Russia did not change the status quo. It was the US which pushed Germany and France in 2008 to accept the announcement of a coming NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine.
Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. Just one of them hitting would be slightly concerning, don´t you think?
Do you have Alzheimer's? I only ask because we've been over the subject of NATO at least three times now. Ukraine's membership wasn't even on the table when Russia invaded. Prior to this whole series of events I couldn't have possibly given two shits about Ukraine or anyone else joining NATO, but Russia's actions have been both the strongest possible justification and best possible advertisement for the organization's purpose.
Not in particular, no. Russia landing one warhead effectively means there’s no more Russia the following day, just a field of glass. I’m not concerned at all.
It’s likely that when all is said and done, both the U.S. contracts regarding missile defense bases in former Eastern Bloc countries *and* accelerated membership of countries close to the Russian border will be back on the table, all thanks to Putin’s silly aspirations. He did this to himself.
The US has pushed Ukraine into NATO since 2008. Not saying that it was done against the wish of the Ukrainians (but nor were Soviet missiles in Cuba). Ukraine is not a member but has been treated as such with the exception of active military support.
You are a fool. In a nuclear exchange the US will send thousands of rockets and Russia will do the same. Even if the US were to be superior in its capabilities (some in the US military deny it - but that could simply be in order to increase defense spending; I cannot judge how effective Russian hypersonic nuclear warheads might be), it would be very difficult to intercept them all. One of them landing would be much worse than the old ones the US used against Japan.
Oh, they’re aiming at the U.S.? The country that’s been building and strengthening their national anti-missile defense systems for the last 40+ years? The one with anti-ballistic missile technology implemented not just in the ground (PATRIOT), but also on sea (AEGIS) and in the skies (THADD)? The guys that can track launches from space (SBIRS-HIGH)? Now I’m less worried - I thought they were aiming at somebody slightly closer. I’m not worried about the paper tiger - if Russia’s missiles are as reliable as their “brand-new” tanks, chances are they’ll have to stop for gas by the time they’re half-way there, and Russia doesn’t have the kind of money to fill up a tank - have you been to a gas station recently? Hmm… maybe if someone pushes them along the way…
Nobody is speaking recklessly about nuclear war. It’s very obvious that no country on the planet has the capability to intercept every single missile that flies their way - that’s the point, it works both ways. Mounting a nuclear attack against a NATO state, or even just the U.S. itself, would mean swift retaliation against the offender. It would be the shortest war in history - whoever chooses to do that is signing their own death warrant. With that being said, NATO does have the capacity to address such a threat, and the U.S. is uniquely well-equipped to do so even on its own. If Putin dreams of making the Kremlin a mile-deep crater filled with glass, he’s welcome to try his hand. He knows this, which is why I’m not worried. At all. There’s only one Russia, there’s a number of NATO countries with extensive nuclear capability. The shoddy Russian equipment is no match. It’s unclear if their arsenal is even fully operational as they claim - I’m not going to lose sleep over the supposed nuclear capability of a post-Soviet state with a GDP smaller than that of the state of Texas alone. Whatever they’re spending on their gear, it’s not nearly enough to pose a threat. I don’t see a reason to bend the knee before a tyrant just because “they have nukes” - so what if they do? If you bend the knee, you lose by default anyway. Putin gets what he deserves, and if he throws a suicidal hissy fit, odds are his own people will eliminate him before the U.S. even gets a chance to do so.
It took some convincing but you admit it. Good.
Convincing to say what? That nukes are dangerous? I think you’re asking the wrong question here. Nuclear deterrence only works *if* you shoot back - if Russia shoots 10 warheads at you, you shoot 1000 right back at them. Mutually assured destruction prevents anyone who generally likes being alive from actually using these weapons. The possibility that Russia would use nukes is effectively zero - you’re the one imagining weird scenarios in which Putin wants to go out in one last blaze of “glory”. That’s what I’ve been saying so far and that’s the opinion I stick by. Cowardice only enables dictators to run wild - they need to know that in the event of an attack, everybody responds in kind, that’s the only way to ensure safety. Kowtowing to them doesn’t work, and never will. Putin’s not insane - he’s very calculated, and he miscalculated this one, possibly because he himself was misinformed by his own advisors regarding the battle readiness of his troops. He’s beginning to realise that he’s commanding battalions of clown cars, which is why he ordered the deployment of *vacuum bombs* to take his troops a little further away from the action. If you don’t know what one of those is, look them up. Will he use a nuke? Hell no - that undermines his premise of running a peace keeping operation, destroys key infrastructure and is effectively the suicide button as far as modern warfare is concerned. He’ll threaten it all day, but he won’t do squat.
That´s not my imagining. I am shining light on the contradiction that - according to Western media - Putin is a dangerous dictator who would not be stopped by his generals (and that he is sick and that he does not care how many Russians die). But on the other hand we should destroy their economy and push them into a corner militarily.
Chomsky is a genius linguist and an absolutely idiotic political commentator - I am yet to hear him say one thing about politics that wouldn’t make me think he’s a dumbass. He’s a braindead leftoid, always has been. Kissinger should have nothing to say regarding war after Vietnam, Cambodia and the rest of his involvement in Indochina. I don’t take advice from old farts who are an inch removed from being war criminals. I am firmly of the belief that harsh economic sanctions are the pathway to victory here, my only problem with it is that they also hit innocent civilians on both sides. I don’t blame Russia for that though - I blame western government who have gutted their own manufacturing/production capabilities over the course of the last few decades. Will they learn anything at all from this? Absolutely not, but that’s a different problem entirely.
Chomsky and Kissinger (in the US; there are high profile people in Germany who wrote an open letter to the German government) are not exactly friends of Putin. If even they warn the West, it should make you stop and think.
When were these warnings even issued? Because it's worth noting the other reason nobody takes Russia's threats of nuclear warfare seriously is that they make that threat just about every other week, and often in response to the smallest disagreements or grievances. The Kremlin is the boy who cried wolf, and so much of the world tuned them out years ago.
I also want to point out that even if Russia did in fact use nuclear arms in this he would basically be attacking the land that he is so hard on wanting for himself, plus if any of those arms hits near Pripyat its going to be a world wide level shitshow for Russia.
Nothing Chomsky and Kissinger say should ever be a reason to stop and think, unless you’re thinking about how exactly are they still alive.
My money’s on “they haven’t” because they’re poor as shit, comparatively speaking. They’re just not wealthy enough to keep an arsenal that size in working condition.
“For China, Taiwan is essential, that’s why they will burn it to ash with nuclear fire, destroying the very reason why they want it in the first place” - this kind of logic decays faster than an unstable isotope. There are far superior weapons to use if you want to kill the population, but retain the infrastructure. Even tactical nukes aren’t quite like what people imagine - they’re not a giant “FU” fireball anymore, using a weapon like that makes no sense strategically. Traditional nukes are only suitable for an annihilation war - that’s why neither China nor Russia are going to use any in their conquest attempts.
