nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com
  • credo@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    91·
    16 days ago

    I believe NYT makes you login, even on a gift link. Here is a TLDR:

    President Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russian and North Korean forces in Russia, a significant shift in U.S. policy. This decision comes in response to Russia’s introduction of North Korean troops into the conflict and their anticipated assault on Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region.

    The move reflects growing concerns over Ukraine’s ability to withstand simultaneous assaults while defending territory. The authorization aims to bolster Ukraine’s defense, target high-value military assets, and deter North Korean involvement. However, it has sparked debate among U.S. officials over escalation risks, as Russia might retaliate against the U.S. or its allies.

    President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to reduce U.S. support for Ukraine, is set to take office in two months, adding urgency to the decision. The Ukrainian strategy may include using captured Russian territory in Kursk as leverage in potential future negotiations. Meanwhile, the risk of Russian countermeasures remains a central concern for Biden’s administration and its allies.

    My take: I’ve been waiting on this since the US election. It’s sound strategy of we believe Putin won’t want to escalate with NATO before Trump takes office.

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    16 days ago

    The strategy isn’t help Ukraine win, right? It’s to rachet up the difficulty every mile Russia advances in order to drain them as much as possible…

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        15 days ago

        If the West wanted to minimise Ukrainian deaths then they could do something like draw clear lines in the sand so that Russia publicly knows at what points their continued action leads to Western escalation (defensive escalation). Surely that’s a clearer deterrent and would save Ukrainian lives. Instead we’ve got what looks like European bickering and prevarication and eventually somewhat reluctant support. So maybe that’s genuinely what’s going on. Or if it’s an act I’m sure it’s for well thought out psychological reasons. But as an act it seems to rather encourage Russia to keep pushing, because they hope Western support will falter. So if that’s all deliberate it seems more about draining Russia than helping Ukraine. (With hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives sacrificed in the process)