The Russian president says it would "significantly change" the nature of the Ukraine conflict and amount to "nothing less than direct involvement of NATO countries".
I think this will almost certainly go beyond Ukraine. The best case scenario is that Russia will transfer advanced systems like hypersonic weapons and s400s to Syria, Iran, and Yemen. The worst case scenario is that Russia may conduct a strike directly in a NATO country. Putin previously said that the options Russia was considering included this eventuality, and he doesn't bluff as far as I know. If he's making such a statement publicly now, it means Russia already has a response prepared.
I guess they could also do something like destroying GPS satellites or undersea cables as well, which might be a better approach if they don't want to kill anyone in NATO countries while hurting them considerably.
I don't see many chances of the US backing down of striking Russia by use of Ukraine, specially as they likely accept their own propaganda that Russia won't or can't do anything, so we unfortunatelly might know soon enough.
While a Kessler syndrome wouldn't be pretty, recent studies determine that it wouldn't be as devastating or impacting to space flight or missions as has been previously thought, and would clear up relatively fast or easily.
Right, it's mostly just bad PR. I do expect Russia would do this in case of a direct conflict with NATO though. Western weaponry is very dependent on satellites, while Russian weapons tend to use laser guidance for targeting. So, losing satellites would be far worse outcome for NATO.
I don't see many chances of the US backing down of striking Russia by use of Ukraine, specially as they likely accept their own propaganda that Russia won't or can't do anything, so we unfortunatelly might know soon enough.
I could be wrong, and of course if it did happen it would happen with different motives, but deescalating in Ukraine is why I'm hoping for Trump to win. I don't want more people to die over this NSDAP NATO bullshit.
I seriously doubt trump will de-escalate in Ukraine. Not only is he incredibly incompetent (he spent most of his time while president watching fox news and such), but he is also very impressionable and opportunistic.
True on both counts but I do think both points would drive him to push Ukraine to accept a peace deal which he would think makes him look great but in reality just gives Putin what he wants. Between NATO and Nazis, I'm not opposed to giving Putin what he wants at this point.
And I remember here a few weeks ago, many comrades here thought that Russia or China exporting weapons to anti-imperialist states would be a bad thing.
I'm sure more won't hurt. I think AD and EW systems and might actually be more impactful. Russia has been very effective at jamming western guided munitions, and their AD may be able to take out even stealth jets. This would basically put an end to any air campaigns by Israel and the US in West Asia.
I think this will almost certainly go beyond Ukraine. The best case scenario is that Russia will transfer advanced systems like hypersonic weapons and s400s to Syria, Iran, and Yemen. The worst case scenario is that Russia may conduct a strike directly in a NATO country. Putin previously said that the options Russia was considering included this eventuality, and he doesn't bluff as far as I know. If he's making such a statement publicly now, it means Russia already has a response prepared.
I guess they could also do something like destroying GPS satellites or undersea cables as well, which might be a better approach if they don't want to kill anyone in NATO countries while hurting them considerably.
I don't see many chances of the US backing down of striking Russia by use of Ukraine, specially as they likely accept their own propaganda that Russia won't or can't do anything, so we unfortunatelly might know soon enough.
I think that's less likely because it would piss off the whole world if Russia caused a Kessler syndrome.
While a Kessler syndrome wouldn't be pretty, recent studies determine that it wouldn't be as devastating or impacting to space flight or missions as has been previously thought, and would clear up relatively fast or easily.
Still wouldn't be recommended to try, though
Right, it's mostly just bad PR. I do expect Russia would do this in case of a direct conflict with NATO though. Western weaponry is very dependent on satellites, while Russian weapons tend to use laser guidance for targeting. So, losing satellites would be far worse outcome for NATO.
I could be wrong, and of course if it did happen it would happen with different motives, but deescalating in Ukraine is why I'm hoping for Trump to win. I don't want more people to die over this
NSDAPNATO bullshit.I seriously doubt trump will de-escalate in Ukraine. Not only is he incredibly incompetent (he spent most of his time while president watching fox news and such), but he is also very impressionable and opportunistic.
True on both counts but I do think both points would drive him to push Ukraine to accept a peace deal which he would think makes him look great but in reality just gives Putin what he wants. Between NATO and Nazis, I'm not opposed to giving Putin what he wants at this point.
And I remember here a few weeks ago, many comrades here thought that Russia or China exporting weapons to anti-imperialist states would be a bad thing.
Can we call them comrades if that's their position? I'd probably hesitate to at least.
I have plenty of other words that I would prefer to call them.
Yemen already has hypersonic missiles
I'm sure more won't hurt. I think AD and EW systems and might actually be more impactful. Russia has been very effective at jamming western guided munitions, and their AD may be able to take out even stealth jets. This would basically put an end to any air campaigns by Israel and the US in West Asia.