HomeUkraineAntony Blinken was asked: ‘Has the time come to allow Ukraine the freedom to use the long-range missiles you’re supplying them to hit targets deep in Russia, and if not, why not?’
Antony Blinken was asked: ‘Has the time come to allow Ukraine the freedom to use the long-range missiles you’re supplying them to hit targets deep in Russia, and if not, why not?’
September 10, 2024
Antony Blinken was asked: ‘Has the time come to allow Ukraine the freedom to use the long-range missiles you’re supplying them to hit targets deep in Russia, and if not, why not?’
Blah blah blah…. Another dodging non-answer. Spineless cowardly politicians š”
What a long winded way of saying nothing concrete
Edit: People are responding to this comment like I don’t know what diplomacy is. We’ve all seen plenty of strong language at various points in the war from US and UK as well as plenty of whifflewaffly language. It’s not like they *never* use strong language in diplomacy, *they just choose not to here*, and so there is no need to be like BREAKING NEWS and point out his answer specifically like we’ve had a new and exciting development.
Hah, for a moment I thought he was gonna answer the question. Infuriating. “No comment” would have been less insulting than this blatant waffling like he’s hoping to make us forget what was asked.
What a load of waffle. I literally had to rewatch it because I got to the end and had no clue that heād made any useful points at all. Classic political misdirection!
Help please. I’m hearing impaired and Sky News doesn’t offer closed caption. What was Blinken’s response to the question?
Blinken āeck just allow them to use the fucking missilesā¦
Totally bullshit answer!!! In short, Ruzzzzzia can continue to bomb Ukrainian civilians mercilessly, but Ukraine cannot hit Ruzzian military targets!! Disgusting!!!
>Do the Ukrainians have the ability to effectively use [the long range missiles]? Which this is something weāve successfully trained [them] on.ā
Then fucking get on with it and lift the restrictions, jackass.
What a fucking milquetoast non-answer. Would be better to just say āpassā
I do think that once russia uses those missiles from Iran, US will allow Ukraine to use long range missiles in russia same way they did with HIMARS use outside ukraine to defend kharkiv (by not publicizing it and only acknowledging it after it has done damage).
1) reason why I think this is going through happen, is because the US has been increasingly being vague about their responses. Theyāre still indicating ānot allowedā but not directly stating not allowed like before.
2) The US do not want to incentivize Iran and North Korea sending missiles to Russia. drones are already an escalation but missiles are a different story. It paints the image of US being a bad ally to have, when other countries are freely using their exported missiles and the US is still tying Ukraineās hands while being invaded. Keep in mind the revenue Iran and North Korea gets from those funds regional instability (Middle East and Korean peninsula) so itās in the USās best interest to deter this.
3) Ukraine has explicitly stated they WILL attack Iran if these iranian missiles kill even one Ukrainian civilian. US will allow Ukraine to use long range missiles in russia against specific targets with the caveat that ukraine doesnāt attack iran to prevent a broader ukraine-iran war.
4) Increasing pressure from NATO countries to lift the restrictions. Most recently within the past two weeks, the following countries have expressed that any weapons they send can be used to hit military targets anywhere in russia: netherlands, latvia, estonia and others all with statements that urge the US to lift restrictions on long range missiles. Most notably, france and the UK have also been pushing US to lift the restrictions on long range missile use.
5)Still not hopeful and maybe im delulu lol
I think he must have known whatever he said would be upsetting. People want him to say yes, but he can’t; but he really can’t say no either. Tough spot to be in, but I’d have preferred the confidence to be more honest about “being diplomatic.” People understand things are tense and this question is serious, there’s no need to insult them with that much of a non-statement.
Another factor being Ukraineās own long-range technology making anything supplied by the West no more of an escalation than Ukraine is doing already. Supplies of Iranās missiles also means Russia has nothing to protest about in the UN.
It’s to the point where Ukraine needs to release the kraken and ask forgiveness later.
This is what I am hearing:
We are doing what we can within our legal limits. We could be doing more but we don’t want to invest in a strategy that’s not going to win.
By allowing Ukraine a more proactive approach over Russia’s invasion, we are committing to a more hands-on / drastic measure which could be grounds for non-US allied nations which are Russia allied to take a more proactive stance.
At this stage in the game, I firmly believe America is the biggest gun on the planet, but we still don’t want to take that step. I seriously cannot imagine a smaller than Russia allied nation taking such a proactive stance if the USA did.
Rather than a press conference, I’d rather the permission be announced by the destruction of Russian air assets.
I don’t think going from a strict “no” to full avoidance of answering the question whatsoever is strictly indicatife of trying to maneuver away from judgement. It’s pretty likely that this is a way to not say “yes” while also being ready to play the upcoming “yes” as if they were trying to do it for a long time but just couldn’t. Essentially a “not right now”, which I find weirdly reassuring.
So literally no answer.
Same old ,same old.Russia can do what they want in this war as the aggressor but the home country are limited to what they can do.utter bullshit,in this war itās gloves off time ,back them up to the hilt.Slava Ukraine šŗš¦š¬š§šŗš¦š¬š§
Dude used a lot of words and didn’t say shit. š
Meanwhile Ukrainians continue to die.
If I am listening correctly, they don’t want to greenlight the use of these weapons because they fear they will not be used effectively?
I understand there is a “limited” supply of these weapons hence why it took so long for F16s and training to be done but there are plenty of valid military targets that can and should be struck within Ukraine’s reach if they were allowed these weapons. Are they waiting for another kursk somewhere else?
He even lies in his first sentence. The hallmark of their approach was not “giving Ukraine what they need”. It was more like “delay any sophisticated weapon approval for as long as possible”
Yeah good fucking luck fighting the biggest artillery army in the world with just artillery. And we also will ramp up our production at snail pace. Thank you United States.
Nic nie powiedziaÅ
I fear we are not going to get anything different until after the election. They should let Ukraine strike wherever they want.
Way to avoid the question.
Lots of words put together donāt constitute an answer
What I am hearing is “reacting” “adjusting” to what russia is doing. Meaning they leave initiative to the ennemy.
I 100% Respect Antony Blinken , but that was the most behind the bush answer I have ever heard.
I remember looking at all the weapons, planes , tanks , ammo , bombs etc., etc. etc. that we gave ruš½š½ia from the land lease , we didnāt tell them what they could strike or what they couldnāt strike, we should do the same for Ukraine.
Listen if these orcs came in to Ukraine and didnāt rape or kill innocent civilians and kids ,and just fought with Ukrainian military, I would have been happy with just giving Ukraine all the weapons we gave them and will give them , but these orc bastards are raping little kids in front of their parents, then raping their parents in front of their kids, then line them all up and murder them all , purposely aiming and hitting hospitals, kids parks , busy bus & train stations etc. etc. , you guys all know what orcs are doing, the whole world knows what these orcs are doing, and we still wonāt let them hit targets deep inside ruš½š½ia , that is just F*cked Up.
31 comments
Source Sky news
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1833482210499817734
Blah blah blah…. Another dodging non-answer. Spineless cowardly politicians š”
What a long winded way of saying nothing concrete
Edit: People are responding to this comment like I don’t know what diplomacy is. We’ve all seen plenty of strong language at various points in the war from US and UK as well as plenty of whifflewaffly language. It’s not like they *never* use strong language in diplomacy, *they just choose not to here*, and so there is no need to be like BREAKING NEWS and point out his answer specifically like we’ve had a new and exciting development.
Hah, for a moment I thought he was gonna answer the question. Infuriating. “No comment” would have been less insulting than this blatant waffling like he’s hoping to make us forget what was asked.
What a load of waffle. I literally had to rewatch it because I got to the end and had no clue that heād made any useful points at all. Classic political misdirection!
Help please. I’m hearing impaired and Sky News doesn’t offer closed caption. What was Blinken’s response to the question?
Blinken āeck just allow them to use the fucking missilesā¦
[Sign the Petition](https://www.letukrainestrikeback.com)
Typical political Bull shit
Totally bullshit answer!!! In short, Ruzzzzzia can continue to bomb Ukrainian civilians mercilessly, but Ukraine cannot hit Ruzzian military targets!! Disgusting!!!
>Do the Ukrainians have the ability to effectively use [the long range missiles]? Which this is something weāve successfully trained [them] on.ā
Then fucking get on with it and lift the restrictions, jackass.
What a fucking milquetoast non-answer. Would be better to just say āpassā
I do think that once russia uses those missiles from Iran, US will allow Ukraine to use long range missiles in russia same way they did with HIMARS use outside ukraine to defend kharkiv (by not publicizing it and only acknowledging it after it has done damage).
1) reason why I think this is going through happen, is because the US has been increasingly being vague about their responses. Theyāre still indicating ānot allowedā but not directly stating not allowed like before.
2) The US do not want to incentivize Iran and North Korea sending missiles to Russia. drones are already an escalation but missiles are a different story. It paints the image of US being a bad ally to have, when other countries are freely using their exported missiles and the US is still tying Ukraineās hands while being invaded.
Keep in mind the revenue Iran and North Korea gets from those funds regional instability (Middle East and Korean peninsula) so itās in the USās best interest to deter this.
3) Ukraine has explicitly stated they WILL attack Iran if these iranian missiles kill even one Ukrainian civilian. US will allow Ukraine to use long range missiles in russia against specific targets with the caveat that ukraine doesnāt attack iran to prevent a broader ukraine-iran war.
4) Increasing pressure from NATO countries to lift the restrictions. Most recently within the past two weeks, the following countries have expressed that any weapons they send can be used to hit military targets anywhere in russia: netherlands, latvia, estonia and others all with statements that urge the US to lift restrictions on long range missiles.
Most notably, france and the UK have also been pushing US to lift the restrictions on long range missile use.
5)Still not hopeful and maybe im delulu lol
I think he must have known whatever he said would be upsetting. People want him to say yes, but he can’t; but he really can’t say no either. Tough spot to be in, but I’d have preferred the confidence to be more honest about “being diplomatic.” People understand things are tense and this question is serious, there’s no need to insult them with that much of a non-statement.
Another factor being Ukraineās own long-range technology making anything supplied by the West no more of an escalation than Ukraine is doing already. Supplies of Iranās missiles also means Russia has nothing to protest about in the UN.
It’s to the point where Ukraine needs to release the kraken and ask forgiveness later.
This is what I am hearing:
We are doing what we can within our legal limits. We could be doing more but we don’t want to invest in a strategy that’s not going to win.
By allowing Ukraine a more proactive approach over Russia’s invasion, we are committing to a more hands-on / drastic measure which could be grounds for non-US allied nations which are Russia allied to take a more proactive stance.
At this stage in the game, I firmly believe America is the biggest gun on the planet, but we still don’t want to take that step. I seriously cannot imagine a smaller than Russia allied nation taking such a proactive stance if the USA did.
Rather than a press conference, I’d rather the permission be announced by the destruction of Russian air assets.
I don’t think going from a strict “no” to full avoidance of answering the question whatsoever is strictly indicatife of trying to maneuver away from judgement. It’s pretty likely that this is a way to not say “yes” while also being ready to play the upcoming “yes” as if they were trying to do it for a long time but just couldn’t.
Essentially a “not right now”, which I find weirdly reassuring.
So literally no answer.
Same old ,same old.Russia can do what they want in this war as the aggressor but the home country are limited to what they can do.utter bullshit,in this war itās gloves off time ,back them up to the hilt.Slava Ukraine šŗš¦š¬š§šŗš¦š¬š§
Dude used a lot of words and didn’t say shit. š
Meanwhile Ukrainians continue to die.
If I am listening correctly, they don’t want to greenlight the use of these weapons because they fear they will not be used effectively?
I understand there is a “limited” supply of these weapons hence why it took so long for F16s and training to be done but there are plenty of valid military targets that can and should be struck within Ukraine’s reach if they were allowed these weapons. Are they waiting for another kursk somewhere else?
He even lies in his first sentence. The hallmark of their approach was not “giving Ukraine what they need”. It was more like “delay any sophisticated weapon approval for as long as possible”
Yeah good fucking luck fighting the biggest artillery army in the world with just artillery. And we also will ramp up our production at snail pace. Thank you United States.
Nic nie powiedziaÅ
I fear we are not going to get anything different until after the election. They should let Ukraine strike wherever they want.
Way to avoid the question.
Lots of words put together donāt constitute an answer
What I am hearing is “reacting” “adjusting” to what russia is doing. Meaning they leave initiative to the ennemy.
I 100% Respect Antony Blinken , but that was the most behind the bush answer I have ever heard.
I remember looking at all the weapons, planes , tanks , ammo , bombs etc., etc. etc. that we gave ruš½š½ia from the land lease , we didnāt tell them what they could strike or what they couldnāt strike, we should do the same for Ukraine.
Listen if these orcs came in to Ukraine and didnāt rape or kill innocent civilians and kids ,and just fought with Ukrainian military, I would have been happy with just giving Ukraine all the weapons we gave them and will give them , but these orc bastards are raping little kids in front of their parents, then raping their parents in front of their kids, then line them all up and murder them all , purposely aiming and hitting hospitals, kids parks , busy bus & train stations etc. etc. , you guys all know what orcs are doing, the whole world knows what these orcs are doing, and we still wonāt let them hit targets deep inside ruš½š½ia , that is just F*cked Up.