NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with a hypersonic ballistic missile that escalated the nearly 33-month-old war
The real question is what they will do if Russia responds by sending an Oreshnik to UK. It's basically what Putin said would happen in response to next attack.
I don't think hitting the UK is where it's at. Russia's escalatory path is two fold: 1) destroying Ukrainian infrastructure to stop the attacks and 2) Africa
I mean Russia has a lot of options here. Hitting the UK would make a huge statement though because it would expose NATO as being a paper tiger. Of course, the risk there is is far higher than other options as well.
Yeah, I think the risk is too high to the Russian people. Launching a missile at that distance opens up all of Russia for retaliation from a large number of USA bases and naval launch systems. Further, I'm not sure it's possible to determine if such a missile is nuclear tipped or not, possibly triggering a whole mess of MAD protocols.
I think, like Ho, bin Laden, and Xi, Putin is actively engaged in bleeding the empire out and it's presently working with minimal risk to the Russian and Chinese people. I think the continued expansion of China economically and maintaining and expanding the quagmires that the empire is in will lead to greater results in the near term, especially since doing so will continue to increase unrest in the West, whereas a direct attack would likely galvanized the population.
Better to let the empire continue to fight smaller battles on multiple fronts far away from home. At least this is what it seems like is happening
I do suspect that the risk here might be too high as well, but I wouldn't rule this out entirely given where we're at now. Putin was very explicit in his statement that at this point Russia sees US and UK as being direct participants, that Russian citizens died on Russian territory as a result of a NATO strike, and Russia sees direct retaliation on NATO territory as perfectly justified. While there is a danger in Russia actually following through, there is also danger for Russia in NATO treating their red lines as a bluff, as that invites further escalation. Russia has been extremely restrained for the past three years, but that won't last forever.
There is pretty much zero chance that the US would start a nuclear war over Europe. Doing so would go directly against the US interests, and that would be the end of America. I'm quite certain that the oligarchs running the place would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in a bunker. Europe would be left to hang if it came to that.
All that said, I agree that the most likely scenario is that Russia doesn't take the bait, and finds a way to respond asymmetrically in a way that would be unpleasant enough for US to drop the idea of striking within Russia. Ultimately, the best move is to respond in a way that will force the west to back off without inviting further escalation.
I'll challenge that last point. I think Putin is fully committed to bringing an end to American hegemony, and that means the best move is to respond in a way that causes the West to commit more resources in more fronts in ways that continues to erode the stability of Western relationships domestically and globally.
Oh yeah I agree there, but Russia would want to do it in a way where it doesn't directly escalate their own problems. I think sending weapons to Yemen is one of the most obvious moves. Another option would be to start giving more advanced weapons to DPRK because it further pins US forces in occupied Korea and might even force them to send more stuff there in response.
i get the feeling that the labour government believes that russia is merely saber rattling again and i don't like where this is going if labour displays the same obstinacy as the democrats did during & after the election.
Why would Russia ever hit the UK? Outside of the situation where they have lost and the Russian state itself is going to collapse and be balkanized. They're making steady gains in Ukraine and everyone is waiting to see what Trump ultimately does. Putin as the Western media portrays him would, I guess, but actual Putin went to war with Ukraine to ensure Russia's future, not doom it.
The UK can't do much of anything on their own, so the real question would be whether the US would risk a nuclear holocaust over UK or not. If the US does nothing then the whole NATO scam is going to collapse overnight though.
Incidentally, the FT just described UK military as a Potemkin village
The result is that Britain has a Potemkin village military retaining the emblems of a pocket superpower, but without the necessary hard capabilities. The present disordered world does not leave room for such tricks.
NATO serves to bolster US interests though, and having an all out nuclear war is not what US oligarchs want as Trump victory shows. So, I think there's a very good chance they cut their losses. It's not like Europe wouldn't be dependent on US without NATO at the end of the day.
NATO's 2 largest intrests where to collapse the USSR, and to ensure Europe stayed dependent on the United States, it has done that, the US is coasting off of it, however it very quickly could become too much hassle.
It also would make sense because even when the US drops Europe, they will still be financialy dependent on them, especialy after the US got them to cut all ties with russia
but for how long? if NATO ended, then who is going to actually stop European countries from going back to Russia and forming new alliances with China? isn't NATO the lynchpin that keeps Europe dependent on the US?
The real question is what they will do if Russia responds by sending an Oreshnik to UK. It's basically what Putin said would happen in response to next attack.
I don't think hitting the UK is where it's at. Russia's escalatory path is two fold: 1) destroying Ukrainian infrastructure to stop the attacks and 2) Africa
I mean Russia has a lot of options here. Hitting the UK would make a huge statement though because it would expose NATO as being a paper tiger. Of course, the risk there is is far higher than other options as well.
Yeah, I think the risk is too high to the Russian people. Launching a missile at that distance opens up all of Russia for retaliation from a large number of USA bases and naval launch systems. Further, I'm not sure it's possible to determine if such a missile is nuclear tipped or not, possibly triggering a whole mess of MAD protocols.
I think, like Ho, bin Laden, and Xi, Putin is actively engaged in bleeding the empire out and it's presently working with minimal risk to the Russian and Chinese people. I think the continued expansion of China economically and maintaining and expanding the quagmires that the empire is in will lead to greater results in the near term, especially since doing so will continue to increase unrest in the West, whereas a direct attack would likely galvanized the population.
Better to let the empire continue to fight smaller battles on multiple fronts far away from home. At least this is what it seems like is happening
I do suspect that the risk here might be too high as well, but I wouldn't rule this out entirely given where we're at now. Putin was very explicit in his statement that at this point Russia sees US and UK as being direct participants, that Russian citizens died on Russian territory as a result of a NATO strike, and Russia sees direct retaliation on NATO territory as perfectly justified. While there is a danger in Russia actually following through, there is also danger for Russia in NATO treating their red lines as a bluff, as that invites further escalation. Russia has been extremely restrained for the past three years, but that won't last forever.
There is pretty much zero chance that the US would start a nuclear war over Europe. Doing so would go directly against the US interests, and that would be the end of America. I'm quite certain that the oligarchs running the place would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in a bunker. Europe would be left to hang if it came to that.
All that said, I agree that the most likely scenario is that Russia doesn't take the bait, and finds a way to respond asymmetrically in a way that would be unpleasant enough for US to drop the idea of striking within Russia. Ultimately, the best move is to respond in a way that will force the west to back off without inviting further escalation.
I'll challenge that last point. I think Putin is fully committed to bringing an end to American hegemony, and that means the best move is to respond in a way that causes the West to commit more resources in more fronts in ways that continues to erode the stability of Western relationships domestically and globally.
Oh yeah I agree there, but Russia would want to do it in a way where it doesn't directly escalate their own problems. I think sending weapons to Yemen is one of the most obvious moves. Another option would be to start giving more advanced weapons to DPRK because it further pins US forces in occupied Korea and might even force them to send more stuff there in response.
i get the feeling that the labour government believes that russia is merely saber rattling again and i don't like where this is going if labour displays the same obstinacy as the democrats did during & after the election.
Exactly, if they think Russia is bluffing and Russia actually hits the UK then we're firmly in WW3 scenario.
I mean, what would the UK do if they got hit by a Russian missile? Can they even fight a war with Russia? Would the US care?
Why would Russia ever hit the UK? Outside of the situation where they have lost and the Russian state itself is going to collapse and be balkanized. They're making steady gains in Ukraine and everyone is waiting to see what Trump ultimately does. Putin as the Western media portrays him would, I guess, but actual Putin went to war with Ukraine to ensure Russia's future, not doom it.
The UK can't do much of anything on their own, so the real question would be whether the US would risk a nuclear holocaust over UK or not. If the US does nothing then the whole NATO scam is going to collapse overnight though.
Incidentally, the FT just described UK military as a Potemkin village
https://archive.ph/oD87z
i believe the US absolutely would retaliate, because just like you said, NATO would be done in a day if they didn't.
NATO serves to bolster US interests though, and having an all out nuclear war is not what US oligarchs want as Trump victory shows. So, I think there's a very good chance they cut their losses. It's not like Europe wouldn't be dependent on US without NATO at the end of the day.
NATO's 2 largest intrests where to collapse the USSR, and to ensure Europe stayed dependent on the United States, it has done that, the US is coasting off of it, however it very quickly could become too much hassle.
Pretty much what I'm thinking. It's also worth noting that the US sees China as the main adversary, so Europe is losing its strategic relevance.
It also would make sense because even when the US drops Europe, they will still be financialy dependent on them, especialy after the US got them to cut all ties with russia
but for how long? if NATO ended, then who is going to actually stop European countries from going back to Russia and forming new alliances with China? isn't NATO the lynchpin that keeps Europe dependent on the US?
precisely