this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
598 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2509 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ukraine wants permission from the west to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to destroy targets deep inside Russia, believing this could force Moscow into negotiating an end to the fighting.

Senior figures in Kyiv have suggested that using the Anglo-French weapons in a “demonstration attack” will show the Kremlin that military sites near the capital itself could be vulnerable to direct strikes.

The thinking, according to a senior government official, is that Russia will consider negotiating only if it believes Ukraine had the ability “to threaten Moscow and St Petersburg”. This is a high-risk strategy, however, and does not so far have the support of the US.

Ukraine has been lobbying for months to be allowed to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia, but with little success. Nevertheless, as its army struggles on the eastern front, there is a growing belief that its best hope lies in counter-attack.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 124 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Do it now, ask forgiveness later. It’s the American way.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I assume the risk is if they do strike without approval, the critical support they're receiving could end

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nah, more like chewed out. 🤠

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I can't believe you've done this

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And nukes is a risk too, perhaps

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s Israel’s playbook and it works literally every time

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Israel doesn't even ask for forgiveness.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

"Ukraine has the right to defend itself"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

They never do anything wrong so of course they never need too...

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Might be the American way, but it's mainly Europe that will take the heat in an all out war against Russia.

Also, how does it end? Anyone really thinks Putin will surrender after 3-4 missiles hit Moscow? Come on.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago

The message wouldn't be to Putin directly. It would be to those both in his power base, or capable of disrupting it.

The goal would be to push Russians to the point they deal with Putin internally, and/or put putin in a position where he needs to end the war to stabilise his own position. It's all about making the right people feel the effects.

Oh, and as a European, I think the risk is acceptable. If Putin struck at a NATO country, the results would likely be swift and short. The only unknown would be Russian nukes, and even those are far more of an unknown than most people think.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

An all out war is unlikely, since if NATO involvement was going to kick that off it would have done so by now.
The next point of escalation that could start something bigger would be stuff like NATO openly sending troops or actively providing fire support.

US hesitation to allow our hardware to be used for this type of attack is much more to do with the political issues surrounding the war being framed as a proxy war instead of defensive support.
The electorates support for "saving the day" and "superior US hardware helping keep a country free" is high. Support for a protracted and complex proxy war without clear right and wrong sides is exhausting and hits too many Iraq/Afghanistan buttons for people to care.

Asking for and publicly being denied permission to bomb targets adjacent to the capitol does just as well at communicating "we can bomb your capitol" as actually doing it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Who would miss the kremlin anyway?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I know it’s ludicrous to need to ask for permission. I’m sure they won’t get it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Do you think they would continue being funded and given the equipment if they don't?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Just ask Cambodia