Posted on 09/13/2024 2:38:27 PM PDT by ransomnote
ransomnote: The media is broadcasting part of Putin's statment - essentially if US/UK allow Ukraine to fire long-range missiles deep into Russia, then they are at war with Russia. Right now there's apparently a blackout on Putin's second point - NATO military personelle, and NATO satellite intel are required to fire the missiles deep into Russia (in bold type below).
Question: Over the past few days, we have been hearing statements at a very high level in the UK and the United States that the Kiev regime will be allowed to strike targets deep inside Russia using Western long-range weapons. Apparently, this decision is either about to be made, or has already been made, as far as we can see. This is actually quite extraordinary. Could you comment on what is going on?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: What we are seeing is an attempt to substitute notions. Because this is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story.
The fact is that – I have mentioned this, and any expert, both in our country and in the West, will confirm this – the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.
The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.
(Alter Kaker is Chuckie Schumer's FReeper id.)
When Russia supplies weapons for attacks on the US homeland, we will go to war with everything we have.
The same likely holds true for Russia.
You are obfuscating the issue.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], ifinnegan wrote: The “second point” was known and obvious.
You hardly have to talk for Putin or explain.
I guess your one of his PR agents.
Makes sense
False. The Media is omitting that point from their coverage and others on FR are claiming the second point is not true.
Just because Putin said it takes Nato troops to fire the long range missiles into Russia goes not mean he is correct. Who is firing those missiles now into Russian occupied Ukraine area? That is correct, Ukrainians and they would be the ones who fire them into Russia also.
False point. We are to believe Ukrainians, who have shown themselves intelligent, adaptable, resourceful and quick to grasp the possibilities of technology, cannot learn enough to use missile systems available to NATO.
It is a serious flaw in the argument. It is so bizarre as to be crazy.
Maybe it would take a couple months to train Ukrainians. I doubt it.
Why not? Crap from Uke Intel ops, like you, are posted all the time, foreigner.
Yes, it is a real threat... And it holds as much water as all other ones Putin has made: 0!
You take my point.
“… others on FR are claiming the second point is not true.”
Maybe provide some examples.
I think you’re full of crap but we will find out soon enough
These are the same weapons they already had and have been using for two years. The argument makes no sense at all. The only question is whether or not the US will continue to restrict their ability to hit targets in Russia.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], marktwain wrote: |
| The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. False point. We are to believe Ukrainians, who have shown themselves intelligent, adaptable, resourceful and quick to grasp the possibilities of technology, cannot learn enough to use missile systems available to NATO. It is a serious flaw in the argument. It is so bizarre as to be crazy. Maybe it would take a couple months to train Ukrainians. I doubt it. |
My answer is inside the response to Petrosius below.
| In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Why Ukraine wants to use Western long-range missiles inside Russia, Petrosius wrote: |
| ATACAMS were given to Ukraine, likely operated by Westerners, What is your evidence for this? We train our own military personnel to operate them. Why could we not train Ukrainians? ransomnote: Haven't you been following the F-16 saga? First problem in training pilots was to find pilots who spoke English well enough to understand the training. Analysts have been saying all along that we can't really say the US is not involved on the ground given the technology we've shipped there. It sounds like you think the Pentagon gave up control of the equipement - this is not true. For example, if Russia takes over a missile site operating in the Ukraine, they can't use the ATACAMS against the West or against th Ukraine. These things are controlled. but were first programmed to limit their distance. And you know this, how? News articles. I think that one includes a variety of sources, including an analysis done by Council on Foreign relations, or a similar name. The reason people are begging the US/UK to 'let' the Ukraine (via American operators) fire deep into Russia is that they need the West to change the programming and change orders originally given to the personnel. Even if true, all we would have to do is forward the programming. So you do think the Pentagon will up serious military technology and just decided to 'let the Ukraine do what it wants?' Have you seen what they did in Kursk and Zaporozhna? (attack nuclear power plants). No, the Pentagon still controls the hardware. If the Ukraine could fire them without US operation, they definitely would have done so by now. And risk further aid? That would be suicidal. They are portraying the lack of firing deep into Russia as 'suicidal'. Clearly no one was thinking in the Ukraine when they launched the Kursk offensive. Zelensky's intellect, knowledge, wisdom and self control are below basement levels. No the Pentagon won't hand Zelensky the more serious technology to do with what he will. You are presuming a lot without any evidence. I don't believe the Pentagon trusts Zelensky to handle military hardware like long range ATACAMS. Our military wouldn't even know the names of people tasked with firing them if we gave the Ukraine control. The Ukraine sold other weapons to ISIS and other countries - we're not putting ATACAMS in the mix. I don't believe it's just the Ukraine - you don't let loose technology in a contested area (i.e., do we want the Russians to take and use them?) |
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], POGO163 wrote: Just because Putin said it takes Nato troops to fire the long range missiles into Russia goes not mean he is correct. Who is firing those missiles now into Russian occupied Ukraine area? That is correct, Ukrainians and they would be the ones who fire them into Russia also.
Why do you assume westerners are not involved in prior short range use of ATACAMS? We've given the Ukraine other technology that has to be supported by Westerners (MANPAD MISSILES etc.).
Besides - a lot of the ATACAMS we've given Ukraine were accompanied by ancient Soviet missile launchers the US bought and provided to Ukraine. Those would be operated by Ukraine.
The rest of my answer to your post is embedded in my post to Petrosius.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Why Ukraine wants to use Western long-range missiles inside Russia, Petrosius wrote: ATACAMS were given to Ukraine, likely operated by Westerners, What is your evidence for this? We train our own military personnel to operate them. Why could we not train Ukrainians?
ransomnote: Haven't you been following the F-16 saga? First problem in training pilots was to find pilots who spoke English well enough to understand the training. Analysts have been saying all along that we can't really say the US is not involved on the ground given the technology we've shipped there.
It sounds like you think the Pentagon gave up control of the equipment - this is not true. For example, if Russia takes over a missile site operating in the Ukraine, they can't use the ATACAMS against the West or against th Ukraine. These things are controlled.
but were first programmed to limit their distance.
And you know this, how?
News articles. I think that one includes a variety of sources, including an analysis done by Council on Foreign relations, or a similar name.
The reason people are begging the US/UK to 'let' the Ukraine (via American operators) fire deep into Russia is that they need the West to change the programming and change orders originally given to the personnel.
Even if true, all we would have to do is forward the programming.
So you do think the Pentagon will up serious military technology and just decided to 'let the Ukraine do what it wants?' Have you seen what they did in Kursk and Zaporozhna? (attack nuclear power plants). No, the Pentagon still controls the hardware.
If the Ukraine could fire them without US operation, they definitely would have done so by now.
And risk further aid? That would be suicidal.
They are portraying the lack of firing deep into Russia as 'suicidal'. Clearly no one was thinking in the Ukraine when they launched the Kursk offensive. Zelensky's intellect, knowledge, wisdom and self control are below basement levels. No the Pentagon won't hand Zelensky the more serious technology to do with what he will.
You are presuming a lot without any evidence.
I didn't see any evidence links in your post.I don't believe the Pentagon trusts Zelensky to handle military hardware like long range ATACAMS. Our military wouldn't even know the names of people tasked with firing them if we gave the Ukraine control. The Ukraine sold other weapons to ISIS and other countries - we're not putting ATACAMS in the mix. It's not just Ukrainians, why would the Pentagon let go of control of military hardware in contested areas? Do we want Russia or even mercenaries to commandeer and operate missiles against us? No - these things are controlled.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], lodi90 wrote: |
No, the correct analogy is Mexico invading California and “annexing” Los Angeles into Mexico. Surely, you don’t suggest we surrender there? It’s Russia who is dropping bombs and genocidally erasing the cities of its neighbor for over two years now. Annexing entire cities that its invading bandit army haven’t even occupied. That is genuinely indefensible conduct in any context. Everybody wants peace here. Except for the colonialist mass murderers in the Kremlin who use violence and murder to advance a political agenda. And it’s duped useful fools, apparently. |
Wrong. The correct analogy is China overthrowing the Mexican government, building and equiping an army and provoking the US to fight. Within 3 or 4 days of the CIA/US State Department overthrow of the Ukraine, Putin annexed areas on its border. Don't worry about those annexed areas - that's where the Ukrainians of Russian descent live, so the Western Ukraine was shelling Eastern Ukraine to cleanse it's gene pool (See their Constitution, it speaks of genetic purity).
Everybody wants peace? After Zelensky attacked the Kursk nuclear power plant and had mercenaries firing on civilians?! The Ukrainians are puppets and NATO wants war, war war.
“What did we do when Russia supplied weapons to the Taliban, the Viet Cong, ISIS and Iraq?”
Nice textbook straw man argument.
The equivalent argument would be what would the USA do if we invaded Northern Mexico why maybe to wipe out the cartels and Mexico asked for help from the Chinese who then gave them hypersonic missiles which Mexico cannot target or plan missions for without direct Chinese satellite intel, sat guidance and Chinese techs to enter that classified data for flight paths. Then those missiles start hitting the oil complex in Houston and the Air Force base in Texas and Louisiana where we keep our strategic bombers. What do you think the USA would say? They would say China is at war with the USA as much as Mexico at that point. That’s the equivalent argument and Russia is right its one thing to give weapons to a proxy state to use against the combatants inside and for the battle in that proxy state. That is equal to Chinese and Russian weapons INSIDE Vietnam or inside Iraq or Syria it something else to provide weapons and program the strike into a totally separate nation outside the proxy state. That is very much a recognized act of war. Russia is a war with Ukraine as long as the West doesn’t strike Russia directly it’s a proxy war, as soon as you loft missiles using American data, American techs and American equipment it doesn’t matter if they were launched from Poland or ukeland it’s an act of war from the USA period as recognized by the laws of war. If we want to declare war on Russia then fine get Congress to do so. Russia is saying if you hit our homeland with US missiles be ready to get hit back, take them at their word unlike the North Koreans or the Ukraine Russia can hit the mainland USA with ease they have strategic platforms that are not nuclear and also cargo container launchers they could put on any container ship and lob them from 1500 miles out. The USA took down our strategic radars years ago from the Canadian Arctic lines and also our East and West coastal radars cold war over let’s save some cash for more welfare spending was exactly the reasons given.
There you go again disenfranching 40 million Ukrainians in the exact manner Democrats try to do to patriotic Americans. You take umbrage at Ukraine for choosing Russian targets while giving to pass to a bandit “nation” that has ALREADY stolen a nuclear power plant located in Ukraine. There is just no intellectual consistency to your arguments. Therefore, there really isn’t a purpose to continue this conversation. FRegards.
What if Russian missiles landed in Washington DC?
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], lodi90 wrote: There you go again disenfranching 40 million Ukrainians in the exact manner Democrats try to do to patriotic Americans. You take umbrage at Ukraine for choosing Russian targets while giving to pass to a bandit “nation” that has ALREADY stolen a nuclear power plant located in Ukraine. There is just no intellectual consistency to your arguments. Therefore, there really isn’t a purpose to continue this conversation. FRegards.
lodi90 is not interested in continuing this conversation, so I'll pull their name out of the address bar and just respond to the assertions made.
We disagree on post 54. lodi90 likened the situation in Ukraine to Mexico invading California and annexing Los Angeles. But that situation is not comparable because it suggests that the Mexicans were acting on their own interests, when in fact, the Ukraine is a pawn of NATO, specically, America as our country donates the most money. I also said that the Ukrainians are puppets in the proxy war.
Lodi90 says everyone wants peace except, 'colonialist mass murderers in the Kremlin'. I disagree. Zelensky's 'peace terms' are for Putin to remove all troops from Ukraine and pay for all damage done. But Putin has said, 'what about the Ukrainian citizens being shelled in the East. Putin is currently pushing back on Modi and China for urging peace when there's no mention of protecting the Eastern Ukrainians (most, of Russian descent) from continued shelling, or protecting Russia from NATO's aspirations (regime change in Russia).
My intellectual consistency is comprised of factors which have not been changing and which I've never seen refuted. Trump said our State Department helped overthrow the Ukraine in 2014.
Many FReepers seem unaware that our CIA helped overthrow Ukrainian leadership in preparation for NATO to weaponize the Ukraine and intentionally provoke Putin's national security concerns.
2 days after the CIA's overthrow of the Ukraine began, Putin annexed part of the Crimea. Ukraine's apologists always act there's no provocation, no reason at all, which provoked Russia to respond. If China overthrew Mexico and installed weapons and built an army there, the US would 'object', just as Russia objects to NATO's intentions to force regime change in Russia.
In 2010, the Ukraine's "parliament passed a law banning Ukraine from joining any military bloc, effectively banning it from entering NATO though maintaining opportunities for cooperation. According to a poll conducted by Pew Research Center the fall before, just over half of Ukrainians disapproved of NATO and the idea Ukraine might try to join, while just 28% approved." source
ransomnote: Given that the Ukraine moved to prevent NATO membership, the US CIA overthrew the Ukrainian government (start of that 'revolution' was February 18, 2014). With (CIA) help, NATO was now in control of the Ukraine, Russia responded by annexing part of Crimea Feb 20, 2014 – Mar 21, 2014.
Two monthls later in May, two more reagions of the Crimea voted for independence to escape NATO's overthrow of the Ukraine, at which point NATO/CIA controlled Western Ukraine began shelling Eastern Ukraine. Nobody likes to talk about Eastern Ukraine shelling western Ukraine; they prefer to repeatedly claim Russia acted without reason and will attack other nations at will once it wins the war in the Ukraine. Those people simply have no objection to the government of the Ukraine shelling its own citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.