- 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.
Do it
Why wouldn’t Biden allow it?
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.
I never understand this logic. The war is still defensive regardless where the targets are.
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?
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.
How is it an offensive war if they’re still fighting on Ukrainian soil? I haven’t seen anyone propose invading Russia itself.
Two words: Nuclear War
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.
…but so will the a large part of the US
From who?
Russia, or possibly China and North Korea.
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.
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.
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.
He’s already changing borders in the Baltics. If anyone thinks he’s stopping with Ukraine they’re an imbecile. After the Baltics are strategically surrounded, Georgia will be next. The northeast border of the Black Sea will be his next major fortification against NATO, all the way from Romania to Turkey.
Fortification against NATO? If NATO wanted to attack Russia they would do it now. Prigozhin was able to march in Moscow with something NATO might sneeze out and forget about.
Kremlin propaganda says that Putin is invading Ukraine as a defensive measure, and that’s horse shit. It’s a war of brutal and barbaric conquest against a peaceful country.
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 Slicing Tactics are actually a very real thing.
It’s basically what Russia and China have been doing for decades
That is very very good, and depressingly accurate. The only difference today is that the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s pushed back the border to Russia farther away from Europe. However the inclusion of the Baltic countries pushed it slightly closer, and then Russia pushed it closer from their side by invading Crimea then Luhansk and Donetsk. Then Russian pushed again invading Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv. Then NATO moved closer with the induction of Finland and Sweden. So we’re nearly back to the situation in that video skit.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Punishing attackers makes future attack less likely. I’m an American and I’m all for allowing Ukraine to actually HURT Russia, but I don’t actually think that would make the world more dangerous.
I think striking attackers where they are vulnerable makes peace more likely, not less.
Also when you give someone a gift it’s not yours any more. It’s now their thing. Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and retaliation is the only workable defense against something like military action since straight up blocking attacks with a huge wall or the like isn’t feasible.
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.
Why are we less concerned about provoking Putin than we are about provoking Netanyahu?
Well yeah, only half our politicians work for Putin, but 100% work for Netanyahu.
Putin is already irritated at us and there’s no advantage to preventing further irritation short of actually engaging in direct combat with NATO forces, and a general principle of not letting others control your escalation (We want to control when US weapons are used against Russia because it impacts our diplomatic stance, even if Ukraine is the one firing them).
There is advantage to us for Ukraine winning, particularly if it’s with our weapons and support. It reassures our allies, it drives interest in closer alliances with us, and generally reinforces the “aligning with the US brings trade, wealth, safety and protection” message we like to use to spread influence. See also: Finland and Sweden.Israel on the other hand is a historical ally in a region of significance and contested influence.
Israel’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians is unacceptable. Full stop.
From a political standpoint, the actions Hamas took that precipitated the current military campaign make it difficult to condemn the response without undermining the message that US allies get US support when they’re attacked. It’s why all the wording and messaging gets so verbose: how do you say “of course you can defend yourself and we’ll help” while also saying “maybe not the big guns, and stop with the civilian killings”.
If the region weren’t contested, weren’t important, we had significantly moreallies in the area, and it wasn’t important for domestic political reasons, it would be a different story.Thank you for providing some nuance. Ugh, this situation is so complicated. I do wonder, however, how much it’s worth that we have such strong values surrounding the way we support our allies if we are willing to countenance the evil things they do and still call them allies.
I’m unfortunately not sure how much of it’s “values” and how much is “utility”.
People have values, nations don’t. Nations only exemplify their national values because the citizens will be outraged if they’re breached too far. Otherwise a nations foreign policy is better looked at through a lens of detached utilitarianism.Usually our value of “supporting our friends” and the self image of being the hero (I think WW2 was America’s highschool football) lines up nicely with the utility it provides.
We get a lot of advantages out of our allies, not least of which is fat piles of sweet, sweet trade goods. We would never precondition military training exercises, intelligence sharing or sensitive service export regulation exemptions on getting a favorable trade deal on mangoes, but we do tend to reserve those things for our close allies, and trade agreements are a very efficient way to develop those bonds.
Waterway access lets us send our navy everywhere which massively reduces piracy, to the benefit of all, but to our benefit the most, as the leading consumer of oceanic transport goods.
A military base will get you very strong support, and furthers our security interests of global force projection.Israel is very useful to us. The give us a naval port in the Mediterranean, military staging areas, and a regional toehold that would otherwise be significantly weaker. We also, again, get a lot of trade value from their medical supplies and electronics, and we get to sell them a lot of services.
Combined with the previously mentioned points about signaling strong resolve and unwavering support if you’ve earned it, it would be very costly for us to abandon Israel.It’s why our politicians with constituents who care about human rights are trying very hard to walk the tightrope of supporting Israel against Hamas while opposing killing civilians. (The messaging is not going well).
The Palestinians, unfortunately, do not possess strategic value. Their “value” comes from internal political pressure to not allow or support evil, which is tempered by the opposing political view being to make the evil worse, which explains a relatively subdued response.With goods, sales, power, influence and PR worth tens of billions one one side, and internal political pressure towards an ethical stance that might endanger some fraction of that value on the other, it’s a question of how much value we stand to loose by listening to that pressure, and exactly how strong that pressure is.
Ding ding ding on all points but - it’s not ‘the end of history’ anymore, definitely not after 9/11 and GWOT.
There are headwinds coming for US and western leadership, and the unlimited ‘bear hug’ support for
BibiIsrael has America standing alone at the UN, a global hypocrite in the “rules based international order” whilst pointing the finger at Russia and Ukraine, or China and the11109 dash line/Taiwan/Senkaku Islands/etc…The global south is turning against western leadership; South Africa’s dogged case at the ICC, the French getting ejected from their peacekeeping missions in multiple former colonies, India is sending assassins to run hits on US and Canadian soil, OPEC expansion, that nut in Argentina… There’s growing rejection of the Pax Americana and/or Bretton Woods, and not in same bipolar competition like in the Cold War
Oh, totally. Don’t disagree with anything you said. 😊
To be clear, I was just trying to illustrate “how nations choose to act” and a bit of the context of “why Ukraine and not Palestine?”.
Location and advertising reliability as an ally are just the easiest to convey, but there are of course so many different things that go into everything a nation as big as the US does.
The state department has tens of thousands of workers, before you even get to the “boring” parts of what the CIA does to get them the data (analyzing public shipping records mostly) they need to make those policies and agreements. Any attempt to summarize the considerations of those people will have to cut some content.
Utility is when an action or tool moves you closer to what you value.
They aren’t opposites; they’re two components of the same mechanism.
“values” in this context was being used in the ethical or cultural sense not the economic sense.
“Equality” and “justice” are American Values, and “clear shipping routes” are something with utility. “Ideals” would have also worked for “American values”.
Lemmy users don’t understand nuance. “Israel bad” is all they understand.
That’s not what I was saying at all. I was legitimately asking the question. I hadn’t considered the foreign policy implications of Israel being an ally.
It’s good that you are willing to acknowledge that. A lot of people on here truly reject the concept that the situation is more complicated than “stop supporting Israel”. People are quick to spout that without thinking about the knock-on effects.
There are even people on here who are outright in support of Hamas, an oppressive Islamist group that has a far worse human rights record than Israel.
A lot of
peopleanonymous accounts on here truly reject the concept that the situation is more complicated than “stop supporting Israel”.
Why the hell are we concerned with Putin’s feelings on the subject?
I’m sure it also enrages him that we’re helping Ukraine at all, so what’s the point?
In fact, we should be going out of our way to purposefully piss him off.
He’s 71 and possibly has cancer, inducing a coronary might be the quickest way to get this war over with.The europeans are very worried about the war crossing countries. For the Americans it’s easier to say that because war is not at your door.
I don’t have a clear view of what’s better, but obviously we can’t let Russia win that war in the sense of conquering Ukraine.
I suppose at the end it will calm, and it will be more like a South Corea / North Corea cold war.obviously we can’t let Russia win that war
What does Russian victory look like at this point? I’ve heard folks insist anything less than NATO troops in Crimea constitutes a Russian win.
My opinion is that Russia will keep a part of Ukraine, and there will be a tacit stop of the war. Noone says they won, noone surrender, a little bit like North and South Corea. Maybe Russia says internally that they have finished the nazis so the special operation is finished (so they ‘win’ officially to their people) but that they can’t leave Ukraine or they will come back.
Noone says they won, noone surrender, a little bit like North and South Corea.
The Korean War ended with an enormous defeat by western military forces. I could conceivably see a situation in which the Russians overextend, provoke a reprisal by - idk, Poland or Romania - and get run back to the Donbas. But in that event, I don’t know if NAFO meme-teams are satisfied. When this war started, you had dudes cheering for bombs across Moscow and troops pouring up into Georgia and down through Finland.
I’m not sure who signs the peace deal with Russia when these are the expectations. It really does feel like westerners see Russians the same way Israelis see Palestinians.
I do not wish for the death of the Russian people. I wish for the removal, by any means necessary, of their authoritarian government who is seeking to expand their control into previously peaceful and unaligned nations.
It isn’t just “bomb all the ruskies and call it a day”, the majority of the Russian populace is a victim here as much as anyone else. I wish for a better life for them and for us all. But a few eggs will need to break to make that omelette.
Hard to swallow pills: Putin dying is not a positive outcome for the world - yet. There’s no groomed successor or lieutenant in the wings, when he leaves the scene it will be knives out inside the Kremlin (and outside it), which will lead to a fractured Moscow with Balkanization of the fringes like Georgia and Chechnya, or an even more brutal dictator, likely coming from the military sphere rather than civil.
There is no moderate off-ramp for Russia currently, and after Prigozin nobody in Russia is going to be permitted to collect power that can even think of challenging Putin.
None of what you said makes me think the situation would be worse than having Putin in charge. It’s a stretch to say Putin came from the civil sphere, and he assassinates his enemies in foreign countries using nerve agents and throws people out of windows at home.
Putin took the civilian route and “won elections” before the leapfrogging the presidency with Medevev and eventual solidification of his autocracy. He is a dictator in autocrats’ dress, faux elections and rivals aplenty, but not a general or warlord. Accordingly he insulates himself from meaningful challenge, which (like Xi and the CCP’s leadership) requires culling anyone competent immediately below you, or keeping them distracted with intra-competition for favor instead of seeking the top role.
A crumbling Muscovy regime, a fractured society with war fatigue, an arsenal of nuclear weapons that are scattered in Russia and in client states like Belarus, an ocean of conventional arms and equipment, Russia set up in a war economy, and then add a power vacuum are NOT positives for Ukraine, Europe, or the world.
During the fall of the Soviet Union, there were a lot of CIA agents and friends running around trying to secure and round up those nukes, lest they enter the black market or the local warlord/strongman decides “that’s OURS now” and another nuclear actor is on the chessboard.
Though the deconfliction hotlines are broken, non-proliferation treaties not renewed, and hypersonics changing the viability of ‘first-strike’ strategy, Russia still is a known actor. Someone like Prigozin is not, and that’s my point. Putin will play ‘the game’ of great power competition. A blowhard populist with an insecure power base and multiple rivals has a very different incentive structure, and may do the unthinkable if it means solidifying their hold on power.
Yeah but he’s not launching nuclear weapons. It can be a lot worse.
Do it already!
“The US is thinking about…”
This means literally nothing. This is not news. This is a trash headline for a trash article.
It’s turns out to be a soft launch of a real policy fairly often.
It’s scouting public or opinion and/or fabricating consent. Nothing new
Well the fact that it includes the words “enrages Putin” in the title actually means that they think it matters a lot to get ahead of it and get people to think it’s a bad idea to support Ukraine.
They let Israel do it. What’s stopping them from… not caring that Ukraine does it too?
I assume you mean that we let Israel strike Palestine? Yes, that’s been true, but neither Hamas, nor the Palestinian Authority, or any other Palistinian group, have nuclear capabilities. That’s the concern with Russia, that they will respond with a tactical nuclear strike, or worse. Whether that fear is founded or not is a different question, of course.
Which would be the most elaborate suicide of the 21st century. If Putin drops a nuke somewhere the remaining lifespan of himself and his nation will be measured in minutes, as all of NATO and the west no longer have a potential worst option to avoid. At this point we just have to hope he understands that. I hope nobody loses a city because of it.
Pretty sure the UK has given green light to use its weapons on Russian soil. Macron keeps the option open to deploy French troops. US weapons are approved for use against unarmed civilians in Palestine.
🤷♀️
Putin’s red lines mean nothing, fuck him and his broke-ass country.
Putin has demonstrated a willingness to lie about when and where he will order the Russian army to attack.
As far as I’m concerned, that means he doesn’t get a voice at the table any more.
So I agree: fuck his red lines.
They could have… you know …done it 2 years ago. Maybe that would have been a little more helpful.
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.
Well, whatever they can do to news away from their support for Israel’s genocide. Even if it means the decimation of your entire continent. Sorry, collateral damage. We’re talking about covering up our own involvement in war crimes. A few froofy Europeans are well worth it. Your deaths will not be in vain. Capitalism will thrive, don’t you worry.
The UK openly said Ukraine could use British-supplied weapons on Russian territory a few weeks ago. We’re much closer to the Russian heartlands and have a much less scary military than America, but Russia hasn’t done shit about it
So does this mean we’re blaming the gun manufacturers if their weapons are used inappropriately? (Honestly don’t know whether to put a /s or not)
As long as you only use the gun as armor, to stop incoming bullets, it’s all good.
No firing the gun though.
Fuck puthead. Hes been asking for a while now
Putin can Crimea fucking river, stop bombing Ukraine and you won’t have to worry about it!
Fuck Putin. Send Ukraine the big shit and let them end the war and put Putin’s bullshit to an end.
Russia has nukes. We can’t do that
Can’t get nuked if it’s a hypothetical and you’re on a keyboard!
You know, somebody in Ukraine is bound to be taking volunteers if you’re all so committed to taking down Putin. (Not you OP)
Actually, we can and should. Here’s why…
Russia’s nukes are mostly 40 year old warheads on 50 year old delivery systems. These systems have been maintained by notorious black market scalpers who have somehow managed to sell massive amounts of valuable rocket fuels, nav computers and other unique parts on the black market over the last several decades. We can be sure the launch, guidance and detonation failure rates would be extremely high. High enough that, even without intervention, a long-range attack is very unlikely to be successful.
Now, factor in the decades of aggressive research and spending the west has focused on mitigating nuclear threats, with a high focus on Russian systems. While it’s always best to avoid the attempt if possible, Russia has almost zero chance of posing a serious threat to the west. The threat to Ukraine, however, is a bit higher as they may (smartly) choose very simple delivery methods instead of what we would be able to defend against. But, that still requires a ton to go right and could cause the U.S. or the EU to become aggressive. Putin will do almost anything to avoid that outcome.
So, the smart money on expediting the end to this war and minimizing casualties is to have a policy to almost always call Putin’s bluff. He has a very weak hand and has shown it to pretty much everyone at the table.
1% success rate * 5,580
Still more nukes than I want to deal with today. Nobody off of Lemmy/Reddit seriously suggests this.
Y’all are gonna get us all killed.
Nah, it’s part of the game, he’s just sending a healthy message that western governments also have their share of deluded drunken idiot medvedev equivalents, so only start nuking if you’re sure you have absolutely nothing to lose, because that’s what you’re going to end up with.
Robert Frost’s Fire and Ice but it’s about whether chuds will end the world through overt jingoism and aggression or libs though a lack of self-awareness of how jingoistic they are combined with intentionally deluding themselves about the state of the world.
Fucking Americans. Fucking post-communist Russia too (which is also America’s fault). We coulda had an enemy properly terrified of a nuclear exchange and committed to peaceful coexistence but noooo, we gotta open up those markets and now the omnicidal liberals want to risk destroying the world rather than give up a bit of land none of them could find on a map three years ago. Liberals are functionally indistinguishable from someone screaming “Blood for the blood god! Skulls for his skull throne!” except they know how to be all polite about it. A kinder, gentler global thermonuclear war.
Thank God the capitalists who rule this country don’t give a shit what their supporters think or all humanity would be dead in a week. Sure they’re bringing about the climate change apocalypse but at least that’s more delayed than a nuclear apocalypse and I guess that’s where the bar is these days.
Sorry I’m low-key drunkposting rn so I’m telling the truth more directly than usual.
If authoritarian dictators can do whatever they want via nuclear blackmail, we’re already all doomed anyway
The world will be split into two camps: countries with nukes or otherwise under some sort of nuclear umbrella, and countries who are desperately rapidly developing a nuclear program, the third group who doesn’t have nukes and isn’t rushing to develop them will have already been annexed by the first group
Indeed.
Iraq (no nukes) - armies flattened and US-installed government running the show.
North Korea (nukes) - stern finger-wagging by Democrats and angry rhetoric followed by hand jobs from Trump.
Pakistan (got nukes violating treaties) - serious frowning by US until we needed them for our pointless “war on terror” in Afghanistan, then all was forgiven and forgotten.
Iran (desperately seeking nukes) - agreed to stop their efforts for a hot minute until Trump rolled the deal back, showing that US is an unreliable partner and not to be trusted.
Overall the message is clear: get nukes as fast as you can and you’ll be safe to torture and oppress your people. The west in general and the US in particular doesn’t have any real efforts to stop you (although watch your opsec and don’t use Israeli USB sticks you find lying around…).
What we have here are people convincing themselves that nuclear war is either not a possibility at all, or a tolerable outcome. That’s a incredibly dangerous and delusional perspective.
There is a middle ground between “letting nuclear armed countries do whatever they want” and “completely disregarding any and all risks of escalation.” The entire postwar order of the past 70 years has been grounded on that. If those lunatics ever get anywhere near the levers of power, then they will provoke nuclear war, maybe not with this specifically (maybe), but if they’re taking that kind of cavalier and deluded approach in general, then it’s only a matter of time.
If you go all-in every hand, you will eventually bust.
Russia also doesn’t and hasn’t had the money to maintain them.
I don’t think this particular policy would result in a nuclear war, but “they haven’t maintained their nuclear weapons” doesn’t sound to me like a good enough argument to not risk a nuclear exchange.
Even one successful weapon exploding would be catastrophic.
So did Ukraine until they gave them up at our behest because we promised we’d intervene if Russia were to invade them.
