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
    81·
    3 hours 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
      23·
      1 hour 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
        41·
        1 hour 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