The New York Times reports that the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles to strike Russian and North Korean military targets inside Russia — yet another dangerous escalation of nuclear brinkmanship in this horrific proxy war.
The Times correctly notes that authorizing Ukraine to use ATACMS, which have a range of about 190 miles, has long been a contentious issue in the Biden administration for fear of provoking military retaliations against the US from Russia. This reckless escalation has been authorized despite an acknowledgement from the anonymous US officials who spoke to The New York Times that they “do not expect the shift to fundamentally alter the course of the war.”
As Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes, Vladimir Putin said back in September that if NATO allows Ukraine to use western-supplied weapons for long-range strikes inside Russian territory, it would mean NATO countries “are at war with Russia.” This is about as unambiguous a threat as you’ll ever see. https://x.com/Antiwarcom/status/1858254030361022826
NYT reports that Biden’s policy shift “comes two months before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office, having vowed to limit further support for Ukraine.” And it is here worth noting that last week it was reported by The Telegraph that British PM Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had been scheming to thwart any attempt by Trump to scale back US support for Ukraine by pushing Biden to authorize long-range missile strikes in Russian territory.
But it is also true that the day before the US election Mike Waltz, Trump’s next national security advisor, had himself endorsed the idea of authorizing long-range missile strikes into Russia with the goal of pressuring Moscow to end the war. His plan for disentangling the US from the conflict entails ramping up sanctions on Russia and “taking the handcuffs off the long-range weapons we provide Ukraine” in order to pressure Putin into eagerly accepting a peace deal.
So while this is being framed as an administration that’s more hawkish on Russia executing a maneuver that’s designed to hamstring the peacemongering of an incoming administration that’s less favorable to assisting Ukraine, in reality it may just be goal-assisting the next administration in a policy change it had planned on implementing anyway. https://x.com/mtracey/status/1856129126492430685
Either way, it’s insane. Putin ordered changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine in September in order to ward off these sorts of escalations by lowering the threshold at which nuclear weapons could be used to defend the Russian Federation, and they’re just barreling right past that bright red line like they barreled over the red lines which led to the invasion of Ukraine. And the fact that they’re adding yet another nuclear-armed state into the mix with North Korea is just more gravy for the nuclear brinkmanship pot roast.
At one point in 2022, US intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that the odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine was as high as fifty percent, but the Biden administration kept pushing forward with this proxy war anyway. These freaks are taking insane risks to advance agendas that stand to yield the slimmest of benefits even by their own assessments.
We are living in dark and dangerous times.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
This is Blinken and Jared Kushner's robot-bastard cousin Sullivan's doing.
Just because he's on the way out, no need to take the rest of us with him. It's like they are having a tantrum after being told a resounding NO by the public, but instead of sippy cups and stuffed animals being thrown around it could be nuclear warheads.
I would expect a response from Russia fairly rapidly. So far all I've seen is the "throwing oil on the fire" comment.
The BBC had some douchebag from a war think tank saying Russia's "threats" would not be an issue:
Prof Justin Bronk of the defence think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has said the expected decision by the Biden administration to allow long-range US missiles to strike inside Russia will also "enable the UK storm shadow to be used in at least the same way".
Bronk added Russian threats of retaliation are unlikely to be considered a "significant deterrent" to the UK government at this stage.
Quoted by the BiBiC as if he was some kind of independent expert....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
The BBC is having a delirious orgasm over escalating nuclear threats
Posted by scrabb on November 18, 2024, 3:58 pm, in reply to "Soon? :)"
Every single panelist on the midday Politics show was gung-ho for Ukraine firing long-range missiles into Russia, supervised by US technical staff, and praising Biden for "standing up" to Putin.
The panelists included a Labour MP, tory MP and a Guardian feature writer. No one even hinted or suggested that this could swiftly escalate into WW3 with the exchange of nuclear weapons. The mood music was "about time too" and "let's get on with it and teach him a lesson".
on November 18, 2024, 8:29 am