• 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.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

        • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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?

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.