Well Biden mentioned them.
Only in as much as the HIMARS launch system can be used with several different types of missile. I think the US were making it clear which missiles they would be supplying the Ukrainians with.
Can someone please clear this up /clarify for me?
That is correct.
There is a plausible thread on these missile systems here
threadreaderapp.com
I would be less surprised to see some sabotage attacks in Russia. Perhaps not traditional military strikes but perhaps surgical, targeted, morale-sapping events on military targets, by commandos or similar.
It would, but they need to tread carefully - using NATO-supplied weapons to attack Russia also plays into Putin's paranoia.
Wasn’t there an attack on a fuel depot inside Russia earlier in the war?
A Russian fuel depot exploded, yes. Different causes have been suggested.
It won't be long before Russia default on their debt due to a total lack of foreign currency. They've only narrowly avoided it this far. When that happens expect the Roububble to pop.
It's also bad for their PR to be openly targeting non Ukraine soil, especially with artillery. They'll almost certainly avoid using it beyond the borders, as the US have asked, because they'll want a resupply later.
I seem to recall more than one event (not just the fuel silo) that appeared to be either civil sabotage or the scenario you describe. I believe it could well be Ukrainian in origin, but they won't take credit for it for the reasons above.
I agree with this analysis. However I would go further as Putin's stated list of war (sorry, 'special military operation') aims were:
- and equipment there now than at the start.I agree with this analysis. However I would go further as Putin's stated list of war (sorry, 'special military operation') aims were:
After 100 days the first has clearly not occurred, there are more troops - many of these being from the Russian Federation
- Demilitarisation of Ukraine
- Denazification of Ukraine
- Protection of the Donbas
- Countering NATO expansion.
The second was always clearly a myth.
To the third bullet point it has become clear that he was right in his analysis and the Donbas does need protecting. Except that the people and the houses need protection from the Russian army. And to those posters here who think the Russian army will 'win' I would point out that this huge army is struggling to gain a conclusive victory on a 50km long front.
Impressive or what?
And the last point is Putin's biggest own goal of all. Seeing tanks and troops running over a neighbouring country's territory has persuaded the Finns and the Swedes to apply to join the NATO alliance. In the case of Sweden this reverses a 200 year old policy of neutrality. The Swedes bring a potent air force and the Finns a large number of well equipped ground troops which can be quickly mobilised. He has achieved a result entirely opposite to that which he proclaimed he sought.
The Russian concept of a 'near abroad' whereby Moscow influences the politics of countries bordering Russia is very clearly dead. If things continue as they are for another few months and as Putin's influence wanes then Belarus is also likely to shake itself loose.
Vladimir Vladimirovich - result!
Best for who?
I think he means it would be best for the people that want to settle in, consolidate, regroup, and then start all over again in another 8 years.
I know that you will probably find this irrelevant but for those of us who trust in the rule of law implemented through a judiciary free as far as possible of political influence you'll have to explain your working, especially how your suggestion can be aligned with Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter in which it is written:
Russia cannot be allowed to conquer other territory by force.
In the very first days of the war, I noted the negative response from Kazakhstan in particular was remarkable, even voting for one of the UN resolutions against Russia. There may have been some difficult CSTO meetings.
Four launchers.
