comment: >
  
  Not really.Like a small country in Europe (say England) begging for Lend Lease, we get drug into Europes conflicts. Unwillingly
context: The GLSDB sounds like a great way to say fuck you, precisely you, and nobody else but you. >
  
  That’s the R9x aka the flying slap chop. >
  
  True, GLSDB is more like "Fuck this building/bunker/vehicle in particular." >
  
  Ukraine has been able to successfully utilize the GMLRS (HIMARS) missiles because they have hundreds of cheap unguided long-range artillery rockets that can saturate Russian Air Defense while the GMLRS missiles punch through.
  But the Ukrainian long-range artillery rockets can't reach target areas that are this far away. Instead the West should buy up the cheap Scud/Tochka missiles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and give to Ukraine. These cheap, old but long-range missiles will be used to saturate Russian air defense so the more precise GLSDB (and one day hopefully the ATACMS) can punch through. >
  
  That's a really good idea. We should be buying up all the high volume cheap shit that the Russians saturated the world with, and give it to the Ukrainians to shoot right back at them. There's a symmetry to that. >
  
  Not to mention familiarity with the stuff would still be useful. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  The US says additional military aid to Ukraine worth $2.2bn will include long-range missiles capable of doubling its attack range.
  Previously, Ukraine's longest range weapon was the Himars rocket system, which can hit targets at a range of up to 80km. Kyiv used the system to devastating effect during its counter-offensive in the south and east last year.
  The new package - which will also include additional Himars missiles and 250 Javelin anti-armour systems - comes amid mounting concerns that Western nations have been too slow to provide fresh military aid to Ukraine.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 system^#2 Russian^#3 Ukrainian^#4 weapon^#5 >
  
  
  "This gives them a longer-range capability, long-range fires capability, that will enable them, again, to conduct operations in defence of their country and take back their sovereign territory, Russian-occupied areas."
  "The more long-range our weapons are and the more mobile our troops are, the sooner Russia's brutal aggression will end," Mr Zelensky wrote. "Together with [the US] we stand against terror." >
  
  Good and Putin can cry about it all he wants. Time for Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia >
  
  90 miles isn’t very deep into Russia. In fact it’s likely not reaching Russia at all since the eastern Ukraine is contested. >
  
  Unlike Russia, Ukraine's objective won't be to hit cities, populated areas, and other various war-crimes with the missiles.  They don't need the missiles to go deep into the Russian heartland.  
  However these new missiles do put a lot of Russian military targets near the border at risk, there are massive ammo dumps near the Russian border that are well out of HIMAR range that are going to get bombed very soon.  Russia's front-line will soon be having major logistical issues.  
  Russian artillery guns will be getting targeted and destroyed well before they are in range to fire at Ukrainian forces.  Ukrainian artillery teams firing cheap conventional round will then be able to engage Russian positions very cost-effectively with little to no risk.    
  The only responses Russia will have will be counter-artillery with their own long-range munitions or airstrikes.  Ukraine is saturated with MANPADS and other anti-air defense making both of the  options costly.  Add in that Russia can't keep up with western production of modern missiles and planes and the February Russian offense is looking pretty bleak.  Of course their is a third choice, it's the easiest, cheapest, and most logical one which would be for Russia to just pull out of Ukraine but well Putin isn't a very logical or rational man. >
  
  Russia moved their supply depots just out of HIMARS range. Then they have to use inefficient methods to truck supplies to the front lines.
  Longer range missiles will force the Russians to put their depots even further away and worsen their logistics problems. >
  
  lets hope they use them where it hit hardest >
  
  in 9 months* >
  
  I am hoping the speed it up and can somehow use the element of surprise to wreck shit.  Theu first month of himars was insane before Russia learned to adjust. >
  
  Thank fuck >
  
  Why announce this? To give Russian chance to move important facilities out of range? Better to let Russia learn the hard way. >
  
  Either USA wants Russia to do exactly that and relieve the front lines or they really know that Russia wont do a thing about it.
  US politics can be a stupid shitshow, but their Military is something that will always deserve respect. >
  
  The US may be a joke, but boy do we have mighty fine military industrial complex and international spy network. >
  
  bought and paid for by The House of Saud >
  
  Fuck outta here with that nonsense. >
  
  Screw is tightening around Russian invaders in Ukraine.  Whereas Ukraine is receiving more lethal modern weapons, Russian have to do largely with older weapons from Soviet era unless they pull it from unit protecting different part of Russia. >
  
  It's a small guided glide bomb mounted on a rocket. We'll have to see if these can be as effective as HIMARS rockets have been. It's longer-ranged, but also slower, giving Russian air defenses more time to react. >
  
  Yes, please >
  
  Explosion looks like a bird Pokémon going on a rampage >
  
  90 miles isn't very long-range >
  
  My dude, that is a two hour drive. If I had to go that far to fuck your mother I’d definitely call it a long distance relationship. >
  
  Good one? Anyway, it's not even enough to reach into Crimea. >
  
  It won’t become WWIII. That’s just a Russian talking point to try and scare the West into pulling their support of Ukraine. >
  
  WW3 has begun we just don't know it yet. >
  
  Then we better get ready. >
  
  What happens if we give Ukraine tactical nukes? >
  
  It would either end the war OR nuclear war would erupt >
  
  We should have done this from the beginning, or at least when civilian areas and the power grid started being destroyed. That took things from an invasion to straight up murder. >
  
  The first casualty of war…is truth. Always wanted to slip that quote in somewhere. Doesn’t apply here…so…….sue me. >
  
  Yeah, how dare the Ukrainians defend themselves! They should politely roll over and die. >
  
  We as Americans paid TAXES to buy WEAPONs to defend OURSELF. Mybe Zelwynski should have done the same for Ukraine? >
  
  And these weapons defend you just fine. At the cost of zero lives too.