Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

I literally posted the official position of the US like 5 posts ago guys.

We literally are talking about a different story about a different supposed policy, guy.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's weird the story has just died given it was the FT published it. Usually they're reliable. Really wonder where it came from.

who knows, but Russia's propaganda department is excellent though.

[Zoupa]

I literally posted the official position of the US like 5 posts ago guys.

We literally are talking about a different story about a different supposed policy, guy.

No we're not? What are you talking about?

[Sheilbh]

It's weird the story has just died given it was the FT published it. Usually they're reliable. Really wonder where it came from.

Zelensky was speaking to the Washington Post and said it had been discussed with the US, "the reaction of the US was not positive on this". Though he noted that Ukraine used Ukrainian manufactured weapons (drones). He also argued why it should be done.

The initial story was from Christopher Miller who's the FT's Kyiv reporter, so it probably came from Ukrainian sources.

I find the idea that "the US government said no so it didn't happen" really, very strange. Governments lie, they're massive and the right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is up to, they use informal messaging and channels for plausible deniability and sometimes they mean to send one message but it is understood by another state as meaning something else.

By all means read the piece (which correspondent wrote it), see how they describe the sourcing and judge the credibility of that outlet and reporter - and acknowledge that it could still be wrong. But I don't think you can just take a statement from any government as a definitive answer (and obviously they all also have different levels of credibility etc).

Edit: The other thing I don't really get is how can something have little to no impact on Russia's war effort and economy, but could have sufficient impact on global prices that it's felt in the US (the world's largest fossil fuel producer)? If the point is it's ineffective, then I can't see how it would really matter to the US; if it could have an impact on the US, I find it hard to believe that it won't be having a bigger impact in the target country. Or is there something I'm missing?

[grumbler]

US policy has always been that it neither encourages nor enables Ukrainian attacks on Russia.  That's a sensible policy if an overriding goal is to prevent Russia from framing this war as just a proxy war between Russia and the West.  So there's no surprise that the US isn't enthusiastic about Ukrainian attacks on Russia using =its own assets, since those could easily be twisted into attacks by US-supplied weapons.

There's no evidence, though, that the US made special complaints about hitting Russian refineries and asked Ukraine to stop those, other than the FT's claim that "three people" told them about those complaints, none of them actually quoted.  The US administration and Ukrainian officials denied the specifics of that charge.

I don't know of any European aid donors that allow their weapons to be used in an attack on Russia proper, but haven't studied that question so would welcome anyone's demonstration that any of them do allow it.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

US policy has always been that it neither encourages nor enables Ukrainian attacks on Russia.  That's a sensible policy if an overriding goal is to prevent Russia from framing this war as just a proxy war between Russia and the West.

Russia has been doing that since the beginning though.

[grumbler]

US policy has always been that it neither encourages nor enables Ukrainian attacks on Russia.  That's a sensible policy if an overriding goal is to prevent Russia from framing this war as just a proxy war between Russia and the West.

Russia has been doing that since the beginning though.

But without evidence that it is true.

[DGuller]

Russia's audience isn't very demanding when it comes to solid evidence.

[The Minsky Moment]

Edit: The other thing I don't really get is how can something have little to no impact on Russia's war effort and economy, but could have sufficient impact on global prices that it's felt in the US (the world's largest fossil fuel producer)? If the point is it's ineffective, then I can't see how it would really matter to the US; if it could have an impact on the US, I find it hard to believe that it won't be having a bigger impact in the target country. Or is there something I'm missing?

Markets overreact.

Russia is at least partially decoupled from global markets at this point so market price influences are only indirect. And the issue for Russia isn't whether there is some domestic inconvenience but whether it can carry on the war effectively.

[grumbler]

Russia's audience isn't very demanding when it comes to solid evidence.

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that Russia's audience is worth considering. Australia's audience, yes.

[Zoupa]

France placed no restrictions on the use of SCALP-EG. The Ukrainians have only used it on Ukrainian soil though (Crimea included).

[grumbler]

France placed no restrictions on the use of SCALP-EG. The Ukrainians have only used it on Ukrainian soil though (Crimea included).

Sure about that?  President Macron seems to disagree with you.

Macron said the delivery would adhere to France's policy of assisting Ukraine to defend its territory, implying that Paris had received assurances from Kyiv that the missiles would not be fired into Russia.
"There are guarantees for (restricting) the use of these missiles to internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine," the military source said.

Reuters

[Josquius]

I guess the kerch bridge is a weird point given its half Russia. Though not sure if they've used those missiles there? I know that's why they want the German taurus. It's better vs concrete.

Note on that quote there it was a seperate source saying this about no firing into Russia.
I'd imagine France likes it ambiguous even if there is such an agreement.

[Zoupa]

France placed no restrictions on the use of SCALP-EG. The Ukrainians have only used it on Ukrainian soil though (Crimea included).

Sure about that?  President Macron seems to disagree with you.

Macron said the delivery would adhere to France's policy of assisting Ukraine to defend its territory, implying that Paris had received assurances from Kyiv that the missiles would not be fired into Russia.
"There are guarantees for (restricting) the use of these missiles to internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine," the military source said.

Reuters

That's from July 2023. Minister of defense has updated the policy since then.

[grumbler]

That's from July 2023. Minister of defense has updated the policy since then.

Link?