The CIA has assessed Ukraine was not targeting a residence used by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a recent drone attack in the north of his country, according to US officials, undercutting an assertion the Russian leader had made to President Donald Trump in a Monday phone call.

The CIA’s director John Ratcliffe briefed Trump on the assessment Wednesday, the officials said.

Sources said Ratcliffe later briefed Trump that the CIA did not believe it was true. And on Wednesday, Trump appeared to have adopted a more skeptical posture toward posting, posting a link to a New York Post editorial on Truth Social with the headline, “Putin ‘attack’ bluster shows Russia is the one standing in the way of peace.” The Post’s editorial board noted it was “rich that Putin, who has waged a brutal war for nearly four years, believes that any violence in his vicinity merits special outrage” and asserted that “Any attack on Putin is more than justified.”

    • Bwaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Fucksake, yes. If there were a fund I could donate to specifically for financing drones to target every place that SOB lies his head, I’d be writing checks to it today.

    • pmk@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      It matters if future security guarantees are conditional on Ukraine not attacking Russia. If Russia can claim they were attacked without any fact checking now, they might do the same in the future when it matters more. Showing Russia that their claims are not automatically believed is positioning for the future.

    • LOGIC💣@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      In countries where the military is aggressively attacking non-combatants in other countries, their war criminal leaders are the most legitimate targets imaginable.

      Life isn’t exactly like chess, in that in life, it’s not always enough to eliminate the king. But, if you keep eliminating king after king until somebody reasonable assumes control, it seems like the least bloody way to end conflict.

      • dublet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 minutes ago

        Stepping on the tail only angers the snake. In order to defeat it, one must strike at the head.