24
What's up between Ukraine and Russia?
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
24 points (100.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2147 readers
105 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The thing is, it's an equivalent response to the Ukrainian invasion. NATO has invaded Russia, so Russia has the right to retaliate in kind towards NATO. I hope they bomb the Ukronazis back to the stone age.
Absolutely. I wouldn't blame them for doing so though I wonder if Russia would actually risk a major escalation when they inevitably stop this incursion by Ukraine.
I just don't see what Russia loses from doing so anymore. All of NATO is already attacking them, so the only real further escalation is nukes.
NATO is already sending all its gear to Ukraine, so no new gear will magically appear if Russia starts striking Poland and Romania. In the grand scheme, it would actually make things easier for Russia since they can take out command, control, and repair centers used by Ukraine that they currently allow to exist in NATO countries.
I agree that Russia is reluctant to a fault and that Russia should do more, and I agree that NATO's talk of striking against Russia if Russia attacked Poland and Romania is mostly bluster, but as always the U.S. is the major problem/worry. While U.S. would likely be outmatched by Russia, at least in the short term possibly, in the medium-long term, the U.S. would turn even further into a rabid dog to attack Russia and the Global South in general, and we all know that the capitalist media would slander and gaslight Russia for daring to defend themselves, and the corrupt billionaire cracker fucks of the West/Global North would probably mysteriously "find" multiple billions of dollars of loans and stored equipment and diplomatic favors to escalate the conflict, since in the west, money doesn't matter so much for the ruling class parasites.
Agree.
Keep in mind, the Kursk offensive's goal seemed to be to take control of the Kursk nuclear power plant to threaten a nuclear meltdown on Russian soil and/or to take control of nuclear weapons nearby. In other words, Ukraine tried to directly threaten nuclear war as a bargaining chip.
If Ukraine and NATO wants nukes that badly, Russia should deliver them the experience, whether via nukes or conventional munitions. I honestly do not give a shit anymore what happens to the Ukronazis. If they want to get glassed that badly, Russia should give it to them.
Having the right to do something and it actually being the strategically smart thing to do are two different things.
Ritter is usually mostly correct when he talks about what is currently going on and has a good grasp of the history of this conflict, but his short term predictions tend to be unreliable. This is because he projects his American mentality onto the Russians.
What we have observed so far in this conflict is that Russia is cautious to a fault and very unwilling to escalate. They are comfortable with the pace that things are progressing at and don't want to rock the boat. Unpredictable things can happen when you escalate.
The Kiev regime and its western handlers on the other hand are constantly trying to provoke precisely such an escalation in order to possibly escape the slow but sure trajectory to defeat that they currently find themselves on. Why would Russia give them what they want?