this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
190 points (98.0% liked)

World News

37300 readers
2016 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
 

German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck has said he regrets that the government led by Olaf Scholz did not allow Ukraine to deploy Western-supplied weapons to strike military targets in Russia sooner.

Source: Robert Habeck in an interview with Augsburger Allgemeine, as reported by European Pravda

Details: Habeck said that Ukraine should be allowed to do what it needs to prevent Russian attacks and protect the lives of civilians.

A ban on striking military targets in Russia means that more people might die, he explained.

"The permission currently covers a strictly localised area around Kharkiv. For self-defence, for protection. But it’s true that the decision we made could’ve been made earlier," Habeck said.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BombOmOm 44 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

There should never have been such a ban preventing Ukraine from defending themselves. Even if you believe it made sense, at the latest it should have been lifted the day we confirmed Russia was using Iranian weapons in Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It should have been lifted when it was clear it didn't work. I'm convinced that it was a negotiating position, designed to prevent Russia from escalating.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Either that, or it was a way to build a wide alliance to support Ukraine (with some countries being more eager and some more hesitant to help).

Regardless, it was a half measure and should be abandoned rather sooner than later.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wait, why?

I can maybe understand taking action against Iran on those grounds, but why would it matter with respect to Russia whether Russia is using Iranian-origin or Russian-origin or North Korean-origin or whatever weapons?

[–] BombOmOm 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

At that point Russia is using foreign weapons in a country they invaded. Therefore there is absolutely no reason left Ukraine should be banned from using foreign weapons against the country invading them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't think that the prohibition was put in place because people wanted to deter use of foreign weapons. If that had been the aim, I think that would have been a clearly-drawn red line well in advance. That'd need to be the case, for something to act as a deterrent; someone has to have a cause-and-effect put before them to make them think twice about doing something.

I think it was put in place because people wanted to limit the scope of the conflict so far as was possible. As long as Russia isn't exploiting it, the conflict can be kept out of some of the region.

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

Those 2 countries have conspicuous history