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.

  • LukácsFan1917@lemmy.mlEnglish
    23·
    4 hours ago

    It’s not a strawman you just again said that “of course” there’s a bunch of civilian massacres under investigation. You literally just made the same argument you said was a strawman a sentence ago. Show your sources so we can expose your total intellectual dependence on spoon feeding from the media of the US and its allies.

    The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) verified a total of 35,160 civilian casualties during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as of July 31, 2024. Of them, 23,640 people were reported to have been injured. However, OHCHR specified that the real numbers could be higher.

    I already know of this. First of all this statistic is of the total reports of civilian deaths on both sides in the war, this already shows you are terrible at reading. How am I supposed to expect you to treat anything else I show you seriously when you cannot even read your own material? You can’t chalk up every single civilian death reported in the conflict to Russia, that is completely idiotic.

    Second, they are taking Ukrainian government reports at face value. Prior to the war in Ukraine The Guardian and BBC and NYT all commented on how corrupt the Ukrainian state is, among the worst in the world.

    Third, the UN human rights commission is headed by an EU guy, and is overall an institution which is controlled by the US and never intervenes in US imperialism. The US openly mocks UN officials it has problems with, like with the Iraq war, and uses its clout to prevent Iranian, Russian and Venezuelan politicians from accessing the UN without being arrested. The UN’s total abdication of responsibility as an international human rights institution and subservient reliance on the US and its allies has been put on full display by a year of genocide in Gaza.

    https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/03/17/human-rights-ngo-hrw-amnesty-us-government/ Yes Amnesty has close ties to the White House. The global financial system, telecommunications, journalist and academia, it’s all very centralized with America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, and to some extent wealth petromonarchies’ main cities Riyadh, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi

    • shapesandstuff
      4·
      3 hours ago

      Righty, we’re playign a game of semantics not content. Got it.
      I wrote

      totally reasonable in his target choices?

      Any further specific claims came from you.

      Further:

      There’s of course a bunch of civilian massacres still under active investigation, plus a lot of varying numbers between UA officials and independent reports.

      me acknowledging the unclear nature of war-time reports.
      Again, the rest is you projecting a slightly different argument onto my words to give yourself an easier time filing me away as a “propaganda victim” or whatever.

      First of all this statistic is of the total reports of civilian deaths on both sides in the war, this already shows you are terrible at reading

      If I were to argue like you do, I’d now go off about how you claim ALL civilian casualties died at Ukrainian hands.
      I don’t do that though, instead I’d ask you to provide the detailed breakdown you seem to have you hands on.

      You seem to also have missed this:

      The figures exclude Crimea and Sevastopol due to the lack of corroborating information.

      Meaning, your alleged genocide is not in this dataset.

      And lastly, you’re still not providing literally anything of substance yourself. You only tactic is discredit any potential source and ignore the ones you don’t wanna engage with in advance so you can later claim “no that one doesn’t count, I already said it’s propaganda” while the only thing you’re currently leaning on is an opinion piece from a heavily biased borderline conspiracy rag.

      Either you engage with what I’m writing and work with the people you’re talking to, or you keep arguing in bad faith. If you pick the latter, feel free, go off king, i’m not interested.