- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
There should have never been any restrictions to begin with.
the reasoning would have been sound with an enemy other than russia and a timeframe of a month or so. 3 fucking years was an act of cruelty that acted as a preview for the indifference to the horrors in Gaza
How exactly is the reasoning sound in another situation?
The reasoning in this case was that NATO backing of Ukraine could very easily have been seen as direct NATO involvement in an attack on Russia, and thus a justification for nukes to come out. By restricting the weapons given to things that could not be used in “an offensive campaign of retaliatory conquest” (i.e. short range weapons) Russia could not reasonably claim that NATO was doing anything other than helping Ukraine defend itself.
There are arguments to be made here that it was the wrong call to make, but the retort boils down to “russia can end the world” and its hard to argue against that. As the war has progressed over such a time frame, global attitudes towards the situation have strongly coalesced against the “NATO set this up to use their puppet to invade russia” line, as well as it becoming clear Russia won’t accept any end to this war except a military one. Accordingly, NATO feels comfortable with the point we’re at in the frog-boiling process and so the tools given to Ukraine are now ones that expand their options for achieving a military end to this conflict, which include strikes on viable targets in Russia itself.
So all that said, I feel pretty confident in saying the other commentator made that statement without a full appreciation for the situation, and searching for deep insight in their message might be a bit of a fools errand.
There is no legitimate reason to not allow Ukraine to fight a war with the weapons provided using all possible tactical and strategic options available to them. If the logic is “Russia can end the world” then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won’t stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
It is not hard to argue against not fighting an enemy because they are dangerous considering that by allowing them to gain more space unimpeded it only emboldens further conquest and increases the risk of nuclear war.
The risk of nuclear war really does exist. It’s easy to be an armchair general and call Russia’s bluff. I’m glad NATO’s leaders think with more nuance.
I do not deny the risk of nuclear war but that risk alone is not enough to justify complacency to tyrants. It’s easy to say NATO is making the right call when one is safely behind a computer screen and the front lines. The problem is NATO actively avoiding direct involvement will see those safeties you take for granted disappear sooner or later.
Okay, genuine question: what’s your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?
Okay, genuine question: what’s your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?
Not a very genuine question when the answer to it is in my initial response to you.
No, it’s a genuine question because it was unclear. Do you mean “allow Ukraine to use all possible tactical and strategic options available to them” is your solution?
Because if so like… Ukraine has been doing that. The restrictions on direct strikes on russian territory is only for weapons systems provided by NATO member countries, and importantly we haven’t been giving them weapons capable of doing that (except arguably HIMARS, it’s complicated) for a number of reasons (the desire to not entrust sensitive equipment to a force we necessarily do not have direct control over who then would take it into territory controlled by the nation NATO exists in opposition to is one of the big reasons). Ukraine has and has always had the ability to strike deep into russia proper using their own equipment, and (to an extent) they have been doing that for the entirety of the war.
There is a reason. Namely not wanting Ukraine to be able to win.
There is a reason. Namely not wanting Ukraine to be able to win.
Your argument is that NATO wants Ukraine to lose the war?
It’s the old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people issue”. If a nation gives Ukraine long range weapons, are they responsible if Ukraine uses them on long range targets? Russia would argue yes. Russia wants to use the threat of wider conflict to deter nations from helping Ukraine.
This assumes Russia needs facts to back up their rhetoric. They do not.
