The participation of North Korean troops in combat was a direct incentive for US President Biden (pictured) to authorize Ukraine to attack targets deep inside Russian territory with long-range weapons -range made in USA. However, former President Trump’s victory in the US presidential election led to the 5th quick decision to allow him to use it. Photo taken in Rio de Janeiro on November 19, 2024 (Reuters/Ricardo Moraes)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to attack targets deep inside Russian territory with American-made long-range weapons was a direct result of Korean troops North was involved in fighting. However, former President Trump’s victory in the US presidential election led to the 5th quick decision to allow him to use it. Several people familiar with the matter expressed this opinion.
Despite calls from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to ban the use of US-supplied ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles, Mr. Biden remained silent for months. This was because they feared it could push the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into an all-out war with nuclear-armed Russia.
However, a senior US government official and two other officials told Reuters that Russia’s decision to send North Korean troops to the battlefield in the western region of Kursk has significantly escalated the war, forcing the US to respond accordingly he said it was necessary.
In addition, two people familiar with the matter said that with the election of Trump, who is very skeptical about the US aid to Ukraine, the Biden administration will take steps to prevent the use of long-term weapons to Ukraine to dig, which is at a disadvantage in the war.
Trump has repeatedly criticized US military aid to Ukraine, and concerns are growing that he may end the supply after taking office.
One of the people said the Biden administration’s decision to strengthen Ukraine’s position now will have the effect of Ukraine losing US support under the incoming Trump administration.
A US State Department spokesman declined to comment on whether Biden had approved an attack on Russian territory using long-range weapons, but noted that Russia had escalation war by sending in North Korean troops.
The US side announced a long-term ceasefire during a telephone conversation between Defense Secretary Austin and Ukrainian Defense Minister Umerov on the 12th, an official said.
The next day, Secretary of State Blinken contacted NATO Secretary-General Rutte, several European officials, and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sibikha about the US decision in Brussels, a senior US official said.
Ukraine announced on the 19th that they fired ATACMS for the first time, attacking a military base that was about 110km from the Russian border.
After the presidential election, the Biden administration announced other new aid measures for Ukraine. In particular, it authorized the use of anti-personnel mines to slow Russia’s advance in eastern Ukraine, and allowed US defense-related companies US-made weapons to be repaired in Ukraine, allowing more Ukrainian human resources to be used on the front lines, it was made so that it could be thrown.
In terms of easing restrictions on the use of long-term weapons, a senior US government official says they are sending a message to Russia and North Korea that the introduction of North Korean troops and hindering their efforts to move Ukrainian forces out of Kursk Oblast He explained that the aim
The official acknowledged the risk that easing restrictions could lead to an escalation in the war, but said that Russia has so far not taken any action against any country except Ukraine.
A staffer for the US lawmaker said he believed the relaxation of restrictions would only apply to Kursk oblast.
“Ukraine has the authority to carry out attacks deep into Russian territory only to suppress Russian and North Korean efforts to expel Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region.”
Our code of conduct:Thomson Reuters “Principles of Trust”
#Angle #administrations #agreement #longterm #military #strikes #involvement #North #Korean #troops #shadow #Trump
2024-11-22 23:32:00
The provided text is a news article discussing the US decision to allow Ukraine to attack targets within Russia using long-range weapons. The decision stemmed from North Korean troops’ involvement in the war on Russia’s side.
Here are some open-ended questions based on the article, categorized for discussion:
**I. Escalation and International Response**
* How might Russia’s reaction to these attacks evolve, and what are the potential consequences for the broader conflict?
* What are the implications of the US authorizing Ukraine to use long-range weapons against targets within Russian territory? Does this mark a significant escalation of the conflict?
* How could the involvement of North Korea in the war change the dynamics of the conflict and the international response?
**II. Political Implications and Future Strategies**
* How might the looming change in US leadership, with Trump’s victory, affect the US’s support for Ukraine and its strategy concerning the war?
* What are the potential long-term political and strategic consequences of the US decision to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons?
* How might the use of anti-personnel mines and the authorization to repair US-made weapons in Ukraine influence the trajectory of the war?
**III. Ethical Considerations and Global Security**
* What are the ethical dilemmas associated with providing long-range weapons to Ukraine, especially considering the risk of civilian casualties?
* How does this conflict impact the balance of power in Europe and the world?
* What are the potential long-term implications for international security and the global order?
**Interview Structure:**
You could structure the interview around these thematic sections, allowing for deeper exploration of the complexities surrounding the US decision and its potential ramifications. For instance:
1. Start with a broad discussion about the US decision, eliciting diverse viewpoints on its justification and potential consequences.
2. Transition to the political implications, focusing on the impact of the upcoming US presidential transition and the differing approaches to the war.
3. Conclude with a discussion of the ethical considerations raised by the use of long-range weapons and the broader implications for global security.
Remember to encourage open dialogue and critical thinking by posing open-ended questions, actively listening to various perspectives, and exploring the nuances of this complex geopolitical situation.
