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.

  • Antmz22@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    They’ve always been saving their best for if NATO gets directly involved. Something none of the parties involved (outside of Ukraine themselves) want, because everyone knows that it would be a difficult war and not a stroll through Moscow.

    However if Ukraine was to start posing an actual threat to the core of the nation, they wouldn’t continue waiting around being cautious until they lost because of it.

    Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.

      Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.

      People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.

      • Antmz22@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        They’re not “just holding back”. They’re just not going all out because of similar “domestic political concerns” as the western countries. It would also come at a much greater cost to foreign politics as you risk upsetting allies who now have to sell that to their own people to justify providing support.

        Keeping a steady defense of a buffer zone between them and NATO is a much easier sell than a full military invasion attempt especially if, as you suspect, their full potential isn’t as great as some think. Hence why it started as a “special military operation”

        I don’t dismiss that potentially part of the reason they arent going full speed is that their power isn’t as good as they portray and many believe, and they don’t want to expose that weakness.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          24 days ago

          You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
          You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.

          Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.