Admiral Rob Bauer, who serves as the principal advisor to NATO’s secretary general, also said that nations supplying weapons to Kyiv have the right to limit their use.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/aZWt4
Of course they do. That’s what happens when you invade someone, the someone you invade also hits back at you.
In fact this is basically the only way for the war to end. By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.
Russia is just lucky the land is tied down or the farmers would have towed it back home…
Same applies for Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. You’d be totally fine with that.
right? right?
Absolutely! Imperialism is bad when Russia does it, and when American/Israel does it.
Nonono you’re not supposed to have principles, you’re supposed to just pick sides instead otherwise ‘what about USA’ won’t work as a gotcha. Just think of the poor tankies, whatabout USA is all they have, would you really tankie that away from them?
Imagine thinking you got Lemmy by suggesting that Vietnam should have counter invaded America
Imagine thinking you got Lemmy by suggesting that Vietnam should have counter invaded America
- What? “You’ve got Lemmy” is that a parallel universe Jennifer Anniston and Adam Sandler movie?
- Total suicide mission, but Vietnam taking Portland, Oregon, would have been weird.
Lmfao! Vietnam counter attacking the America invasions by just going straight for Poland is a fucking family guy skit. And I just cackled laughed in a public bathroom stall.
You got= You caught (in a moment of hypocrisy)
Every war is weird it’s own way, but that thing is probably unprecedented. How can a war-torn country fight having one hand strapped to the back with a country having 4x it’s population and resources? And still managing to resist after 2,5 to 10 years of warfare? Imagine that in fiction and you’d call it unbelievable.
That analogy is faulty. It’s undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.
What analogy? I didn’t draw any direct comparison, I think. Was there one?
Arms are given to Ukraine with every state dictating how they should not be used, with Ukraine being autonomous in their decision-making – as it sounds, they consult other countries, but decide things themselves. To my brief knowledge of past wars it was usually a ‘use how you want’ deal or a direct involvement and control from other party with boots on the ground, both don’t fit this exact situation. And it becomes even more unique since there are not one party, but a lot of them, all citing their own conditions on exact shipments, adding even more confusion to the situation.
I want to highlight the fact it’s one of the first very public case of countries donating weapons with such policies limiting their usage against enemy troops.
The odds almost always favor the defender.
Technically, yes, the offensive does consume like 3x of what is needed for defense the same position, but it works right only if that’s a war of equals. Ukraine was and is underpowered on it’s own, and even with the stuff other countries donated. Them gaining an edge in the warzone in the last years often involved either technological trickery or great insights and tactics using their limited resources.
One other thing that breaks that rule and makes this change in the narrative significant - is that russians could deploy their bombers, fuel, supply centers near the border, thinking they can’t get effecrively hit, that giving them a big boost whatever they do, and if this handicap gets denied, they’d have a harder time supplying another operation from further away.
But was this ever a question? The problem was if they can use “gifted” weaponry for this purpose.
By international law they can use weapons supplied by other nations even for long range strikes into Russia yes, to my knowledge it’s just a gentleman’s agreement that they follow the terms of the nation supplying them. Not really a point of contention though as it would be idiotic to violate those terms at risk of not being supplied anymore.
The only point of contention is whether supplying nations should decide to allow strikes into Russia with their equipment because Russia continues to threaten that it would see that as an act of war from the supplying nation. So legally nothing wrong with it but you have to weigh that decision with possibility of starting World War III or a nuclear apocalypse.
Right, like I said. So no news.
this has been one reeeeeally fucking long week.
