- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
What can Ukraine realistically hit, other than Putin himself, that would alter the outcome of the war without invoking some kind of nuclear exchange?
It’s worth noting that Putin is a moderate in Russia, and if there’s any criticism of him domestically it’s that he’s being too timid in Ukraine and dealing with the west. If anything happened to Putin, it’s guaranteed that somebody like Medvedev, who’s far more hardline, would be in charge instead.
convinced me, I’ll assassinate Putin
In that case maybe not targeting Putin is ideal, but I still agree that there is little military benefit to the cruise missiles in some “deep strike” role.
Just like Kursk, stuffing limited military resources into desperate gambits isn’t going to convince any Russian politician or general that the war isn’t going in their favour.
Indeed, and even western media openly admits that deep strikes into Russia can’t really achieve much of anything https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-long-range-missiles/
Well depends on which war. They could hit objects that will hinder Russian ability in future conflicts with other NATO lapdogs - see for example strikes on nuclear warning radars. Plus there’s a history of successful drone attacks on Russian airfields (because for some reason jets are stored in the open there). Those jets are used for retaliatory strikes
I’m pretty sure killing the Russian president (and likely his cabinet, which would always be nearby) is plenty of justification for nuclear war.
I’m sure if Russia bombed the White House and the president, nukes wound start flying immediately.
The political logic behind green-lighting deep strikes into Russia is also obscure. There is little reason for optimism that such attacks would build pressure on Putin to end the war or drive him to the negotiating table, but there is good reason for concern that they will amplify his claims that Russia is fighting NATO, not the Ukrainian people. There are many examples in history of large-scale bombing campaigns’ galvanizing public resistance, and so far that has proved true with Russia’s own strikes on Ukraine, which have stoked Ukrainian patriotism and anti-Russian attitudes.
According to an interview with Zelensky, he wants to deploy these weapons just to make Russian life harder so the people revolt against Putin. The problem with that is what is stated in the above quote: if Ukrainian nationalism has been hardened due to the strikes within Ukraine, then the same can be said for the Russian people. If Ukraine did send missiles into Russia I wouldn’t be surprised if the people doubled down harder in their support.
Yeah, it’s a nonsensical idea. If simply doing deep strikes could win the war then Russia would’ve won a long time ago.
if Ukrainian nationalism has been hardened due to the strikes within Ukraine, then the same can be said for the Russian people
Arguably there is a difference. Ukraine had NATO-funded propaganda machine pissing in their ears with ethnonationalist propaganda for over twenty years (at least). On the other hand, Russia is multiethnic, which causes certain gripes to the ruling class, because they are forced to tone down ethnonationalist rhetoric at least sometimes. People from Russia, it seems, are more likely to reject their professed nationality - from various local nationalist movements to “I am ashamed to be Russian” campaign launched immediately after SMO began in 2022.
That said
but there is good reason for concern that they will amplify his claims that Russia is fighting NATO, not the Ukrainian people.
I am morbidly amused that the media is still trying to maintain this particular farce
