- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why are we less concerned about provoking Putin than we are about provoking 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.
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.
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.
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.
Do it already!
