German officials regret not lifting ban on Ukraine striking targets in Russia sooner

Stamau123@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 188 points – German officials regret not lifting ban on Ukraine striking targets in Russia sooner
pravda.com.ua

German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck has said he regrets that the government led by Olaf Scholz did not allow Ukraine to deploy Western-supplied weapons to strike military targets in Russia sooner.

Source: Robert Habeck in an interview with Augsburger Allgemeine, as reported by European Pravda

Details: Habeck said that Ukraine should be allowed to do what it needs to prevent Russian attacks and protect the lives of civilians.

A ban on striking military targets in Russia means that more people might die, he explained.

"The permission currently covers a strictly localised area around Kharkiv. For self-defence, for protection. But it’s true that the decision we made could’ve been made earlier," Habeck said.

14

There should never have been such a ban preventing Ukraine from defending themselves. Even if you believe it made sense, at the latest it should have been lifted the day we confirmed Russia was using Iranian weapons in Ukraine.

It should have been lifted when it was clear it didn't work. I'm convinced that it was a negotiating position, designed to prevent Russia from escalating.

Either that, or it was a way to build a wide alliance to support Ukraine (with some countries being more eager and some more hesitant to help).

Regardless, it was a half measure and should be abandoned rather sooner than later.

Wait, why?

I can maybe understand taking action against Iran on those grounds, but why would it matter with respect to Russia whether Russia is using Iranian-origin or Russian-origin or North Korean-origin or whatever weapons?

At that point Russia is using foreign weapons in a country they invaded. Therefore there is absolutely no reason left Ukraine should be banned from using foreign weapons against the country invading them.

I don't think that the prohibition was put in place because people wanted to deter use of foreign weapons. If that had been the aim, I think that would have been a clearly-drawn red line well in advance. That'd need to be the case, for something to act as a deterrent; someone has to have a cause-and-effect put before them to make them think twice about doing something.

I think it was put in place because people wanted to limit the scope of the conflict so far as was possible. As long as Russia isn't exploiting it, the conflict can be kept out of some of the region.

When Berlin is attacked, perhaps they will change their minds?

Yes, I'm quite confident Russia will choose to attack 1) one of their biggest trading partners, 2) a NATO nation, 3) a nation with compulsory military activity and relatively high governmental spending on defense, 4) a neighbor to a nuclear nation who also is part of NATO.

In one comment you mention not wanting war, in this one you mention wanting to have a country attacked. Which is it?

Please go simp for a weak nation somewhere else.

For Vatniks, "peace" means passively letting Russia do what it wants.