reuters.com
www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden’s administration will allow Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, three sources familiar with the matter said, in a significant change to Washington’s policy in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Ukraine plans to conduct its first long-range attacks in the coming days, the sources said, without revealing details due to operational security concerns.

The move by the United States two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20 follows months of requests by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to allow Ukraine’s military to use U.S. weapons to hit Russian military targets far from its border.

The change follows Russia’s deployment of North Korean ground troops to supplement its own forces, a development that has caused alarm in Washington and Kyiv.

The first deep strikes are likely to be carried out using ATACMS rockets, which have a range of up to 190 miles (306 km), according to the sources.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    132·
    1 month ago

    The civil war in Ukraine started in 2014 after a violent coup sponsored by the west. Meanwhile, you can stop lying because Stoltenberg already let the cat out of the bag. NATO was in Ukraine since 2014

    The other thing I will say is that the war didn’t start in February last year. The war started in 2014. And since 2014, NATO Allies have provided support to Ukraine, with training, with equipment, so the Ukrainian Armed Forces were much stronger in 2022, than they were in 2020, and 2014. And of course, that made a huge difference when President Putin decided to attack Ukraine.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_211698.htm

    and the war started because NATO insisted on expanding into Ukraine

    He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

    time to update your script and get some new talking points

    • caboose2006@lemmy.ca
      47·
      1 month ago

      Oh you mean after Russia invaded Crimea? And even if NATO was “in Ukraine” like you say, that’s no reason to go to war. Russia has a nuclear deterrent. It doesn’t need a buffer state. This isn’t the 1890s.

      Countries have a right to self determination. So even if Ukraine was looking to join NATO, which it wasn’t, that is not a valid reason to invade your sovereign neighbor. The number one driver of NATO expansion is Russian aggression.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        122·
        1 month ago

        Russia has a nuclear deterrent. It doesn’t need a buffer state. This isn’t the 1890s.

        A nuclear tipped missile can hit Moscow from Ukraine in under 5 minutes clown. If you think Russia would ever allow that, you’re even dumber than I thought. We also know that the US would never allow anything like this either, hence why the Cuban missile crisis happened.

        Countries have a right to self determination.

        Self determination is a funny way to describe having your democratically elected government overthrown in a violent western backed coup.

        The number one driver of NATO expansion is Russian aggression.

        LMFAO

    • mistahbenny@lemmy.ml
      16·
      21 days ago

      Underwhelming and utterly dissapointing. First of all, that was a question of mine and not a statement that would imply a lie. Second of all, you’re full of crap. Ukraine was, is, and will be an independent and sovereign state that can choose what to do with it’s own future, on it’s own; if the ukrainians wants to join UE or NATO, so be it. Besides an agreement that never existed on paper and Stoltenberg’s „cat“, there aren’t any substantial facts that would help your „narrow point of view“ and the stupid propaganda that it’s trying to spread: Ukraine had changed it’s constitution that would define it’s political orientation towards UE and NATO 5 years after Russia invaded it’s territories (in 2019/in late February of 2014), or there hadn’t been any official court/investigation, not even russian I believe, that would confirm/state that whatever happened in Ukraine was a „civil war“. Also, didn’t Russia try to join NATO in the early 00’s? Why make an enemy of it now, nothing much has changed since then.

      Should’ve added mic drops after „time to update your script and get some new talking points“, smh…