There are a lot of reasons, but all of the NATO countries that were supplying Ukraine put very tight restrictions on how that equipment could be used. For example, none of the aircraft or artillery were allowed to be fired into Russia for fear of a nuclear escalation.

They've been slowly relaxing that restriction and it gave Ukraine more freedom to run the campaign as they see fit

[–] Don_Dickle 34 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I am rooting for them. I hope they do like the Wagner Group and make it all the way to Moscow.

[–] foggy 46 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I hope Ukraine fills in the gap to Kazakhstan and takes everything south until Georgia.

Maybe Georgians would actually finally have a decent situation.

Maybe. 😕

I'd love to visit St Petersburg, Finland, someday.

[–] ivanafterall 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

F-16s buzzing the Kremlin when?

[–] tetrachromacy 32 points 3 months ago

I believe also that the predominating thought in this war among the generals that plan it is that a shake up to the current status quo was needed. Invading Russia gives Ukraine a bit of leverage, plus it draws away RU troops from the front line so that Ukraine may be able to retake a bit of ground.

Grand Poobah Pooty Putin can only say so many times that he's moving nukes to ready status or whatever until it becomes clear he's not going to use them. Nuking anybody, especially Ukraine, would be a tacit admission to the world that he's losing this war. If he did, NATO would likely get involved presumably because they would consider the fallout drifting over Europe to be an act of war, but a casus belli is a casus belli.

So yeah, I can see NATO countries being ok with a strike inside of Russia now. Makes total sense to me. I'm just surprised it took this long to get there.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think is a bit of a desperate move and change of tactics. They've tried to rally support to be able to conventionally push back Russia on their turf, but that failed for multiple reasons, like the slow drip feeding of gear. Ukraine cannot reach critical masses like that.

I also think it's a matter of a shift in support. The "red line" has been moved over and over again. Remember the raids of the pro Ukraine Russian troops into Russia? Some of them used HMMVs and that got some backlash from the US already. Generally back then the common consensus was to not use any western gear on Russian soil, only on the occupied Ukrainian one. Now we see more and more countries loosening their stance and allow Ukraine to strike Russia within their borders using their weapons.

So now they can do something they couldn't really do before, and they're trying new things to hurt the enemy and potentially get some leverage out of it.

[+] Eiri -22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Very complete answer but not very "like I'm five"

[–] techt 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

ELI5 is not a literal request for an explanation a five year-old would understand; briefly consider how that would sound -- useless, right? It's a hyperbolic way of asking for a thorough, well-written explanation of a concept for someone who lacks the understanding to start asking the right questions or seek information on their own. There's your ELI5 ELI5.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, but I agree with eiri that Dark Thought's explanation is too complicated for ELI5

[–] techt 0 points 3 months ago

I might agree if the last single-sentence summary wasn't there -- that's as ELI5 as it gets, I'd say.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What part of my comment was too complicated for you to understand?

[–] Eiri 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'll preface all this by saying I'm not a native speaker of English, so my standards may be a bit lower than average.

Well the rallying support bit was a bit complicated. I also didn't understand what HMMV meant at first.

That whole thing about a red line confused me at first. I thought you meant the geographical front line of the conflict.

Also it's still not 100% clear to me what reaching a critical mass means in this context.

Generally speaking the sentences were a bit advanced and seemed to hedge on someone understanding military stuff and having a pretty extensive background on the conflict. I had to reread it attentively to understand, which is not what I'd generally expect of an ELI5 reply.

There's also that whole thing about foreign weapons and their suppliers having some degree of control over what Ukrainians do with them, which wasn't obvious to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Well the rallying support bit was a bit complicated.

In what way? It's been two years of Ukraine doing nothing but that.

I also didn't understand what HMMV meant at first.

It's a typo. I didn't proof read my comment since it was pretty late already. A HMMWV is a very common US military vehicle. Probably one of the most well known & iconic ones.

That whole thing about a red line confused me at first. I thought you meant the geographical front line of the conflict.

No. A red line is a figurative phrase about something that shall not be crossed - or else... Russia put up many red lines over the course of the war, including their borders being crossed, which would result in a nuclear response (which is typically the usual warning for pretty much any red line). There were many others, such as weapon deliveries to Ukraine, specific weapon deliveries to Ukraine such as tanks, or missiles, where those weapons could be used (specifically "if you use them to strike within Russia then...") etc.

Also it's still not 100% clear to me what reaching a critical mass means in this context.

Critical mass: An amount or level needed for a specific result or new action to occur. In this context it would mean that Ukraine gets enough gear to be able to achieve their military goals of fighting back Russia and push them back behind their borders.

Generally speaking the sentences were a bit advanced and seemed to hedge on someone understanding military stuff and having a pretty extensive background on the conflict. I had to reread it attentively to understand, which is not what I'd generally expect of an ELI5 reply.

Well, if you ask about a conflict that goes on for two and a half years, then I'd expect you to at least know the basic premise of it. You can't expect an ELI5 to cover that much time with all its events so of course I focused on the main part of their question. I would not describe my secondary English skills as "advanced" though. I speak very simplified English and don't use any complicated words.

There's also that whole thing about foreign weapons and their suppliers having some degree of control over what Ukrainians do with them, which wasn't obvious to me.

Specific export rules are standard for weapon deliveries and not really exclusive to weapons delivered to Ukraine. That topic has been talked about pretty much every month for the past couple years.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It may have just been a matter of opportunity, too. You can bet the Ukrainians have a lot of eyes in Russia, and will be able to see if they leave a flank open.

[–] pleasejustdie 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It also forces Russia into a defensive war where they have already committed all their forces for an Offensive war. This will force Russia to either give up parts of Russia, or withdraw troops from Ukraine to retake parts of Russia. And also I've seen reports that Ukraine is having to slow progress because of processing surrendering Russian soldiers.

I figure once Russia withdraws troops from Ukraine to reinforce itself, Ukraine will likely pull back and swoop in and take their territory back.

Then we'll see where this goes, either Putin will withdraw and try to get peace, or he'll act like a cornered animal, and will get more unpredictable and erratic. There is always the chance that Ukraine will refuse peace talks and just keep marching on Moscow too. Either way, by pushing into Russia they are changing the dynamic of the war drastically and can finally put Russia on the defensive without worrying about losing support from NATO allies.

[–] baldingpudenda 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Interesting strategy, can't stop them, but their usual tactic of throwing bodies at the problem is kinda working out for them. You can't move on to Moscow if you're too busy securing the POWs.

[–] dustyData 14 points 3 months ago

The body mass tactic only works as long as those are able bodies. On defense were the oldest soldiers with lower quality equipment, with less motivation and ability to put up a fight. Hence the mass surrenders. Because all the young and easily compelled to fight were already on Ukraine. Now they will have to shuffle the forces, weakening the entire line and halting the recent offensives. An effective soldier can't fight in two fronts at once. Even if the progress is slow due to mass surrenders, you're still better off putting soldiers out of combat without losing territory (actually gainning it), instead of what was happening before.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

It's also going to be interesting, how it affects morale on the Russian side. If Putin's propaganda machinery works, he'll spin it as an aggression from Ukraine and a reason for soldiers to defend their country and whatnot.

But, while it's always difficult to judge this from the outside, I cannot imagine that Russians don't know that this whole conflict was an aggression from Russia towards Ukraine. So, it will very likely lead to a lot of pressure to withdraw troops from Ukraine, not only to defend where necessary, but also to put this whole power trip to rest.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago

Ukraine struggles to repel the constant attacks on the eastern front so by attacking Russia in the north, it forces them to move troops from elsewhere thus making them to stop the attacks due to lack of manpower and go on defence instead. This eases the pressure on the Ukrainian defenders.

This newly acquired land is also something they can use to trade back parts of their own land if and when the peace negotitations start.

It also further diminishes the credibility of the Russian army and leadership.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The USA and others said no.

[–] AlternatePersonMan 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I still find that insane.

"Russia has been attacking us for 2 years. We're going to attack back." "No, don't do that. That will escalate things." "Oh cool, I guess we'll just keep taking it."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Slight distinction, though maybe not so much a practical one: it was more "Don't do that with our weapons, Russia will get mad at us, instead of just you."

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They're probably tired of being used just as a customer for the military industrial complex and want to go back to their normal lives. They also probably have a ton of intel on the enemy's weaknesses to shut putin and his cronies down.

I hope they succeed at the earliest.

[–] uebquauntbez 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Russia is/was good fighting Ukraine from 'behind the fence' with heavy weapons. Ukraine got tired to be kept on short leash and not able to fight back. Right?