You're viewing a single thread.
I still don't understand the West's reluctance to let their donated long range missiles to strike infrastructure in Russian territory. The Russians have shown zero restraint in targeting critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Allow them to even the odds.
Honestly what better are we than Russia if we just start rocketing their shit? Plus so far they're happy to present their people in broad daylight for targets, no need to kill civilians.
The long range missiles the West are providing are precision strike weapons so the attacks themselves can minimize civilian casualties.
Unlike the Russians, Ukraine won't use them to target maternity wards or apartment complexes. But an electrical substation that distributes power to the Kremlin? Why not.
Destroying infrastructure will always lead to civilian deaths unless it is a pure military installation. As soon as you destroy just one wrong substation (because your Intel was wrong or whatever) you are killing innocent civilians, even worse if a hospital was hooked up to that sub station
Edit: had a typo: instead of pure i wrote lure
Fair point. It just doesn't seem fair for Ukraine to not be able to hit back while the Russians strike at will. There needs to be some consequences.
Oh, that's mostly about thermonuclear war. Much as I support Ukraine, you don't want to give Vlad the impression he needs to send nukes somewhere and start the Doomsday spiral. It takes some fine balancing. Morally, you are 100% right.
Thermonuclear war? Fucking finally
username checks out