r/worldnews • u/Advanced_Drink_8536 • May 25 '24

Russia Bombs Ukraine Superstore With Hundreds Inside Russia/Ukraine

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-bombs-ukraine-superstore-with-hundreds-inside-in-kharkiv
25.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.4k

u/New-Bumblebee1756 May 25 '24

Another day - another ruzzia crime

626

u/m0j0m0j May 25 '24 edited May 26 '24

5 dead (UPDATE: 15 dead), 45 injured, 17 missing

Ukrainian MFA said there are two ways to make sure this doesn’t happen again:

  1. More Patriot air defense systems or

  2. Allow to hit Russian planes inside of Russia with American rockets (which USA forbids at the moment)

190

u/RickySpanishLives May 25 '24

I thought we were allowing that now. One or the other has to give. You need to give them a more comprehensive air defense system or you have to let them strike the things that the lack of the air defense system exploits.

Always somewhat concerned that with the "we kinda want to help them, but we won't...."Shit or get off the pot.

61

u/dr_stre May 25 '24

Not just yet, but it seems to be leaning that way…slowly.

3

u/OmiSC May 26 '24

The Tower of Pisa comes to mind.

6

u/Vandorol May 26 '24

Just the tip

39

u/yellekc May 26 '24

It is far more expensive to shoot down all the arrows than just shooting at the archers. Even with our budget, we will go broke pretty fast. Allowing Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with US weapons is a no brainer, if Russia doesn't like that they can always leave Ukraine and we can rescind the permission.

5

u/Earlyon May 26 '24

Pro Russian Republicans suck! Pro life my ass!

6

u/phueal May 25 '24

Many countries are allowing it now, including the UK who gave Ukraine its previous longest-range weapon, but not the USA yet.

2

u/sgerbicforsyth May 26 '24

I thought we were allowing that now

Not yet, but I doubt it'll be long before we do. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden allows Ukraine by the end of June.

Attacks like this will absolutely push the US to allow it.

3

u/Unabashable May 26 '24

Honestly it shouldn’t even be a question at this point. If the weapons they need are getting tied up in bureaucratic bullshit we should at least allow them to use the weapons we do send them however they deem necessary.

0

u/lloydthelloyd May 26 '24

It is to the strategic advantage of 'the west' for this war to drag on for the long term. The longer it lasts, the more crippling it is for Russia, with relatively little cost to the US or even the bulk of europe.

This is operation human shield with the Ukrainian people as fodder.

122

u/diito May 25 '24

3: Put NATO Troops in the parts of Ukraine that aren't occupied, just behind the front line. Don't get involved directly with the fighting but tell Russia if they push any further into areas NATO controls it's on and shoot down anything in the air from Russia even remotely close. Give Ukraine everything it needs to push back Russia, move in NATO immediately after.

34

u/DukeOfGeek May 26 '24

I have advocated for this too. Just make it clear to Putin, you will never have Ukraine and you will endlessly struggle and pay to keep the bits you have.

-4

u/HardlyRecursive May 26 '24

Might as well just launch the nukes now then and save some time.

6

u/diito May 26 '24

Nobody is launching any nukes. That's pure FUD from the Russians to try and keep the west from standing up to them.

-5

u/HardlyRecursive May 26 '24

Damn you can tell the future? Neat. What are next week's lotto numbers Nostradamus?

0

u/eggnogui May 26 '24

4: bomb everything Russian in Ukraine until they leave

3

u/Rizen_Wolf May 26 '24

Hide across the border.. cant touch me. Hide across the border... cant touch me. Kids these days.

7

u/nith_wct May 25 '24

I would not be surprised if that limitation is eventually lifted.

16

u/alaskanloops May 25 '24

It does appear to be going that way. Allowing russia to bomb civilians with impunity as long as they do it without crossing over to ukraine is insane.

10

u/Unabashable May 25 '24

What better time than now? It made sense when we didn’t know how committed Russia was to this little “special operation” of theirs, but now that we know they’re willing to throw as many men into as possible there isn’t much else that can be done to sway public opinion unless the Russian people start feeling the damage themselves. 

2

u/KeberUggles May 26 '24

They should just do it anyway, and then the US tell them “bad boy” but still keep sending them. Give ‘em the Israel treatment.

2

u/kimsemi May 26 '24

How would America stop them?

2

u/medianbailey May 26 '24

I believe the UK has lifted similar restrictions recently. Or atleast stated publically that ukraine can use uk weapons to hit russian soil. Admittedly i dont think the uk has sent anti air weapons recently. BUT, the UK is excellent at gauging what other countries are doing, then jumping in and doing it slightly sooner for better PR. For example tanks. 

-38

u/Effective_Standard14 May 25 '24

American should forbid Israel from hitting Palestine with rockets too wtf double standard or what ?

3

u/Unabashable May 26 '24

The problem with that is Hamas purposely holed themselves under Palestine with the express intention of using their own people as cannon fodder. So Israel can’t very well eliminate Hamas without attacking Palestine proper. Granted this spray and pray tactic they’ve been using is playing right into Hamas’ hands, and a more strategic approach is needed, but it’s pretty damn difficult to defeat your enemy when they’re essentially holding an entire city hostage. 

16

u/bigred1978 May 25 '24

A bunch of people living on a dirt strip by the sea don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

should forbid Israel from hitting Palestine with rockets...

You have your sentence reversed.

Hamas and Hezbollah have been hitting Israel with rockets for many years, this is just the IDF returning the favour.

6

u/ksj May 25 '24

Does the US provide Palestine with weapons?

7

u/Earlier-Today May 25 '24

Hamas is the more evil organization, but Israel commits more war crimes simply because they have a great ability to and a lack of care that they're doing so.

I still put Hamas as the more evil organization because they make sure their citizenry suffers so they can blame it all on Israel when only part of that suffering is because of Israel. Israel isn't starving its own citizens to keep the army as fed as possible (and then some), Israel isn't making sure their citizens can't escape combat zones, Israel isn't hiding all their military bases underneath important civilians infrastructure, like hospitals, schools, and the like.

But Hamas being more evil than Israel doesn't magically make Israel the good guys. It just makes them the not as evil, but still evil, guys.

Who attacked first isn't important for a conflict that's been on and off for over half a century.

Israel is leading a brutal response to Hamas' big attack from earlier this year. They show no care whatsoever for civilian casualties, and, like I said before, have committed war crimes regularly in their brutal response.

11

u/CV90_120 May 25 '24 edited May 25 '24

The idea that one party in israel/ Palestine is the one "doing things first and the other is reacting", is why no one can solve the issue. It's a fallacy. If there's any root cause for the situation, it could more accurately be traced to the artificiality of the demographics following the fall of the Ottomans. It was more or less in balance around 1900, with peace being pretty much standard for the 600 years previous.

Everything that came after was colonial origin demographic disasters of varying sizes. Now you are here ----> One group now has full military and social control, and the other side is behind wire. Only a fool would think that the side behind the wire is just going to be passive, and only a fool would think the side with the wire and control is going to let go of that control. It's like when you're a kid and you get your brother in a headlock. You know when you let go they will come back at you, so you don't let go, but the longer you hold on, the angrier they get.

3

u/Vansiff May 25 '24

USA dosent want to escalate against Russia.

We don't care about the middle east though. We've been pillaging it for years.

2

u/Unabashable May 25 '24

Well it’s not really a double standard as Israel is the one doing the invading in response to a surprise terrorist attack. Also we don’t have as much control over Israel because they already have their own military industrial complex a can last a lot longer without the support of foreign allies. We have limited the types of weapons we sent though (mainly defensive) until they can show us that they can conduct this war while minimizing civilian casualties. 

1

u/Effective_Standard14 May 30 '24

Huh well according to Wikipedia it says “In 1999, the US government signed a commitment to provide Israel with at least US$2.7 billion in military aid annually for ten years; in 2009 it was raised to $3 billion; and in 2019 raised to a minimum of US$3.8 billion.” So id say it’s not really Israel’s military complex but Israel’s USA funded military complex wouldn’t you?

1

u/Unabashable May 30 '24

Oh we certainly helped. Honestly I don’t see why we would just volunteer to give them money annually other than trying to make them more reliant on us, but I’m definitely not on board with that the way the IDF is conducting themselves today. I mean what the hell is that buying us when they don’t listen to us?

1

u/KarHavocWontStop May 25 '24

Lol, talk about not understanding how reality works

-2

u/indigoboingo May 26 '24

An incredible act of cowardice on Biden’s part. Ukraine should be allowed to use whatever weapons they have to defend themselves wherever that is necessary.

8

u/VenommoneY May 26 '24

Russia bombs a Ukrainian market. You: why would Biden do this

Galaxy brain take bud

1

u/indigoboingo May 26 '24

No idea what that means. I said Ukraine should be able to defend itself, and use whatever weapons it has to do so.

4

u/Charlie_1300 May 26 '24

No one is stopping Ukraine from defending themselves. Not going on the offensive is not about cowardice. The decision is not squarely on the sitting PotUS. NATO is involved in that decision as well. It is also about managing a difficult situation that has the potential to go from a cold WWIII to a hot WWIII.

1

u/indigoboingo May 26 '24

Britain is part of NATO - they had no problem telling Ukraine to do what they needed to do. Biden is afraid of giving Putin a “reason” - he created his own reason to invade Ukraine. He’ll do it again when he sees fit.

3

u/Unabashable May 26 '24

If you’re suggesting that Trump would allow them to if he were in office you’re sorely mistaken. That fucking traitor would offer them up on a silver platter. I agree Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted to only fighting for their very existence within the confines of their own territory, but having reservations about how that would affect the dynamics on a world stage isn’t cowardice. It’s a measured approach. 

2

u/indigoboingo May 26 '24

I’m not suggesting any such thing. Trump is an idiot.