• prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    While I think that’s dope it does feel like it gives Russia valid cause to strike them in host countries and kind of feels like a deliberate provocation to do so?

      • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes they will. Russia stated that they will be legitimate targets wherever.

        • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Russia has stated many things which are often contradictory and false.

          Regardless, attacking NATO countries would be strategic insanity.

          • Vilian@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            they are insane tho, but putin don’t want to die, and their fuxked up defense system can’t cope with the ammount of missiles that gonna rain in his head

            • oatscoop@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              They’re not insane: everything they’ve done are things they sincerely thought they could get away with, and up until Ukraine Putin has been correct in that regard.

              Pretending to be crazy is an effective strategy: ironically Nixon popularized it during the cold war.

              Attacking targets in NATO countries (even if “justified”) is going to drastically increase the odds NATO gets directly involved in Ukraine – something Putin absolutely doesn’t want.

          • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            32
            ·
            5 months ago

            Regardless, attacking NATO countries would be strategic insanity.

            NATO is weak now. I wouldn’t want to bet on that.

            • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s not even politics, It’s just math. NATO has superiority in economy, industrial output, operational equipment and manpower.

              Plus they’re too close to Russia for asymmetric warfare rules.

              I would bet on it, but I’d sure as hell wish we could all get along instead.

              • Old_Geezer@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                5 months ago

                The asymmetric warfare will probably occur in other places around the world. There’s many places to pick. 800 military bases around the world that are vulnerable. The industrial output favours the Russians.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Here’s what Russia actually stated as explained by the chief of NATO

            The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

            The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

            So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

            https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

        • CptEnder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          If it’s a NATO country the F-16s are the least of their worries and find out what a real 3 day operation looks like.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      Russia already stated that they will do precisely that, so this moves us one step closer to a nuclear holocaust. Hope it was worth it.

      • InputZero@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This comment is for anyone who is experiencing nuclear-phobia, kinda like I do, to which I strictly mean living with a state of fear or dread about a nuclear apocalypse, this development does puts the world one step closer. It’s okay to be scared by that, I know I am. It doesn’t mean the world is one step away from a nuclear apocalypse. The world has been closer to the brink of nuclear war before and we’re all still here. It’s okay to breathe.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Pretty much none of those were actually stated by Russia. The trend has been that it’s the west that make up these red lines, then crosses them and says, see nothing happened. Last I checked, the actual red line Russia set out was Ukraine joining NATO, and when that red line was ignored the war started. This notion that you can just keep pushing a nuclear superpower and nothing bad will happen is imbecilic beyond belief.

          • sweng@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            There are sources given for the claims. If they are inaccurate you should remove the sources, and the claim itself if there are no good sources supporting it anymore.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              If you bother reading the sources, then you’ll see that these aren’t primary sources of anything the Russian government said. These are articles and interpretations by western analysts and think tanks. Feel free to link statements from the Russian government though.

                  • sweng@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I already have sources. If you don’t believe them, it’s up to you to show that, not me to provode you with endless sources that you anyway will reject for some reason.