159
US signals that it has expanded policy to allow Ukraine to counterstrike into Russia
(edition.cnn.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
159 points (97.6% liked)
World News
32283 readers
722 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So those drone strikes on Moscow and mortar hits on Belgorod were not "counter strikes into Russia"?
Those weren't done with us made/designed weapons, so in the context of this... no they don't count.
Idk if you read the article but this is specifically about US provided weaponry
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Charlie Dietz said in a statement that the US “has agreed to allow Ukraine to fire US-provided weapons into Russia across where Russian forces are coming to attempt to take Ukrainian territory.”
And then there's the burning of the recruitment offices... no, wait, that was average Russians lol
Also, the ridiculous notion that they shouldn't when they are obviously need to push Russians back into their own country and keep the line there.
US congressmen and the executive office should have nothing to do with military operations and decisions what so ever, because they are a bunch of slack jawed yokels.
Shout outs to the Iraq war. Gotta be one of my favourite useless power vacuums for petro companies.
Good. You don't get to invade another country and expect that they won't hit back. I wish Russia a very getting the fuck out of the country they don't belong in.
Hope this gets applied to the USA too.
Not sure if you live in a timeline where 9/11 hasn't happened lol
I remember the good ol' days when the Ukraine/Russia war was absolutely not a proxy war between the USA and Russia. 
de_cache gameplay irl
We're already seeing a meltdown from US regarding Russia creating a military alliance with DPRK. Can't wait to see how US will react once Russia start supplying advanced weaponry to Iran, Syria, and Yemen to be used used against US assets in the region.
The US would love that, as it can counterstrike in those places with far less risk/complications
US navy certainly doesn't sound pleased with the having its ass kicked by Yemen https://apnews.com/article/us-navy-yemen-houthis-israel-war-7a9997f9d84ac669fae69ecf819913fb
Ass kicked?, considering they have to act in a limited way currently, but if Russia ramps up it's involvement you get this:
Or
Edit: to be clear here, I'm not stanning for the us military, I'm suggesting the US mic would LOVE to openly contest Russian interests and are certainly itching for the opportunity. Ukraine is not that place, but Syria can be.
Edit edit the linked article doesn't show an ass kicking, it shows a contested navel space, which it sounds like is going "just fine", but is risky. And obviously insanely expensive.
Ass kicked?
Yes, ass kicked because US navy failed to accomplish its primary mission which was to keep the waterway open for the empire.
According to London-based shipping services company Clarksons, the number of container ships at the mouth of the Red Sea en route to or from the Suez Canal decreased by 90% in the first week of January 2024 compared to the same period the previous year.
https://www.worldwideerc.org/news/mobility/turmoil-in-the-middle-east-and-its-impact-on-shipping
Edit edit the linked article doesn’t show an ass kicking, it shows a contested navel space, which it sounds like is going “just fine”, but is risky. And obviously insanely expensive.
A contested naval space between US navy and a country that doesn't have a navy. 😂
“It is every single day, every single watch, and some of our ships have been out here for seven-plus months doing that,” said Capt. David Wroe, the commodore overseeing the guided missile destroyers.
“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. … If you let it fester, the Houthis are going to get to be a much more capable, competent, experienced force.”
US also spent over a billion dollars trying to attack Yemen with nothing to show for it https://en.royanews.tv/news/52092/2024-06-15
Ass kicked implies lost lives, lost vessels, lost territory of operation. The ships are still there, they are just busy.
It's nothing new and nothing about the houthis or the us navy that makes mobile land launched missiles and drones a competent challenge to ships at sea.
The normal follow up would be to fuck off or start blasting the whole coast. The fact that we are seeing a third option is interesting.
No, ass kicking implies being defeated in what you set out to do which was to protect shipping. US navy failed to do its mission. It was defeated by Yemen. Blasting the whole coast was precisely what US tried to do at the start with the air strikes, and that achieved nothing. Furthermore, it's pretty clear that US lacks the industrial capacity and supply chains to maintain this for much longer.
No, blasting the coast is desert storm levels of obliteration, anything less is as I said earlier "one arm behind back".
Military Ships are still there, commercial ships are still traveling there.
Edit there's lots to disagree on rationally, but the depth of the US mic is not anywhere close to being tapped, by ability.
No, blasting the coast is desert storm levels of obliteration, anything less is as I said earlier “one arm behind back”.
US doesn't have this capability kiddo.
Military Ships are still there, commercial ships are still traveling there.
What part of commercial traffic having dropped by 90% are you struggling with there?
Edit there’s lots to disagree on rationally, but the depth of the US mic is not anywhere close to being tapped, by ability.
you keep on coping
Hah ad hominems after you dodged half my original points. Cya!
When you definitely know what ad hominem means, also nobody dodged any of your "points". I addressed them repeatedly, but I guess lacking basic reading comprehension you had trouble understanding what I wrote.
"kiddo"
🥱
Confusing insults with ad hominem is a common mistake that individuals with low intellectual capacity make.
No, you weren't just insulting me, you were trying to devalue my presence in the discussion by painting me a child, in turn diluting my position.
That's classic ad hominem because the insult was tied to the possible value of the argument.
Now you're just insulting me, and still not addressing my argument / position / points.
You're slap fighting all on your own now, as I won't engage in that edit by calling you things back.
Pro tip. If you don't want people to call you a child then don't act like one.
What would that achieve? What's the military strategy? Just petty tit for tat?
Russia uses airfields, staging grounds, installations outside of Ukraine for their attacks since they're relatively safe because of these limits imposed on the provided weapons.
Just petty tit for tat?
As opposed to a strategy that allows one nation to attack another knowing no effective response is possible you mean.
You choose to belittle the idea a nation should expect consequences when they try to seize another nation as petty tit for tat. Rather then a fair response.
Okay but you're just arguing that the tit for tat is fair. Okay, now what? Ukraine hasn't a hope in hell of winning this war. This is all just a face saving attempt for US and NATO.
Bollocks. The Ukraine has every hope of convincing Russia to leave its soil. If it has the support of other nations.
Having those nations allow the Ukraine to use weapons supplied in a way that forces Russia to actually spend resources defending its own inferstructure is the first step to lowering there ability to push everything they have into another nation.
The Ukraine has done a fantastic job of limiting the ability of Russia to over run its nation. While being limited in its ability to respond to the attacker. Forcing Russia to defend its ow borders will make a huge difference in the Ukraine ability to remove Russia fro mits own borders.
It's not tit-for-that to allow them to better fight against their invader. It was a weird restriction to begin with
Ridiculous that it wasn't allowed before.
About 3 years too late.
me and most of the developing world have mixed feelings about the war in ukraine. at the very least it's white people's problems. at the limit we're pissed by the west trying to rally us behind a country that stopped black people from leaving when the invasion came and that is receiving many times the amount of help that many of us have received during catastrophes, against a country that, wicked as it can be, never really messed with our internal affairs.
that being said, this is war and russia cannot complain that it didn't knew what was coming. deal with it (spoiler: they will).
wicked as it can be, never really messed with our internal affairs.
When you realize Ukraine is the reason Russia hasn't come for other countries, it'll make more sense.
I get that you're apparently in a nation you classify as developing. The same label can be applied to America in 1200ad or Ukraine/Gaza in 2025 -- in all cases, no ability to prevent colonizers from taking the land if they choose.
Unchecked, we're all at risk. Just, developing countries are at risk of facing a war even more outbalanced than the belligerent invasion of Ukraine or Gaza.