• 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@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “The US is thinking about…”

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

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s scouting public or opinion and/or fabricating consent. Nothing new

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • LemmyRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • LemmyRefugee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

          • Gsus4@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                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

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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.

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          There used to be a lot of problems with that back in December/January after the 0.19 release was being rolled out, but they managed to fix them eventually and I haven’t really had any issues for the past three months or so. Has your instance recently upgraded their software perhaps?

          • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            well the sync issues im talking about are quite specific use cases which you wouldnt encounter on the regular. See my post for reference. It’s about searching specific communities on difference instances from another instance. Then, only the communities with very little traffic will not be synced. I’ve no idea what my instance’s latest version is. Can a non-admin even check that?

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It should be at the bottom of the page. Looks like your instance is on version 0.19.3, which I believe is the most recent one.

              For any further questions, you should probably talk to your instance admin.

  • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re right and I hate it. Bullies will fuck with smaller kids all school year, but not the kid who has a gun at home. My country is just a nepo baby rich kid bully on the world stage.

          • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s not even close to what I said. I was saying that we don’t dare stand up to anybody who has nuclear weapons, meaning Israel and Russia. We don’t even dare give (conventional) weapons to Ukraine to take back what Russia stole from them solely because Russia has nukes. We will bully any other country as much as we want because they don’t have nukes though.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Kind of annoyed people here still haven’t made the connection that NATO doesn’t want to support an offensive war because that would cost money and the entire MIC would not be making tech for profit. Hence why most tech given to Ukraine has been 90s surplus.

    Nukes don’t really mean anything even to Putin. Unless Moscow is under direct invasion, MAD will keep even the most insane at bay.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not like we haven’t already seen Ukrainians strike across the border. But the attacks have been expensive, exhaustive, and done little to curb subsequent Russian advances.

      I guess Americans want us to unleash our double super secret Win Every Time war machines to finally beat Putler Once And Forever. Perhaps we’re coming to terms with the reality of modern warfare relative to the hype.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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
      0
      ·
      4 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.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 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?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.