Sir Keir Starmer has told the Ukrainian president that British missiles can be used for defensive strikes against targets inside Russia.
The announcement came as the new British prime minister met Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the NATO summit in Washington DC on Wednesday.
The decision over the Storm Shadow missiles, which has been welcomed by Ukraine, represents a hawkish shift in policy from the stance taken by the former Conservative government.
…
In a post on X after the meeting with Sir Keir, President Zelenskyy said: "This morning, I learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets in Russian territory.
“Today we had the opportunity to discuss the practical implementation of this decision. I’m grateful to the UK for its unwavering support for Ukraine and our people.”
However, reacting to the news, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman said: “If this is so then, of course, this is another absolutely irresponsible step towards escalating tensions and seriously escalating the situation.”
Dimitry Peskov told Reuters: “We will be watching this very thoroughly and respond accordingly.”
Regardless of how much or how little support one wants to give Ukraine (Slava Ukraini!) it always struck me as bizarre that people thought it reasonable to give them missiles and then expect them not to use those missiles against the country they’re at war with.
Do you not see the difference between striking targets that are inside your territory vs targets outside of your territory?
Once you decide to strike targets in russian territory, you expose yourself to much more scrutiny because you have to justify what makes something a valid target. Inside ukraine its easy, because almost any russian is a valid military target.
When the other territory is actively invading mine, no I don’t see how territory makes another otherwise valid target not valid.
100% of Russians invading Ukraine came from Russia.
I don’t think you’re honestly thinking this through.
If Ukraine starts bombing russian children’s hospitals, that’s clearly an invalid target. What Ukraine is bombing will be scrutinized.
There are, however, zero russian children’s hospitals inside Ukraine, so as long as Ukraine is bombing russian targets and not their own, their targets are not open to the same level of scrutiny.
What?
That’s the entire point. They haven’t been allowed to hit valid Russian targets inside Russia. That’s what they’ve been given permission to do.
You’re the one brining children hospitals into this.
Yes. I am bringing children’s hospitals in to this as an example for why additional scrutiny is required when attacking targets inside Russia.
I’m not sure you read my comment fully.
I’m not sure you understood mine.
When you invade another country, expect that country to attack you in your territory too.
I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia.
Then you went on about children’s hospitals, which you know, are not valid targets.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I’ll reply on the basis of your latest comment.
I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia
Is anybody saying a target would be made invalid just because it’s in Russia? My point was all targets inside Russia are open to increased scrutiny because of targeting inside Russia.
The children’s hospital example is because Russia likely does not have children’s hospitals (or other non-military assets) inside Ukraine, and therefore Russian targets inside Ukraine are almost certainly going to be valid. On the other hand, when some high up revenge obsessed Ukrainian military personnel decide they want to target Russian children’s hospitals, it’s useful for their targets to have increased scrutiny to prevent an additional civilian massacre.
Just to clarify, the children’s hospital example is being used to convey an obviously non military target which additional scrutiny can prevent from being attacked.
I’m going to stop replying to this thread now as I’m not sure I can make my point much clearer. I might re-read through the context though just in case I misunderstood something somewhere. I do Lemmy on mobile so sometimes it’s difficult to track a conversation.
So you think ukraine should just start a full blown war against all of russia? Thats how you make sure ukraine is wiped off the map.
start a full blown war against all of russia
Didn’t Russia already start that? They’re digging out the bottom of the barrel for conscripts already
Key words are "full blown war". Russia brought war for sure. It’s not total war. Not for Russia.
So you think RUSSIA should just start a full blown war against all of ukraine? Thats how you make sure ukraine is wiped off the map.
Quit pretending Ukraine is not already under attach. All this dose is to force Russia to allocate resources to protect its own inferstructure.
Well i admit im no expert on military strategy but i assume neither is anyone else here. We will just have to see how the russian crackheads will react.
Imho the most realistic chance for russia to actually stop this war is for their populace to turn against the government. Otherwise its gonna drag on forever. That means russian civilian casualties would be a strategic nightmare from what i understand, because it would give the people a reason to fight in this pointless war.
Agreed. As far as best option to stop it.
But here is where we differ. The possibility that Ukraine “may” do bad things. With absolutely no evidence of them wanting to do so. Is not reason to allow Russia to continue to do bad things. By preventing Ukraine from damaging the inferstructure they are using to do so.
The whole idea that one nation should b able to attack another on its borders. While 3rd party nations refuse to let that nation fight back. Basically means civilians in Ukraine are being sacrificed to save Russian ones. No war is free of civilian deaths. And stopping all wars would be preferable.
But even as little more than a layman. 2 things are obvious.
1 Ukraine currently must dedicate staff and resources to defending civilians and military assets from a huge nation that decided to invade them.
2 Russia faces very little risk to its own civilians or military assets. So is able to dedicate nearly all of them to attacking Ukraine.
how old are you?
Do you not see the difference between striking targets that are inside your territory vs targets outside of your territory?
Not really. Not for the practical purpose during the war. All logistical centres, transport hubs, military airports are legitimate targets.
They are, but they have to be much more black/white with their targeting. The front line battlefield is in Ukraine and on the battlefield targeting is largely “anything goes”. Striking behind the front line risks far more civilian casualties.
So far I think Ukraine is doing a good job of picking legitimate targets. There’s been the odd Intercepted attack that has put people at risk with debris, but I believe the collateral damage in Russia is very low.
when you’re ukraine and there are ivans DEEP inside the wire, doesn’t matter what preconditions anyone puts on arms shipments, you’ll agree to them, and say thank you
facts
A lot of the European countries are just very cautious about starting another war. Partly because of the obvious implications of that but also partly because they were never utterly convinced that their populations would be behind it.
As it has turned out mostly there is broad support for escalating the conflict as people are appalled by what Russia is doing. So governments are increasingly willing to allow the use of weapons. It also helps that Russia has demonstrated themselves to be completely useless. Rather ensuring that they won’t actually be any escalations because Russia wouldn’t be able to actually make good on their threats.
The USA gave the Afghan mujahideen stinger missiles expecting them to only be used against Russia, people have short memories.
The situation is a bit different though. Ukraine wants to maintain good relations with the West. In Afghanistan they didn’t care.
it’s wild how he’s so fully in support of helping ukraine but so against helping gaza when the two countries are literally in the same situation.
They’re in a similar humanitarian situation, but not the same political situation
Only Israel is allowed to slaughter civilians without restraint.
/s
Gaza is in a far worse humanitarian situation I’d say.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Signalling the move, but declining to get into “operational arrangements”, John Healey, the new defence secretary, told Sky News that Britain “will do all we can to help Ukraine in their fight to repel Putin’s invasion”.
Speaking in Washington, Mr Healey said: “We provide weapons equipment where we can for them to defend themselves, and as we do for ourselves and any other nation in conflict, we require, because it’s international law, that war is conducted within those rules of the Geneva Convention.”
In a post on X after the meeting with Sir Keir, President Zelenskyy said: "This morning, I learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets in Russian territory.
In a lengthy declaration, the alliance’s members announced that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to NATO membership, with wording important to the Ukrainian government, but likely to agitate Moscow.
Privately, Washington-based European diplomats are more candid, saying that the existing but gradual rebalancing of NATO’s power could morph into a brutal shift away from US dominance of the alliance in a Trump second term.
Today, Senate Democrats will have lunch with top Biden advisers Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti, as well as the Biden-Harris campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon.
The original article contains 848 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
