Even if half of Russias nukes don’t work they still have enough to destroy the entire planet 10 times over. People like Macron need a reminder why threatening a ground invasion is a bad idea.
Comment on Ukraine updates: Russia orders nuclear preparation drills
maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 months ago
Haven’t NATO forces been doing something similar recently? At least I’ve heard of a UK sub failing to launch a missile in a test recently.
I get it that this is saber rattling, but these tests are ideally regular so everyone - both you and your enemies - know your nukes work. I wonder if Russia’s nukes work? I wonder if they are wondering that too?
Woozythebear@lemmy.world 4 months ago
maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 months ago
To be honest, if France put soldiers into Ukraine, you could make the same argument the other way.
Continuing the war against Ukraine is a very bad idea since France has nukes, and they might do tactical strikes against Russian formations, so it’s better to get out of France’s way. France has enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over, or at least enough to destroy Moscow 100 times over, for sure.
Either way, people should stop killing people, Russian soldiers should stay in Russia.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Where is France threatening to invade exactly? I thought they’d talked about troops in Ukraine.
awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Can you “invade” a country that’s begging for your help? The Russians are there despite Ukrainians wanting them dead, the French would have a warm reception and gratitude.
Seems like an intentionally misleading way to phrase it.
Woozythebear@lemmy.world 4 months ago
France putting boots on the ground is a red line for Russia and is a declaration of war. It would mean two nuclear powers are now officially at war and you know how fast things can escalate.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
No body is threatening Russian soil. Grow up.
applepie@kbin.social 4 months ago
ohh no "red line" for Russia... nuclear black mail lost its charm lol
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Ok so you were incorrect when you said France was threatening an invasion then.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
On whose ground exactly?
wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 4 months ago
And the Russkies need a reminder that good ol’ US of A also has several thousand nukes and is ready and willing to use them. First and second strike. Proud SSBN submariner, ready to launch when ordered. HOOYAH AMERICA. KILL THE BEAR.
Woozythebear@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you’re so eager to die then go enlist and fight in Ukraine pussy.
the_kung_fu_emu@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Huh? Checks Woozy’s profile Oh. Well that makes sense.
wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Lmao, enlist? Vatnik, I’m already in the goddamn Navy of the United States of America, what the fuck do you think “SSBN submariner” means? And don’t worry, vatnik, when I engage in combat, you’ll know - when the sun rises several thousand times across your sorry excuse of a nation.
TeddyKila@hexbear.net 4 months ago
Both the UA attacks on civilians and unconfirmed reports of the french foreign legion being deployed represent significant escalation from NATO.
maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 months ago
I feel this is going to be a thing to unpack, but on the one hand, attacks on enemy power infrastructure, even if civilian casualties are a result is fair game in war, for both sides by the way. What is not fair game is levelling a city like Mariupol.
That said, wars of aggression are a crime as per the UN’s standpoint, and only one side is taking territory here.
On the other hand, if UA strikes Russian targets - as they are at war - why is that a NATO escalation? Why is that not a UA escalation? And where else can you escalate after the Russians tried to take their capital and kill their leadership? At this point if UA had Moscow under siege and sent entire regiments of special forces after Putin personally, even that would just be proportionate retaliation.
And that would be a Really Bad Thing™ if France was deploying troops into an unwilling country. Poland, Estonia and Hungary all have US troops stationed there ever since they managed to get the Russian troops out. They have their reasons. UA has all the rights to invite foreign troops as much as they want into their sovereign territory. Russia has no say in who gets to deploy into Ukraine, Ukraine alone does.
Beetle_O_Rourke@hexbear.net 4 months ago
jagoff
It is beyond fucking ridiculous that after sending hundreds of billions of dollars in military equipment to a backwards colony of neo-nazis with the explicit purpose of attacking Russia, to claim that they are acting independently, and that there is no link to NATO.
Storm Shadows, Illegal cluster munitions, Leopards, Abrams, Depleted uranium shells, 155m artillery, and HIMARS are all manufactured from NATO stockpiles. If not for nato, the war would have been over in less than a month, and none of the infrastructure damage in the subsequent two years would have happened, to talk nothing of how the most fertile farmland in Europe is now contaminated thoroughly with landmines, heavy metals, and unexploded bombs.
Russian mainland was not being bombed. Russian mainland is now being bombed. If you do not see how that change escalates the conflict, you would do well to remove your head from the sand. Beyond that, deliberate targeting of civilian areas is a war crime. The electric grid has military significance in a way that random border towns do not. It is asinine to say that Russia is the party deliberately targeting civilians when they launch nationwide missile volleys with <40 civilian deaths. Contrast the ukranian drone attacks on border towns which regularly kill dozens in a single town, and the “”““DAESH””“” attack on the concert hall with almost 200 civilians killed, where the attackers fled towards ukraine in a complete opposite of every other confirmed DAESH attack where the attackers stayed behind to inflict maximum casualties.
A scenario that would 500% result in the use of nuclear weapons is not proportionate retaliation ya dingus.
Were you cheering on the incursion of Saudi forces into Bahrain in 2011? The government asked for the protesters to all be murdered, so it’s a good thing, right? The only factor in the ethics and/or rationality of a military deployment is if the troops were invited. /s
So to be clear, we have gone from “NATO has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict despite the overwhelming majority of offensive materiel coming from them” to “NATO boots on the ground are good because they were invited”. Some logical consistency would be nice, but I suppose that is too much to expect from a nazi apologist.
You made a deeply ignorant post.
DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 months ago
Go back to your Tankie safe space.
maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 months ago
I didn’t claim there is no link to NATO. NATO is fighting a proxy war against Russian interests in Ukraine, that’s plain as day, just as China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are fighting against NATO interests. I just don’t see that NATO ever threatened military action against nations supplying the Russian side. Do NATO countries fire off weekly nuclear threats against Pakistan, Iran, China or North Korea for sending munitions to Russia? Does Ukraine?
Yes, there are far-right elements in Ukraine, yes, some are even in the government. That doesn’t make the entire nation of Ukraine a “colony of neo-nazis” any more than the Nazbol party existing, or Dugin having had such a cushy place in Russia means Russia is ruled by Nazis.
I thought the party line was three days? Or is that too fantastical a claim nowadays.
Overwhelmingly RUSSIAN landmines, heavy metals from RUSSIAN military machinery, and unexploded RUSSIAN bombs. And the Russians are even proud of having dropped and continuing to drop most of it. You are presenting a false dichotomy. Russia was not obligated to murder all those people, Russia was not obligated to flatten Mariupol, Russia is not obligated to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is obligated to defend itself. Russia has a choice to stop this war, Ukraine does not. Not if it still wants to exist after.
Sure, if all Ukrainians would just shoot themselves in the head, this war would be over sooo much faster. Why can’t they just die already?
It is. If Ukraine retaliated in a proportionate way against Russia, Russia would escalate the conflict. The use of nuclear weapons is an escalation, the threat of nuclear weapons is an escalation, sieging the opponent’s capital after your capital was sieged is the same action returned. If the Ukrainians did to Russia what Russia did to Ukraine, there would already have been a nuclear exchange.
By the way, you like to act as if Russia’s escalations and threats are just elements of nature. If Russia, a nuclear power feels threatened, it will use nuclear weapons, that’s just the way of things. But if France, a nuclear power, has people carrying small arms into battle against invading soldiers, that’s an irresponsible escalation. The threat of shooting a FAMAS at a Russian conscript is an escalation, the threat of shooting an ICBM at Rotterdam is just the way of things.
NATO has a duty to avoid escalating the war, can’t have soldiers in Ukraine, can’t send weapons to Ukraine, because that is an escalation. Russia doing all that isn’t. Please stop the double standard, Russian has as much duty of being human as the rest of us. It’s not a force of nature, it’s people doing despicable things.
I wasn’t aware France would be sending soldiers to help Ukraine violently quell a sectarian protest and uprising of Ukrainian people. My impression is that if they send French soldiers in there, it’s to shoot invading Russian soldiers. I get that Russians don’t always get the difference due to the times they sent soldiers to countries to quell popular (mostly communist by the way) revolutions and install puppets to serve Russian imperialistic goals, but the secret is that if you are in a foreign country, shooting civilians is usually not a good reason to be there.
Never said that. It’s obvious NATO has a vested interest in Ukraine winning the conflict. It’s just NATO is not a direct belligerent in the conflict, just as China, Iran, North Korea or Pakistan aren’t. Otherwise, there would be an arctic front to it, with Russians in Alaska or US troops in Vladivostok.
Miaou@jlai.lu 4 months ago
If we assume the latter, why does that justify the initial Russian offensive ? I keep reading tankies saying Russia was threatened by Ukraine but I never see anything to back that up.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
"Don’t make me turn this rape into a genocide"
fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Go away Hexbear propagandist.
Gnugit@aussie.zone 4 months ago
What are the “UA attacks”?
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Russia can cease their genocide in Ukraine any moment and retreat to the safety of their own borders.