The president's justified, overdue, but probably too-late authorization to Ukraine isn't pushing us toward World War 3.

Summary

President Biden recently authorized Ukraine to use longer-range U.S. missiles to strike inside Russia, marking a small but overdue escalation in the conflict.

This decision aims to disrupt Russia’s military operations and bolster Ukraine’s position, especially with the potential Trump administration favoring pro-Russian policies.

Russia’s retaliatory missile strike on Ukraine, though deadly, represents more of the same tactics.

Analysts argue Biden’s earlier caution was excessive, and calling Russia’s nuclear bluffs is strategically necessary to counter further extortion.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    444·
    7 days ago

    Well that’s a shit opinion not supported by foreign policy experts. And the US puppet government he’s running in Ukraine is largely made up of Nazis.

  • Lemmywings@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    220·
    7 days ago

    It’s way too late. Unless we are pro-war now it would’ve been better to make a peace plan before the other guy is in office.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          112·
          7 days ago

          I’m actually pretty doubtful that Russia still has much of a nuclear capacity. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is very expensive, and the Russian oligarchs have been embezzling massive amounts of money from the military.

          They’ve had to resort to asking NK for help, so I don’t think they have a good chance of winning the current conflict, much less an actual NATO power.

          • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 days ago

            The trouble with that is that the Soviets had such a large arsenal that even if only a vanishingly small fraction of it still works, it’s still ruining someone’s day. An ICBM with a dodgy guidance system or leaky fuel tank still hits a populated area even if it misses a city. An H-bomb that misfires is still an A-bomb, and an A-bomb that misfires is still a dirty bomb. It’s plausible that NATO could win a nuclear war against Russia without even firing back just from Russia embarrassing itself and giving an excuse for a conventional war they’d also lose, but that’s a huge gamble that no one wants to make, especially when winning is still worse than the status quo.

          • Lemmywings@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            36·
            7 days ago

            It takes 26 minutes and 40 seconds for a ballistic missile to get from a launchpad in Russia to the East Coast of the United States.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          6 days ago

          Russia isn’t starting WW3, because there’s literally no possible way for them to survive doing that.

          They can’t even beat Ukraine in a straight fight, and they know it. They are woefully ill equipped to take on all of NATO.

          No matter how much damage they could potentially do if they tried, the ending is guaranteed; Russia and its current leadership do not exist.

          The Russian leadership are vain, greedy, and power hungry, and the thing about those traits is they make you very, very averse to personal risk. They’re not going to take any action that puts them in the firing line.

  • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.mlEnglish
    754·
    7 days ago

    Triggering WWIII with other nuclear powers is the right thing to do?

    It gets easier by the day to manufacture consent

  • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    654·
    7 days ago

    Biden isn’t escalating the war, he is slow-walking the aid. Too much to die, too little to live, as the Ukrainians say. If you give Russia 9 months to pull critical assests out of range and only allow strikes deep into Russia after a whole nother nations enters the war on the side of Russia, you can’t frame that as escalatory, no matter how much Putin bitches and moans.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      31·
      6 days ago

      I think it’s pretty clearly the goal of NATO to keep Russia stuck in a prolonged war in Ukraine, which it’s been very successful so far.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        2·
        6 days ago

        I think they’ve given them far too little for that. Russians keep gaining territory which will eventually break the Ukrainian morale. If the line doesn’t move or moves back a bit that’s a whole other perspective.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      161·
      7 days ago

      Hmmm. My idea of the process is a little different. Embedded CIA reports to the DOD on daily to and fro of the war. What the Ukrainians needed yesterday isn’t necessarily what they will need tomorrow. Wars evolve. The DOD takes this information and projects future needs leading to a budget recommendation to Congress. Congress creates a budget bill and passes it. Johnson sitting on that bill, BTW, put Ukraine behind the 8 ball. Biden uses that allocation to buy weapons per the DOD recommendations. Rules placed on weapons use, such as not using US missiles on Russian ground, are meant to stop escalation into NATO entering into the conflict. In fact when that rule ochanged there was an escalation, but not involving NATO, yet.

    • ygurin@lemmy.ml
      7·
      6 days ago

      Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

  • NastyNative@mander.xyzEnglish
    549·
    7 days ago

    This decision is leading to another 90K NK troops and possible Yemen might send troops as well. The perpetual agitation of escalation cant be anymore clear. Yeah Russia deserves this but in no way is this not escalation.