The US is thinking about letting Ukraine use its weapons to strike Russia, even if it enrages Putin: report ( www.businessinsider.com )

  • 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.

zephyreks ,

As long as US officials restrict strikes to avoid Russian nuclear deterrence installations, I don't really see why this wasn't already permitted.

The key US policy consideration in the conflict should be to avoid nuclear escalation. Don't strike nuclear early warning radars, don't strike nuclear silos, and everything else should be fine.

dysprosium ,

can dbzer0 users comment here on lemmy.world?

improbablypoopingrn ,

Let's find out together

Leate_Wonceslace ,
@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Idk seems unlikely.

PraiseTheSoup ,

"The US is thinking about..."

This means literally nothing. This is not news. This is a trash headline for a trash article.

StaySquared ,

They let Israel do it. What's stopping them from... not caring that Ukraine does it too?

ZombieMantis ,
@ZombieMantis@lemmy.world avatar

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.

skulblaka ,
@skulblaka@startrek.website avatar

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.

MrVilliam ,

We're cool with Israel using our weaponry to do a genocide but we're on the fence about whether Ukraine can use our weaponry to take back the land that Russia invaded and stole?

We really fucked up when we decided to form societies larger than tribes, huh? We could've basically just had community gardens and leisure, and instead we chose this. If I were an alien, I would consider Earth a flyover shithole not worth visiting.

Skua ,

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

Chainweasel ,

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.

magnetosphere ,
@magnetosphere@fedia.io avatar

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 ,

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.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

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.

BackOnMyBS ,
@BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world avatar

What a dumb headline. "We're just thinking about it. We're also thinking about going to the beach on Sunday. 🫳🤜"

can ,

"felt cute, might delete later" vibes

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Putin might become "enraged"?
Oh no!
Anyway...

dharwin ,

Putin's red lines mean nothing, fuck him and his broke-ass country.

Ekybio ,
@Ekybio@lemmy.world avatar

Do it

AdamEatsAss ,

Why wouldn't Biden allow it?

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

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.

MxM111 ,
@MxM111@kbin.social avatar

I never understand this logic. The war is still defensive regardless where the targets are.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

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?

pete_the_cat ,

Two words: Nuclear War

InternetUser2012 ,

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.

pete_the_cat ,

...but so will the a large part of the US

InternetUser2012 ,

From who?

pete_the_cat ,

Russia, or possibly China and North Korea.

InternetUser2012 ,

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.

ilinamorato ,

Why are we less concerned about provoking Putin than we are about provoking Netanyahu?

Gigan ,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

Well yeah, only half our politicians work for Putin, but 100% work for Netanyahu.

ricecake ,

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.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The New York Times on Thursday reported that US officials are debating rolling back the rule, which Ukraine has argued severely hampers its ability to defend itself.

The apparent U-turn comes after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine and directed them at Kharkiv, according to the Times.

Analysts say the policy shift could hand Ukraine a crucial advantage in fighting Russia's attacks, using US weapons to strike troop gatherings and Russian planes that carry "glide bombs."

According to reports, Biden believes that Russia could hit back by launching an attack on the US or one of its allies, leading to a retaliatory spiral that could result in nuclear war.

But so far Russia has yet to respond to these moves with a massive escalatory attack, and analysts recently told BI that the Kremlin appears keen to avoid a direct war with NATO allies.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview with Reuters this week, criticized Western caution, saying that its support typically came about a year too late.

The original article contains 496 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •