White House officials said the president’s reversal, a major policy shift, extended only to what they characterized as acts of self-defense so that Ukraine could protect Kharkiv, its second-largest city.
  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    507·
    6 months ago

    The permission from Mr. Biden is intended solely for Ukraine to strike military sites in Russia being used to attack the Kharkiv area, U.S. officials said.

    kinda hard to not see this as a proxy war with russia with verbiage like this

    • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      473·
      6 months ago

      I mean, it is. A years long war of attrition instead of full on boots on the ground is great business for everyone except Ukraine.

      • clearedtoland@lemmy.worldEnglish
        392·
        6 months ago

        Between this and Israel, the American military industrial complex is well fed and well employed. “More war” they say

      • Hegar@kbin.social
        185·
        6 months ago

        Obviously there’s a proxy war between russia and the west in ukraine, but I don’t think the US wants a long attritional war.

        They could have done more to not end up in one, but I think escalation management really is driving a lot of decisions in washington.

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          31·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, they probably told the Russians they were going to greenlight the Ukrainians way before they told the Ukrainians.

          Which is tooth grindingly frustrating, but I can’t fault Biden for his efforts to avoid nuclear exchange.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    183·
    6 months ago

    Well, that’s going to force Russia to do more damage faster with less discrimination.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Mr. Biden’s decision appears to mark the first time that an American president has authorized limited military attacks on artillery, missile bases and command centers inside the borders of a nuclear-armed adversary.

    White House officials insisted, however, that the authorization extended only to what they characterized as acts of self-defense, so that Ukraine could protect Kharkiv, its second-largest city, and the surrounding areas in the northeast from relentless fire from missiles, glide bombs and artillery shells from just over the border.

    But The New York Times revealed last week that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken had come back from a sobering trip to Kyiv and privately told the president that his 27-month-long ban against shooting American weapons into Russian territory was now placing parts of Ukraine in peril.

    So had American allies: Britain weeks ago allowed Ukraine to use its Storm Shadow long-range missile systems for attacks anywhere in Russia, and France and Germany recently took the same position.

    Mr. Biden deflected those requests for months, concerned that using American weapons could escalate the conflict — and put the United States into a direct confrontation with Russia.

    The permission from Mr. Biden is intended solely for Ukraine to strike military sites in Russia being used to attack the Kharkiv area, U.S. officials said.

    The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • ian
      3012·
      6 months ago

      You like it better when just the Ukrainians are dying?

        • AntY@lemmy.world
          2214·
          6 months ago

          That’s true, but you hardly blame any one else than the Russian government for this three-day special military operation that’s now in its third year. Allowing Ukraine to defend itself is just the right thing to do.

          • lltnskyc@monero.town
            1423·
            6 months ago

            Allowing Ukraine to defend itself is just the right thing to do.

            Sure, supporting authoritarian government that forces desperate people trapped in Ukraine to die for their interest and political games is the right thing to do.

            It is easy to support a genocide when it is not you and not your family that are getting massacred by Zelensky.

            • Triasha@lemmy.world
              149·
              6 months ago

              The balls on this guy. I bet you blame the Palestinians for the bombing of Raffa.

              You would blame World War II on the Polish.

              • lltnskyc@monero.town
                1210·
                6 months ago

                I bet you blame the Palestinians for the bombing of Raffa.

                Well, you’ve just lost your bet. I condemn both the genocide of Palestinians (done by the USA through Israel), and the genocide of Ukrainians (done again mostly by the USA through Ukrainian government. Damn, those guys really do like massacring people all around the globe :/, almost like they are the bad guys, hm…).

                You would blame World War II on the Polish.

                Nope, I don’t, good thing you didn’t make a bet on it, otherwise you’d lose two bets in a row.
                But I do blame Poland for participating in massacring Ukrainians though. In fact, Poland is among the worst offenders! It helps “heroes” of Ukrainian border guard to catch those who try to escape Zelensky’s meatgrinder, who then get sent straight to the meatgrinder… For that reason, people mostly escape to Romania. Thankfully, Romania is not as sadistic as the rest of the democratic & free world.

          • Metal Martin@lemmy.myserv.one
            1123·
            6 months ago

            I don’t disagree that Nations should be able to defend themselves. I have major issues with the US trying to dominate the world through violence and the weaponization of the Federal Reserve Note. This whole war, in my opinion is directly related to NATO expansion (which the US promised Gorbachev wouldn’t happen) How would the US react with Russian missiles on its border? If the Cuban missile crisis is any indication, rather harshly. Ukraine is being lead by an extremely corrupt Western puppet. I simply don’t believe Russia would have made a move against Ukraine if it had remained neutral. The 3 day operation was meant as a warning and a swift means to negotiations, not an attempted occupation. Foolish on Putin’s part cause it cost a lot of Russian lives.

            • AntY@lemmy.world
              1612·
              6 months ago

              This is just Russian propaganda. Ukraine weren’t even close to being considered for NATO membership when the special military intervention was announced. They’ve had a border conflict with Russia since 2014 and therefore they could not join NATO.

              Ukraine is defending itself. Zelenskyy said “I need bullets, not a ride” and the west simply helped Ukraine with what they actually needed. It’s completely reasonable that Ukraine can use western aid to strike military targets within Russia that threatens their sovereign territory.

              • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
                10·
                6 months ago

                Ukrainian forces were being trained and armed by NATO members for 8 years after euromaidan. It is ridiculous to believe that western powers were not trying to encircle Russia.

                Even if the war was not worth the cost in lives, it is absurd to believe that Russia attacked Ukraine for shits and giggles. Or even for resources (Russia has some of the world’s largest natural resource reserves), or land (largest country in the world), or people (Ukraine had a worse demographic problem than Russia, and the war has made things worse). The only thing they can plausibly gain is access to warm water ports (they already got that with crimea in 2014), and security against NATO.

              • Metal Martin@lemmy.myserv.one
                116·
                6 months ago

                I don’t think it’s Russian propaganda. We’re not going to agree, but that’s okay. I’m not quite ready for nuclear war. Let’s hope however this turns out, we’re around to discuss it. ✌️

            • pingveno@lemmy.mlEnglish
              64·
              6 months ago

              which the US promised Gorbachev wouldn’t happen

              According to Gorbachev himself, the US made no such promise. According to that interview, the commonly cited quote from Secretary of State James Baker, “NATO will not move one inch further east,” is taken wildly out of context. It was made during talks over the reunification of Germany:

              …making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.

              With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

              He also said this, without further elaboration:

              [Expanding NATO east] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.

              Here is where I think Gorbachev’s interview comes in for some legit criticism. I honest find this a bit perplexing. Putting severe limitations on NATO membership, knowing that many countries would want to join, was a big ask. The proper thing is to write that out in legal language, translated into Russian and English, and mutually agreed upon. This feels like the geopolitical version of empty “thoughts and prayers.”

      • Semperverus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        112·
        6 months ago

        It sounded like he meant russians. Ukrain has absolutely demolished a huge population from Russia.

        • Metal Martin@lemmy.myserv.one
          1311·
          6 months ago

          No, I mean everyone. I think it’s stupid to provoke nuclear war so a bunch of extremely wealthy Capitalists can make more money. Ukraine is an enormous money laundering operation. Ukraine doesn’t have the reinforcements to win. That’s the reality regardless of which “side” one chooses. I don’t care about either Russia or Ukraine. This a European issue. I agree with Trump on very few things. Leaving NATO is one of those things.

          • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
            44·
            6 months ago

            Putin has been slowly taking lands of strategic importance for over a decade. Taking Ukraine would give Russia total control of the Black sea and a significant geographic advatage in the region. NATO was formed specifically to prevent Russia from expanding and it is very much in US’s interest that Russia doesnt decide to take over Europe.

            Funny hearing your concern about money laundering as Putin and his cronies famously steal from state budgets and launder that money through various shell companies and even US real estate.

            https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

          • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
            710·
            6 months ago

            Defeating an attacker is provoking nuclear war? Get your head out of Putin’s asshole.