Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gopoohgo t1_je4u5nm wrote

Yes, we explicitly sent Ukraine GLSDBs.

46

FM-101 t1_je4uqd0 wrote

>The Kremlin has consistently said that Western arms deliveries to Ukraine would ultimately not have any impact on the battlefield

I wonder if russia will ever figure out that every time they are denying something it reveals to the entire world that the opposite is true.
They are so embarrassingly predictable and simple minded. Like a small child denying they ate the chocolate while their face is covered in chocolate.

499

hypnocomment t1_je4vwzv wrote

They should move closer so that they'll be absolutely sure.

30

FutureImminent t1_je4yqel wrote

Oh good now they can confirm what we already knew that Ukraine are using the Western wespons on the battlefield.

A few months ago they were spreading their propanganda of Ukraine only using 15% of aid and selling off the rest. Which made me wonder how come Russia hadn't overrun them yet considering they are heavility dependent on these weapons.

98

MSeanF t1_je4z4hn wrote

We need to give Ukraine weapons that can reach Moscow. This war won't end until it is taken to Putin's doorstep.

5

DayOfDingus t1_je5284i wrote

Replying to FutureImminent (#2,446,941)

The problem with existential crisis like what Ukraine is facing is it seems to dramatically decrease corruption. If not using these weapons as they were intended and instead selling them to someone else will possibly lead to your death and destruction of your culture you're much less likely to sell them. Sure some absolute scumbags might not give a shit and sell it for short term gain but it's much less likely making that propaganda laughable.

15

Timey16 t1_je56orz wrote

Replying to AltNationReality (#2,447,599)

It's like the cope that the Moskva was sunk by a storm...

You mean your navy is SO shit that even a basic bitch spring storm that doesn't even show up on radars is enough to take out your flagship?

Literally all their attempts to make Ukraine look less successful just makes them look MORE incompetent.

And I dunno about you, but I'd rather lose to an opponent's competence and skill rather than due to my own incompetence.

58

ScopeLogic t1_je57she wrote

It must be hard being as thick as the red scum...

3

ElGuano t1_je58o8v wrote

So what is Russia using on the battlespecialoperationfield?

2

nariusone t1_je5e96d wrote

Good. Ukraine should use more long range artillery .. whether it is from us or not. Hit the invaders where it hurts.

10

crankery t1_je5ffli wrote

Kinda why they were sent to Ukraine but ok. Thanks for verifying delivery I guess.

157

Coreus88 t1_je5fso3 wrote

Lol i think everybodies reaction is "we sent them, they better be using them!"

7

risketyclickit t1_je5g7pj wrote

Yes. It's doing what it was built to do....kill ruzzians.

11

TallAd3975 OP t1_je5gmhm wrote

Replying to crankery (#2,450,381)

> Thanks for verifying delivery I guess.

Russians are saying this as a way to drum up resentment against Ukraine among their own population, i.e. "How dare Ukraine use long range artillery against Russia, they have no justification we have only invaded their country and committed genocide there."

It makes no sense but neither does most propaganda.

53

TallAd3975 OP t1_je5iyxp wrote

Replying to IBuildBusinesses (#2,450,780)

They are talking about the small diameter glide bombs attached to surplus rocket motors and launched from HIMARS launchers that we have provided in large quantities to Ukraine. Range is 150km or about 93 miles.

16

ISpikInglisVeriBest t1_je5l5ok wrote

Replying to MSeanF (#2,447,025)

Ukraine likely already has weapons that could reach Moscow or St. Petersburg.

It's just not in their best interest to terrorize civilians in Moscow.

Targets well within Russian borders have been hit repeatedly.

15

Groundbreaking_Ask81 t1_je5oym8 wrote

US: hello world, we are sending Ukraine GLSDBs in our latest aid package. They should see combat soon.

Russia: world, look! We have discovered that the US has sent the gay Jewish Nazi ultra-liberal Ukrainians GLSDBs!!!!

12

Playful-Ad6556 t1_je5pydj wrote

Just wait until ATACMS are finally sent. Then the real fun begins.

5

assjackal t1_je5rogp wrote

Replying to Timey16 (#2,448,598)

It's the same level of hypocrisy we see in US right wing heads. It's not how it makes them look, it's just filling the airwaves with nonsensical bullshit in order to keep people's energy wasted on debunking it.

14

Mellevalaconcha t1_je5xg62 wrote

Kremlin next year: Ukraine using Leopard 2s

Little slow there

6

supercyberlurker t1_je63sxk wrote

I'm confused.

Is Russia complaining here, or just helping confirm that what we intended to do happened?

15

Wizzardwartz t1_je64n3v wrote

It’s always nice when you notice someone putting gifts you sent them to good use!

10

Grow_away_420 t1_je6fa3i wrote

The shells are really meant for Russia, Ukraine is just doing last-mile delivery

2

gu_doc t1_je6fjte wrote

Russia says a lot of things.

1

colefly t1_je6gpif wrote

Replying to TimeZarg (#2,454,133)

Russia WISHES it was 15%

For instance , on PAPER Russia has 10,000 T-72 MBTs and have "only" lost 1200

So is Russia just mobilizing thousands more T-72s to fill all the losses?

No... They're also being forced to dig up arcane T-54s and shipping them to the front

15%? It's closer to 85% for Russia

3

colefly t1_je6h5ow wrote

Replying to gopoohgo (#2,446,020)

We seen to wait for Russia to establish their infrastructure, slightly out of range, before we give them slightly longer range weapons

Pentagon just wants to watch Ammo dumps go boom

14

ErikTheAngry t1_je6hyh5 wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,457,756)

Well luckily Russian warnings are about as serious as Chinese warnings.

Actual Russian territory has been struck (Belgorod as one example) and Crimea has been hit very hard a few times.

The only retaliation was yet another cruise missile strike against civilian infrastructure, that would have happened anyways.

The oligarchs won't nuke shit. The moment they do they know they get into a war that's fought inside Russia rather than in Ukraine which will, regardless of any other outcomes, end their lives.

34

Heby4life t1_je6i1vu wrote

Kremlin forces are using Russian weapons, well what do you know

1

USeaMoose t1_je6ig2k wrote

Replying to TallAd3975 (#2,450,605)

My thought was more along the lines of Russian propaganda needing to keep up the general narrative that Russia is not fighting a "fair" fight with Ukraine. They are fighting against the entire western world.

When the war drags on, and Russia keeps having setbacks, they will say it is because they are fighting the West.

If they really were fighting against all of NATO (they would be crushed), and were doing as well as they are now, that would be impressive instead of pathetic.

And if Putin ever is actually forced into peace talks where Russia gets less than they have been demanding, it is important for the Russian public to believe that this is a war Russia was fighting against the entire world, for their survival. Not a war against their much smaller neighbor in an attempt to expand borders.

19

Darth_Cartsalot t1_je6j9k3 wrote

Forgive me for being short but: Good. Stay big mad, Putler

2

the8bit t1_je6kgpi wrote

Replying to Gicofokami (#2,454,861)

When millennials think of a fighter jet, they probably go to f16 first. Anyway with all the f35 hoopla it felt like mentioning a f16 is a boomer moment, but thankfully Russia out here causing a second golden age.

The f16 is roughly 50 years old now

0

acebandaged t1_je6l1vr wrote

Replying to DayOfDingus (#2,447,701)

It's also strongly encouraging the ukranian govt to clean house and crack down HARD on corruption in order to keep arms and money flowing. Their continued existence depends on weeding out the assholes, so it'll be interesting how long it takes to change the culturally accepted level of corruption in peacetime.

6

Theguywhosme t1_je6lny9 wrote

I thought the US specifically stated not to do that.

−1

NoMoreProphets t1_je6mw8i wrote

Replying to ErikTheAngry (#2,458,065)

China plays a long game and their defining moment will be trying to take over Taiwan. Hong Kong proves they can be pretty ruthless against politically opposed "Chinese" nationals. If they manage to take over Taiwan then I dont expect them to allow much political dissent. I don't think its wild to think there will come a day when China tries to forcably take back Taiwan.

The Kremlin isn't their Oligarchs. Its a legitimate time of war and their propaganda feels like it would justify using nukes. Like half of the time they are talking about fighting Nazis and Satanists. That type of demonification feels intentional and pretty hard to reverse.

−4

Nixplosion t1_je6oxr3 wrote

Yeah? We know? We gave it to them? It's literally an international announcement every time a country offers up weapons to Ukraine ... Why is Russia even commenting on this?

2

Fredrickstein t1_je6p7xd wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,459,008)

I'm not so sure about China trying to forcibly take Taiwan without something significant changing. Namely a withdrawal of US support for Taiwan. Unlike some countries, the US does not make idle military threats. China would have to commit to an amphibious landing. Such landings are one of the most dangerous operations for any military. To do so without air and naval superiority is utter suicide.

11

the8bit t1_je6pbt8 wrote

Replying to Gicofokami (#2,459,256)

Oh yeah it was more an aside about how interesting it is for the f16 to be relevant and powerful in a large scale conflict still! When discussing US strategy they are often discarded as obsolete

1

dub-fresh t1_je6qezv wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,457,756)

They won't use nukes because a) they likely don't have 6000 functioning nukes as claimed b) NATO likely does have way more functioning nukes, and c) using nukes will cause WW3 and literally end the Russian state.

4

Mizral t1_je6qho4 wrote

Those munitions are on holiday.

2

toaster-riot t1_je6su3t wrote

Replying to colefly (#2,457,896)

It's brilliant. We always have a means to escalate and we also are showing restraint which goes counter to a lot of their rhetoric back at home. Bonus points for the fireworks show every time we increase their range and force them to redo all their logistics.

Unfortunately, a lot of Ukrainians will continue to die while this drags out needlessly. I wish we could just curb stomp Russia back into the stone ages, but I trust that our military leaders weighed all of that out and are making the best decisions we can given Putin's actions.

8

TThor t1_je6tzl9 wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,457,756)

The reality is, no matter what hardlines they claim, the only actual hardline would be a direct military assault on the entirety of moscow. Anything less will never inspire a nuclear strike, because, so long as moscow isn't under attack, Russia will still have far more to lose by firing the nuke than whatever they gain.

5

Magicalsandwichpress t1_je718ca wrote

Russia need not worries about US arms, it's US boredom the belligerents should be concerned of. America does not lose wars, she looses interest.

1

oldmancornelious t1_je71i6h wrote

It's like an 8th grader yelling that some 10th grader punched him for stealing a 6th graders milk money. What a fucking joke.

1

Lee1138 t1_je723p5 wrote

Replying to colefly (#2,457,805)

Ah yes, the mythical 10k T-72s. That were stored outside in Siberia. That the base commander stole the maintenance money from? The ones that the mechanics ripped out the optics and fire control systems out of and sold on the black market? The ones the sergeants sold the ERA blocks out off on the black market? And the ones the privates ripped the wires out of so they could sell the copper to the scrap dealer for vodka money? Those 10k T-72s?

8

Just_a_follower t1_je7290t wrote

Replying to FM-101 (#2,446,132)

It’s kinda like ensign Sulu once said

  • Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances

And how prolonged war benefits no one. And how fighting often with someone is a bad idea because they get to know you.

Russia was more successful at the same playbook when they used it at intervals. Not so when exposing themselves to a protracted engagement.

Now their playbook is obvious. Lie. Deny. And when caught feign disbelief.

Sulu said he was all about peace but we all know better from his book about war.

1

ledow t1_je74z58 wrote

Gosh, I wonder why they're doing that.

2

FlamingMothBalls t1_je76xzq wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,462,801)

it's also his own best interests. No western power will make a move to dethrone Putin. He can lose Crimea and a have a full-blown civil war inside Russian territory, and none of that would threaten his reign - I don't think.

It would have to get a lot, lot worse inside Russia for him to want to lash out, and by the time that happens, he would lack the military and elite support to have such an attack take place.

1

insan3guy t1_je78bri wrote

Replying to USeaMoose (#2,458,151)

> My thought was more along the lines of Russian propaganda needing to keep up the general narrative that Russia is not fighting a “fair” fight with Ukraine. They are fighting against the entire western world.
When the war drags on, and Russia keeps having setbacks, they will say it is because they are fighting the West.

Then maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, maybe they should avoid picking fights with the US and its allies…?

I sincerely wish that NATO were actually involved from the start. Because then this really would have only lasted 3 days… 3 days to an occupied moscow, that is.

4

PutlerDaFastest t1_je78htd wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,457,756)

They threatened nukes over a lot of things. Last time Putin bluffed he said he wasn't bluffing about not bluffing anymore but all he does is bluff bluff Bluffety bluff all bluffing day. At any rate, threatening nukes isn't a loophole for world conquest. That's not a precedent the world is willing to set.

9

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je78nek wrote

Replying to FlamingMothBalls (#2,463,430)

I do not even think it will get to a stage where he will get a full blown civil war. I mean, look at the protests at the start of the war, those were pretty huge and it died down. Of course, the protests will be even larger if he loses Crimea but I do not really see a pathway to outright rebellion. I mean, his army is puttin down refuseniks very effectively now. Unless the officers rebel too of course, but I cannot foresee that happening, at least not yet. Maybe once the officers realise they have a high chance of dying when US enters the fray, only then they will rebel.

Again, US should tilt Putin calculations such that losing Crimea is an acceptable risk.

1

FlamingMothBalls t1_je7ceju wrote

Replying to Successful_Ad_6248 (#2,464,429)

true. tho I wonder if it's physically, militarily possible.

Real Life Lore had an interesting take on the issue. Not sure how on the money the video is, but it would be a massacre to try to take it by force. It's always been (except for 2014 when Ukraine had no choice but to mostly give it up without a fight).

1

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je7hdq8 wrote

Replying to FlamingMothBalls (#2,464,651)

Well, the alternative plan he talked about where Ukraine walks across the swamp, the Syvash, is probably the best plan. I have not yet seen any detailed operational plans discussed anywhere else so I will not say it here. I suggest you look at the Siege of Perekop, where the Soviets walked across the swamp, the Syvash, to flank enemy positions and take them by surprise. I think it might be workable for light infantry. Nevertheless, the Soviets took heavy casualties in taking Crimea.

1

dnhs47 t1_je7hevj wrote

“Not fair!” whines the bully. “They’re not supposed to be able to fight back!”

2

Locha6 t1_je7pc0b wrote

We know! We gave it to them! Russia is the world’s laughingstock now. Just pathetic and weak.

2

kaitylynn760 t1_je7ywbd wrote

Any artillery that out ranges their worn out soviet era junk is “long range”. They are just upset that they are being shown up…for over a year…by what they coined an easy target. They keep sending their male population into a country that is not theirs and are also upset that that country’s population keeps on fighting. Easy way out of this you 19th century asswipes…take the hint and go back home!

1

ishmal t1_je7z3xv wrote

Having worked in aerospace, I really hate how Boeing dominates the industry.

But I gotta tell you, I am impressed by how quickly they went from prototype and demo to a working beta. And yes it is a beta, which means that it will improve rapidly. And the Russians are the testers.

1

CaptianAcab4554 t1_je81u8r wrote

Replying to NoMoreProphets (#2,455,430)

>It's one of those things that works when people forget. If you do it consistently enough then you can push any narrative.

You can see this in action over a long timeline with the US civil war and Confederacy. The meme now is that the CSA didn't lose they "quit fighting to stop the bloodshed".

2

Fair-Ad4270 t1_je859jh wrote

Oh, we are sorry. Please accept our most sincere apologies

1

Ok_Fee_9504 t1_je89cop wrote

Replying to toaster-riot (#2,460,326)

>Unfortunately, a lot of Ukrainians will continue to die while this drags out needlessly

That's war unfortunately. Even if we outfitted every single UkAF outfit with modern NATO standard weaponry and had supply lines in place, a lot of Ukrainians would still die in the counter offensive.

3

j1ggy t1_je8c0vh wrote

Good. It's about fucking time. And they need a lot more.

2

hplcr t1_je8vn83 wrote

Russia: Something something escalation something something nukes something something red line

2

Essotetra t1_je8vsq7 wrote

That's impossible, Russia destroyed all long-range US artillery pieces 90 days ago according to the Russian MOD.

3

Explorer335 t1_je8xfgj wrote

Replying to Gicofokami (#2,454,861)

As much as I would like them to get F-16s, that does not appear possible. The F-16s use modern NATO gear that is too sensitive to risk falling into Russian hands. Hopefully, they can get fighter jets, but it will need to be something different.

1

ArmsForPeace84 t1_je994ni wrote

There's a lot more where that came from, asshole. Get out of Ukraine.

2

shividos t1_je99a7w wrote

Replying to colefly (#2,457,805)

So what they should do with their t-54 if it still works, just utilize? I think its pretty good for researching and baiting ammos, when ammos is in deficit and costs some money.

1

puffinfish420 t1_je9bif7 wrote

Replying to FM-101 (#2,446,132)

Yeah I think you’re drastically underestimate the complexity of information warfare on the geopolitical/strategic level. You live in a Reddit bubble so you don’t actually see global perspectives on the narrative and the effect Russias work in the information space has had. Ask an Indian about their position on the war, for example.

Edit:spelling

1

colefly t1_jeawcdv wrote

Replying to shividos (#2,478,937)

> So what they should do with their t-54 if it still works, just utilize? I think its pretty good for researching and baiting ammos, when ammos is in deficit and costs some money.

makes perfect sense... so long as the T-54s are in "like new" working order and dont need effort to get running AND you dont value those inside the wildly obsolete steel coffin

2