The US is thinking about letting Ukraine use its weapons to strike Russia, even if it enrages Putin: report

  • 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.

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.

EarthlingHazard,

I can see your comment but I don’t belong to lemmy.world

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

That’s the whole point of Lemmy, isn’t it.

dysprosium,

well see my post I made. Apparently there can be sync issues that are quite apparent.

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

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,

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?

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

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.

dysprosium,

If it’s the latest version, then talking to instance admins wouldn’t be of any help, because every instance suffers from the same issue…

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

It might, because it could be configuration issue.

bfg9k,

Yeah dude I can see you from my l.w. account

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?

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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.

ShepherdPie,

How is it an offensive war if they’re still fighting on Ukrainian soil? I haven’t seen anyone propose invading Russia itself.

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.

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.

InternetUser2012,

Fuck Putin. Send Ukraine the big shit and let them end the war and put Putin’s bullshit to an end.

Brokenbutstrong,

Russia has nukes. We can’t do that

Burn_The_Right,

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.

Objection,

Y’all are gonna get us all killed.

Gsus4,
@Gsus4@mander.xyz avatar

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, (edited )

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,

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, (edited )

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.

trafficnab,

And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess

Appease thugs with nukes and proliferate nuclear weapons around the world adding dozens more dice to be cast every conflict, or call their bluff and risk them actually using them

Objection, (edited )

And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess

That’s not even remotely how poker works, at all (or geopolitics).

trafficnab,

It’s okay if you don’t understand the analogy

When everyone has nukes, all it takes is one country busting for us all to lose

Objection,

It’s okay if you don’t understand the analogy

Lmao. Let me just clear this up so you can stop pretending to know what you’re talking about about.

In poker, you don’t bust (that is, lose all your chips) unless you go all-in and lose. “If every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust” is not true at all, because plenty of hands don’t end in someone busting. Just because you lose a hand doesn’t mean you’re out of the game.

It’s pretty clear that you were confused about the meaning of “bust” in this context which is fine but being both wrong and condescending makes you less sympathetic. Although, not nearly as much as being in favor of recklessly risking global thermonuclear war does.

trafficnab,

Man this is your own analogy, do I really gotta explain it

If everyone is suddenly playing at the nuclear poker table, the chances of SOMEONE going all in each hand drastically increases, and if any one singular player goes bust, we ALL lose because the damn table explodes

Appeasement just kicks the can down the road (and makes things much worse in the future), it’s vital that we not make playing nuclear poker appealing by letting countries get away with shit even if they do have nukes

Objection,

Accept you were wrong after being unequivocally proven wrong challenge level: impossible.

trafficnab,

If you’re going to struggle this hard to follow along with expansions of your own analogies it would probably be best if you stopped using them, it’s just making it harder on everyone else

Objection,

God you’re prideful. If you won’t admit your mistakes then there’s no point in trying to convince you of anything because you obviously won’t listen, and there’s no value in hearing your perspective because it’s clearly unrefined.

Ironically, if you understood the fact that you could lose a poker hand without busting, maybe you could understand that you could concede this one tiny point and stay in the game. But I guess you only know how to escalate and double down. Rather Trumpian if you ask me.

trafficnab,

It’s okay, I forgive you, we all make mistakes sometimes, I’m sure you’ll have better luck next time you try to engage

Objection,

Well, you certainly do. I didn’t make any mistakes in this conversation, apart from engaging with you at all. You, otoh, said something demonstrably and objectively incorrect, and then proceeded to, what are we at, quadruple down on it?

iknowitwheniseeit,

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…).

CanadaPlus,

1% success rate * 5,580

Still more nukes than I want to deal with today. Nobody off of Lemmy/Reddit seriously suggests this.

InternetUser2012,

Russia also doesn’t and hasn’t had the money to maintain them.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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.

CanadaPlus,

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)

ShepherdPie,

So did Ukraine until they gave them up at our behest because we promised we’d intervene if Russia were to invade them.

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.

Milk_Sheikh, (edited )

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.

mindlesscrollyparrot,

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.

Milk_Sheikh, (edited )

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.

intensely_human,

Yeah but he’s not launching nuclear weapons. It can be a lot worse.

LemmyRefugee,

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,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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,

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,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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.

skulblaka,
@skulblaka@startrek.website avatar

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.

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.

PraiseTheSoup,

“The US is thinking about…”

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

Krauerking,

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.

CanadaPlus,

It’s turns out to be a soft launch of a real policy fairly often.

lorty,
@lorty@lemmy.ml avatar

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

mlg,
@mlg@lemmy.world avatar

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,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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.

trafficnab,

Ukraine has been slowly evolving into a 1980s era NATO army, while Russia has slowly been regressing into a 1960s Soviet one

tired_n_bored,

Late as fuck but better than nothing. The airfields used to deploy glide bomb launchers should be obliterated

phoneymouse,

You cannot tiptoe around dictators, you need to crush them

Fedizen,

sword missile his car, please

captain_aggravated,
@captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hell yeah give him the Ron Popeil treatment.

Are you tired of your life as an authoritarian dictator? We sure are! Introducing the Ronco laser guided AGM-114R9X Instant Ginsu. Watch as the patented steel blades cut through the roof of this SUV, and are still tomato slicing sharp. Makes your darks darker and your whites redder. Order now for your six Instant Ginsu blades and receive a 100 pound kinetic warhead absolutely free, you just pay shipping and handling. Call 1-800-382-5968. Sorry, no CODs.

Churbleyimyam,

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.

🤷‍♀️

EvilEyedPanda,

Putin can Crimea fucking river, stop bombing Ukraine and you won’t have to worry about it!

werefreeatlast,

We’re just waiting for memorial day 😄. Why do we call it memorial day if it wasn’t to remember something that happened that day. Am I right?

SkyezOpen,

Like they even need it anymore. They’ve hit an oil refinery or storage facility every other day for the past month with goddamn homemade kamikaze drones. A good chunk of them deep in Russia.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • fightinggames
  • All magazines
    •