Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Ukraine should be allowed to strike deep inside Russia, despite Moscow threatening that this would draw Canada and its allies into direct war.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Ukraine should be allowed to strike deep inside Russia, despite Moscow threatening that this would draw Canada and its allies into direct war.

“Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to prevent and interdict Russia’s continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and mostly to kill innocent civilians in their unjust war,” Trudeau told reporters at a news conference in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Que., on Friday.

  • fuzzywombat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    Here is a video explaining the current situation regarding US and NATO greenlighting the use of long range weapons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3cgxeFNdqI

    The point of allowing Ukraine to use these weapons isn’t for Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory. It is to deter Russia setting up logistics just across Ukraine and Russian border because they feel safe. This forces Russia to move their logistics centers further inward stretching out the line. Another reason mention in the video is to strike the bridge in the Kerch strait connecting Crimea and Russia.

    NATO could have made this decision in secret and allow Ukrane to launch a surprise attack deep into Russia but that’s not what’s happening. It seems like everyone including PM of Canada is essentially broadcasting this new potential capability instead of keeping it a secret because NATO wants it to be a form of deterrent. This is why this is relatively safe move and will not escalate into anything bigger like a full on nuclear war.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      2 months ago

      A lot of people see it as needlessly dragging a conflict on, but NATO (probably) knows what it’s doing, and has had plans for scenarios like this for years. Russian escalation in the region isn’t exactly new, and it’s the sort of campaign that NATO as a group will define its legitimacy on.

      I’m sure that if both sides wanted to hurt the other they’d do so, NATO especially so - but to both sides it’s ultimately a game. NATO will flirt with weapons, and Russia will throw citizens at the problem and use grief/loss to restore the “fatherland”. It’s why I don’t see an end to the conflict for as long as Putin is in power.