Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States have lifted restrictions on the types of weapons that can be supplied to Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on May 26. (video)
The move clears the way for the EU to send its most powerful and long-range missiles to Kyiv that can strike targets deep inside Russian territory, something the allies have been reluctant to do for fears of escalating tensions with the Kremlin and possibly provoking a direct clash between Russia and Nato countries in Europe.
"There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine, not from the British, not from the French, not from us, not from the Americans either. This means that Ukraine can now also defend itself by attacking military positions in Russia, for example,” Merz said during an interview on German television. “It couldn’t do that until some time ago, and with very few exceptions, it didn’t do that until some time ago. Now it can. In jargon, we call this long-range fire, i.e., equipping Ukraine with weapons that attack military targets in the rear.”
The decision comes the day after Russia launched a devastating missile and drone barrage on Ukraine over the weekend of May 23-25 that largely targeted civilian targets in Kyiv and many other urban centres in Ukraine – amongst the largest attacks since the war started over three years ago.
…
The decision also clears the way for Germany to deliver its powerful Taurus cruise missiles that Kyiv had been asking for, but Berlin had so far been reluctant to supply. Merz didn’t mention the Taurus missiles by name during his interview, but has suggested that unlike former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, he was not against supplying Kyiv with the missile, which can hit Russian targets deep in the rear or could destroy the Kerch bridge connecting Russia to the Crimean peninsula.
I’m not being rude I was however pointing out that you were claiming something that was factually incorrect. The conservatives and labour have never suggested national service as a serious policy. So if you would like to provide some evidence for your claim that would be great.
You obviously lack self awareness and maybe social awareness too, so you may of not noticed the month long public back lash taking place when national service had been discussed by the Tories. It felt very real to many of us. As for labour, its a hunch and based in historical materialism, and an increased military propaganda. Large wars need soldiers, if the propaganda doesn’t work then national service will.
War isn’t for the working class, we have had no choice in the matter, and now with media spinning narratives we are manipulated into a pro war position to feed our tax’s and lives into the military industrial complex this will make the greedy few a little richer.
So I am anti war, murdering each other is a grim idea for me.
The Israel Palestine war, my stance is the workers on both sides need a revolt and to overthrow the elite in their society.
Russia also needs to revolt and overthrow their government.
These two ideas won’t happen though, as global superpowers won’t want to harm the statuesque where a global revolution could take place.
How the British media stokes war
Defence correspondents: the journalistic wing of the military?
Digital deployment: how social media can reshape modern military recruitment
Rearm now or face threat of global conflict, ex-army chief warns