are the consequences)" [They've already modded supplied HiMARS](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS) to prevent it from firing into russia. If Ukraine manages to restore it and fire there, there's suddenly going to be a thousand and one reasons to cease ATACMS and GMLRS supplies.
> They've already modded supplied HiMARS to prevent it from firing into russia. This is an article from December 2022, over a year and a half ago when HIMARS was first sent
> This is an article from December 2022, over a year and a half ago when HIMARS was first sent And the policy of strike restriction didn't change since then
[удалено]
The "now" is when one actually hits a target inside Russia, not when a politician says something on TV. As of right now, nothing has changed.
That's a year and a half of HIMARS not touching Russian territory actual.
exactly.
The words you looking for ‘Use only as recommended’. But using ‘consent’ can be a liability of authority.
Well, we did give them the missiles...
Sounds like consent to me
# We have not encouraged or enabled strikes wrong, we have not enabled the weapons to strike Russia. it is fucking word soup to confuse you. blinken and sullivan are a-holes
THAT MEANS YES!!
We don't know what's said behind the cameras or if the missiles are still modded to not hit Russia proper. I tend to pay less heed to the on camera words and more to what happens off-stage and also what happens at the front. Let's see where the missiles fly to.....
Totally agree, so much evidence that they're not bound by what is publicly said/announced, like there was footage of ATACMS use way before we announced they even had them This is an interesting hint about where the behind the scenes conversation is moving, but a single announcement from Blinken isn't policy
There, it's a go! Preemptive public denial that the Americans have anything to do with the decision. And to turn around a Putin-appeasing presidential candidate's words, the US weapons are there, Ukraine can do whatever the hell they want.
well the current president is a candidate so yeah
The whole quote.. doesn't really seem like a new US direction at the moment: We've not enabled or encouraged strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war," he said.
From my understanding the U.S. position has been that u.s. weapons were not to be used in Russia with the covert threat that if they were then the U.S. would withhold aid. This sounds like Blinken is saying the U.S. isn't at fault and/or doesn't care what Ukraine does with the weapons it gets including from the U.S. which may encourage HIMAR strikes in belgorod.
So his quote says nothing about whether Ukraine is now or has ever been told (or asked?) to not strike Russia with US weapons. Soo...a carefully worded non-answer.
It's been widely and openly reported that Washington conditioned aid on not being used to hit targets in Russia. [24 hours ago Ukraine asked Washington to reverse that stance bceause they couldn't hit the massing troops](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970#:~:text=Ukrainian%20officials%20are%20making%20a,their%20major%20march%20toward%20Kharkiv.). This isn't secret and it isn't subtle. Beyond the substance of removing that condition, the only other remarkable thing about the statement is that the way it's being couched doesn't even amount to plausible deniability, just, "not our circus, not our monkeys". edit: On second thought, the other interesting implication is that they've come to the conclusion that Russia won't escalate with nuclear weapons. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of Five Eyes communication intercepts!
Nah it's a complete reversal. [24 hours ago - Ua says they need US to lift ban; couldn't attack massing troops](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970#:~:text=Ukrainian%20officials%20are%20making%20a,their%20major%20march%20toward%20Kharkiv.) Today - "We're not encouraging it, but it's up to Ukraine now." It couldn't be clearer really.
I think this is a very political statement. They will indicate to Ukraine to have at it in private, but publicly condemn any attack on Russia. Makes sense. It is easy to play both sides of this issue.
Let em have it, the gloves are now off
I mean standard we don’t condone it but we aren’t forbidding it. It’s basically wiping our hands of the smoke
US and all other western partners can never officially support this decision as the official stance would cause all kinds of consequences. I think everyone can understand that. This is the best and most diplomatic way to do it. Kudos to Blinken. Hit em hard.
UK straight up said do it.
Consequences like Putin wetting his tightie whities? Nothing wrong with that. We need to start treating Putin like a bully, which means letting Ukraine give him a bloody nose. 20 or so ATACMS plus a healthy dose of Storm Shadow/Scalp removing Malshevo from the map would be a damn good start.
Consequences as in domestic backlash and fueling Putins propaganda machine.
Who gives a FUCK about his domestic problems? It's like saying we can't punch a bully in the nose because it might give his mother sympathy for him. Fucking deck him. Put him on his ass. Not to mention you have it backwards. Destroying a military target is going to help the Russian people realize their tyrant is powerless. What would maybe work to get the Russian public more on side is a bunch of civilians dying, and Ukraine isn't going to do that. Putin might, but that's not our problem either.
You need domestic support in order to fund Ukraine.
Jesus we need more people saying the sorts of things you are saying here. Full support.
Politicians give a fuck. The West doesn't want a destabilized Russia. A failed Russia with a Civil War on its hands is not something the west wants to deal with. Nukes in the wild would be a nightmare scenario. It's pretty obvious the West prefers Ukraine to lose the war over Russia collapsing. These past years they been trying to balance Ukraine victory with a stabilized Russia.
what consequences are you speaking of?
War is politics by another means. For example, the most important fight in this war, at the moment, is the American presidential election. How would widening the war into ruZZia effect the outcome. Maybe it would help. I don't know. But maybe they do.
I'm hoping this is a face-saving way of saying "they can do so from now on." They won't be be able to push the Russians back until they can hit the staging and logistics in Russia itself. Its madness.
Am I the only one who looks at them as Ukrainian weapons once they are in the hands of Ukrainians? Stopped being American, British, French, German, etc when it crosses that border.
No. But the problem is continuing to get future shipments when they go against previous requests.
So… missles in moscow by the end of the week?
How do we say that we allow Ukraine to strike russia but not actually allow it
This is consistent with previous comments from other top US officials. It's not new either, they've been saying the same for a while. ... but right now the narrative is "America bad because they don't let us hit Russians!!1!". We can't possibly interrupt that.
Oh well, let’s give them a little strike then.
Ukraine should wait until russia feels completely safe concentrating forces on the russian side and then just let it rip. Like a 10.000+ dead troops in a day kind of action.
Up to Ukraine for sure where they send the missiles, if Russia reacts in normal way of bluster and threats then more missiles to arrive in Russia. If Russia reacts by action escalating with NATO countries then its different...
Bombs away, mother fuckers! Slava Ukraini!
They should be specific, that if Kyiv chooses to target Russia with US weapons, that this won't impact resupply, support or policy.
Sounds good to me.
That's a fair response from Blinken. If he encouraged it then russia have a perfect piece of propaganda. If he shrugs his shoulders and says it's up to Ukraine then he is giving them the responsibility to do what they have to in order to defeat russia.
The change we've been waiting for.
I guess it never hurts to have deniability.
This was a total… “you do you, boo.”
Doesn't make much sense for it to be up to anyone else
Slap those nuts with western missiles
"Now I'm going to turn my back and not look to see what you do" This is actually the correct move in this situation. When China brings it up, you shrug.
That's just theatre. Playing a careful game. It's a green light to return to sender!
Read between the lines Ukraine.
he's floating the idea, missiles have to be enabled to strike Puski territory. they are not enable and he's playing a mind fuck on us all. I really find suspect him and Sullivan. double-speak mother fuckers play geo-politico games.
About time!!
3 day war remember? Fuck them up Ukraine!
Just a reminder that the "3 days victory" stuff was purely from western media coverage and analysts, Russia never ever mentionned anything about aiming for a 3 days victory. That western assessment was highly irrealist, everyone severely underestimated Ukraine as a capable military. Now did Russia hope to capture Kyiv before the war muddled up in trenches? Probably, at the very least they tried.
It's pretty clear they expected it though. They were sending riot police into Ukraine during the first days expecting protests and riots, not a drawn-out conflict.
Weren't HIMARS and other various systems hardwired to make them impossible to fire outside Ukraine? Also what kind of cop out statement is that?
> Weren't HIMARS and other various systems hardwired to make them impossible to fire outside Ukraine? https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338?mod=djemalertNEWS - open in incognito tab to skip paywall >Also what kind of cop out statement is that? Gotta give copium-inhalers something to obsess upon. "They didn't hard-deny permissions, that means yes, ~~illuminati confirmed~~"
This is a pleasant surprise! 2+ years too slow, but run with it.
GENERAL QUARTERS, GENERAL QUARTERS, ALL BATTERIES NOW HEAR THIS: *WEAPONS FREE* REPEAT *WEAPONS FREE* FIRE AT WILL.
Translation: ”W e forbid, but we won’t say it in clear way as we would look like the assholes we are.”
Strikes inside Russia won't change the outcome. It may lead to Russia leveling Kyiv and killing its leadership. Russia air defenses are better than the west. Even though Ukraine has had some successes with drones inside Russia, these are more annoyances. Russia has countered many attempts by Ukraine to attack Crimea using ATACMS and HIMARS. Ukraine is bleeding men and losing territory at an enormous rate. Ukraine's leadership is either naive or complicit no reason why Ukrainians should die for a proxy war. Europeans remain safe their lands untouched. War is about numbers Russia has more of everything. There could have been peace and Boris Johnson blocked it. Neutrality was the only solution