NATO Secretary-General Jen Stoltenberg said Ukraine has the right to hit Russian military targets outside of Ukraine. The remarks were made as members of the North Atlantic alliance are preparing to send Kyiv weapons with longer ranges. The Kremlin has explained that it will claim more Ukrainian territory to offset the threat presented by the long-range arms.
“Ukraine has the right to self-defense,” Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe on Tuesday. “And that includes also striking legitimate military targets, Russian military targets, outside Ukraine. That is international law and, of course, Ukraine has the right to do so, to protect itself.” This is the first time the NATO chief endorsed Ukrainian attacks inside of Russia.
After Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, the US and its allies began massive weapons shipments to Kyiv. However, the Western arms shipments were limited to shorter-range munitions in an effort not to provoke a massive war with Russia. Over time, the concern that Moscow will escalate to direct war with NATO over Ukraine has lessened and the White House has provided Ukraine with more advanced weapons systems.
Several NATO members are working on training Ukrainian pilots of F-16s, then transferring dozens of the advanced, American-made fighter jets to Kyiv. Stoltenberg did acknowledge that some alliance members placed restrictions on the arms sent to Ukraine, but others did not. The F-16s are scheduled to arrive in Ukraine later this year, but the delivery has been delayed several times.
At the start of the war, President Joe Biden was only willing to sign off on munitions with a range of 50 miles. Over the course of the war, European nations began transferring cruise missiles to Ukraine within the150 mile range. The White House has sent Kyiv rockets with a range of 100 miles and is considering sending missiles with a range of nearly 200 miles if Congress approves another round of funding for the war.
Russian forces are advancing in eastern Ukraine. As Kyiv loses more territory and struggles to find the men and arms to fight Moscow’s forces on the frontlines, Ukraine is launching attacks inside of Russia. The Kremlin often responds to those strikes by attacking Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
One red line too far and London will be a barbecue!
What’s the Red Line in Russia? (Ukraine is already targeting Russian industrial sites.) Also, eat s**t — you and Putin — with the nuclear threats. He ain’t gonna do s**t. He wants to preserve his stolen riches.
The idea that there is nothing the West can do to provoke Russia into a direct war because it hasn’t happened yet is insanity. Russia isn’t desperate. Yet.
Russia doesn’t want a war with the West; and they won’t go nuclear because Putin is a narcissist.
But to think there is no possible “red line” that would force Russia’s hand is batshit crazy.
Meh…
Exactly. Until it isn’t.
Stupid comment.
You’re a typical American – incapable of understanding that Russian restraint is a sign of strength.
Anyway long-range fires into Russia is about the most idiotic idea possible, but then again we are taking about NATO. It’s similar to Hitler’s V2 strategy at the end of WW2 – indiscriminate terrorism by a desperate regime, facing inevitable defeat.
There are only 4 possible outcomes:
1 – Russia won’t respond and will continue kicking Ukraine/NATO butt in what was Ukraine. They’re advancing on all fronts, it’s now a rout.
2 – Russia will respond by attacking anti-Russian Uke cities – Lvov comes to mind.
3 – Russia will hit targets in NATO countries.
4 – combo of 2 & 3.
And Russia still wins in Ukraine.
And the US runs out of ATACMS, already at critically low levels.
I suspect the Russians will suck it up, unless something critical is hit. This is a nation that lost 27 million people in WW2 and unlike the West, that understands suffering.
This guy is a troll here, I wouldn’t get too excited about his comments.
No I just know what I’m talking about and you’re an ignorant moron. Many thanks.
I don’t understand your mean-spirited response to me. My comment supported you, not him. I’m saying that you should ignore him, he’s just a troll who is not anti-war and therefore doesn’t belong here.
1) Russia is advancing, yes. Meters at a time. (They’re also retreating in certain areas — also meters at a time.)
2) Russia is already attacking Ukrainian cities.
3) Hahaha. F**k around and find out!
4) Refer back to number 3.
Russia will understand suffering better going forward.
Once again you demonstrate that you don’t understand how attrition warfare works.
To all appearances, neither does the Russian Federation’s general staff.
I disagree. It seems that once they realized they were overextended in 2022 they redeployed along a shorter front line and have been prosecuting an attritional war ever since. I would be interested in how you think they have botched this attritional phase of the war?
“I would be interested in how you think they have botched this attritional phase of the war?”
By getting into it.
I agree that they bit off more than they could chew with the initial invasion. Once this became apparent they adjusted their strategy to an attritional one. They seem to have been very successful in pursuing said strategy. So beyond their initial mistake of invading in the first place how do you support your assertion that the Russian general staff have problems understanding attrition warfare?
There are two possibilities:
* They don’t understand it; or
* They’re not attempting it.
If you’re not an idiot, you don’t go for attrition warfare, long-term, versus an alliance that has an at least 10-to-1 advantage in the ability to manufacture and effectively deliver arms to the battlefield, especially when it can, should it choose, deliver troops as well.
So pick one. Are the Russian general staff morons who don’t understand that an attrition strategy has nearly zero chance of success? Or are they not pursuing an attrition strategy?
I think they are pursing an attritional strategy given the redeployment and construction of the Suroviken line in 2022. I agree that on paper the collective west should be able to outproduce Russia, but structural inefficiencies and a guiding principle of for profit capitalism seem to be hindering this effort, and as of yet Russia is in fact out producing the collective west with regards to military hardware for Ukraine. Remember Russia only has to produce arms for it’s own use while the collective west has to produce for both their own stocks as well as Ukraine and Israel among other commitments. See the following analysis:
which is based on a critique of the 2022 The National Defense Industrial Strategy report:
https://www.businessdefense.gov/NDIS.html
If the above analysis is correct we won’t be able to surpass current Russian capacity until late 2025 or early 2026 at the earliest, and that’s assuming that the Russians don’t expand their capacity during the same interval.
How about they’re trying to minimize civilian casualties and infrastructure damage to Ukraine — I know, hard for an American to understand that concept — and that Russia doesn’t want Ukraine, they just want security and for Ukraine to stop killing ethnic Russians.
In war, EVERY state claims that it’s trying to minimize civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. In the absence of evidence that the Russian state is the first state in history to actually be telling the truth about that, I’ll default to the 100% historical record of such claims being complete bullshit.
My information on this comes from Scott Ritter and Colonel Macgregor, two totally credible sources despite the fact that I can’t stand Macgregor’s politics. These are military experts, and they’ve shown how, totally the opposite of the U.S., Russia has made major efforts to avoid civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure, the latter of course except when they were attacking it for military purposes. Just because our country bombs the shit out of everything and kills everyone in sight doesn’t mean that every other country does that also. I’m not parroting Russian propaganda, what Russia says about this wouldn’t be credible anyway and I wasn’t born yesterday.
Douglas Macgregor, February 27, 2022: “The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over.”
Douglass Macgregor, March 3, 2022: “I would say another 10 days this should be completely over.”
Douglas Macgregor, July 8, 2002: “The war, with the exception of Kharkiv and Odessa, as far as the Russians are concerned is largely over.”
You listed PREDICTIONS. That’s not analysis of what’s happening, and that’s what we’re talking about.
I’ve seen other people do this, to their and their causes’ detriments. Dr. Paul Ehrlich, in his otherwise brilliant and totally spot on book The Population Bomb, apparently couldn’t resist making predictions, which turned out to be wrong, at least time-wise. Now, anti-environmentalists use those incorrect predictions to idiotically and falsely claim that humans aren’t overpopulated, even though everything else in the book beside the predictions was 100% correct. Better to lay off the predictions and just analyze what’s going on.
If one makes predictions based on one’s analysis and those predictions turn out to be incorrect, that indicates a problem with the analysis.
I’m talking about the analysis of the current situation, not use of analysis for predictions. Predictions rely on all sorts of variants that are unpredictable and often unknown at the time, which is why it’s wise to avoid predictions, even if the analysis is spot on.
If analysis isn’t reliable for purposes of prediction, it’s not analysis, it’s wanking off in public.
Don’t at all agree. An analysis for the purpose of understanding the past and present can be very valuable without using it for any predictions. And again, predictions tend to be wrong or at most right for the wrong reasons, because there are so many variables, and almost always some that no one knows about or considers at the time. Obviously analyses are used for figuring out how to proceed, but that’s not the same as making predictions in the manner we’re discussing.
I’m pretty sure I have a good grip on it.
A tutorial:
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2024/01/making-attrition-work-a-viable-theory-of-victory-for-ukraine/
So defense in depth will now work for the Ukrainians who have no equivalent to a Surovikin line and not a lot of prospects to build one quickly? The joker who wrote that article seems to be confused about what constitutes a defense in depth. He correctly notes Russian advantages in engineering and ability to fortify quickly, but then leaves this completely out of the rest of his analysis and policy suggestions for Ukraine. He doesn’t answer the central questions of where, when, and how Ukraine will build is main defensive line where it can trap advancing Russians in attritional zones. Furthermore, he correctly notes the massive Russian advantage in artillery but then fails to connect that to his attritional warfare scenario moving forward.
It’s not a complete analysis but it hits on some salient points. The fact is we don’t know how or where the Ukrainian defense will be presented. Russia’s weapons manufacturing seems to have ramped up but let’s see if it can sustain. A bigger point (suggested in the article) is whether the IS can get past the MAGA/putin wing of the GOP and provide the weapons. I don’t think anyone would say the Russians can out produce the US and Europe combined.
It’s not really a serious analysis at all given that the author doesn’t address two of the most important parameters of any attritional warfare strategy: a well constructed defensive line with depth containing many attritional zones and artillery superiority. So my initial assertion still stands: you once again demonstrate that you don’t understand attrition warfare.
You are mistaken. Attritional warfare can be a guerilla war, people’s war (in the Moaist’a sense), etc. Your take on it is too rigid.
But the piece you linked doesn’t recommend a guerilla war, it recommends a defense in depth which then requires the above questions I posed to be answered.
Hope you are in London for the barbecue!
I’d bet that the Russian missiles blow up in their silos so, I think I’ll be OK.
What if they function perfectly? Where do you want to be?
Martinique.
Singapore or Australia would be safer until the radiation reaches down under.
The death wish for both NATO & Ukraine…!
This was probably green lit in secret last year, they are just now getting bolder with the public statements.
Just curious. Why does that one person downvote you every time you make a comment. I think you could say the sun sets in the west and he/she would downvote you.
They downvoted you too apparently.
A “guest vote” downvoted me. Some person, who goes by ‘Terje’, always downvotes that particular commenter. And I mean every time.
Terje downvotes everyone who hasn’t crawled up into the arse of the Beast.
Terje crawls the Political Wire comment section and likely others.
I don’t think it has an actual POV.
You think? He is a peculiar creature, seems to have my comments on some kind of speed dial as he appears at all hours. Taking a break from PW? I haven’t seen your comments there recently.
Terje pops up on any site I happen to comment on, he would probably downvote on a sewing/crocheting site if I could find one that uses Disqus. He is an obsessive pest that used to bug me on MotherJones years ago, probably has too much free time.
And there he is again.
MJ huh? That’s where I first clashed with dean b. I was banned there in 2017.
I don’t know if you knew it or not, but Terje swings both ways. That’s right, he likes boys and men.
Yes, those were the good old days pre Coral, Terje constantly refers to me by old username Tahini. I did not know about his odd lifestyle, not surprising though given some of the very bizarre things he spouts off with.
It doesn’t matter. The collective west can’t produce long range armaments in the numbers needed to impact the outcome on the battlefield. I guess maybe if Ukraine can hold on until 2026 then maybe they can get enough factories spooled up to make a difference.
“NATO Chief Gives Ukraine Green Light for Attacks Inside Russia” I assure you he is not saying that because he cares about Ukraine. He is saying that because he wants to fight until the last Ukrainian. Any smart Ukrainian should hasten their exit plans from Ukraine. If they don’t, they may not even get a “body bag.”
So stating “ Ukraine has the right to self-defense,” means giving a country green light to attack?
Wow.
There’s only one red line and that’s the one Putin crossed when he decided it would be a great idea to invade and annex Ukraine.
No invasion, no war.
You withdraw your invaders, no war.
Simple.
Well at least you can see that Ukraine is not calling the shots here. They have been hamstrung from day one by their western taskmasters and weapons dealers. Not only are they not calling the shots in how the war is conducted, but in matters of negotiation as well.
“Well at least you can see that Ukraine is not calling the shots here”
YOU said that, not me.
Whatever helps you sleep at night tequila man.
And another step up the escalation ladder. NATO is baiting Russia to launch full-scale war against Ukraine. And if it comes to that, what will the US/NATO do? Apply another round of economic sanctions? They certainly will not go to direct war against Russia to save Ukraine.
The US doesn’t seem to have a plan for how this all ends. Which might mean, the US plan is for all this to keep going. Indefinitely. To churn conflict everywhere possible to keep the US public in confusion and to keep the MICIMATT (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academic-Think-Tank complex) fully employed and profitable.
The US global empire is running down but it is still quite powerful.
And the empire needs an enemy to give itself purpose, as the State Dept. pundits (Wolfowitz et al.) recognized after the fall of the USSR. And as Orwell had observed in 1984. Who we’re fighting might flip from week to week, but we’re always fighting the bad guys. Russia today, China tomorrow.
I hope I’m wrong, but that’s how it’s looking to me. Stormy weather ahead.
“The Kremlin often responds to those strikes by attacking Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.”
It’s the other way around, comrad Kyle.
Stoltenberg’s statement makes no difference. Each country providing the weapons is limiting their use as it sees fit, as the cowardly Olaf Scholz has demonstrated:
https://ukrainetoday.org/out-of-the-question-scholz-put-an-end-to-taurus-for-ukraine-video/
The real news is that Ukraine is making its own long-range weapons now and will be using them soon.
https://ukrainetoday.org/ukraine-has-a-missile-that-hit-a-target-700-kilometers-away-kamyshin-on-strikes-in-russias-depth/
https://youtu.be/JZ40mJtjkoA?t=382
They simply can’t produce them in the numbers needed to impact battlefield realities. Propaganda strikes like taking out ships or the bridge won’t win the war.
Those propaganda trikes or PR stunt like many of folks here like to call it, have yielded significant return on investment, especially with the Black Sea Fleet that basically has ceased to exist in they way it was intended.
They have received so much damage and destruction that they’ve lost its freedom of movement.
They cannot really protect Crimea, cannot conduct full spectrum naval operations such as: amphibious landing/invasion of Odessa and Ukraine is now unimpededly exporting its grain. The list goes on and that’s just on the maritime domain.
But go ahead, call it propaganda strikes.
How does this impact the ground war?
The Russian side has a green light to attack those locations from which such long range weapons are shipped. That is only logical.
I think the idiots who crafted this abomination are going to get what they deserve. Given that NATO is the actual adversary, I see no reason why the Russians should restrict their responses to Ukraine.
Biden put his foot on the escalation ladder in 2014. If Biden wants a real war, he’s making all the right moves. The human race is showing its true colors in spades. Perhaps the time is coming when this particular experiment in evolution of intelligent life should be shitcanned.
It was clearly a big mistake to evolve a species that needs its intellect to survive without at least constraining the intellect with things like wisdom and empathy. The end result is a species that fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth, and may well extinguish all or almost all life here with a nuclear war. To be clear, I’m not saying one way or the other that nature acts or acted consciously, but it was a mistake nonetheless.