this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
452 points (96.5% liked)

World News

38529 readers
2018 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • US officials are considering letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons, The New York Times reports.
  • Ukraine says it's necessary to fight cross-border attacks. 
  • But fears of crossing Russia's red lines have long made the US hesitate.

The US has barred Ukraine from striking targets in Russian territory with its arsenal of US weapons.

But that may be about to change. The New York Times on Thursday reported that US officials were debating rolling back the rule, which Ukraine has argued severely hampers its ability to defend itself.

The proposed U-turn came after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine and directed them at Kharkiv, the Times reported, noting that Ukraine would be able to use only non-American drones to hit back.

The Times reported that the proposal was still being debated and had yet to be formally proposed to President Joe Biden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Why are we less concerned about provoking Putin than we are about provoking Netanyahu?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Putin is already irritated at us and there's no advantage to preventing further irritation short of actually engaging in direct combat with NATO forces, and a general principle of not letting others control your escalation (We want to control when US weapons are used against Russia because it impacts our diplomatic stance, even if Ukraine is the one firing them).
There is advantage to us for Ukraine winning, particularly if it's with our weapons and support. It reassures our allies, it drives interest in closer alliances with us, and generally reinforces the "aligning with the US brings trade, wealth, safety and protection" message we like to use to spread influence. See also: Finland and Sweden.

Israel on the other hand is a historical ally in a region of significance and contested influence.
Israel's genocidal actions against the Palestinians is unacceptable. Full stop.
From a political standpoint, the actions Hamas took that precipitated the current military campaign make it difficult to condemn the response without undermining the message that US allies get US support when they're attacked. It's why all the wording and messaging gets so verbose: how do you say "of course you can defend yourself and we'll help" while also saying "maybe not the big guns, and stop with the civilian killings".
If the region weren't contested, weren't important, we had significantly moreallies in the area, and it wasn't important for domestic political reasons, it would be a different story.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lemmy users don't understand nuance. "Israel bad" is all they understand.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not what I was saying at all. I was legitimately asking the question. I hadn't considered the foreign policy implications of Israel being an ally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's good that you are willing to acknowledge that. A lot of people on here truly reject the concept that the situation is more complicated than "stop supporting Israel". People are quick to spout that without thinking about the knock-on effects.

There are even people on here who are outright in support of Hamas, an oppressive Islamist group that has a far worse human rights record than Israel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

A lot of ~~people~~ anonymous accounts on here truly reject the concept that the situation is more complicated than "stop supporting Israel".

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)