NATO official: Ukraine has legal right to strike deep into Russia
NATO official: Ukraine has legal right to strike deep into Russia
Admiral Rob Bauer, who serves as the principal advisor to NATO's secretary general, also said that nations supplying weapons to Kyiv have the right to limit their use.
Admiral Rob Bauer, who serves as the principal advisor to NATO's secretary general, also said that nations supplying weapons to Kyiv have the right to limit their use.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/aZWt4
You're viewing a single thread.
Every war is weird it's own way, but that thing is probably unprecedented. How can a war-torn country fight having one hand strapped to the back with a country having 4x it's population and resources? And still managing to resist after 2,5 to 10 years of warfare? Imagine that in fiction and you'd call it unbelievable.
That analogy is faulty. It's undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.
Could soviets used the lendlease arms on nazi germany in ww2? There is no question, there is a bunch of appeasing countries and Ukraine which is fighting for its right to exist.
Slow down. I merely clarified the matter being discussed. You might have a clear opinion on that matter, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a dilemma without a simple answer.
Also note that the US was attacked and got directly involved in the war mere months after the lend-lease act was signed. That is what NATO is trying to avoid. The difference is that the Nazis did not have nukes and were already fighting a two-front war, so they had little power or incentive to escalate.
They were attacked by a nation that was going to attack them anyways. The history of pre-war / WW2 Japan made confrontation inevitable. This isn't "a dilemma". It's sacrificing human lives of a defending country because of simple inaction. The war escalated when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022. Russia started the war in 2014 by seizing sovereign territory. They weren't holding back. They aren't avoiding balistic missiles. They get their shit from their allies.
So if you want a dilemma, here it is - do we give up every country that doesn't have nukes to nuclear powers? Because that's what is being advocated for by tying their hands.
What analogy? I didn't draw any direct comparison, I think. Was there one?
Arms are given to Ukraine with every state dictating how they should not be used, with Ukraine being autonomous in their decision-making – as it sounds, they consult other countries, but decide things themselves. To my brief knowledge of past wars it was usually a 'use how you want' deal or a direct involvement and control from other party with boots on the ground, both don't fit this exact situation. And it becomes even more unique since there are not one party, but a lot of them, all citing their own conditions on exact shipments, adding even more confusion to the situation.
I want to highlight the fact it's one of the first very public case of countries donating weapons with such policies limiting their usage against enemy troops.
The odds almost always favor the defender.
Technically, yes, the offensive does consume like 3x of what is needed for defense the same position, but it works right only if that's a war of equals. Ukraine was and is underpowered on it's own, and even with the stuff other countries donated. Them gaining an edge in the warzone in the last years often involved either technological trickery or great insights and tactics using their limited resources.
One other thing that breaks that rule and makes this change in the narrative significant - is that russians could deploy their bombers, fuel, supply centers near the border, thinking they can't get effecrively hit, that giving them a big boost whatever they do, and if this handicap gets denied, they'd have a harder time supplying another operation from further away.