US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel
www.pravda.com.ua
The United States will not deploy the THAAD medium-range missile interceptor system near Ukraine to shoot down Russian missiles and drones, as it does for Israel, because the Russian-Ukrainian war and the war in the Middle East are different.
  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    176·
    1 month ago

    Cowards. The Ukrainians are laying down their lives in defense of Europe and they can’t even get this, but a genocidal maniac who would sacrifice millions to remain in power gets all the aid he wants.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            8·
            1 month ago

            Don’t act like Poland wouldn’t volunteer to man it themselves. Lithuania would demand one and tell us not to worry about researching a ground to ground missile conversion for them.

            At any rate, I was just answering the technical feasibility. If you want to get political, then why don’t we have a 100 guys in Kiev with one of these batteries? We’re willing to defend a genocidal regime but not a country literally fighting for it’s existence?

            • Vespair@lemm.ee
              41·
              1 month ago

              Just a tip, nobody is ever going to accept a youtube video as a valid source. Nobody is going to spend 10+ minutes potentially watching some bullshit propaganda just to see if it even contains anything relevant to your claim. It could be the most perfect, well-sourced, undeniably-accurate youtube video in the history of videos, but literally nobody is going to watch it when brought up as a source for a claim on Lemmy or similar sites.

              I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m being genuine. If you think there is actually vital information that people should know, you absolutely need to find a verifiable text-based source of that information. Period. Of course I can’t say if that applies in your case or not because as previously stated, nobody, myself included, will ever click on a youtube video as a source for a claim, so I can’t speak to whatever you’re trying to spout.

            • The Assman@sh.itjust.works
              27·
              1 month ago

              These are the same guys who went to North Korea, you know, the place where owning a kdrama DVD will get your whole family executed, and basically said, “it’s not so bad idk what the fuss is about.”

              Let’s see a source that isn’t from authoritarian apologists.

        • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
          29·
          1 month ago

          Just stop with the conspiracy bullshit. If you believe none of it, you’ll be right 98% of the time. There’s not much else in life with such certainty.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    44·
    1 month ago

    Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          13·
          1 month ago

          Article 5 requires co-defense an attack occurs in the territory of NATO nations (or places occupied by members when NATO was created). It doesn’t cover US forces getting put in harms way and attacked in a non-member country. It doesn’t even cover troops getting attacked in Hawaii.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              6·
              1 month ago

              I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.

              • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 month ago

                NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member’s forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  9·
                  1 month ago

                  That’s just not true. These aren’t arcane pieces of information, they’re bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn’t happen in any of America’s other wars?

                  NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It’s not a general “if you hurt an American soldier anywhere” treaty.