this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
451 points (96.7% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2703 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • US officials are considering letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons, The New York Times reports.
  • Ukraine says it's necessary to fight cross-border attacks. 
  • But fears of crossing Russia's red lines have long made the US hesitate.

The US has barred Ukraine from striking targets in Russian territory with its arsenal of US weapons.

But that may be about to change. The New York Times on Thursday reported that US officials were debating rolling back the rule, which Ukraine has argued severely hampers its ability to defend itself.

The proposed U-turn came after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine and directed them at Kharkiv, the Times reported, noting that Ukraine would be able to use only non-American drones to hit back.

The Times reported that the proposal was still being debated and had yet to be formally proposed to President Joe Biden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 93 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent 53 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The same reason most of NATO have been very hesitant and the like:

Supporting a defensive war is one thing. Supporting an offensive war, against a nuclear power that threatens to nuke people on days ending in 'y', is another. And while it is incredibly unlikely that putin would actually attack anyone (since they can't even handle a Ukraine with one arm tied behind its back), it will still lead to political turmoil as people insist the world is about to end.

But now? This is a REAL good way to distract people from the other, much less defensive, war that we are financing.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I never understand this logic. The war is still defensive regardless where the targets are.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent 16 points 3 months ago

That is the same kind of mess that made the no fly zone so untenable.

But to the eyes of a public who are not sure if they are more afraid of World War 3 or Iraq War 3? Having that line of "We are only helping Ukraine to defend themselves, not to escalate this war" "works".

And if it sounds like we don't actually care about the Ukrainian people and just view them as a tool to keep Russia busy?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

How is it an offensive war if they're still fighting on Ukrainian soil? I haven't seen anyone propose invading Russia itself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

And while it is incredibly unlikely that putin would actually attack anyone

I think it is highly likely that if NATO ordered an airstrike out of Finland or Estonia or Turkyie, Russia would retaliate into a US/UK/French military base with equivalent force.

If NATO put tanks into Latvia and sent them across the border, I have no doubt Russia would send matched forces with the intention of pushing back into Latvia.

And because Russia is closer to Latvia, Estonia, Turkyie, and Finland than the US, that gives them a decive advantage.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

First you have to have nukes that work and that is debatable. Second, if they send a single nuke, they'll be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes.

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

...but so will the a large part of the US

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

Russia, or possibly China and North Korea.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Come on, no chance. Russia likely doesn't have any that work, China won't nuke us, and North Korea?????? Rofl. They'd blow themselves up before they get one to us.