What really counts is what President Putin does next, writes the BBC's Steve Rosenberg.

Summary

The U.S. has approved Ukraine’s use of long-range ATACMS missiles to strike inside Russia, drawing sharp criticism from Russian officials, who warn of serious escalation and even invoke fears of World War III.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov condemned the move as a “new spiral of tension,” while Vladimir Putin has yet to comment.

Putin previously warned such actions could be seen as NATO’s direct involvement in the war.

As Biden’s term ends, speculation rises about how Trump’s more cautious stance on Ukraine aid might influence Moscow’s next steps.

    • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      3 days ago

      It’s not them that “fear” WW3. Well, they are scared shitless of it of course. But the “WW3” is a scaremongering tactic that kremlin trolls use all the time. That and the “okay you go to trenches and fight!!!” terminating cliche. You can tell someone is a paid bot when the first thing they do is say this shit.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    4 days ago

    Sometimes constraints like Biden’s remaining time in power are a good thing so necessarily bold and irreversible moves can be made to resolve the situation

    • riplin@lemm.eeEnglish
      311·
      4 days ago

      The situation won’t be resolved until Russia has truly been broken or Ukraine has nukes. They will not stop until they have what they want at any cost or they perceive Ukraine as a credible threat.

      Long range missiles are great, but Ukraine needs to really break them or they will just keep going.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        4 days ago

        Can’t the US just give Ukraine the nukes, didn’t Israel steal their nuclear program from the US anyway (like physically stole shit or something)

          • sepi@piefed.socialEnglish
            32·
            3 days ago

            He thought about it. It’s a great idea cos russia does not have working nukes. I know everybody gonna come tell me the braindead thing about “how it only takes one nuke”, but russia has nothing that works. They don’t even have working delivery vehicles. Their last sarmat test blew up on the launcher.

            • zante@slrpnk.netEnglish
              48·
              3 days ago

              I guess I’ve got no option but to yield to your superior knowledge of Russia nuclear weaponry and its operational readiness.

              I will also have to concede that your plan to manage the consequences of breaching the Non Proliferation Treaties, although not included in your comment, are surely water tight .

              And for these reasons, the risks of transferring nuclear weapons to a corrupt oligarchy like Ukraine I’m sure have been considered and mitigated.

              Because like you said, he thought about it .

              • sepi@piefed.socialEnglish
                3·
                2 days ago

                Did you get your “ehrmagherd kurrupt ukrainian oligarchy” talking points from the garbage russians? This is a rhetorical question cos I know that’s where you got it from. You’ve done less thinking of your own and are just spouting what you heard some propaganda outlet say, cos you just repeat stuff you hear.

                Anyway, I rate giving Ukraine nukes a 15/10 idea. I think Ukraine should nuke russia. And you should watch.

              • Dutczar@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                2·
                3 days ago

                How is Ukraine a corrupt oligarchy? Seems to be as much as every other country in the world, probably less than the USA and Russia

                (Edit: Using the definition that it’s just a government controlled by a small group of people)

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    201·
    4 days ago

    NK deployed troops on the ground VS Ukraine has got a little pass on their limits of how to use western arms. Yeah.