Summary
The US’s approval for Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles, capable of striking targets nearly 200 miles away, marks a significant escalation in Ukraine’s ability to retaliate against Russian aggression.
The move, coming after intense lobbying by Kyiv, allows Ukraine to target Russian positions with more precision and destruction than prior weapons.
Russia has condemned the decision as a provocation risking world war.
Analysts suggest the policy shift, reportedly limited to Russia’s Kursk region, aligns with U.S. efforts to support Ukraine without triggering broader conflict.
What about them? Suppose China sends 100,000 troops to Ukraine? How does that expand the conflict in any way?
This is the problem with people just buying this Russian line about America “escalating” the conflict. Increasing the scale or intensity of the conflict in Ukraine has zero bearing on its scope. China entering the war doesn’t force America, or any other NATO country, to suddenly become involved.
It doesn’t matter if China sends a million troops. Ten million. At the end of the day the conflict is still between Ukraine, Russia, and Russia’s co-beligerants. Even if Ukraine somehow ended up invading China, this still doesn’t directly involvre NATO in the war.
The only thing that can possibly involve NATO is either NATO choosing to get directly involved, or some opposing party directly attacking NATO. And none of those opposing parties have anything to gain by attacking NATO. So why would they?
Thanks for the detailed answer, appreciate it!
Sorry if I seem like I’m getting a little bent out of shape about this stuff. It frustrates me because Russian propaganda in this area has been far, far more successful than it has any right to be. It’s extremely easy to see through once you sit back and examine the basic mechanics of the situation, but I understand that that’s difficult to do when being faced with something as terrifying as the threat of a global conflict.