• lil_tank
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Worst case scenario is nuclear anhilation

    Best case scenario, imperial core military gets spanked so hard there’s no one left to fight revolutionaries

    Insane shit

    • Shrike502
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      there’s no one left to fight revolutionaries

      Domestically you mean? Because there’s still police, national guard, secret service, various special forces that aren’t deployed, FBI, etc

      • lil_tank
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        True but imo that’s a lot less scary, at least for Europe. The police can’t bear to fight on equal grounds, whenever they don’t feel like they can safely bully people they quit. It happened with the Yellow Vest movement, despite them being disorganised and mostly non violent.

        • Shrike502
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Do EU countries have an analogue to national guard? French have Gendermerie and the foreign legion, what about the rest?

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Poland have WOT - Territorial Defence Force (although the polish acronym read in english is surprisingly accurate) - formation that was intended to be PiS private army, but as every single military endeavour of any Polish government after 1989 it failed its purpose and is currently made of 15 light infantry brigades with no heavier support. Considering how they are getting shat on by the professional soldiers, they are basically bodies with guns. Or, as Witcher book and game would put it:

            Some more hits from wiki about them:

            The creation of the Polish TDF relates to the reforms in the Baltic states’ Territorial Defence Forces to provide response during the early stages of a hybrid conflict.[8]

            So yeah, just a bodies with guns

            The re-creation of the Territorial Defence Force was first announced in 2015 in reaction to the war in Donbass and concern that Poland’s existing military would be ill-equipped to confront an adversary under similar conditions of low-intensity conflict.

            Current state of Polish military is summarised here as: being afraid of Donbas militia.

            TDF was declared the successor to the traditions of the Home Army National Command (1942–1945) of the Second World War, while being the de facto successor to the heritage of its forebears.

            Reminder that Home Army en masse did next to nothing during entire war, their biggest action was needless and disastrous Warsaw uprising. So actually pretty fitting.

            Besides responding to external military threats, the WOT will, according to the Defense Ministry, help strengthen Poland’s “patriotic and Christian foundations”.[15]

            🤡

            • Shrike502
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s both hilarious and sad. On the other hand, it’s still bodies with guns aimed at the revolution

  • KrasnaiaZvezda
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 months ago

    Although Russia says there are over 3,100 mercenaries in Ukraine, these newly arriving troops are not mercenaries. They are in uniform, home country proclaimed via insignia. They mostly are concentrated in the western part of the country, although in some cases they are close to the actual fighting in the east.

    According to this there are already NATO troops in Ukraine. Any more sources on this? I don’t remember hearing about it to such a degree before.

    • REEEEvolution
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      US special forces were there since at least 22, recently some military engineers were sent over as well to build to Ukr. fortifications. Minor vassals will popably also sent units.

  • kredditacc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    May NATO be exhausted! And may the Western Financial Bubble burst!

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          The west openly admits that it lacks the production capacity to keep up with Russia. There’s a good analysis of the situation here https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine

          Russia winning in Ukraine that’s going to be the end of NATO because it will be discredited as an effective force at that point. Meanwhile, Europe will be forced into austerity to fund a huge increase in military spending. Given that Europe is already in recession, and doesn’t have access to cheap energy now, there’s little chance the economic situation will stabilize in the near future. On top of all that, we’re seeing aggressive dedollarization happening outside of G7. This process is directly shrinking western financial economy because trade is increasingly done outside it. This is a problem for US in particular because its infinite debt is premised on the idea that there’s always demand for the dollar. So, we’re seeing military defeat looming for the west along with serious economic problems that are very likely to result in another financial crash.

          On the other hand, the BRICS economy is growing fast, and it’s already a bigger economic bloc than the G7. We’re now seeing an economic war starting between the two blocs, and the G7 is the smaller bloc with diminishing opportunities in this equation.

  • EuthanatosMurderhobo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Barring the potential, albeit low, threat of nuclear holocaust, because, as always, that’s not worth thinking about…

    Nice. More dead NATO specialists.

    • cayde6ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      I gotta copy and paste this:

      I’m highly skeptical that this conflict would go nuclear. It’s unfortunately always a possibility, and people, especially Amerikkkan imperialists nutjobs, can and will do stupid things without thinking about the actions of their consequences, but my two-fold thinking is that not only is nuclear-war really unlikely to happen (or way less than most people think) I think it would very likely also be less destructive, depending on how things go.

      People always imagine that in a nuclear war scenario, all bets are off, but I don’t think so. There is usually some sense, even in chaos.

      Most or all of the most devastating nuclear weapons were disarmed several decades ago, and the most powerful nuclear weapons today would be able to destroy or damage large cities, even at the most. And yes, there are thousands of nuclear weapons.

      But due to the decreased potency of even the strongest nuclear weapons, and there still being a very finite number, even the capitalists probably understand that an irradiated world would be a terrible place to lord over, even if you survive.

      Nuclear weapons would most likely and would best be used to damage, delay and destroy military and industrial centers, and with how interconnected the world is now because of the internet, gps, cell phones, and supply chains, a country would be way less likely to get involved in combat when it’s industrial bases, bourgeois palaces and military-intelligence strongholds are utterly demolished, out of basic resources and power and labor, things would resolve relatively quickly, pacifying countries out of a fight with relatively few deaths, since there is no point in launching weapons at massive populations centers if it can be helped, since it would just invite more war, death, destruction, disease, sadness, vengeance, danger.

      I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.

      I think/hope/imagine that if or when NATO is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, that China, Russia, Iran, Palestine and the DPRK would already be 20 steps ahead, they have been planning for this for decades.

      China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.

      I hope it never comes to it, but I think a potential World War 3 would be mostly conventional warfare, and even if it isn’t, a nuclear war wouldn’t mean the death of all or even most of humanity (hopefully) and things would resolve in the Global South’s and socialism’s favor no matter what.

      • porcupine
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.

        I don’t know what about the history of the United States government would lead you to believe that they wouldn’t prefer total nuclear planetary annihilation to military defeat. “We’re taking it all with us when we go” has been the underlying premise of US policy on climate, economy, and geopolitics for my entire life. The US is not going to discover restraint after they’ve started firing nukes.

        • cayde6ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I figure that at least some of the U.S. government/bourgeoisie would surrender, at least enough to spare their own lives, and they will need to be hunted down and rooted out over time to prevent their resurgence among the levers of power.

          I’m not saying the U.S. will discover restraint, especially after firing nukes. I’m just stating that at least some of the Amerikkkan imperialists must have a degree of self-preservation to not want to risk the entire globe when they could scatter away and fight later.

          The U.S. Empire is fascist and short-term thinking, but it’s not completely stupid, it’s evil usually makes some kind of twisted sense. It’s better to plan for the worst and hope for the best, but I believe overestimating your enemy is almost as bad as underestimating.

          • porcupine
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I figure that at least some of the U.S. government/bourgeoisie would surrender, at least enough to spare their own lives

            Amerikkkan imperialists must have a degree of self-preservation to not want to risk the entire globe when they could scatter away and fight later

            There’s no excuse for this level of wishful thinking about global nuclear war. The United States is not going to launch a limited nuclear strike against another nuclear power and then surrender in the hopes that its leadership will be left alive. Nobody on earth would accept a surrender that left those people alive after a nuclear first strike. If the US launches on another nuclear power, the US only survives by completely obliterating every other non-occupied nuclear power before they have a chance to respond. If the US does a nuclear first strike without completely disabling any potential response, every other non-occupied nuclear power in the world would be obligated to immediately unload everything they have on the US. To do anything less would leave a country with no credible deterrent to US attack, and the US would be obligated to exploit that vulnerability to eliminate the threat to its hegemony. A nuclear exchange will either end in the total destruction of the United States, or total US world domination. Either option means uncountable dead and complete global economic and environmental collapse no matter who rules the wasteland. For average people that amounts to quick death or slow death. An improvement in anybody’s current living conditions would not be in the cards.

            The personal sense of self-preservation in individual members of the national bourgeoisie or congressional middle men doesn’t matter at all if one senile dipshit with one foot in the grave pushes the button. It doesn’t even matter what a majority of the US ruling class thinks if a few true believers in the right positions with enough hubris and self-delusion decide to gamble that the benefits of winning outweigh the likelihood of retaliation. It’s all or nothing once the first nuke flies. There can be no reconsideration or negotiation after that threshold is crossed. It’s either live by killing the enemy completely, or die taking them with you.

      • EuthanatosMurderhobo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        First of all, on the “irradiated world” and less devastating nukes. Modern nukes are way more efficient. More fuel reacts -> bigger boom and less pollution. Also, destruction of industry and infrastructure don’t happen in a vacuum. Subsequent chaos is gonna claim many more lives.

        And the part about Russian and Chinese defense systems is hella wishful thinking. Maybe China can do something like that, but if anything, war in Ukraine showed that Russian electronic warfare capabilities have been overestimated as hell. All the “sanctions” on chips won’t help either.

        • cayde6ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Modern nuclear weapons are way more efficient, of course, but the overall payload of most nuclear weapons is way lower than it was during the cold war.

          I know that the destruction of industry and infrastructure, chaos, and loss of lives isn’t in a vacuum, and there is a metric-shit ton of overlap. I never said it was going to be easy or that the loss of life wouldn’t not be tragic.

          I don’t think it’s wishful thinking, it’s what I’ve been reading about China’s technological capability, and Russia to a lesser extent. Again, not saying that China or Russia are invincible, and I think that neoliberals commentators have a huge tendency to downplay or underestimate Russia. Russia is a fucking workhorse, and while it still takes massive effort and loss and labor and resource intensity, keep in mind that the special military operation is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. I figure that Russia’s full potential hasn’t even begun to be utilized or unleashed yet, and Russia is saving it’s best toys and shit for when it truly needs them. The problems in the early phase of the SMO were caused by some combination of corruption and underestimating NATO’s support for Ukraine, but the cuffs are off now. Unless I’m missing something, Russia’s SMO is still only a partial mobilization.

          Imminent potential destruction is one thing that motivates Russia as a whole, for the better part of a century now, roughly speaking.

          I’ve been reading reports about the SMO lately, and I’m continuously surprised by Russia’s thriftiness and multi-faceted approach to countering Ukraine/NATO.

          I don’t claim to be a military expert, and I understand the situation is extremely dire, and I always advocate being prepared and reasonable and assuming the worst, but I think that time and reality is on our side, for now.

      • darkcalling
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.

        I’m sorry but this is not based on any evidence. No nation including the US has this ability. Among other problems for China and Russia, the US systems are pretty old and hardened, they don’t have a lot of attack surface, if anyone is going to get their nuclear system hacked and shut down it would be a power with a more modern system (I’m not sure if that describes either China or Russia). US has the largest number of nuclear missile carrying submarines constantly stationed around the world, roving undetected under the waters, waiting for the order to launch 20+ ICBM’s each, each carrying 20+ MIRVs, each carrying a warhead. They can park off Russia or China and have their missiles launched and detonations within 10 minutes. The systems for signaling those are very simple, US mainland land-launched weapons also have dedicated hard-line communication lines, they don’t use civilian internet or phone infrastructure.

        As to intercepting, no nation including the US has more than a few dozen hypersonic kinetic kill sled anti-ICBM weapons to my knowledge. The US has by contrast over 4000 warheads. Even if they launched only a 1/8th of them on the basis that one cannot reliably count on shooting down a warhead with less than 2 interceptors, that’s 1000 interceptors required.

        You can’t plan around physics other than deterrence. Maybe in 40 years with practical laser or particle weapons systems existing in large numbers you could make it impractical but the science simply isn’t there yet. If the science were there already the US would be pushing full steam ahead with their own programs so they could strike first and shield themselves. Fact is though that with evasive maneuvers the US’s own tests for success rates with their interceptors are rigged to look more rosy than they are. I’d bet China has better results and Russia as well but it’s probably not enough because you have to have the numbers.

        As to hacking and scrambling, if Russia could dominate in this way they wouldn’t be having the problems they have in Ukraine, they’d have done more damage to their infrastructure, they’d have crippled their defense systems, but CIA/NSA hackers are there with them helping them defend against Russian attacks very successfully.

        Let’s not forget the US has a starting edge here too. They infiltrated deep into China’s systems with their Cisco hardware implants and who knows if the Chinese ever rooted all of it out. I’m sure they’re not able to actively spy on them as they were because that would be observable and detectable but that doesn’t mean they don’t have buried in there, inactive, waiting for a special command, some sort of malware that will shut down and destroy their command and control when the moment of total war comes. China is actively fighting a variety of US attacks on it, the US has been paying Chinese civilians with free hobbyist equipment that serves as CIA/NSA radio-equipped attack platforms which China has been trying to round up among many, many other plots no doubt. By contrast the US freaks out if it sees a weather balloon from China so I doubt the Chinese have the same ability. The US is banning Chinese technology on the grounds it could be used by China for electronic warfare and hacking, I doubt the Chinese intended to do this but I think it’s projection and shows US plans and projects already well underway.

        On shutting down these weapons. They are specifically shielded against EMPs because one of the earliest concepts of nuclear defense was using nuclear detonations in the atmosphere in the path of incoming warheads to attempt to destroy, misdirect, and otherwise neutralize incoming enemy missiles. (See for example NIKE missile program)

        As to scrambling, they don’t rely entirely on GPS, their paths are calculated using mathematics that don’t require active pinging of positioning systems in orbit, after all these were first developed before GPS was even a dream, let alone a reality and had to be able to get to their destinations.

        As to decapitating strikes on the US, they have a fleet of always in the air emergency command and control aircraft specifically for the purpose of ensuring that the orders can be carried out (in fact I recently saw an article where the air force is looking to replace their current fleet of these. It was originally called Operation Looking Glass). (Russia by contrast has a system of several missiles which are programmed with emergency launch codes which can be launched and will travel the length of Russia blasting those codes and ordering all warheads to launch called Deadhand. China to my knowledge has no such system and relies on moving their warheads around in secret and plenty of mobile launchers to simply make it harder to hit them all in a first strike sneak attack but which does little for command redundancy)

        So I’m sorry but if the US starts a nuclear attack in earnest with any significant number of weapons, the only solace that China and Russia will get is that their own nuclear weapons will destroy American military bases and burn their cities to cinders in retaliation. I find it improbable that one would be intentionally started even by the US, the real risk is an inability to back down and backing Russia into a corner where it has to use nukes.

        As to nuclear war’s effects. I recommend the movie Threads from 1984 which went to great pains to be factual. There’s a saying among nuclear war theorists and planners and it’s that those who die in the atomic blasts would be the lucky ones. And that’s because such widespread destruction would cripple industry, food, clothing, manufacture of energy, medicine, etc for decades. Tens of millions would die not from fall-out but from starvation, from deprivation, from cold, from heat, from previously treatable diseases and epidemics which would rage in the kindling of such destruction of cities.

        • cayde6ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I admit I’m not a military expert, and this is just stuff that I’ve read that China currently has, but hot damn, this situation is even more serious than I thought, which is saying alot.

          I’ve done a surprising amount of reading about the after effects of nuclear war, and I’m very familiar with that phrase “the lucky ones will die in the first blasts”. My contentions are that different studies say wildly different outcomes. One recent study I found says that over 99 percent of humanity would die, and others I’ve read have said that a nuclear exchange would be more limited and less catastrophic than most people think. But regardless, a burning white hot anger is inside me right now. The fucking fascist Amerikkkan states, why can’t the country just leave the goddamn world alone?

      • panned_cakes [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        You can also substitute the effects of nukes without any of their repercussions, even if you’re forced to because you don’t have nukes & any allies with nuke wouldn’t meet that level of escalation, with precision weaponry aimed at important targets instead of wide effect nukes on bases although obviously the latter’s always going to be more bang…

  • poo_22
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    So they’re escalating? This isn’t good.

    • cayde6ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I really hope you are wrong and/or just being facetious, and I hope my copy paste will help at least somewhat:

      I’m highly skeptical that this conflict would go nuclear. It’s unfortunately always a possibility, and people, especially Amerikkkan imperialists nutjobs, can and will do stupid things without thinking about the actions of their consequences, but my two-fold thinking is that not only is nuclear-war really unlikely to happen (or way less than most people think) I think it would very likely also be less destructive, depending on how things go.

      People always imagine that in a nuclear war scenario, all bets are off, but I don’t think so. There is usually some sense, even in chaos.

      Most or all of the most devastating nuclear weapons were disarmed several decades ago, and the most powerful nuclear weapons today would be able to destroy or damage large cities, even at the most. And yes, there are thousands of nuclear weapons.

      But due to the decreased potency of even the strongest nuclear weapons, and there still being a very finite number, even the capitalists probably understand that an irradiated world would be a terrible place to lord over, even if you survive.

      Nuclear weapons would most likely and would best be used to damage, delay and destroy military and industrial centers, and with how interconnected the world is now because of the internet, gps, cell phones, and supply chains, a country would be way less likely to get involved in combat when it’s industrial bases, bourgeois palaces and military-intelligence strongholds are utterly demolished, out of basic resources and power and labor, things would resolve relatively quickly, pacifying countries out of a fight with relatively few deaths, since there is no point in launching weapons at massive populations centers if it can be helped, since it would just invite more war, death, destruction, disease, sadness, vengeance, danger.

      I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.

      I think/hope/imagine that if or when NATO is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, that China, Russia, Iran, Palestine and the DPRK would already be 20 steps ahead, they have been planning for this for decades.

      China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.

      I hope it never comes to it, but I think a potential World War 3 would be mostly conventional warfare, and even if it isn’t, a nuclear war wouldn’t mean the death of all or even most of humanity (hopefully) and things would resolve in the Global South’s and socialism’s favor no matter what.

      • Ocommie63 [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I hope its mostly conventional warfare too, but WW3 at least in my mind has started or will start soon, I dont see any way NATO would be willing to de-escalate, this situation or any other situation. I do hope I am wrong but I fear that I am not

        • cayde6ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think people slightly overestimate NATO, but it makes sense why people do. All Russia and China have to do is call their bluffs, aim at London, D.C., Brussels, encircle their proxy armies, disable missiles, stop launches, and things will start descending. Not saying it will be easy or fast or peaceful, but I think the situation calls for more hopeful optimism.

          • Ocommie63 [she/her]
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I agree that NATO’s power is overstated and I do believe that in another world war they would lose. However, I am also confident that there will be a war, perhaps not officially declared, between NATO and basically the rest of the world. There is no world where the West will go down without at least trying to maintain their hegemony. They killed to rule planet and they will kill to try and maintain their rule. They will kill but they will not succeed in maintaining their hegemony over the world.

            • cayde6ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I think that if we let that fear override us, we’ve already lost.

                • cayde6ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I mean like override how critical thinking, capacity for hope or organization, etc.

  • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Article says “advisors”, so its gonna be a mix of special forces doing front line recon/spotting with limited fighting, instructors for the wizz bang shit, maintenance crews for the wizz bang shit, and more liaisons for intelligence/logistics between Ukraine and EU countries.

    Not enough for front line fighting or reinforcing the rear. Nobody’s going to commit to large scale troop deployments until after the USA elections at the earliest, probably just hoping REALLY HARD that something unexpected happens that drastically changes the painting already splashed on the wall.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think they were hoping that Ukraine could last till the elections, but it’s starting to look like the lines are already cracking.

          • Shrike502
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            So around six months to go? Tbh I don’t see AFU capitulating in this period

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              I wouldn’t be too sure that AFU can hold on for another six months. Once the collapse starts it accelerates very quickly. We may be in the early stages of this right now. The panic in western media suggests that the situation is very bad for Ukraine.

        • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Elections in November and the new President takes office in like… January or something? (Don’t ask me, I just live here, I’m not great at USA civics.)

  • lorty
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ll be honest and say that I didn’t actually expect them to go for it. The empire has gone completely insane at this point

  • GlueBear [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 months ago

    This wouldn’t trigger article 4 right? That’s only if Russia decided to bomb them unprovoked?

    Oh we are gonna die fr fr 🫠

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      If there is a direct war between NATO and Russia then it will almost certainly will go nuclear.

      • cayde6ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m highly skeptical that this conflict would go nuclear. It’s unfortunately always a possibility, and people, especially Amerikkkan imperialists nutjobs, can and will do stupid things without thinking about the actions of their consequences, but my two-fold thinking is that not only is nuclear-war really unlikely to happen (or way less than most people think) I think it would very likely also be less destructive, depending on how things go.

        People always imagine that in a nuclear war scenario, all bets are off, but I don’t think so. There is usually some sense, even in chaos.

        Most or all of the most devastating nuclear weapons were disarmed several decades ago, and the most powerful nuclear weapons today would be able to destroy or damage large cities, even at the most. And yes, there are thousands of nuclear weapons.

        But due to the decreased potency of even the strongest nuclear weapons, and there still being a very finite number, even the capitalists probably understand that an irradiated world would be a terrible place to lord over, even if you survive.

        Nuclear weapons would most likely and would best be used to damage, delay and destroy military and industrial centers, and with how interconnected the world is now because of the internet, gps, cell phones, and supply chains, a country would be way less likely to get involved in combat when it’s industrial bases, bourgeois palaces and military-intelligence strongholds are utterly demolished, out of basic resources and power and labor, things would resolve relatively quickly, pacifying countries out of a fight with relatively few deaths, since there is no point in launching weapons at massive populations centers if it can be helped, since it would just invite more war, death, destruction, disease, sadness, vengeance, danger.

        I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.

        I think/hope/imagine that if or when NATO is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, that China, Russia, Iran, Palestine and the DPRK would already be 20 steps ahead, they have been planning for this for decades.

        China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.

        I hope it never comes to it, but I think a potential World War 3 would be mostly conventional warfare, and even if it isn’t, a nuclear war wouldn’t mean the death of all or even most of humanity (hopefully) and things would resolve in the Global South’s and socialism’s favor no matter what.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’m far less optimistic myself. If NATO goes in then the conflict will become existential for the west. However, the reality is that the west is simply not capable of conducting this sort of war because it lacks the industry to do so. Look at what happened with Ukraine, every red line was eventually broken. The west sent all the weapons it said it wouldn’t send, and now that Russia is still winning, the talk is turning to sending in troops.

          Nuclear weapons will likely be used in a tactical way first, both Russia and US have lots of tactical nukes. This can easily escalate into use of strategic nukes though. It doesn’t even have to happen intentionally. One side might simply miscalculate or misread the situation and launch their strategic nukes at the other. You can’t make the assumption that people in charge are rational because if they were we wouldn’t be where we are in the first place.

          And regarding shooting nukes at civilians, that will absolutely be the case. Do recall, that the only time nukes were used they were used against civilians. There is also a deeply cynical angle to it, that the big powers would likely nuke developing countries simply to ensure they don’t come out unscathed.

          • cayde6ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t assume that people are always or automatically perfectly rational, and of course timing and emotions and short-term thinking play a huge role as well, and yes, the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Japan was a horrific war crime and wasn’t even necessary or justified, on any level.

            What I am saying is that, when the chips are down, I highly doubt that the capitalists/imperialists/NATO/the Global North/military operators are going to be like:

            Guy 1: “Okay, we sent out dozens of nukes at Beijing and Moscow, and things still aren’t in our favor. Let’s start targeting farms in China, and populated cities and farms and the dams in China next, then Moscow.”

            Guy 2: “Dude, China has fighters, sensors, drones, heat-seeking missiles and deflectors and all kinds of shit surrounding the Three Gorges Dam, and Shanghai and Shenzhen. This is just inviting more and more violence.”

            Guy 1: “That’s CCP propaganda”

            Guy 2: “It’s fucking not! We can’t possibly sustain more launches, and China and Russia are preparing to launch theirs, actually, scratch that, we’re 10 minutes from being destroyed. We have to hope that troops in Ukraine can hold off Russia from-”

            Guy 3: “We’ve gotten orders to suspend missile launches, we gotta move the brass to a different location”

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t think that’s how it would play out. What I think is more likely is that one side decides to risk a decapitation nuclear strike where they try to overwhelm the other and launch a massive strike, the other side retaliates with their own. We get a nuclear winter and most of us starve to death.

              • KrasnaiaZvezda
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                Nuclear winter could actually be a bonus considering the changing climate, so with possible diminushing trade to the imperialist core, specially if they nuke the periphery on their attempt to cling to power, the Global South might only have a bad, but not horrible year, before things improve for the average person.

                Although I doubt it would go as smoothly as that.

  • DankZedong A
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 months ago

    You almost triggered my reflex to downvote whenever I see Ollongren

  • SpaceDogs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    They are really hellbent on nuclear warfare, huh? I know it’s still too early but every escalation NATO makes it just keeps pushing towards the use of nukes. I don’t know what the end goal here is but it’s not looking good. I’d rather not die, thanks.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      NATO leadership painted themselves into a corner politically, and they just might do insane things at this point.

      • SpaceDogs
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        NATO leaders can feel free to join the battle themselves, by all means please do. But maybe don’t drag the rest of us with you.

        Leaders used to go to war, when did that change?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          We would sure have a lot less war if that practice remained, now it’s just the rich sending the poor to fight their wars.

  • NothingButBits
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    Don’t expect them to fight. They’re probably going to reinforce the Ukrainian rear, so Ukraine can free more manpower and send more Ukrainians to die against Russia.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Problem is that Ukraine is running out of trained soldiers, and conscripts they kidnap of the street simply can’t hold the line. So, either the west lets the line collapse or they have to start putting boots on the ground.

      • NothingButBits
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, but those boots on the ground won’t be fighting Russians. They’ll stay in the West of Ukraine, so that those Ukrainian soldiers get sent to the frontlines.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          But that’s what I’m saying, there aren’t many troops left to send from west of Ukraine.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            Iirc they even stripped everything from all other borders leaving only skeleton crew, despite constantly fearmongering about Russian troops attacking from Transnistria or Belarus.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              Indeed, and apparently they’ve been stripping the border guard down even more recently because they need troops to stop the collapse that’s unfolding. The west sending a few thousand troops wouldn’t make any difference. It would have to be in hundreds of thousands to actually matter.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Entire EU combined have below 2 million military personnel, which means that most likely not even half are combat-worthy. AFU already lost more people than that in the last two years (counting all kind of loss).

                Of course EU have much more potential recruits than that, but i imagine how popular that kind of draft would be, if possible at all.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Even if it was, you can’t just grab people off the street and throw them into combat. It takes like a year to do basic military training. Part of the reason AFU is currently collapsing is because it’s increasingly filled with conscripts who don’t want to fight and don’t have the skills necessary. On the flip side, Russian army is seasoned and motivated.

        • KrasnaiaZvezda
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          How long until some of them get found out and hit by cruise missiles though?

          Even if they “don’t fight” they are still targets. And from what Russia has said, they are likely big targets.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s a possibility, Trump is far more likely to make a deal with Russia than Biden. This is why the neocons are freaking out over the possibility of Trump getting into power.

    • 小莱卡
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I dont think so, the neocons would just pivot to China.

    • ℝ𝔼𝔻 ℂ𝕆𝕃𝕆𝕊𝕊𝕌𝕊
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Honestly, it probably would. This makes me feel dirty to type… but the liberals are right about Trump, he’s a lot like Putin and is willing to shut out the EU allies in favor of him being an illiberal “democratically elected” quasi-dictator. Michael Parenti’s son said Trump is preferable to Biden because he’s willing to wreck the post-WW2 liberal order in his quest for individual power.