Ukraine has the right under international law to attack military targets located in Russian territory, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said during an interview on the United News telethon July 14.

United States policy prohibits Ukrainian forces from using U.S.-supplied weapons to strike targets deep within Russia. President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on Washington to lift restrictions, saying the ability to use long-range U.S. weapons such as ATACMS within Russia and occupied Crimea would produce “an instant result.”

In the interview, Stoltenberg affirmed Ukraine’s right to self-defense.

MBFC
Archive

  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t know how there is even a discussion. It’s a war, two sides shoot each other.

    If you start a war, expect to be attacked. If you help one side in a war by providing weapons, expect them to be used.

    • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I suspect they mostly didn’t want their tech being examined by russia too easily, but at some point there will be so many scrap parts behind the front it doesn’t matter any more.

      • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah I mean, they use then in Crimea which the russians still hold, so it doesn’t really make sense.

        Looking forward to the policy change

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      There has been an attempt at a balancing act by USA and Europe, and while Europe has abandoned the idea, USA is keeping it.
      The idea is that if Russia lose to much to quickly, it may destabilize Russia, and that could create a dangerous situation with the Russian nukes.
      So USA was sort of in a Limbo, that Russia could not be allowed to win, but they couldn’t be allowed to lose and be destabilized either.

      This idea however is becoming less and less popular in USA, and there is speculation that USA will soon lift these restrictions.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Solution: Here Ukraine, here’s some nukes. Finlsnd, you get some nukes too, hey all the baltic states besides Belarus gets nukes!

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            No no. I’m not saying those states give up their nukes. As far as I know Ukraine doesn’t have any.

            I’m saying the USA supply those places nukes to get Putin to calm down.

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Sorry, seems to be a misunderstanding, I’m supporting that idea using Libya as a negative example of what bad things can happen when you don’t have them. They went from an African Economic powerhouse to an open air slave state all under the orders of a President that won a nobel peace prize.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was banned from World New@lemmy.ml for agreeing with this. Of course they have the right to strike at Russia. They are at war.