Pentagon unterstützt ukrainische Operation in Kursk, obwohl es deren strategische Ziele nicht kennt

34 comments

1. From the article:

   The Pentagon has said it supports the Ukrainian operation in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, although it does not know exactly what the purpose of the operation is.

   Source: Sabrina Singh, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary, at a briefing on 22 August, as reported on the Pentagon website

   Details: Singh stated that the US supports Ukraine in what is necessary on the battlefield. She also emphasised that US policy allows the Ukrainian Armed Forces to retaliate.

2. Not enough to give the green light for Shadow Storm missile usage.

3. Ukraine wouldn’t have it any other way

4. the pentagon loves its little scrappy ukraine fighters

   and secretly wishes it could join them

5. can I wear your t-shirt?

   yes. but where are you going in it?

   is that really important to you right now?

6. Strategic objective? Idk, putins head on a spike?

7. The strategic objective seems pretty simple. Cause as much damage as possible so that Russian people feel the war and are no longer able to pretend it’s some special military operation happening far away. Putin doesn’t want major unrest. It’s why he’s pulled most of his soldiers from rural areas rather than bigger cities.

8. Where are they going? What are they going to do? Why are the doing it? Why are we here? What’s our purpose in the universe even? Who knows? F**k knows, Pooty.

9. As an OIF veteran, I can safely say we were unaware of our own strategic objectives, so this is nothing new.

10. We are kidding ourselves if we don’t think the CIA is aware of the objectives and ongoing strategies, as well as advising on them. This is optics to help keep America on one side of a red line.

11. lol – “unaware of its strategic objectives”. Suuure.

12. They know damn well the objectives, no doubt.

13. Good! That’s a nice show of confidence in Ukraine

14. Do we know what happens if Ukraine destroys Russia’s gas supplies? Will we be able to support the change in supply lines?

15. We know Russia’s objectives, and that’s good enough for me.

16. Into the mother land the Ukrainian army march

17. This feels very wink wink nudge nudge.

18. I mean why wouldn’t they, they get all this useful live combat data without firing a single shot or using any troops against their biggest long time adversary.

19. The purpose of the Kursk operation is to diminish the Russians ability to continue operating in Ukraine by destroying Russian equipment, drawing enemy units from the invasion and lower Russian morale. Details are not really necessary here. It’s a war. They are taking it to the enemy.!

    And I 100%!support that.

20. Do they really not know at this point or just not providing Putin clarity?

21. I am curious how much they are actually ‘unaware’ of the strategic objectives. Given how uncomfortable U.S. defence has been about Ukraine hitting Russian territory before then, it seems strange that they would give voiced support on an incursion that they don’t already at least have a firm idea of the endgame on.
    Then again, when you are in a situation where your supported faction is up against your opposition, withdrawing support on any of their moves is risky.

22. N.

23. Finally the relationship is moving to the right direction

24. “They taking the piss out of them? Yeah? Good, good. Goal? No idea? Fuck it, cheers!”

25. They totally know the objective
    they just can’t say it in public because they have been asked to keep it secret for tactical reasons. If the enemy m ones where you’re going they can prepare for you.

    Even if the Russians do it badly it’s still easier to get your objective without the enemy knowing what it is

26. US doesn’t know whats going on?

    **bullshit**

    Ahem, excuse me.

27. More strategic objective than the Whitehouse’s plan for Ukraine.

    ‘Here’s some strategically significant weapons, don’t use them strategically.’

28. Is Ukraine’s strategic objectives really that mysterious? There’s probably two main objectives:

    Get closer to Russian airfields to bring in more artillery, drones, and MLRS to destroy the planes, runways, and arms that allow Russia to send in glide bombs to Ukrainian cities.

    The second objective is to hold Russian land for the bargaining table. “Oh you want your land back? Give us back our land then.” The more land Ukraine seizes the stronger their hand at the peace talks table

29. Of course the US is gonna save face and say that now. What are they gonna do, ask Ukraine to suddenly stop and turn around after the offensive had already taken place?

    Ukraine didn’t tell the US beforehand that they were gonna go to Kursk because the White House would’ve lost it’s shit if they knew, *especially* Jake Sullivan. Hell, right after Ukraine started hitting Russian refineries back in March, the first thing Sullivan did was haul ass to Kyiv and tried to tell Zelenskyy to knock it off. If Sullivan was spineless enough to be terrified of Russia getting pissed off over it’s refinieries being hit, then there’s no way in hell he would’ve supported Ukraine sending it’s troops into Russia.

    Ukraine definitely made the right move by not telling anyone what they were gonna do.

30. Dont know what your doing, but good luck!

31. The strategic objective is in plain view isn’t it?

    The objective is to force Russia to redeploy some of their resources and spread them over a larger front. Russia is wasting away from throwing waves at defensive positions and Ukraine is creating more defensive positions that need to be assaulted.

    Kurst is also a predominantly slavic region of Russia — these are the “real” Russians that Putin must have more concern for rather than the minorities from Siberia which have been most affected by the war so far.

32. It’s strange to hear so many people talk as if there must be some single overarching objective and single long-term plan. Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk:
    * Boosts Ukranian morale.
    * Shatters Putin’s already crumbling aura of invincibility.
    * Hurts Russian morale.
    * Forces Russia to rethink conscription.
    * Gives Ukraine land to trade in any future peace deal.
    * Forces Russia into a tough choice about where to allocate resources.
    * Moves some war destruction to Russia instead of Ukraine, since Russia now has to bomb its own territory.
    * Was a rare opportunity to capture land with light casualties, as Russia left it lightly defended.
    * Starts a “buffer zone” between Russia and Ukraine that Putin recently said he wanted in any peace deal!
    * Gets behind Russia’s prepared defenses quickly.
    * Makes Russia position its aircraft a little bit further from Ukraine.

    There’s no point in announcing a long-term plan because Russia has some say in the matter. If they relocate 60,000 experienced troops from Ukraine to Kursk, they can take this territory back, but at the cost of losing momentum and territory in the south and east. So far Putin isn’t willing to make this decision. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with this approach.

33. You could make a fortune right now selling popcorn outside the Pentagon.

34. ‘unaware of its strategic objectives’

    Wouldn’t that be bargaining chips. ‘We give you back kursk, you give us back the territory you have taken’? What exactly did Ukraine have to negotiate with before they had Russian territory of their own? This was their only option, Russia has forced this situation.