They always should've been allowed to.
Does North Korea and China restrict Russia from 'striking inside Ukraine' with their weapons?
This is the counter-escalation rhetoric from the west, in response to new evidence of Russia using chemical weapons in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been striking hundreds of kilometers into Russia already, but with domestically made light prop planes turned into flying suicide bombs. Thats way wayyyy cheaper than a multi-million Taurus/StormShadow, but super vulnerable to air defense unlike said cruise missiles.
Allowing Ukraine to strike with supplied weapons could have a big effect on battlefield outcomes depending on how it’s applied. I think any hope of UKR air dominance is years away, but blunting Russia ability to muster and sortie glide/hypersonic attacks would be significant today. Crimea (and the Kerch bridge) is useless for now, ammo dumps and staging areas are too low value, and the naval forces are already being attritted and denied a use via sea drones.
It doesn't even need to be applied, saying it can happen and showing it once forces a massive logistical cost on Russia to protect itself by moving weak points further back, extending supply lines even more, or concentrating under any anti missile defences.
Yup, just like when HIMARS was feasting on Russian ammo dumps and AAA when initially introduced - but now at much further ranges
Why would you say that the Kerch bridge is useless for now? I'd think that cutting 50% of the supply lines into occupied territory would have a massive impact no matter when you did it.
Useless as an objective. They threw +2 StormShadows at it previously during the counteroffensive prelude, when retaking the land route to Crimea was the main thrust. Now it’ll frustrate local logistics, instead of cutting off resupply.
Curb stomping air bases or Russian MIC factories has a universal effect across the front.
Is this official though, or wishful thinking on the part of Cameron?
He's the foreign secretary. I'm pretty sure that makes him the person who's permission they'd need, unless the prime minister immediately overrules him
Fair enough. I'm just looking for some independent confirmation as this is pretty big news.
Yeah, does he have the authority to say this? Or is this just, like, his opinion, man?
Both. He just makes stuff up based on whatever random thing he's thinking about at the time, and our pathetic excuse for PM doesn't override him. Thus, official policy is made.
As soon as the initial Russia attack failed, invalidating the treaty where Ukraine agreed to deproliferate as long as Russia doesn't attack them, Ukraine should have acquired a handful of nuclear weapons.
That would've been nice, but I think reacquiring and maintaining them would've been very difficult.
Personally, I think Ukraine should have mined and set up other defenses around its border with Russia. I know it seems extreme, but considering the reality of what happened it only really makes sense from a practical perspective.
It's a shame they didn't, and now they're paying for it.
Next up is Taurus from Germany.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/