this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
309 points (98.4% liked)

News

23361 readers
3408 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 70 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Good news, but why did it take nearly three years?

The ATACMS, Patriots, F16, modern tanks should have been delivered in the first 12 months to strike russia when they were less organized.

[–] RustyShackleford 43 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What happened, is American aide to Ukraine is about to end in January, due to the Trump administration taking over. Plus, aide was likely waiting until the end of the American election system in hopes Democrats won, so less for the Republican side to complain about.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think the issue has been that Russia has stated that the US not having limits on the use of their supplied weapons would be seen as a US escalation of the war. And that becomes tricky because Ukraine is not a NATO country, but Russia drawing the US into the war would bring are NATO allies in as well potentially allowing WW3 (although for Trump it would be only WW2).

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 31 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That's meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn't actually do anything. The only way for the US to get "drawn into" the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can't win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nukes. The hesitation is always about who is unhinged enough to actually fire a nuke.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?

Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that's more favorable to them doesn't cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.

It's not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It's about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.

[–] copd@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Putin is old, if Putin has a health condition which significantly shortens his immediate life span we can all see him saying "fuck it" and press that button.

We just have to hope for some kind of takeover by younger ambitious dictators at that point to recognise they want to live and stop him

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You honestly think that every single person around Putin is ready to burn in nuclear fire for his sake?

[–] copd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No, that's the entire point of my second sentence.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Also remember that Russia has North Korea and China on its side (among others - the dictators Trump loves). Without nukes to kill everyone, that's a YEARS long war of attrition.

Also the idea of the US giving Ukraine weapons is to defend itself, so long range missiles for the sole purpose of striking the Russian interior could look to some like the US attacking Russia by proxy. And we don't want to be in a war, especially one that would surely become a World War. Trump is going to "end the war in a day" though so this discussion is really just moot anyway.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Russia has been claiming that they are functionally at war with all of NATO for the last two years. Did that result in all out nuclear war?

If not, why would this be any different?

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

nearly three years

Try 10 years

This whole shit show kicked off with Russia invading Crimea back in 2014 and it's been going on ever since.

Yes, it escalated in a big way a couple of years ago, but if someone were to, for example, invade Florida, we'd consider that to be the unquestionable start of a war, not 8 years later when they tried to move beyond Florida and attack the rest of the country.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

Agreed. I am Ukrainian. Family had to leave Donbas in 2014.

Yes, arming Ukraine in 2014 with ballistic missiles (among other things) and authorizing strikes deep into russian territory would have been not only the right thing to do, but also a key requirement of the Budapest memorandum.

My comment was more in the context of real weapon deliveries only starting since the full scale invasion.

I remember how the Germans put a big stink when Ukraine started using the Bayraktar drones in the line of contact in Donbas before the full scale invasion. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

Because Biden and the rest of the leadership are a bunch of Cold War fossil fucks.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 days ago

Because global politics and warfare is a bit more nuanced than “give them what they need to win” on day one.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

He needed it to be too late before doing too little.