Macron: Ukraine sollte russische Militärstützpunkte „neutralisieren“ dürfen

https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-should-be-allowed-to-neutralise-russian-military-bases-macron-60fe094a?refsec=topics_afp-news

40 comments

  4. Allow? What is currently *not* allowing them?

    Who is the “we” in the “we should allow”?

    Edit: Thank you for the replies.

  6. How do people really expect ukriane to get anywhere if they can’t hit russian targets in russia with real weapons

  7. Its a god damn war. Let Ukraine hit Russia. Its ridiculous that they can’t hit airfields that are constantly hitting them, logistics yards that are supplying troops at the front

    This policy is insane

  9. There should be zero restrictions on weapons used by Ukraine. Moscow gets to hit Kyiv regularly. Kyiv should be able to hit Moscow and anywhere else they need to, to get Russia back on yheor side of the border.

  10. Of course they’re at war, not allowing them to do this is forcing them to fight with one arm tied behind their back.

  11. This shit never ends unless Russia gets to taste same shit they like to fling at others. Warheads to foreheads.

  12. What would happen if let’s say a missile from Sweden just happened to accidentally go a few hundred miles off course? Special inaccuracy operation!?

  14. I think that just like in the years leading to WW1, when the powers that be felt that war was impossible, as it would risk the mercantile economy those same said powers had established. It was the last thing they wanted, until Belgium’s neutrality was violated, then it became worth the cost. We even tried appeasement in WW2 and found that didn’t work. This time the economy (pre pandemic) since the end of the cold war, seemed again like all the reason in the world that Europe wouldn’t experience war again. So they slow walked it again but with the same possible all-in involvement as before in order to end an existential threat to their security. Macron (France is no military push-over even on it’s own) is letting Russia understand this.

  15. The French are stepping up. Wish America would be as proactive as them. I really wonder why Biden and Blinken are hesitating. Ukraine needs the world to help. Russia knows our current limits and is implementing strategy around it.

  16. Why does one of the most liberal leaning politicians get to decide what the fate of our planet is. How about no. Paid for by the WEF, killing everyone near you next!

  17. Along with Russian government buildings, military assets, and oil production sites. Ukraine has been cowed and they need to be able to answer Russian terrorism with reprisals.

  18. Seems to be a hive mind of letting Ukraine do what they want with any weapons supplied to them. And maybe that’s the right approach. But it is not unreasonable to have the limitations in place for several reasons.

    The primary reason being that those other countries are operating under rather historical precedent that “merely” supplying arms does not constitute being an active participant in a given conflict. The United States is not at war with Russia.

    So where does the line get drawn? Boots on the ground? In the future wars may not be fought by soldiers directly on a battlefield much if at all. If, for example, we drop a nuke on Russia with an ICBM, that’s war right? So… who has to pull the trigger? If we let Ukraine push the red button to launch our nukes, is that war? If we sell them the ability to push the red button, is that war?

    It’s clear how this goes with nukes, but “conventional” weapons can be supremely destructive too. So at what point can Russia reasonably claim the west/nato has made acts of war? Right now, most of the west is saying that if we sell Ukraine weapons and Ukraine deploys them within Ukraine, it’s only Russia’s fault if they have equipment damaged because … well, Ukraine has a right to blow up anything they want within Ukraine. Aside from killing civilians, they can very well demolish a whole city of their own. If they want to. Just for funzies, you know.

    None of the west’s business obviously if they do some casual demo in their own country.

    Hopefully this helps make it more clear why the rules are as they are. Russia is attacking Ukraine belligerently. And that may rise to sufficient casus belli for Ukraine’s allies to create a larger war with Russia. But as it stands, there’s a tenuous bulwark of non-aggression between NATO and Russia.

  19. Yes they defintely should be since its a war. But it shouldnt be done directly/indirecly by outsiders of the war.

    At that point you become part of the war.

  23. Given Ukraine is effectively fighting with one hand tied behind it’s back it’s astonishing and embarrassing for Russia that it is doing so poorly in this war.

  26. It’s time for the gloves to come off. If not Ukraine will not win

  28. I’m okay with this: France and Poland are the tip of NATO’s ground force spear when it comes to Russia. They are the ones who will take the biggest hit until the UK, US, Spain, and Turkey can get rolling.

    And neither France nor Poland are light-weights. They are formidable even compared against the US.

  29. Ok, can someone please explain like I’m five why Ukraine needs anyone’s permission to attack Russian forces?

  30. Why should Ukraine be forced to fight with one arm tied behind it’s back?

  31. Insane that anyone’s opposers opinion (other than Russia) would be “no no, they have to be bombed and attacked without the option of striking back. That’s not fair if Ukraine gets to fight back.”

  32. While Macron may be stirring the pot a bit much these days, I definitely agree that any Russian base responsible for directly supporting and/or shelling Ukrainian positions is fair game. You can’t stop an every day artillery barrage with hopes and prayers.

  33. Ukraine should be allowed to respond proportionally.

    If Russians attack a factory, Ukraine ought to be able to. If Russians attack the power grid, Ukraine ought to be able to. 

    Obviously Ukraine ought to still hold to the laws of war when choosing which options to exercise, but they should be free to exercise options that meet those standards inside Russia. 

  34. They should be allowed to attack Putin. This war would end in days.

  35. Because they’re scared of China and the chain reaction that will take place. The rules will change

  36. The fact that rule existed in the first place is pure insanity. I’m sure Russian generals themselves scratched their heads over this one.

  37. the fact the US won’t let them shows they don’t really care about ukraine winning

  38. It’s like boxing if you are only allowed to counter punch, makes it real hard to land that knock out blow.

  39. This is all so fucking stupid, and all for macron to be able to say “I told you so” later when Ukraine loses

  40. UK: Ukraine can hit Russia with weapons provided by us!

    France: Ukraine should be allowed to hit Russia with weapons provided by us!

    And yet the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, provided by UK and France, only end up landing in Crimea and other Ukrainian territories, not Russia.

    I’d really like an explanation for that.

Leave a Reply