Ukraine wants permission from the west to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to destroy targets deep inside Russia, believing this could force Moscow into negotiating an end to the fighting.

Senior figures in Kyiv have suggested that using the Anglo-French weapons in a “demonstration attack” will show the Kremlin that military sites near the capital itself could be vulnerable to direct strikes.

The thinking, according to a senior government official, is that Russia will consider negotiating only if it believes Ukraine had the ability “to threaten Moscow and St Petersburg”. This is a high-risk strategy, however, and does not so far have the support of the US.

Ukraine has been lobbying for months to be allowed to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia, but with little success. Nevertheless, as its army struggles on the eastern front, there is a growing belief that its best hope lies in counter-attack.

  • drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a Russian, I am surprised that this is still a question. Like, duh, it’s a war, not a hockey game, bomb right away, what the fuck are you waiting for. I have serious doubts about it turning the tide of war, though, but who am I to tell them what to (not) do.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Attacks launched deeper into Russia deplete ammo from the Ukrainian front lines. It’s a real change in strategy.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You mean by disrupting the supply lines? Because Russia has a shitton of supplies, it’s just that they’re nowhere near Ukraine.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because Russia has a shitton of supplies

          I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY.

          they’re nowhere near Ukraine

          The article is discussing whether bombs can reach all the way to Moscow. This doesn’t seem to be about cutting supply lines. It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war.

          But then that’s the exact same strategy Russians ran against the Ukrainians after their initial offensives stalled, and it hasn’t appeared overly successful either.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I keep getting told they’re broke, they’re out of supplies, and its game over for them by EOY

            Oh no, it’s just that there is a market for such “news”. Russia pumps out exactly the same kind, but in reverse, about how Ukraine’s going to fall any moment now for the past two and a half years. But reality is that the situation is at a stalemate, with Ukraine getting infused with boatload of weapons once in the while, while Russia has a steady and self-sufficient production but is short on soldiers willing to fight in unjustified conquest.

            It seems like the goal is to terror-bomb major civilian centers in hopes that Russians will revolt against the war

            Oh nooo… This is going to have exactly the opposite effect. I was previously writing a huge comment detailing how even if targeting out only the military targets, there’s always a risk of collateral damage and how each mistake can result in even more Russian troops in the trenches, but then threw it all out to clarify what you’ve meant. If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If going full Israel was the plan all along… well… are you sure you want to support that?

              You just have to few every baby Russian as a future Enemy Combatant in the same way Israelis view every baby Palestinian as a future terrorist.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    As long as their demonstration is against military targets (and not what Israel would classify as a “military targets”), I say let them. Bomb every Russian military base within 200 miles of Ukraine into a crater. Russia only seems to respond to a show of force, unfortunately with its current leadership, so give it to them.

    I just feel bad for the Russians who have to live under Putin’s rule. I know several Russians who have fled Russia to avoid drafts or persecution. Hearing them talk about how they “probably will never be able to go home again” is heartbreaking.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      FFS stop bringing up Israel in threads that have nothing to do with it. There are many many threads about that subject, the need for gaza-brained people to derail every discussion to inject their propaganda into every discussion is getting really annoying, and really accomplishes nothing.

        • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Such a dogshit take. Nobody besides maybe some of the right wing brain dead mouthbreathers supports genocide. Well, that and people who support China…Weird we don’t hear the same outrage about the genocide happening there. That one doesn’t fit your narrative though does it?

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Nobody besides maybe some of the right wing brain dead mouthbreathers supports genocide.

            That’s odd, because DNC seems quite content to support it.

            Weird we don’t hear the same outrage about the genocide happening there. That one doesn’t fit your narrative though does it?

            Nobody is giving billions of dollars worth of arms to china to bomb civilians. So no shit people aren’t as outraged. What the fuck does that have to do with any narrative? You’re not making any sense.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You can’t say the DNC supports genocide but also supports an immediate permanent ceasefire. These are mutually-exclusive.

              So there is a bit more nuance than you give credit as to why they denounce the collateral damage Israel is causing but continue to provide weapons. I don’t agree with the giving of those weapons, but there are substantive reasons as to why they haven’t stopped. The only people actually pulling the trigger on those weapons is the IDF. Bibi and Putin are of the same cloth.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                but also supports an immediate permanent ceasefire.

                Talk is cheap. And as you said, they’re continuing to provide weapons. Not much of an effort to prevent genocide.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Pretty obvious they’ve been trying heavily to get a permanent ceasefire.

                  You can see that by the way Trump went behind their backs and told Bibi to not take the deal.

                  I mean, what, do you actually believe Harris and Biden want to be associated with and commit genocide? If the decision were that simple, during an election year, wouldn’t you think they just — you know — would stop sending the aid? What is their motive?

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s exactly what we don’t want. There is no reason to allow Ukraine to escalate the war on our dime and at the same time give away our military secrets

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    This guy wants blood so bad , I wonder which business he is “representing”

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I realize that this Kursk offensive by Ukraine was probably also used to show allied nations, “See? We literally just invaded and took over a bunch of land in Russia and they did nothing different. Give us permission.”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It was intended to draw Russian forces away from the south, where the Ukrainians were unable to reclaim territory.

      Ukraine wrecked a bunch of facilities up north, but they’re far too drawn out up there to hold any territory. It’s more war of attrition at a faster pace.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        True there are several reasons for their offensive into Kursk: 1) Negotiation leverage 2) Diversion of resources for Russia 3) Adding an air-defense buffer, 4) Breaking into the echo-chamber of domestic Russian propaganda, etc. but I just thought of this one to add to the list. Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Was honestly a pretty great strategic move by Ukraine.

          An enormous influx of new equipment and “advisors” from NATO states can improve your position substantially.

          Might be a bit early to declare it a great strategy, as we’re still waiting to see what pays out.