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
    13
    ·
    4 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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Obviously it’s a great option for Ukraine in the context of the current war. However what do you say to concerns that Russia might take that as direct involvement by other countries, escalating the war to something much bigger? WWIII is not an ok option for any of us, nor is Russia losing a comforting choice

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        As long as there are no troops under the NATO flag inside Russian territory, I think we’re in the clear. They can be deployed to defend Ukraine no problem because Putin claims that they already are. Any country can also join under their own volition - I’m pretty sure Russian military had already had direct engagements with French troops in Africa and nobody even batted an eye.

        My concern is based on the assumption that nobody actually cares about Ukraine enough to send their military in. Under this assumption, Ukraine is massively outnumbered and the only reason it isn’t steamrolled yet is because Russia can’t really deploy their entire military under the risk of massive draft dodging and revolts. Everybody who gave any shit about Donbas is already on the frontline. The only way for Russian government to gather more is by inviting Ukraine to bomb civilian targets in it’s own territory. By doing it, they can draft more troops under the pretense of defending the motherland, rather than just dying in a pointless conquest.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 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
        2
        ·
        4 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
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 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
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 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
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 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.