NATO approves use of deep strike weapons against Russia

[midicon]

It's all brinkmanship really. All the fake outrage about the Ukraine situation. The sad thing is that people buy into it and believe the lies.

[putnam6]

It's all brinkmanship really. All the fake outrage about the Ukraine situation. The sad thing is that people buy into it and believe the lies.

Fair enough...

But, map it out for the less analytical or on a different wavelength, 

What happens next?

All I know is the X comments seem a little tense. LOL

[Kurokage]

NATO approves the use of  NATO deep-strike weapons against Russia. We might be a large, long-distance artillery barrage away from escalation beyond Ukraine.


Well, if we have a game-changing weapon(doubtful), now might be the time to demonstrate it. Feels like it just got a lot more dangerous, not that NATO had any other choice

So, where does NATO/Ukraine target? And where does Russia strike back? Is Putin that desperate?


Glenn Diesen

@Glenn_Diesen
·
May 25, 2024

NATO calls for using NATO weapons to strike inside Russian territory - The thin line between proxy war and direct war is almost completely gone


Instant Info

@InstantInfo07
·
5h

Vladimir Putin "If the decision to permit long-range artillery strikes deep inside Russian territory is taken, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the USA, and Europe in the war in Ukraine. This, of course, will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia."

Do you actually have a link to a statement from NATO?
I've been looking and there doesn't seem to  be any other information about this than that twitter post?

Said it many times but you can't seem to differentiate between the E.U. and NATO? Or is that on purpose??

I have found several articles that Germany has allowed it's missiles to be used in strikes further into Russia.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-germa...ea0a8a4130 

Germany no longer imposes restrictions on Ukraine’s use of its long-range weapons against targets in Russian territory, explained Chancellor Friedrich Merz
Additionally, according to German media, Merz will receive President Volodymyr Zelensky in Berlin this Wednesday.
“Ukraine can defend itself by attacking military targets in Russia,” Mr Merz said during a discussion forum. He added there were no restrictions on this matter, neither from the United Kingdom, France, or the United States, nor “from us.” However, he clarified that this concerned weapons “already supplied to Kyiv” and avoided saying whether his government would also authorise the delivery of Taurus missiles.
.....On Tuesday, after his quotes were interpreted as an announcement of new policy, Merz said this “has been the case for months.”

[Inspector44]

I am not at all concerned with Russia or how they respond. I think I saw something last week that claimed Russia's nuclear arsenal is almost completely useless because of poor maintenance and no new technology. They couldn't even pin down and defeat Ukraine, a country led by a prancing little weirdo with no nuclear deterrent and an actual Nazi regiment. Russia would fall apart at the seams if they were to escalate outside of Ukraine.

The State and Viability of Russia's Nuclear Arsenal in 2025

[midicon]

I am not at all concerned with Russia or how they respond. I think I saw something last week that claimed Russia's nuclear arsenal is almost completely useless because of poor maintenance and no new technology. They couldn't even pin down and defeat Ukraine, a country led by a prancing little weirdo with no nuclear deterrent and an actual Nazi regiment. Russia would fall apart at the seams if they were to escalate outside of Ukraine.

The State and Viability of Russia's Nuclear Arsenal in 2025

I think Russia could easily have flattened Ukraine in the conventional sense if not for the billions funneled in from the West. I did a quick Google on it's nuclear arsenal and it says...

Russia possesses a total of 5,459 nuclear warheads as of 2025, the largest confirmed stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world. Russia's deployed missiles (those actually ready to be launched) number about 1,718, also the largest confirmed strategically deployed arsenal in the world as of 2025."

I would be concerned about an all out war with Russia. They have more than enough to take down the planet. 

Neither Russia or the West want all out war but there is a lot of money and geopolitical power from the Wests standpoint. If there wasn't they would all be happily slating Zelensky. Let's not forget who started all this in the first place and why.

[midicon]

Fair enough...

But, map it out for the less analytical or on a different wavelength, 

What happens next?

All I know is the X comments seem a little tense. LOL

What happens next is no war. This will be played out for all its worth whilst the next theatre is being strategically plannd for. They play the long game. Iran might be a viable target at some point.

[Inspector44]

I think Russia could easily have flattened Ukraine in the conventional sense if not for the billions funneled in from the West. I did a quick Google on it's nuclear arsenal and it says...

Russia possesses a total of 5,459 nuclear warheads as of 2025, the largest confirmed stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world. Russia's deployed missiles (those actually ready to be launched) number about 1,718, also the largest confirmed strategically deployed arsenal in the world as of 2025."

I would be concerned about an all out war with Russia. They have more than enough to take down the planet. 

Neither Russia or the West want all out war but there is a lot of money and geopolitical power from the Wests standpoint. If there wasn't they would all be happily slating Zelensky. Let's not forget who started all this in the first place and why.

I've read that report and due to my brief research into the subject, I believe the real number is much less, I'd say around 70% of their arsenal is either inop, doesn't exist or cant be deployed, this is from me talking with a few old spook buddies I had in the navy as well. They simply cannot field those assets due to their current state of functionality. Do I think all of their nukes are junk, no, but they couldn't conduct Armageddon if they wanted to and I think Putin knows that.

[midicon]

I've read that report and due to my brief research into the subject, I believe the real number is much less, I'd say around 70% of their arsenal is either inop, doesn't exist or cant be deployed, this is from me talking with a few old spook buddies I had in the navy as well. They simply cannot field those assets due to their current state of functionality. Do I think all of their nukes are junk, no, but they couldn't conduct Armageddon if they wanted to and I think Putin knows that.

You may be right. I'm no expert I'm happy to learn stuff.

[putnam6]

Do you actually have a link to a statement from NATO?
I've been looking and there doesn't seem to  be any other information about this than that twitter post?

Said it many times but you can't seem to differentiate between the E.U. and NATO? Or is that on purpose??

I have found several articles that Germany has allowed it's missiles to be used in strikes further into Russia.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-germa...ea0a8a4130 

 Dude, I do not mind at all being called out if Im incorrect, please do so

All I did was repost an X.com post about Jens Stoltenberg, former NATO, pleading for long-range weapons use, as well as Putin saying what a provocation this would be... with France, Germany, the UK, and the US authorizing use. To foster the continuing discussion, and with the knowledge that those 4 powerful NATO nations would likely convince other NATO nations, and full NATO approval would be a fait accompli

 
thefinancialanalyst.net
https://thefinancialanalyst.net › 2024 › 09 › 17 › natos-stoltenberg-sparks-debate-on-ukraines-long-range-strikes-risks
NATO's Stoltenberg Sparks Debate on Ukraine's Long-Range Strikes Risks ...
5 days agoThe reality is that any missile strike on Russian soil would fundamentally alter the dynamics of the war, and NATO's role would be impossible to deny. Stoltenberg's comments about Ukraine's right to self-defense and the loosening of restrictions on its use of long-range weapons reflect a growing desperation in the West.

However, in my ignorance of the NATO protocols and procedures, I finally consulted Grok for guidance. If my conclusions are faulty, feel free to offer evidence to the contrary, forthwith.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/sPdkVwLlskajdXGyVXtsT3LDV

NATO as an organization does not have to approve the use of long-range weapons in Ukraine. The decision to lift restrictions on the use of such weapons lies with the individual member states that supply them, as these are national decisions.

France, the UK, the US, and Germany are key NATO members and major suppliers of military aid to Ukraine, including long-range weapons like ATACMS (US), Storm Shadow/SCALP (UK/France), and potentially Taurus (Germany). Their lifting of restrictions is sufficient for Ukraine to use these weapons, as NATO does not collectively control or dictate the terms of use for weapons provided bilaterally by its members.

For context, NATO supports Ukraine’s right to self-defense and coordinates aid through frameworks like the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU), but it explicitly avoids direct involvement in the conflict. Statements from NATO officials, such as Admiral Rob Bauer and former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, emphasize that nations supplying weapons have the sovereign right to set or lift restrictions on their use. The US, UK, France, and Germany lifting restrictions effectively enables Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with those weapons, without requiring a NATO-wide approval process.
However, there are nuances. For example, the US initially limited ATACMS use to specific regions like Kursk but later expanded permissions, while the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles required US approval due to American components. These decisions reflect bilateral agreements rather than a NATO mandate.

 Merz announced that Ukraine’s allies have lifted restrictions on the range of weapon suppliesШевченко Андрій May 26, 2025The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, announced that Ukraine’s allied countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, have lifted restrictions on the range of weapons supplied to Kyiv. This means that Ukraine is now capable of using longer-range weapons to defend its territories and strike military targets in Russia.

[RickyD]

I learned something new today, all these long range missiles except the German Taurus as far as I can tell utilize classified cartographic mapping from the US to achieve precision targeting. They all also use GPS and inertial guidance as well but as we know GPS is easily jammed. So basically without the US allowing these strikes they wouldn't be happening. We have the final say on any weapon using our classified terrain mapping. Aside from that the US provides most of their longrange targeting data in the form of strike packages to Ukraine to utilize their longrange missiles. Really dancing right on the line of being directly involved in my opinion.