this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
161 points (94.0% liked)

News

23361 readers
3207 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
 

Summary

The US’s approval for Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles, capable of striking targets nearly 200 miles away, marks a significant escalation in Ukraine’s ability to retaliate against Russian aggression.

The move, coming after intense lobbying by Kyiv, allows Ukraine to target Russian positions with more precision and destruction than prior weapons.

Russia has condemned the decision as a provocation risking world war.

Analysts suggest the policy shift, reportedly limited to Russia’s Kursk region, aligns with U.S. efforts to support Ukraine without triggering broader conflict.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 68 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Russia brought another country in to fight. Full stop. Theatrics.

And I think it’s likely. And it’s their fault.

Edit: We lose too, btw. Head in the clouds, cocks in our hands, and then everyone is going to wonder why the power went out and the taps went dry on day one.

I swear half the US wants it because they think they’ll wipe the floor gg and go back to drinking.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 50 points 4 days ago (2 children)

For any of this to lead to "world war" one of two things has to happen:

  1. The US directly enters the war on the side of Ukraine - If this didn't happen at any point in the last two years, it's not suddenly going to happen now. And it's not more likely to happen because the US "provokes" Russia, so it's irrelevant anyway.

  2. Russia directly attacks a NATO country - Why would Russia ever do this? They can't even defeat a NATO aligned independent nation. How the fuck would they ever have a hope in hell of defeating all of NATO? In what possible way would they benefit from escalating the war?

Russia claiming that American "provocations" will lead to world war is meaningless because the reality is that for them to be "provoked" into starting a war they would have to be provoked into voluntarily deleting their entire country.

No matter how badly this hypothetical world war 3 goes for anyone else, even if - no, especially if - it becomes a total nuclear war, the one guarantee is that Russia loses. And they lose hard. Putin's best case scenario here is great he Hitler's himself in a bunker in a few years and that's if he's lucky.

So unless Putin and every single person in his orbit have joined a suicide cult and are already cooking up a big old bowl of spicy Kool-Aid, there is no reason whatsoever to take these claims seriously.

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

Serious question:

What about China and Xi Jinping? North Korea has already thrown they're very flimsy and small hat into the ring...barely, but they did send troops.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What about them? Suppose China sends 100,000 troops to Ukraine? How does that expand the conflict in any way?

This is the problem with people just buying this Russian line about America "escalating" the conflict. Increasing the scale or intensity of the conflict in Ukraine has zero bearing on its scope. China entering the war doesn't force America, or any other NATO country, to suddenly become involved.

It doesn't matter if China sends a million troops. Ten million. At the end of the day the conflict is still between Ukraine, Russia, and Russia's co-beligerants. Even if Ukraine somehow ended up invading China, this still doesn't directly involvre NATO in the war.

The only thing that can possibly involve NATO is either NATO choosing to get directly involved, or some opposing party directly attacking NATO. And none of those opposing parties have anything to gain by attacking NATO. So why would they?

[–] A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the detailed answer, appreciate it!

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Sorry if I seem like I'm getting a little bent out of shape about this stuff. It frustrates me because Russian propaganda in this area has been far, far more successful than it has any right to be. It's extremely easy to see through once you sit back and examine the basic mechanics of the situation, but I understand that that's difficult to do when being faced with something as terrifying as the threat of a global conflict.