• 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.

0 points

Is Biden really trying to start WWIII before the election?

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

Presidents traditionally do better during war time

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Do it

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Why wouldn’t Biden allow it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Kind of annoyed people here still haven’t made the connection that NATO doesn’t want to support an offensive war because that would cost money and the entire MIC would not be making tech for profit. Hence why most tech given to Ukraine has been 90s surplus.

Nukes don’t really mean anything even to Putin. Unless Moscow is under direct invasion, MAD will keep even the most insane at bay.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

It’s not like we haven’t already seen Ukrainians strike across the border. But the attacks have been expensive, exhaustive, and done little to curb subsequent Russian advances.

I guess Americans want us to unleash our double super secret Win Every Time war machines to finally beat Putler Once And Forever. Perhaps we’re coming to terms with the reality of modern warfare relative to the hype.

permalink
report
parent
reply

They could have… you know …done it 2 years ago. Maybe that would have been a little more helpful.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

Escalations escalate. And Europeans (nevermind Saudis, Africans, or East Asians) aren’t at all interested in Total War.

“Maybe we should have just nuked Moscow on day one” is the sort of thing you only get to say when you can fall back on a save file if you don’t like the results.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

As an American, and therefore a potential target, this is a risk I am willing to take. I think Putin is better at talking shit than actually carrying out his threats.

It’s tragic that this war is still going on. Putin needs to be stopped. Now.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

I think Putin is better at talking shit than actually carrying out his threats

Unless this post is coming from inside the Pentagon, I question it’s reliability.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

As an American, and therefore a potential target, this is a risk I am willing to take. I think Putin is better at talking shit than actually carrying out his threats.

Same.

Further, even if Putin is serious about carrying out his threats, when do we stop capitulating? If Russia had Ukraine, then invaded Latvia? Then? After Russia rolls into Warsaw? Then? How about with Russian troops in Munich? Then? How about Anchorage?

If Putin is willing to attack when his other invasion of a sovereign country is threatened then the time to push back is RIGHT NOW when a free and sovereign Ukraine is still the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

when do we stop capitulating? If Russia had Ukraine, then invaded Latvia? Then? After Russia rolls into Warsaw? Then? How about with Russian troops in Munich? Then? How about Anchorage?

There’s a great British comedy skit describing exactly this scenario that someone on here recently introduced me to. Short watch.

Salami tactics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

If Russia had Ukraine, then invaded Latvia?

Rolling tanks across a flat plain is easier than rolling them up a mountain.

Might as well ask "Why keeps Switzerland safe if Belgium is taken?

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

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

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

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 7.5K

    Posts

  • 81K

    Comments