On Wednesday, in Moldova, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken became the first administration official to publicly leave open the possibility that the Biden administration might “adapt and adjust” its stance about attacking inside Russia with American weapons, based on changing battlefield conditions.
“We’re always making determinations about what’s necessary to make sure that Ukraine can effectively continue to defend itself,” Mr.
Blinken said.
His statement was the latest amid a drumbeat of calls for a shift, from allies and from within Mr. Biden’s administration. Mr. Blinken, who returned from a sobering trip to Kyiv earlier this month, reported to the president that the Ukrainians might not be able to hold the territory between Kharkiv and the Russian border unless Mr. Biden reversed himself. That earlier warning was conveyed privately, in keeping with Mr. Biden’s deep aversion to letting debates among his inner circle leak out and create pressure on him to shift strategy.
The usually cautious outgoing leader of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, told The Economist in an interview published late last week that Ukraine’s losses of territory near Kharkiv could only be countered if Ukraine was free to take out artillery and missile launchers and command posts on the Russian side of the border.
“To deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves,” Mr. Stoltenberg said. On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany joined that chorus.
Britain already allows its weapons to be fired at military targets inside Russia.
.Here are the top political news stories for today.
@FederalistSophiePatriot2yrs2Y
This policy change is long overdue. Ukraine should be able to hit any military targets in Russia whether deep or just inside the border. Ukraine is in a fight for its very survival against a country that has committed thousands upon thousands of war crimes. Russia has destroyed dams and hit countless residential buildings, shopping centers, parks, hospitals, and schools.
Ukraine needs the ability to hit the source of these attacks and not wait for Russian troops and missiles to cross the border before engaging.
escalating is very dangerous. One can always justify defending oneself. It's quite another thing to strike deep into Russia. That becomes a potentially existential threat to Russia, which could result in the war escalating to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on pilling beyond the borders of the combatants to neighboring countries. And that, my friends, is how Wold War III starts.
As the famous Einstein quote goes, "'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
@MindRightsGreen2yrs2Y
This is absolutely terrifying. Biden, Blinken et al would rather risk starting WWIII with a nuclear-armed state rather than support a negotiated end to this war that the US helped provoke in the first place by pushing NATO to the border of Russia. We're in the hands of madmen.
@SoreDem0cr4tDemocrat2yrs2Y
Russia and Russian aggression alone is responsible for the growth of NATO. The idea that Ukraine, who was not even seeking NATO membership, was attacked because of US or NATO is completely ignorant of history and is in fact a talking point straight from Moscow.
The reunification of former Soviet states with Russia has been a long stated goal of Putin and that is the only reason for this war.
Apparently it's OK for Israel to use American armaments to pound defenseless Palestinians into dust. But letting Ukraine use American armaments against Russia is another matter. We hesitate only because Russia has nuclear arms. Getting lost in this geopolitical gamesmanship is the moral bankruptcy of doing this no matter where
@Pl4tformHaileyDemocrat2yrs2Y
There is logical inconsistency in the Biden position. He is apparently constrained by fear of nuclear war, but has told Russia that use of nuclear weapons (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine will cause the US to destroy the Russian military in Ukraine entirely. If anything is likely to trigger use of nukes against the US, it is a threat to eliminate the Russian military, leaving Russia defenseless.
@LizardZoeConstitution2yrs2Y
How is it morally acceptable for Russia to penetrate deep into sovereign Ukrainian territory to murder soldiers and civilians alike, but Ukraine is not allowed to strike Russian territory?
I realize the risk of escalation, but Russia started this war and bears full responsibility for any escalation arising therein.
The most important consideration is for both the US and Russia to adopt an (internal) No First Use policy for nuclear weapons.
@92VHLQ8Constitution2yrs2Y
There is no such thing as morality or rule of law in international relations. Never had been and never will be.
However Russia's actions are rational and in pursuit of her national security interests, namely preventing the expansion of NATO into Ukraine. It is completely reasonable why Russia is strongly opposed a NATO base in ukraine, especially considering that NATO has exhibited an extremely aggressive foreign policy over the last 30 years.
Quite frankly there was no justifiable reason to keep NATO around after the end of the Cold war, and the US's irresponsible decision to continu… Read more
@WorldlyC1v1cNo Labels2yrs2Y
The risks here definitely outweigh any possible gains. The U.S. president’s primary concern should be the security of the people who live in the United States. This move would make the United States more involved in this disastrous war and make Americans—and the rest of the world—far less safe.
Better to help start moving Ukraine to the negotiating table—before it’s too late.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
