Russia accuses Nato and the US of "provoking a new level of tension" over the use of Western-supplied weapons.

Russia has accused Nato and the US of “provoking a new level of tension” after the US and Germany became the latest allies to let Ukraine’s military to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

A Berlin spokesman said Germany was convinced Ukraine had the right to defend itself from Russia, especially from cross-border attacks on its second largest city Kharkiv.

US officials said American-supplied weapons could be used to counter Russian fire near the Kharkiv region, either where Russian forces were “hitting them or preparing to hit them”.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said the decision would help protect civilians living in villages close to the Russian border.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
    491·
    6 months ago

    Putin’s saber has been rattled so much that it functions more as a seppuku vibrator than anything else these days.

  • theprogressivist @lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    6 months ago

    We get it, Putin. You’re shitting your pants because no one is taking you serious anymore, and your orange ass puppet has been charged who is also shitting his pants both literally and figuratively.

  • sudo42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    20·
    6 months ago

    So… lemme get this straight. (Neglecting the fact that Putin started thus and can end it at any time) Russia can buy and use Iranian, North Korean (and possibly/likely Chinese) weapons on Ukraine, but Ukraine reciprocating using western weapons would justify a nuclear response?

    • Laser@feddit.deEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      Don’t put too much thought into it, ist an empty threat to scare idiots, there’s no logic

  • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    193·
    6 months ago

    Say when. 😂

    You’re not in a position to warn us of anything. We’re ready to bring a world of hurt to anyone dumb enough to escalate this conflict.

    Edit: bring China and NK. We’ll give you a head start.

  • slurpinderpin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    143·
    6 months ago

    What’s Putin going to do? Attack a NATO nation? Bring it the fuck on, loser. We’ll be flying sorties over Moscow within the week

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    6·
    6 months ago

    I think this may be the first time this phrase has been used appropriately:

    Oh yeah? You and what army?

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    6·
    6 months ago

    Say bye-bye to the rest of your palaces, shitforbrains.

    All you had to do is GTFO of Ukraine, but no, now you get to find out what it’s like being on the wrong end of an F-16.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    Add the West will do it again, one more little step, and another one, unless there is a real escalation happening from Russia that at is at a worrisome level, but below a “Release the Poles” level. The classical salami slice method. We know it, Putin knows it and fears it, but if there was something he could do he would’ve done it by now.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    51·
    6 months ago

    I mean, it is an escalation. But on the other hand, there’s not a whole lot by way of other reasonable response to Russia using the previous policy for tactical benefit, being able to attack without being attacked.

    I think that there are basically two options that don’t involve Ukraine being disadvantaged:

    • What was done here, permit limited cross-border use.

    • Maybe try to work out some kind of terms on which Russia agrees not to do cross-border attacks. But the problem there is enforcement. For Ukraine to be able to pull people away from a border, they have to be very sure that Russia will not attack across that border. If Russia leverages this and builds up to a major attack across the border and breaking that agreement, in order to make it clearly not worthwhile, we’d have to have serious consequences for Russia. I don’t know what would be sufficiently-dissuasive short of attacking Russian forces ourselves.

    And if Russia had refrained from exploiting that policy, they also wouldn’t be facing the current change.

    I also feel like the broader goal of avoiding Russian cities being attacked is still generally intact, and it’s not as if Russia has extended a comparable policy of trying to limit damage to Ukrainian cities. Quite the opposite, really. And given that Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine and take those cities for themselves, if anyone’s got incentive to try to cut some kind of agreement to not damage Ukrainian cities, aside from Ukraine, you’d think that it’d be Russia.