"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Siberia Bomber.
"The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia."
The US can't have it both ways. You can't deny aid to Ukraine and then complain that Ukraine is taking matters into its own hands. When the US ships a sizeable quantity of Kerch-killing M48 or M57 ATACMS, more Patriots, more artillery shells and HIMARs rockets, plus dozens of F-16s and hundreds of Abrams… then Washington can ask Ukraine to lay off the refinery strikes.

The delays with the F-16 and M48 ATACMS are the most annoying. The F-16 is an American system, with nearly a thousand aircraft in active US service, with a huge US supply chain and training scheme, but instead Washington delegates the Ukrainian program to the Dutch and Danes (bless them). And there's zero reason to delays the M48 ATACMS.
 
Last edited:
Siberia Bomber.
"The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia."
I'd like to see the their source regarding the connection to rising U.S. oil costs and damaged Russian oil refineries.

At the start of U.S. aid to Ukraine, Washington did not want U.S. made weapons striking within Russia proper but never said anything about native weapons striking strategic targets within Russia.

As far as fears of "tit for that" or escalation: to what end?
Russia has relentlessly saturated Ukraine with terror from the air, targeting civilians and non military targets.

So at what point do those editors (and others) think that Ukraine may be justified in striking back?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back