As Putin and Lavrov repeatedly pointed out, these weapons have to be operated by western personnel. so it would be NATO launching missiles into Russia. That's an act of war.
Liberals: Biden could possibly protect our rights and sign in some legislation before Trump takes office!
Biden:
Show
Biden has finally done what these pricks have asked and I still bet they're going to be mad about something.
Of course, immediately after it inevitably prove ineffective at changing the situation in any way positive for them*. I do expect though that at least some of the missiles will pass the Russian air defence and kill civilians in Moscow or wherever else they are aimed, which will immediately rise the support for war again and especially for the hawks like Medvedev. Which might be exactly what Biden wants to achieve to prolong the war.
*Also the same was in case of HIMARS, every scarce missile launched to kill civilians in Donbas was one less to launch at Russian army. This is why all the internet warriors for Ukraine vehemently deny any terror bombing of Donbas happened and get very angry when proven otherwise - because it not only make their "fighting for their country freedom" idols evil but also stupid. With a very clear paralel to III Reich which did the same with V1 and V2.
With every passing day I'm more and more sure that I'm going to die here. They just won't quit until Ukraine is an irradiated wasteland, won't they? I don't have any hope anymore.
The west may well run out of weapons before it gets to that point.
They're allegedly followed by a band of wizards constantly performing necromancy and removing memories from anyone that saw them but somehow survived so it's impossible to confirm anything but they're there trust me
No. And they're not likely to. Instead they're going to be in the part of internationally recognized Russia that Ukraine invaded in their incursion. They may or may not fight (they may just be there to observe and serve as perhaps additional defense against incursions in a region) but if they do they'll be fighting on Russia's internationally recognized territory against an invading force.
None. The closest is only some possible evidence of them being in Russia's far east, next to Korea itself, but that's about it and it wasn't even fully confirmed either.
Thousands. Actually, all Russian soldiers are just members of the DPRK wearing those glasses with a nose and mustache attached and wearing Russian uniforms. The entire war in fact was a plot by the DPRK to claim territory and eventually invade America and steal their toothbrushes.
It goes even deeper. Those DPRK-nationals-in-noseglasses are actually paid Chinese actors, like the ones the CPC sent to Xinjiang to roleplay as Uighurs (Adrian Zenz was not fooled).
I think there is only 1 way to avoid an actual nuclear conflict if this does happen. And thats for Russia to test a nuke. Do it somewhere in siberia or the Arctic where NATO cant get mad. Announce it before hand. and set off a Tsar Bomba level nuke with everyone watching. Remind the world what nukes look like and that you have big ones. Then turn around and say "Now back the fuck off".
It will show Russia is serious without actually risking a nuclear exchange. Its the only thing that may wake up the Americans and make them realize the type of fire they are playing with.
Siberia is not a wasteland, there are around 40 million people living there, it's incredibly ethincally diverse with dozens of different peoples and languages, not to mention it's a gigantic region with huge forests that are home to a large number of rare species.
It's already being affected by global warming and testing nukes there would be a disaster.
well you get what i meant somewhere uninhabited im not sure where they used to do the tests but the USSR had places to do them.
I feel that the more likely scenario is that they target NATO satellites, drones and other sensors that home in these weapons. Anything involving nukes would turn the world against Russia and play into NATO's hand.
The issue is that activates article 5. I think Russia will want to avoid giving all the NATO nations an excuse to dogpile in. The DPRK has proven the effectiveness of doing tests as a deterrent.
The DPRK was successful in using nukes as a deterrent because it was long in question if the DPRK had a functional nuclear weapons program.
What does dropping a nuke in the middle of Siberia accomplish? “Oh wow, Russia has nukes. That’s a surprise. It’s not like they have the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world.”
What does Russia get out of destroying some random part of its country? Also Russia doesn’t have any Tsar bomba level nukes. No one does. One of would to be built from the ground up taking an absurd amount of money, resources, and manpower.
I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russias "Soviet Era" nukes still work. This would not only shut that talk up but demonstrate a willingness to use them. The west wants to be able to bomb Russia and thinks Russia isnt gonna use nukes in response. In order for it to be a deterrent you have to demonstrate you are capable and willing to use them.
I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russia's “Soviet Era” nukes still work.
I've seen articles like that too, and they strike me as propaganda -- in other words, they're intended for citizen consumption, as a way to drum up support for a (largely) unpopular war. Western militaries likely have a much more accurate picture of Russia's nuclear capabilities. Which is why Trump's generals were so unhappy when, back in 2018, he went on twitter and personally threatened Assad with missile strikes; such things are hard to walk back, and US brass fully understood what war with Russia might entail. Even today, under an administration that is much more hardline neocon than Trump's, you've gotten US generals -- Mark Milley, for instance, a very sorry and two-faced character -- talking out of both sides of their mouths on Ukraine: we're committed to defending Ukraine, but, we want to stop Putin's agression, but...
I think what we are seeing right now with Biden is not exactly an attempt to go to war with Russia. Rather, it's dangerous, irresponsible, and utterly criminal brinkmanship: politicians playing Kissinger without having an ounce of Kissinger's geopolitical saavy. It could also be an attempt to hurt Trump, whom Biden and so many democrats seem to have a personal animus against; for when bourgeois states reach this late stage of corruption, and when there's a division in the ruling class like that we see in America today, vendettas can become a real factor in politics. In other words, what Biden wants to do is leave an enormous mess for Trump to sort out, and he's hoping that that mess won't go (quite literally) thermonuclear.
Or the US ruling could really be just that crazy. I hope not.
I think a lot of it is just the US elites drinking their own koolaid. Theyre just that deluded.
I'm reminded of this part from Indi's article on the US military: https://indi.ca/nothing-to-see-here-just-the-wheels-falling-off-empire/
The American war Ponzi is the perverse inverse of their domestic one. At home, they defraud money by at least building infrastructure. Abroad, they make money by destroying it.
This is the great innovation of American Empire. Figuring out that there's more money in losing wars than winning them. Only America attacks other places to loot their own treasury. They spent an absolutely soulless $2.3 trillion destroying Afghanistan and didn't 'get' anything much in return. So what do you do when you're running a Ponzi and one scheme goes belly up? You have to get the sucker into a new con, quickly. As that Wolf Of Wall Street said:
"You get another brilliant idea, a special idea, another situation, another stock to reinvest his earnings and entice him, and he will, every single time, 'cause they're addicted."
To cover up the loss of Afghanistan America invaded Iraq. When that went screwy they invaded Libya, then Syria. That wasn't enough so they went even bigger, provoking Russia by corrupting Ukraine. The Ponzi Empire leaves a trail of destruction wherever they go, but the jig is only up if they stop. So they never stop. This is a big reason America keeps starting war after war after war. They've got to keep the scam going. As Marohn says, “like any Ponzi scheme, as soon as the rate of growth slows, it all goes bad very quickly.” Which is the point we're getting to now. America is pushing up against countries like China, Russia, and Iran that it cannot actually intimidate like the innocent civilians and weddings it's used to bombing from afar. We have finally reached the end of this fatal Ponzi. The scams are getting closer and closer together and running into each other. People are beginning to see, and soon they'll start withdrawing their money.
The reason I think of it is: some of it may be drinking their own koolaid and some of it may be a sort of desperation to keep the con going.
There are a couple issues I see with this.
Firstly, is that is just liberal media saber rattling. Even if you DID do a nuclear a test, do you think it would change their mind? No, they would probably just say that it was one of the only functional warheads that Russia had left and that now that they used it they must have nothing left. See: Russia is running out of ammunition stories that ran for years.
I have plenty of issues with the US military and I am continuously skeptical of their actual capabilities, but I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that they have intelligence on their enemies' weapons programs. They are probably reasonably aware of Russian nuclear capabilities and the fact that they do in fact have weapons that are functional. Maybe not exact numbers, but they should be aware of the fact that they exist.
Is this one last hurrah until he has to go? I have to admit that this news makes me very fearful, this and the war survival pamphlets in the Nordics. If Ukraine uses those long-range weapons, is that the point of no return?
Oh fuck. This could be very bad. Especially with Trump coming into office. If he does plan to follow a plan of maximum pressure to end the conflict in an armistice ala Korea then he needs to ramp up from whatever Biden was doing and without this as a threat where can he really go? He probably wouldn't want to back down from it for fear of looking weak so I'm afraid this wouldn't end in short order.
But this is basically calling Russia's bluff and daring them to strike NATO in return. Which could spiral into nuclear war.
OR, OR they could be looking to put this conflict entirely on the Europeans and get them to run and maintain it in which case Russia striking a NATO base in Poland or Germany or in one of those reactionary as fuck Baltic countries in retaliation could be used as kind of a prod to get them more involved directly while the US slinks out the back door. Make them hold down the conflict. Because the US wants Europe in shambles, they don't want a strong Euro or competing bloc, and they most of all want them at Russia's throat not cooperating so getting say European armies directly involved in a conflict with Russia while they pivot to Asia and readying for attacking China in 2026-27. They want at least Europe not close to Russia, ideally Europe to inflict such costs on Russia that they sue for peace and they can look strong and paint it as a victory for NATO and then turn around and use Ukraine and newly re-armed Europe to supply a fight against China, maybe directly against China, maybe in planned proxy conflicts in Africa and Asia to coerce the world into alliance against China by coup, invasion, color revolution, etc.
I'm going to say it. Russia should be willing to use nuclear weapons. The west will not accept a strategic defeat easily and if they get directly involved with their armies after Russia hits them in retaliation for this Russia should use nuclear weapons on their forces rather than backing down and allowing NATO a win or an armistice that sees Nazism reign in Ukraine and Ukraine turned into an arms and mercenary depot for the west to call upon to use on Africa, west Asia and the rest of the world in destabilization operations for strategic influence against BRICS/China. They're already doing this but it will expand and be used directly against the emerging multipolar BRICS order so better for Russia to call them now and force a stop to it than have the world deal with their terrorism, extremism, violence, coups, etc for decades to come.
For once Putin needs to show Russia won't back down as they have done every previous time. They should draw up plans and the moment one of these missiles hits or even I dare say flies deep into Russia and is intercepted successfully, they should hit a nearby NATO base with absolute fury, just leave nothing left but bodies and rubble using conventional munitions. I'd even go so far as to propose taking a nuclear capable ICMB or three, removing their nuclear warheads, fitting them with large amounts of conventional explosives (with multi-re-entry vehicles this would equal 30-70 strikes) and alongside a diversionary force of medium range missiles like Kalibers striking German weapons factories in Germany to take them out as a message that they'll strike deep into Europe in response. Using ICBMs would give the message they could have used nukes and gotten through but chose not to, this time. And striking weapons factories would be especially appropriate given they're the ones supplying this conflict.
Of course they do have other options. They could and should arm Iran to the teeth with modern S-300 or S-400 air defense systems making the zionist entity's airforce useless but I think they should have done that a while ago and that this escalation calls for a more direct message to European vassals. They could and should given Ansar Allah advanced anti-ship weapons platforms capable of striking and sinking large US naval vessels and have them operated by Russian personnel. That would be a direct answer of course but I fear could expand the conflict in unpredictable ways.
But they have to call the bluff in some dramatic way that inflicts death and destruction on the west in response.
Cities can be leveled, neighborhoods turned to pulp, without nuclear weapons being used. Like what happened to Grozny. You can't walk back a nuke, but everyone not in that city can survive a city being shelled to oblivion.
I can't believe a communist is honestly advocating for a nuclear exchange. Honestly this reads like a bad edgy roleplay. We need more comrades like Vasily Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov and less like you.
Honestly this reads like a bad edgy roleplay
Even more like some ultraleftist fantasy of Total Destruction and Birth of a New Order, actually. I can't say I was never prey to that kind of thinking -- especially when I just started getting into Marxism -- but it really is juvenile and basically anti-materialist.
I can't believe a communist is honestly advocating for a nuclear exchange.
You haven't heard the good word of J. Posadas?
I am not advocating for a nuclear exchange.
I am advocating for not backing down or being blackmailed by this monstrosity into just accepting their salami-slicing tactics without any tipping over point ever.
Nowhere did I say "gee they better nuke the jerks tomorrow".
Frankly I think Russia should wait until Trump gets into office and give him an ultimatum and a chance to put a stop to it. I'm afraid he may escalate even further to try and pressure them though but it's worth a shot. And nowhere did I say if that fails they need to jump immediately to nuclear weapons use.
I have nothing more to say as my opinion is being distorted so this is not productive. Nor do I have any interest in trading barbs though I have several thoughts as this isn't going anywhere good.
I admit though I can't recall now that some of my language may have been hasty and imprecise and for that I am sorry for making worse any misunderstandings as a result. edit: I was in a somewhat emotionally agitated state so I may have phrased things in ways I regret though I maintain I didn't and wouldn't advocate that, it certainly wouldn't be my intent.
edit2: I honestly cannot recall what I wrote. It was late. But I accept the criticism unspecific as it is and will try to self-crit.
I reject the notion of a better world through nuclear armageddon as some other comment implied.
