11 comments

1. About time, the west took them off the leash.

2. I have a suspicion that Ukraine has been given something that hasn’t been announced yet. Maybe something for the F-16s or some other ground launched long range weapon.

3. A lot more countries than Ukraine have a right to be striking Russia just not the appetite. Yet.

4. It is only fair. Just look at those Orc missiles hitting civilian homes.

5. The Brits are trying to put some lead in Biden and Jake Sullivan’s pencils…

6. It makes sense. The best way to prevent more devastating destruction – and much higher costs for absolutely everything and everyone in the long run- not least of all UA – is not to just keep sending air defence – but to also send capabilities to destroy assets that have been safely lobbing shit at UA from inside russian territory. Personally, I doubt there is any other way.

7. It’s a start, but if we Brits really had the balls to hold Russia to account, we would have shoved an umbrella straight up Putin’s urethra the day after they murdered Alexander Litvinenko

   I guess this will have to do instead 🌵

8. This “coverage” is the definition of ambiguity. The restriction have always been on specific weapons systems that were not to be used inside Russia (HIMARS, ATACMS, and other long range missiles). Other shorter range weapons systems in general have always been broadly allowed. The quote does not mention any of the necessary specifics to indicate any change from the current path.

   Reuters already withdrew their article.

   [https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/02/uks-cameron-visits-kyiv-says-london-is-not-against-its-weapons-being-used-inside-russia/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/02/uks-cameron-visits-kyiv-says-london-is-not-against-its-weapons-being-used-inside-russia/)

9. Maybe if this happens, the Russians will wake the f up.

10. Let’s fucking go!!

11. About bloody time. Time to hit pootin where it hurts