this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
87 points (94.8% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2647 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
 

President Biden has refused to allow Ukraine to use long-range Western missiles on Russian military targets, but he appears to be wavering.

A deadly uptick of Russian guided glide bombs slamming into Ukrainian cities — as many as 800 in a single week this summer — has injected new urgency into a long-running debate over whether Ukraine should be allowed to launch missiles supplied by the West at military targets deep in Russian territory.

Amid signs that President Biden is wavering, the issue will be on the table when he meets in Washington on Friday with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, after the two leaders dispatched their top diplomats to Kyiv on Wednesday to hear out the latest pleas from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Ukraine has for months asked to use Western long-range weapons to attack more of the military sites that Russia uses to launch missiles and house the warplanes that drop the large, free-fall glide bombs that are wreaking havoc on Ukrainian forces and cities.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

On the one hand: yes. Fuck Russia, they initiated this conflict, and retaliation against your aggressors should be at least proportional if not moreso.

On the other hand: I have a lot of trepidation about escalations of conflict. WWIII feels very possible with the current instability between Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, and every increase in violence edges us closer. I don't think we're at the same risk level as we were at the height of the cold war, but we're close.

The question is how do we minimize loss of life while maximizing justice. The first consideration is objective, the second is subjective. I don't have a good answer, and I don't know how allowing Ukraine to show full force will impact either. War sucks

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

And that’s precisely the sort of logic that Putin is incredibly good at taking advantage of.

Appeasement harms far more people in the long run.

Sometimes, decisive - and yes, violent - action is genuinely the best option in the larger geopolitical context.

The lead-up to the invasion of Poland before WW2 is a highly appropriate context to use as a comparison - if Chamberlain had been able to successfully rally the UK’s allies (including the US) and convince them to forcibly oppose the Anschluss, the whole goddamn war might not have even happened as it did in history. Of course, the possibility of Stalin becoming the Big Bad of that conflict as a result instead of Hitler (vacuum of power and all that) can’t be dismissed, but at the same time, that’s all hypothetical, and similar logic could have been applied to that potential conflict as well. I am, of course, taking a HUGE amount of creative and historical liberty - there are tons of reasons why things unfolded as they did, and why what I’m saying here was deeply unlikely, if not outright impossible at the time… but still, thought experiments like this can be useful to consider sometimes.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

have you lived under the rock for the last month? ukrainians rolled through russian border and along the way erased all russian red lines

[–] rammer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

Ukrainian plan of only striking military targets inside Russia is in my opinion enough.

Russia will use Electronic Warfare that will probably cause civilian deaths. But you have to contrast this with the Russian practice of hitting civilian targets on purpose. Like the recent hit on a children's hospital.

Realistically allowing Ukraine to hit listed Russian military targets will not cripple Russia. But it will IMHO push them towards real negotiations.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is the only elaborated comment here. It's not even any kind of a strong opinion, but still enough to get several dislikes. Probably most of them politics professors, historians, diplomats and military experts.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you. Lemmy is a very unique kind of echo chamber, and I often seem to say things that aren't exactly the "right" opinion.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Sometimes dislikes are equal to uncomfortable truth.