this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
119 points (99.2% liked)

UK Politics

3108 readers
83 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sir Keir Starmer has told the Ukrainian president that British missiles can be used for defensive strikes against targets inside Russia.

The announcement came as the new British prime minister met Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the NATO summit in Washington DC on Wednesday.

The decision over the Storm Shadow missiles, which has been welcomed by Ukraine, represents a hawkish shift in policy from the stance taken by the former Conservative government.

...

In a post on X after the meeting with Sir Keir, President Zelenskyy said: "This morning, I learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow miss­iles against military targets in Russian territory.

"Today we had the opportunity to discuss the practical implementation of this decision. I'm grateful to the UK for its unwavering support for Ukraine and our people."

However, reacting to the news, Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said: "If this is so then, of course, this is another absolutely irresponsible step towards escalating tensions and seriously escalating the situation."

Dimitry Peskov told Reuters: "We will be watching this very thoroughly and respond accordingly."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What?

That’s the entire point. They haven’t been allowed to hit valid Russian targets inside Russia. That’s what they’ve been given permission to do.

You’re the one brining children hospitals into this.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I am bringing children's hospitals in to this as an example for why additional scrutiny is required when attacking targets inside Russia.

I'm not sure you read my comment fully.

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure you understood mine.

When you invade another country, expect that country to attack you in your territory too.

I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia.

Then you went on about children’s hospitals, which you know, are not valid targets.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry if I misunderstood. I'll reply on the basis of your latest comment.

I said I don’t see why I valid target would be made invalid just because it’s inside Russia

Is anybody saying a target would be made invalid just because it's in Russia? My point was all targets inside Russia are open to increased scrutiny because of targeting inside Russia.

The children's hospital example is because Russia likely does not have children's hospitals (or other non-military assets) inside Ukraine, and therefore Russian targets inside Ukraine are almost certainly going to be valid. On the other hand, when some high up revenge obsessed Ukrainian military personnel decide they want to target Russian children's hospitals, it's useful for their targets to have increased scrutiny to prevent an additional civilian massacre.

Just to clarify, the children's hospital example is being used to convey an obviously non military target which additional scrutiny can prevent from being attacked.

I'm going to stop replying to this thread now as I'm not sure I can make my point much clearer. I might re-read through the context though just in case I misunderstood something somewhere. I do Lemmy on mobile so sometimes it's difficult to track a conversation.

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Re-reading your comment I see where I misread yours and instead of scrutiny for some reason I heard not allowed. But funnily enough, people arguing that have absolutely replied to me saying that Ukraine doesn’t want to start a full out war with Russia.