Of course they do. That's what happens when you invade someone, the someone you invade also hits back at you.
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
305 points (96.9% liked)
Interesting Global News
2578 readers
257 users here now
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
- [email protected] - News and information from Europe.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In fact this is basically the only way for the war to end. By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.
Russia is just lucky the land is tied down or the farmers would have towed it back home...
load more comments
(7 replies)
Every war is weird it's own way, but that thing is probably unprecedented. How can a war-torn country fight having one hand strapped to the back with a country having 4x it's population and resources? And still managing to resist after 2,5 to 10 years of warfare? Imagine that in fiction and you'd call it unbelievable.
That analogy is faulty. It's undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.
Could soviets used the lendlease arms on nazi germany in ww2? There is no question, there is a bunch of appeasing countries and Ukraine which is fighting for its right to exist.
Slow down. I merely clarified the matter being discussed. You might have a clear opinion on that matter, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a dilemma without a simple answer.
Also note that the US was attacked and got directly involved in the war mere months after the lend-lease act was signed. That is what NATO is trying to avoid. The difference is that the Nazis did not have nukes and were already fighting a two-front war, so they had little power or incentive to escalate.
They were attacked by a nation that was going to attack them anyways. The history of pre-war / WW2 Japan made confrontation inevitable. This isn't "a dilemma". It's sacrificing human lives of a defending country because of simple inaction. The war escalated when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022. Russia started the war in 2014 by seizing sovereign territory. They weren't holding back. They aren't avoiding balistic missiles. They get their shit from their allies.
So if you want a dilemma, here it is - do we give up every country that doesn't have nukes to nuclear powers? Because that's what is being advocated for by tying their hands.
What analogy? I didn't draw any direct comparison, I think. Was there one?
Arms are given to Ukraine with every state dictating how they should not be used, with Ukraine being autonomous in their decision-making – as it sounds, they consult other countries, but decide things themselves. To my brief knowledge of past wars it was usually a 'use how you want' deal or a direct involvement and control from other party with boots on the ground, both don't fit this exact situation. And it becomes even more unique since there are not one party, but a lot of them, all citing their own conditions on exact shipments, adding even more confusion to the situation.
I want to highlight the fact it's one of the first very public case of countries donating weapons with such policies limiting their usage against enemy troops.
The odds almost always favor the defender.
Technically, yes, the offensive does consume like 3x of what is needed for defense the same position, but it works right only if that's a war of equals. Ukraine was and is underpowered on it's own, and even with the stuff other countries donated. Them gaining an edge in the warzone in the last years often involved either technological trickery or great insights and tactics using their limited resources.
One other thing that breaks that rule and makes this change in the narrative significant - is that russians could deploy their bombers, fuel, supply centers near the border, thinking they can't get effecrively hit, that giving them a big boost whatever they do, and if this handicap gets denied, they'd have a harder time supplying another operation from further away.
But was this ever a question? The problem was if they can use "gifted" weaponry for this purpose.
By international law they can use weapons supplied by other nations even for long range strikes into Russia yes, to my knowledge it's just a gentleman's agreement that they follow the terms of the nation supplying them. Not really a point of contention though as it would be idiotic to violate those terms at risk of not being supplied anymore.
The only point of contention is whether supplying nations should decide to allow strikes into Russia with their equipment because Russia continues to threaten that it would see that as an act of war from the supplying nation. So legally nothing wrong with it but you have to weigh that decision with possibility of starting World War III or a nuclear apocalypse.
Right, like I said. So no news.
I’d say we’re about to enter the cool zone, but I feel like we’ve been here for a while. Guess we’re entering the cool zone’s cool zone.
Very unlikely. There was a possibility early on that Putin would decide to go out with a fiery bang of glory, but time passed and nothing happened. He might threaten use of nukes, but won't actually use them for fear of retaliation. The whole fucking point of nuclear weapons was deterrence until the brain-dead US decided to actually use them. One can hope the world learned their lesson.
There was a possibility early on that Putin would decide to go out with a fiery bang of glory,
When? That sounds like a very silly assessment
When he was hiding in a bunker from his own people.
Why are you presenting it as a fact when the article says
Movements of planes used by top Kremlin officials show Putin may be in a hideaway near Surgut in western Siberia, it is claimed.
Also "it is claimed" by the Ukrainian side. Do you have any Russian sources to corroborate this?
I stated my opinion and linked to the article that supports that assertion. If Russia was unhappy with that "claim" they could have refuted it by a simple image or video, which they didn't do.
Do you have any Russian sources to corroborate this?
Lack of refuting from Russia is confirmation of that being the case in my eyes. If you need a detailed response from Russia's spokesperson, then there isn't one.
I'm sorry, but I've seen a lack of refutation on your part that you have sex with couches, which is confirmation of that being the case in my eyes
linked to the article that supports that assertion
It doesn't support that assertion at all. It's highly speculative based on flight movements and a lack of response from russia lol
Also if you take lack of response from the other side as a confirmation, then oh boy have you checked what the RT and TASS are saying about the war?
You're silly
load more comments
(1 replies)
The US: This is the most important election of your entire life and if you vote wrong there will never be another election
Also the US: ensures there will never be another election anywhere by starting world war 3
Also the US: ensures there will never be another election anywhere by starting world war 3
Russia pressed the WW3 button almost 3 years ago. We're just taking our time getting to the party.
*NATO *10 years ago
this has been one reeeeeally fucking long week.
view more: next ›