Pentagon explains why US does not allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with ATACMS

22 comments

1. >In an interview with Voice of America, Pentagon spokesperson Major General Pat Ryder stated that the US is still concerned about the spread of war beyond Ukraine’s borders, which is why the ban on ATACMS long-range missile strikes on Russian territory has not been lifted.

   >As reported by Voice of America, Ryder noted that the United States just approved the use of American munitions across the border for return fire and defensive strikes. However, he emphasised that Washington’s long-range strike policy has not changed.

   >”I think it is important to understand that we do not want to see unintended consequences, escalation, which can turn this conflict into a wider one that will go beyond Ukraine. I think it’s something we all need to look at and take very seriously,” Ryder said.

   >He stressed that it is necessary to look at “secondary and tertiary consequences in terms of potential escalation” if targets inside Russia are under attack, which will not necessarily have a strategic impact.

   >At the same time, he stated that the US never underestimates Russia’s threat to Ukraine and would continue to work with Kyiv to ensure that the Ukrainian military has everything it needs to defend its sovereign territory and people.

   >US President Joe Biden, after giving Ukraine limited permission to deploy American weapons to hit Russian territory, expressed resistance to US weapons being used to strike deep into Russian territory.

   >Meanwhile, Ukraine wishes to expand the scope of this authorisation.

   >NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasised that Ukraine should have the right to strike Russian territory, as this is provided for by the right to self-defence.

2. Because they’re senile cowardly c****

3. Doesn’t actually explain anything.

4. Whatever, it’s not fuckin’ working! Let Ukraine use whatever it needs to destroy the russian jets that are launching missiles at homes, schools, hospitals, etc. It’s the only way to keep Ukraine and its people from being completely obliterated!

   Fuck putin! Fuck russia! Glory to Ukraine!!!

5. Then give the them the money or resources to produce their own HIMARS compatible missiles.

6. People – could – believe that US wants to play the long war card which could serve some of their interests (weakening EU too?) while neglecting Ukrainians soldiers, civilians, lives, infrastructures…
   I said “could” mmm kay ?

7. Iranian drones and nk ballistic missiles did not result in Iran and NK being attacked.
   Why would this be different?

8. Because the US after 80 years still hasn’t learned the lesson that their realpolitik approach to global affairs has spectacularly backfired into their faces over the long run every single time. They and the world would be in a much better shape if they had followed a principled approach which in this case would dictate to give Ukraine everything it needs to win.

9. Meanwhile the US supplies tens of thousands of bombs to Israel who is busily escalating that war into every neighbouring country.

10. Translating the bull shit into plain English is as follows: The US is still afraid of the russian bear cub that is still nursing.

    Folks its past time to make a bear skin rug. Remove all restrictions on US weapons by Ukraine. If Ukraine takes out the russian air fields the missiles will not fly and the bombs will not drop.

    Ukraine should just strike and ask for forgiveness later.

11. Except if they were really concerned about that they would just allow Ukraine to wreck Russia so they can’t wage war.

12. This makes zero sense. Russia illegally annexed Crimea years ago and Ukraine has been hitting every target they can on the peninsula. How would hitting targets on other “Russian Territory” be different? 

13. Sometimes I find actually reading through these articles are utterly pointless. This is definitely one of those times.

    Escalation? Does America realize Russia does *not* have a limit in how far it attacks into Ukrainian territory? How does America expect Ukraine to effectively protect its sovereignty by containing the war deep within Ukrainian territory and away from Russian territory? How’s a fight nearer or across Russia-Ukraine territory an escalation compared to now? Just because Putin says so? All this is encouraging Russian people to fall for Russian propaganda and support this war. The US is obviously playing the long game. If Biden administration continues to be this timid, then it’s no wonder two wars occurred during his time… (I’m neither American nor Ukrainian, nor do I have a stance between Democrat or Republican)

14. This was the Biden and Obama rationale in Syria. It worked spectacularly shitty there. So Biden doubling down in Ukraine.

    Did anyone notice how bad Biden looked walking into the Trump incident press conference today? He looked super old and feeble just walking. Like he is failing fast.

15. Russia was caught attempting to assassinate people in the west, has a record of terrorism (including chemical and radiological) in the west and constantly talk about how they are already at war with us.

    We are well past the point that letting the victim shoot back at the aggressor is an escalation. This kind of deescalation is only worth a damn if both sides respect the boundaries or are made to respect them.

16. Cowardice, senility, and indecision.

    There are the reasons.

17. Ukraine is free to strike anywhere in Russia using any weapon it has produced on its own. Every piece of donated, borrowed, and gifted equipment has strings attached in the dorm of rules of engagement. Striking Russia in an offensive (as opposed to defensive) attack is poking a nuclear bear, something better left to larger, scarier bears than Ukraine.

18. The probable reason is that the US needs the nuclear material to run its power plants. The US is not independent.

19. Hopefully we can provide the materials for them to manufacture inside Ukraine. Maybe that can be a way around this? But obviously is a long term solution.

20. “We’re pussies”

21. This is still the same basic issue it has been since literally Day 0 of the invasion.

    Putin, as powerful as he is, is like all autocrats not all-powerful. He has a power base. This power base supports him in a perpetual state of unease, backing him as long as he does right by them and becoming restive when he starts to falter.

    This entire most recent invasion of Ukraine was predicated on the expectation that it would not cost anything, could be done “on the cheap,” and that the so-called Ukrainian people didn’t really exist and would just roll over and passively accept Russification as the Slavic Master Race ordered them to.

    That was the promise. If they continued backing him up, he would deliver a glorious restorative territorial victory, at little cost to Russia. Practically bloodless. Barely an inconvenience.

    I don’t know the inner workings of Putin’s Kremlin to know how these promises are discussed. What the words are that they use. What kind of conversations or notes or conferences or whatever have to happen. But somehow this message was conveyed.

    Now enter reality. In reality — which starts just across the Russian border — Ukraine is a real, actual place. Ukrainians are a real, actual people. Their friends and allies in the family of nations are real, actual friends and allies, who guided them with best-in-class up-to-the-minute global intelligence surrounding Russian movements, and supplied them with vast numbers of infantry defense weapons engineered meticulously and tailor-made specifically to destroy Russian aircraft and armored vehicles.

    The war, in short, has not gone as expected. It has not gone well for the Supreme Commander.

    Ever since Day 4 of the three-day invasion, Putin has had the tiger by the tail, in terms of managing his power base. He has had to keep them strung along, arguing that it will be okay, the war still isn’t going to affect them personally. Someone else will pay the bill, in blood and treasure. Not them though.

    That is still the promise.

    But it is increasingly not working. There have been open revolts against Putin’s authority. More and more, even former advocates are speaking out against the war. It didn’t go as expected and they are pissed.

    And as long as they are pissed at Putin, that is good. It limits what Russia is capable of bringing to the fight against Ukraine. Putin can’t demand too much of his power base or they will finally take decapitatory action.

    Unless something changes the equation. Something massive. Something that above all else, historically, quiets all dissent at least temporarily and brings all of Russia into line behind the tsar.

    Unless, in other words, Russia itself is invaded by foreign enemies.

    If Russia were to be invaded — or more to the point *if influential Russians perceived that Russia was being invaded* — that would give Putin something close to true unlimited power. He could conscript anyone. He could unlock the nuclear arsenal. He could attack any of Ukraine’s allies anywhere on Earth. It would not be any less foolish to do these things but now there would be no one in Russia preventing him from being so foolish.

    So that’s the situation.

    Neither Ukraine nor the United States (nor anyone else really except Putin) want this outcome. They are in complete agreement about that.

    Where they differ is that Ukraine understands this long-term risk but feels it is imperative to risk it anyway to mitigate losses in the immediate term. Whereas the United States feels that Ukraine will lose less and suffer less in the long run if they do not do things today that give Putin more latitude tomorrow.

    Both perspectives are valid. They both have a point. But it is a difference of perspective. It is understandably very hard for Ukraine to worry about a hypothetical future when they are suffering the very non-hypothetical present consequences.

    It’s the same as happened in the Zaporizhzhia counteroffensive last year. The USA urged a rapid assault without waiting for full complete preparation, so as to catch the Russians before they had dug in. They saw that as costing fewer lives in the long run. But in contemplating this, Ukraine imagined themselves losing so much and so many experienced troops and getting sucked into a classic Russian trap of endlessly escalating losses — precisely the kind of war Russia wanted, since it knew it could win on those terms if Ukraine let them.

    It is still not really possible to say who, if anyone, was right.

    Anyway, in both cases, both the US advice and the Ukrainian position have evolved. They are still evolving. The US and Ukraine’s other allies are today willing to risk energizing Putin’s tepid power base in ways they were not willing to a year ago. And a year from now — or sooner — they will be willing to contemplate measures that are, today, “off the table.”

22. Plain and simple answer

    “Election year”

    If we went to war now we’d only be in conflict for possibly 6 months or less depending on when it happened from today. This would give Trump a reason to beat Biden as a war monger. Trump would either have to continue the war or he’d immediately make peace with Russia.

    I don’t think a single US president has gone to war in an election year. Now you might ask what about the last two years? That’s because everyone thought Russia was going to steam roll Ukraine but fortunately that didn’t happen. Then it looked like Ukraine just needed weapons and artillery to drive the Russians back and the west didn’t need to intervene militarily. Russians lost Karkiev Oblast and parts of Kerson Oblast. Then in 2023 we thought Ukraine would steam roll Russia back into Crimea but unfortunately that didn’t happen. Now it’s 2024 and you can’t win an election promoting the USA going to war.