• US officials are considering letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons, The New York Times reports.
  • Ukraine says it’s necessary to fight cross-border attacks.
  • But fears of crossing Russia’s red lines have long made the US hesitate.

The US has barred Ukraine from striking targets in Russian territory with its arsenal of US weapons.

But that may be about to change. The New York Times on Thursday reported that US officials were debating rolling back the rule, which Ukraine has argued severely hampers its ability to defend itself.

The proposed U-turn came after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine and directed them at Kharkiv, the Times reported, noting that Ukraine would be able to use only non-American drones to hit back.

The Times reported that the proposal was still being debated and had yet to be formally proposed to President Joe Biden.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess

    That’s not even remotely how poker works, at all (or geopolitics).

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s okay if you don’t understand the analogy

      When everyone has nukes, all it takes is one country busting for us all to lose

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s okay if you don’t understand the analogy

        Lmao. Let me just clear this up so you can stop pretending to know what you’re talking about about.

        In poker, you don’t bust (that is, lose all your chips) unless you go all-in and lose. “If every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust” is not true at all, because plenty of hands don’t end in someone busting. Just because you lose a hand doesn’t mean you’re out of the game.

        It’s pretty clear that you were confused about the meaning of “bust” in this context which is fine but being both wrong and condescending makes you less sympathetic. Although, not nearly as much as being in favor of recklessly risking global thermonuclear war does.

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Man this is your own analogy, do I really gotta explain it

          If everyone is suddenly playing at the nuclear poker table, the chances of SOMEONE going all in each hand drastically increases, and if any one singular player goes bust, we ALL lose because the damn table explodes

          Appeasement just kicks the can down the road (and makes things much worse in the future), it’s vital that we not make playing nuclear poker appealing by letting countries get away with shit even if they do have nukes

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Accept you were wrong after being unequivocally proven wrong challenge level: impossible.

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              If you’re going to struggle this hard to follow along with expansions of your own analogies it would probably be best if you stopped using them, it’s just making it harder on everyone else

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                God you’re prideful. If you won’t admit your mistakes then there’s no point in trying to convince you of anything because you obviously won’t listen, and there’s no value in hearing your perspective because it’s clearly unrefined.

                Ironically, if you understood the fact that you could lose a poker hand without busting, maybe you could understand that you could concede this one tiny point and stay in the game. But I guess you only know how to escalate and double down. Rather Trumpian if you ask me.

                • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s okay, I forgive you, we all make mistakes sometimes, I’m sure you’ll have better luck next time you try to engage

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Well, you certainly do. I didn’t make any mistakes in this conversation, apart from engaging with you at all. You, otoh, said something demonstrably and objectively incorrect, and then proceeded to, what are we at, quadruple down on it?