NYT: Russian attack on NATO looms as Trump threatens to abandon alliance (euromaidanpress.com)

submitted 10 months ago by LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Can we stop talking like using nukes could somehow be reasonable. The thought of using a first strike nuke should be considered beyond outrageous and any leader that even remotely considers it should be ran far away from any position of authority.

Edit: understandable - reasonable

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 12 points 10 months ago

Nobody in their right mind considers it. It's just a global game of chicken, and some weird armchair strategists try to convince everyone that nuclear attacks are basically the first option on the table.

And I sometimes suspect, that this sentiment gets pushed by Russia (not created, but pushed), because the western fear of nuclear war is definitely an argument against delivering weapons. Especially here in Germany, literally every single new weapon system was considered to "cross a line", so Russia might attack if we send it.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com -3 points 10 months ago

If you attack EU, you die. That shall be rule.

First strike is the sharpest sword and the biggest shield.

Why would you need to understand something when that something already fucks up the whole world?

[-] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 17 points 10 months ago

The EU doesn't need nukes to defend itself from a Russian invasion. Ukraine got the West's hand-me-downs and has completely stalemated Russia with them for over a year. Russia's conventional forces are a paper tiger. The question is will Russia resort to nukes when the war goes sideways for them.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Russia will continue to soften up the EU, and the US with hybrid psyops warfare then take bits and pieces of real estate. It is working quit well now actually.

[-] letsgocrazy@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Depends how you consider "quite well" - the total collapse of Russia's military credbility, the insanely high casualty rate, the loss of material, for something that they were already allowed to use in Crimea, and a part of the Donbas?

I wouldn't call that "well" at all. Seems like a completely disaster.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Maybe reasonable would be a better word.

Once someone uses a nuke, everyone will, and then everyone's dead anyway.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Exactly! And thats what will happen if some idiot decided to attack EU.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I understand the posturing. Attacking the EU needs to be presented as a terrible idea, but when people start talking about using nukes loosely, then the other side might also consider them fair game. I guess, in my opinion, using first strike nukes is never justified, and if the EU or anyone does it then they're no better than the aggressors. I would prefer we hold ourselves to higher standards instead of letting the bad actors bring us down to their level.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago

We are mostly talking about Russia, wich is the country that does nothing as much as threatening to nuke countries...

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yes and we shouldn't let them bring us down to their level. First strike is never justified, but second strike in response could be. They don't care about their people, so they probably want to goad others into nuking them. It would free them up to use theirs and claim it's justified. Let's not play into their hands.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Nah, first strike is 100% justified if you attack EU.

[-] DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army 0 points 10 months ago

@MrCookieRespect @School_Lunch but it's not. @anderspuck had a great video and vlexler a solid addendum how Russian aggression would occur. The biggest sword that putin has if Trump questions art 5 is indeed nuclear blackmail. That is imo the reason why the US has put nukes in RAF Lakenheath (UK has no tac nukes). But a big big big reminder: NATO is 99% posture and a 'promise:. It was never contested. Art. 5 is an' invitation to discuss', nothing more (sadly).