Ukrainian forces for the first time used a longer-range version of weapons known as ATACMS, striking an airfield in Crimea and Russian troops in southeastern Ukraine.

The United States last week secretly shipped a new long-range missile system to Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces immediately used the weapons to attack a Russian military airfield in Crimea last Wednesday and Russian troops in the country’s southeast overnight on Tuesday, according to a senior U.S. official.

The United States previously supplied Ukraine with a version of the Army Tactical Missile Systems — known as ATACMS — armed with wide-spreading cluster munitions that can travel 100 miles.

But Ukraine has long coveted the system’s longer-range version, with a range of about 190 miles. That can reach deeper into occupied Ukraine, including Crimea, a hub of Russian air and ground forces, and supply nodes for Moscow’s forces in the country’s southeast.

Overnight Tuesday, Ukraine used the longer-range missiles to strike Russian troops in the port city of Berdiansk on the Sea of Azov, the senior U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

MBFC
Archive

  • corroded@lemmy.worldEnglish
    810·
    6 months ago

    This is certainly good news, and I don’t intend to detract from it.

    That being said, my opinion as an American is that the kind of missiles we need to be sending to Ukraine are the nuclear kind. The Russian government has said that they will use nuclear weapons in the event that the existence of their country is threatened. Fine, I understand that. Ukraine needs to have the same leverage. The existence of their country as they know it is being threatened; it would certainly turn the tables for them to say “Yes, we have nuclear weapons, and we’ll only use them if our continued existence is being threatened. By the way, you’re threatening it; you should really stop.”

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      242·
      6 months ago

      Hard disagree. Nuclear weapons are for deterring certain military actions, not ongoing ones. Giving Ukraine nukes just adds to the likely hood of a nuclear war. Currently the West is trying to show that countries without bikes nukes can still be protected if we all work together to protect a country’s sovereignty

      • ours@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        And I think NATO is already deterring Russia from using nukes in Ukraine but claiming that it considers any nuclear attack there as an attack on Europe.

        But yes, deterring a conventional conflict needs nuclear weapons before the conflict starts.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nlEnglish
      8·
      6 months ago

      This will not work. Giving two countries who are actively at war nuclear weapons will result in them firing their nuclear weapons. That’s not the result you want.

      “Yes, we have nuclear weapons, and we’ll only use them if our continued existence is being threatened. By the way, you’re threatening it; you should really stop.”

      This threat is really weak, because the second sentence undermines the first. If they are already threatening your existence, why haven’t you fired your nukes yet?