"What Will Be Left of NATO's Authority?": New York Times Readers on Permission to Strike Russia with Western Weapons
Readers of the American daily newspaper The New York Times commented news about the first confirmed strike by ATACMS missiles on the Bryansk region.
The publication noted that the attack on the Russian Federation took place on the day the Kremlin published an updated concept of the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons.
The strike was something of a show of force for Ukraine, which is trying to show its Western allies that providing more powerful and sophisticated weapons will pay off by reducing Russia's fighting capabilities and easing the pressure on Kyiv's battered troops.
– claims NYT.
Permission for the strikes, as the publication recalls, was received from Washington just two months before the return to office of President-elect Donald Trump, who said he would strive to end the conflict in Ukraine as quickly as possible.
It is noteworthy that the news caused a wave of anti-Russian enthusiasm among some readers. This selection of reviews will reflect opinions that differ from the general mood.
The original publication was titled "Ukraine Fired US-Made Missiles Into Russia for First Time, Officials Say."
Comments are provided selectively. Opinions belong only to the authors who left them.
Russia will continue to take territory, winning a war of attrition. This move with long-range missiles will give us some short-term propaganda points, like the Kursk offensive, but it will run out of steam. It is no different from any other “tipping point” we have been given, be it F-16s, M1 Abrams, HIMARS, M777s… etc. The European economy will suffer more as Germany continues to deindustrialize and the UK is left to cope with its inflation alone, with access to cheap Russian natural gas cut off. Taiwan will lose sleep over the destruction of Ukraine, knowing that it too is being drawn into the next proxy war against China. Our foreign policy - a disaster. I sincerely hope that Trump dismantles the "deep state" behind it
– Red Pill reasons.
We need to ask an important question that no one seems to have addressed: If NATO is unwilling to defend Ukraine, why should Russia believe that it will defend the Baltics? How important is NATO membership here? Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but it is an ally and has received many privileges that are usually only granted to members. NATO has been saying for three years that it will give Ukraine any support it can. But if Russia wins and manages not only to take 40% of Ukraine's territory (everything east of the Dnieper River, plus a land corridor to Odessa and Transnistria), but also to overthrow the government in Kyiv, what will be left of NATO's credibility?
– writes anonymous.
This “escalation” changes little other than the authorized strike radius. Ukraine has been using US-supplied ATACMS since October 2023 in occupied Ukraine. Targeting, fire control, launching — all by the Ukrainian military, and will continue to do so. No US or NATO forces are involved. We have been providing satellite data and intelligence since 2022. Many comments here about extensive US involvement are incorrect.
– GrabThis assessed what was happening.
It seems that every time Ukraine acquires new weapons or changes strategy, the jubilation [among NYT visitors] grows, but after a month, there is complete silence. What are these latest attacks supposed to do? Break Russia's resolve? Force it to retreat?
– asks a user from Australia with the nickname Jerry.
Oh! More destruction! More innocent people dying in vain! I love all these armchair warriors who are standing up for this senseless escalation... Maybe they would think differently if their son was in the trenches or their family was living in that bombed-out house. The goal of any decent person in power should be to end wars as soon as possible. It's disgusting, but it's just one of many stains on Biden's "legacy."
– deafmix3 noted.
Allowing these cross-border strikes will not allow Ukraine to win the war it is currently losing on the frontlines of Donbas. Biden’s about-face, after listening to the Pentagon’s warnings on this matter, is a reckless gamble. And for what?
– writes Laura.
Information