[OutsiderFan]

Here we go again, like I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.  I think this is more likely an internal disagreement about approval, and those who want to supply the weapons trying to put more pressure on Biden.  [url=https://x.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/17052...38647?s=20

Totally agree. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. I also expect that the administration will in advance of doing the deed put in place a public relations campaign to explain why we are doing something Biden explicitly said in so many words we would not do. When we see signs of this being done, ATACMS becomes a possibility. Until then, IMO, it can't happen.

This concern isn't just political in the US. Biden said what he said in order to reassure Russia that the US would not support Ukraine attacking Russia. Whether this definitive explicit statement was advisable is another subject. It was made, and the Russians could regard violating it as destabilizing the "agreement" between NATO and Russia limiting the scope of this war. They need to know that isn't the case, or else they may vastly overreact. This needs to be addressed.

I don't know if you saw it, but a couple weeks ago Sec State said the U.S. is not going to put any restriction on what Ukraine does with the weapons the U.S. provides. He says they will say we "prefer they not be used on Russian territory, but it's their decision how to use them as they see fit."

This is exactly how it should be. I can damn well guarantee that if the U.S. were in a position similar to Ukraine, it would use the weapons it got how it wanted as well. Anyone would.  

Russia needs to experience every consequence possible for its invasion of Ukraine and the destruction it has wrought. It's not OK to do what it has done, and that sentiment needs to be delivered by every country on the planet against it in as explicit and unambiguously as possible. If that means ATACMS blow up something in Moscow, so be it. Make Russia understand: Invade and continue hurting Ukraine, watch Ukraine get weapons to hit Crimea and inside Russia. Attack a NATO country, prepare to have your entire military destroyed. Launch a nuclear attack, we'll see you in hell.

The U.S. being afraid of Russia "retaliating" for ATACMS used on Russian territory tells Russia its mainland is relatively safe if it attacks Ukraine. You want to end the war faster, wash this idea out of their head, and tell them you want the war to end more than you are afraid of escalation, by sending the weapons that can be used on Russian land. The fact the U.S. sends such weapons to Ukraine will send a "bring it on" message to Russia that it needs to hear.

[OutsiderFan]

Here we go again, like I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.  I think this is more likely an internal disagreement about approval, and those who want to supply the weapons trying to put more pressure on Biden.  [url=https://x.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/17052...38647?s=20

Totally agree. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. I also expect that the administration will in advance of doing the deed put in place a public relations campaign to explain why we are doing something Biden explicitly said in so many words we would not do. When we see signs of this being done, ATACMS becomes a possibility. Until then, IMO, it can't happen.

This concern isn't just political in the US. Biden said what he said in order to reassure Russia that the US would not support Ukraine attacking Russia. Whether this definitive explicit statement was advisable is another subject. It was made, and the Russians could regard violating it as destabilizing the "agreement" between NATO and Russia limiting the scope of this war. They need to know that isn't the case, or else they may vastly overreact. This needs to be addressed.

I don't know if you saw it, but a couple weeks ago Sec State said the U.S. is not going to put any restriction on what Ukraine does with the weapons the U.S. provides. He says they will say we "prefer they not be used on Russian territory, but it's their decision how to use them as they see fit."

This is exactly how it should be. I can damn well guarantee that if the U.S. were in a position similar to Ukraine, it would use the weapons it got how it wanted as well. Anyone would.  

Russia needs to experience every consequence possible for its invasion of Ukraine and the destruction it has wrought. It's not OK to do what it has done, and that sentiment needs to be delivered by every country on the planet against it in as explicit and unambiguously as possible. If that means ATACMS blow up something in Moscow, so be it. Make Russia understand: Invade and continue hurting Ukraine, watch Ukraine get weapons to hit Crimea and inside Russia. Attack a NATO country, prepare to have your entire military destroyed. Launch a nuclear attack, we'll see you in hell.

The U.S. being afraid of Russia "retaliating" for ATACMS used on Russian territory tells Russia its mainland is relatively safe if it attacks Ukraine. You want to end the war faster, wash this idea out of their head, and tell them you want the war to end more than you are afraid of escalation, by sending the weapons that can be used on Russian land. The fact the U.S. sends such weapons to Ukraine will send a "bring it on" message to Russia that it needs to hear.