What warnings? Last I heard the very deliberate language was that the US “Did not encourage” strikes inside Russian territory. Has that language escalated?
Can’t read the article due to the torrent of pop ups unfortunately because I’m very interested to know the basis of the headline.
The basis for the title is that Ukraine is still hitting targets in Russia. Honestly, I don’t believe the US was serious about their comments opposing those strikes. US oil companies will just make more profits after all.
I believe the argument was that it would raise global oil prices but that wouldn’t make sense unless Russia is doing a better job of bypassing sanctions than we know about. There have been rumblings of Russia using intermediate countries to move oil and other resources, so there is that.
It just seems super vague to me. It says that they are ignoring the advice to call off the strikes, but there’s nothing in there from an official or anything about what exactly they are being advised. Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but it doesn’t seem definitive at all as to what’s being communicated.
What warnings? Last I heard the very deliberate language was that the US “Did not encourage” strikes inside Russian territory. Has that language escalated?
Can’t read the article due to the torrent of pop ups unfortunately because I’m very interested to know the basis of the headline.
The article is paywalled anyway.
The basis for the title is that Ukraine is still hitting targets in Russia. Honestly, I don’t believe the US was serious about their comments opposing those strikes. US oil companies will just make more profits after all.
I believe the argument was that it would raise global oil prices but that wouldn’t make sense unless Russia is doing a better job of bypassing sanctions than we know about. There have been rumblings of Russia using intermediate countries to move oil and other resources, so there is that.
And note the source. It’s basically an industry rag.
If anything, it’s an obligatory, “no… please… don’t…” to maintain plausible deniability.
last section of the document
It just seems super vague to me. It says that they are ignoring the advice to call off the strikes, but there’s nothing in there from an official or anything about what exactly they are being advised. Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but it doesn’t seem definitive at all as to what’s being communicated.
It is vague and it needs to be because at best this is second hand account of what it was said.
https://archive.ph/https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/04/18/ukraine-is-ignoring-us-warnings-to-end-drone-operations-inside-russia
Just put
archive.ph/in front of the URL.https://archive.is/2024.04.19-081756/https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/04/18/ukraine-is-ignoring-us-warnings-to-end-drone-operations-inside-russia