German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Germany would not prohibit Ukrainian attacks on Russian military targets, saying Ukraine “is allowed to defend itself.”

The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the French President Emmanuel Macron showed their joint support for Ukraine during a Franco-German defence and security council in Meseberg on Tuesday.

Whilst Chancellor Scholz had previously been firm on Ukraine not using Western weapons to strike Russian targets, he made a step in the direction of Macron, on the third and last day of the French president’s historic state visit to Germany.

Both leaders put their disagreements aside and compromised on the divisive subject of EU defence.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    6 months ago

    Bad headline. What it’s talking about is whether or not Ukraine can use the weapons Germany and France gave them to do so.

    They are already attacking military targets and France and Germany couldn’t do shit about it even if they wanted to, which they don’t.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      6 months ago

      couldn’t do shit about it even if they wanted to

      Of course they could. Halt the deliveries of weapons for one. It’s in Ukraines best interest to keep good relations with the West, something Ukraine takes very seriously.

      • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yet Israel can spit in our face and we still send them bombs.

        Also can someone explain to me how a missile can be powerful enough to kill someone, but unable to light a fire?

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          Idk where the thing about fire came from, but yeah most explosives dont create fires. The explosions we see in movies are created by blowing up canisters of gasoline or other flammables. Explosive missiles just create a big fucking shockwave, but dont really contain anything that could burn for extended periods of time.

          If there is a fire its usually from secondary things like gas pipes, electrical cables or other stuff that ignites easily.

          Or ofcourse incendiary ammunition was used but dats an entirely different can of war worms.

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            The tent fire that Israel swears its missiles were to small to make.

            I get the principle of really big boom, and understand Hollywood explosions, but where you have a large amount of energy and flammable materials, I just don’t see how something can be too weak to create a fire, when by its very nature it releases large amounts of energy.

            I’ve seen other missile strikes that cause fires, so what makes this one so special that it can’t?

            • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I mean a tent city like that is probably full of flammable things, so yeah the missiles probably caused the fire. It doesnt matter if it was on purpose or not, lives were taken and they dont give a fuck and that is all you really need to know imo.

    • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yup. “Strike Russian targets” is not the same as “strike targets in Russia”. Huge difference.