Bark bark bark
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
40 points (88.5% liked)
World News
32328 readers
562 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
“Spokesperson, issue more empty threats! Surely this time they will finally take me seriously!”
You’d think the West would have taken it seriously after Crimea was annexed. But even after losing most of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, there are still imperial core labor aristocrat clowns like you, still failing to read the room.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Biden using his last few months to start ww3
If Russia starts nuking shit, wouldn’t Russia be starting ww3?
Or are we supposed to just accept the implication that only western countries have agency?
I doubt Russia will actually use nukes, what with MAD and all.
Then again, people said the same thing about the invasion. Russia doesn't have a no-first-use nuclear weapons policy like the USSR did, so they could use them if they deem the country to be under existential threat.
This is clearly a response to the US allowing strikes inside Russia.
Interesting timing to do that when Ukraine, Germany and Russia have been gearing up to negotiate an end to the war next year. Wonder if this is to give the west more leverage in the negotiations or to escalate to give the republican admin next year a tougher time.
So you're saying Russia has never struck inside Ukraine. Or somehow The US started the war in Ukraine.
Or is it just a freaking stupid idea that one nation can attack another. And expect them not to retaliate.
None of these are valid concepts. The reality is that Russia is in a conflict with Ukraine. Activating alliances brings those other countries into the conflict, which is exactly how WW1 became a world war. The USA has nothing to do with this conflict (except the entire casus belli, but let's go with your position). If the US was neutral, Ukraine would lose and Russia and Ukraine would negotiate a security arrangement to prevent further conflict.
But the US has supplied Ukraine with the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget 3 years in a row. Ukraine keeps fighting exclusively because of US support. But, that has been limited to the borders of Ukraine, which creates sufficient ambiguity that only allows Russia to escalate rhetoric. As soon as the US's involvement creates the conditions for strikes on Russian territory, now the USA is a participant in attacks against Russia, making it an escalatory move on the USA's part. The USA could just stay out of it and this whole thing will resolve itself with far fewer deaths and far less destruction.
Accept, Russia broke international law when it attacked Ukraine. As it broke its own treaties to respect 1996 borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.
So nope. Also, the only reason Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Is that same treaty where they agreed not to join.
So anyway, you try to argue this. If Russia is the first to launch nukes. They started WW3.
Uhh, that's completely illogical. Yes, Russia broke international law by invading a country. That's true. That does not give the USA the right to attack Russian territory. That's not actually how international law works.
There are lots of reasons Ukraine isn't part of NATO. The first one is that Ukraine made a political commitment with Russia to remain neutral. The second is that Russia made it clear that Ukrainian neutrality was to be respected by NATO allies. The third is that the USA knew how dangerous it would be to bring Ukraine in so they worked on every other former Soviet Republic first. The fourth is that the NATO allies don't all agree on bringing Ukraine in. And the fifth is that NATO policy forbids admitting a country in an active border dispute.
You can say that nukes make it WW3, but that's just vibes. World war is when a war between 2 countries expands to include more countries. Right now, the war is between Russia and Ukraine. If the USA gets involved, then the USA is escalating to world wars. Your vibes are not the standard.
"That does not give the USA the right to attack Russian territory." What? There is no chance of this.... No one is even suggesting it. Seriously touch grass
load more comments
(7 replies)
Russia can fuck off with its definition of neutrality. Russia was absolutely fine when pre-maidan Ukrainian “government” wanted more integration with Russia. Russia’s neutrality definition is submission to Russia’s will. And BTW, NATO was never a goal until Ukraine got attacked. Ukraine wanted economic integration with west.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Interesting timing to do that when Ukraine, Germany and Russia have been gearing up to negotiate an end to the war next year
Threatening nuclear war under these circumstances is definitely an interesting timing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
*Putin using his time to promote world war 3 and Hamas supporters eat it up since they love Russia.
In a parallel universe, I would like to witness an official sarcastic response.
'U.S. eager to witness Russia's awesome destructive power in person after Oppenhiemer success. Government announces free UV glasses for safe viewing. Populace hopeful for a swift end to capitalism after nuclear winter'
Honestly I just find it laughable. 1, because there are more nuclear red lines behinds us than I care to count. And 2, if the last Russian missile test is anything to go by, I'm more worried about a giant chain reaction blowing up all of Russia.