257
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Summary

President Biden recently authorized Ukraine to use longer-range U.S. missiles to strike inside Russia, marking a small but overdue escalation in the conflict.

This decision aims to disrupt Russia’s military operations and bolster Ukraine’s position, especially with the potential Trump administration favoring pro-Russian policies.

Russia’s retaliatory missile strike on Ukraine, though deadly, represents more of the same tactics.

Analysts argue Biden’s earlier caution was excessive, and calling Russia’s nuclear bluffs is strategically necessary to counter further extortion.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 63 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Biden isn't escalating the war, he is slow-walking the aid. Too much to die, too little to live, as the Ukrainians say. If you give Russia 9 months to pull critical assests out of range and only allow strikes deep into Russia after a whole nother nations enters the war on the side of Russia, you can't frame that as escalatory, no matter how much Putin bitches and moans.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Hmmm. My idea of the process is a little different. Embedded CIA reports to the DOD on daily to and fro of the war. What the Ukrainians needed yesterday isn't necessarily what they will need tomorrow. Wars evolve. The DOD takes this information and projects future needs leading to a budget recommendation to Congress. Congress creates a budget bill and passes it. Johnson sitting on that bill, BTW, put Ukraine behind the 8 ball. Biden uses that allocation to buy weapons per the DOD recommendations. Rules placed on weapons use, such as not using US missiles on Russian ground, are meant to stop escalation into NATO entering into the conflict. In fact when that rule ochanged there was an escalation, but not involving NATO, yet.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

I think it's pretty clearly the goal of NATO to keep Russia stuck in a prolonged war in Ukraine, which it's been very successful so far.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

The right thing, done far too late.

[-] ygurin@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

Triggering WWIII with other nuclear powers is the right thing to do?

It gets easier by the day to manufacture consent

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

And enabling authoritarian regimes to do what they want is the right thing to do? Fuck you.

[-] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

You consistently have the most brain dead takes on Lemmy, bravo

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Because I won't contribute to your echo chamber?

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

TIL triggering ww3 is when you don't allow one nation to invade and conquer another.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NastyNative@mander.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

This decision is leading to another 90K NK troops and possible Yemen might send troops as well. The perpetual agitation of escalation cant be anymore clear. Yeah Russia deserves this but in no way is this not escalation.

[-] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago

Ukraine is defending themselves. Russia is the one escalating and has been since the invasion.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Well that’s a shit opinion not supported by foreign policy experts. And the US puppet government he’s running in Ukraine is largely made up of Nazis.

[-] Lemmywings@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 months ago

It's way too late. Unless we are pro-war now it would've been better to make a peace plan before the other guy is in office.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 14 points 2 months ago

The only peace plan is the Ukraine disposing Putin.

[-] Lemmywings@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 months ago

Which will only happen if we have WW3. Let's be honest.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 11 points 2 months ago

I'm actually pretty doubtful that Russia still has much of a nuclear capacity. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is very expensive, and the Russian oligarchs have been embezzling massive amounts of money from the military.

They've had to resort to asking NK for help, so I don't think they have a good chance of winning the current conflict, much less an actual NATO power.

[-] Lemmywings@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 months ago

It takes 26 minutes and 40 seconds for a ballistic missile to get from a launchpad in Russia to the East Coast of the United States.

[-] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Cool then you don't have too much time to worry.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

How long does it take to get the missile, payload, and fuel to the launchpad?

[-] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago
[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The trouble with that is that the Soviets had such a large arsenal that even if only a vanishingly small fraction of it still works, it's still ruining someone's day. An ICBM with a dodgy guidance system or leaky fuel tank still hits a populated area even if it misses a city. An H-bomb that misfires is still an A-bomb, and an A-bomb that misfires is still a dirty bomb. It's plausible that NATO could win a nuclear war against Russia without even firing back just from Russia embarrassing itself and giving an excuse for a conventional war they'd also lose, but that's a huge gamble that no one wants to make, especially when winning is still worse than the status quo.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Russia isn't starting WW3, because there's literally no possible way for them to survive doing that.

They can't even beat Ukraine in a straight fight, and they know it. They are woefully ill equipped to take on all of NATO.

No matter how much damage they could potentially do if they tried, the ending is guaranteed; Russia and its current leadership do not exist.

The Russian leadership are vain, greedy, and power hungry, and the thing about those traits is they make you very, very averse to personal risk. They're not going to take any action that puts them in the firing line.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
257 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19830 readers
3296 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS