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.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 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
      7
      arrow-down
      70
      ·
      2 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
          5
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          2 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
            18
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 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
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 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
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 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
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 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?

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

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

                    Trying would have been ending the weapons deals, applying sanctions, etc.

                    I mean, what, do you actually believe Harris and Biden want to be associated with and commit genocide?

                    No, I don’t think they do. But I also think their campaign managers are looking at the number of “we stand with israel” signs in people’s yards (among other things obv) and they’re realizing that taking a hard stance against Israel’s genocide of palestinians would lose them too many votes.

                    So they’re skidish about doing the right thing, and taking a half assed approach of trying to negotiate with a dude who’s doing a genocide.

            • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              There’s a genocide happening there but you don’t care? Why are you supporting a genocide in China???

                • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  By your own logic you support the genocide in China. We know who you are bro, people aren’t falling for your bullshit, this isn’t .ml

              • LwL@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Thefuck are you on about. I take just as much issue with chinas genocide, I just take less issue with my own (and other) governments’ handling of said genocide. For one Israel is getting active support while china has frosty trade relations, but also the balance of power would allow both the EU and US to pressure Israel into stopping, which they can’t just do with china because china is a global superpower. I still kinda think they should but we all know citizens will cry about any QoL loss they might experience as a result, and that is reasonably something governments have to consider.