Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sexyloser1128 t1_itjl9ql wrote

Reply to comment by -SPOF in Ukraine asks Fingrid for help - Finland's grid operator says Ukraine has requested parts to rebuild critical energy infrastructure damaged by recent drone strikes. by Vegeta9001

If the west sent more advanced air defenses earlier like people wanted, then the recent damage might not have even happened. And it was only the recent barrage that forced Germany to send the Iris-T, it seems like the leaders of the west are so scared they only send weapons in reaction of an attack rather than sending weapons immediately and crushing the attack. It reminds of me the west's piecemeal response to Putin taking Crimea and part of Georgia. If the west came down hard at first, it might have detered the current invasion.

31

div414 t1_itjq1oc wrote

It isn’t about being scared, it’s about having political cover to do it.

NATO cannot be perceived to be on the offensive.

Keyword here is perceived.

40

sexyloser1128 t1_itjr456 wrote

> NATO cannot be perceived to be on the offensive.

That's a double standard that NATO applies to itself only. Russia has no problem attacking. NATO should have no problem defending. No significant portion of the world population is going to admonish NATO for providing tanks or aircraft to hit targets that are in Ukraine. I understand their excuses about perception but it's a poor excuse. It's like saying giving a gun to woman being raped and murdered is equally bad as the attacker. No rational western leader should think like this. I frankly Western/NATO's concern about this probably lead Putin to think they would be too scared to provide weapons to help Ukraine.

14

div414 t1_itkjmvz wrote

That isn’t it.

If NATO is perceived to attack Russia, which Putin has been baiting for months now - it changes the entire narrative.

Nukes, China, India, Iran - everything gets realigned as Putin screams existential threat and applies Russian nuclear doctrine, and total mobilization.

6

Gullygod111 t1_itkz5h9 wrote

It’s an effort to not re-ignite the Cold War.

Those who lived through it understand.

1

K_Marcad t1_itmjei8 wrote

I think cold war is re-ignited already. I think the goal now is to keep it cold instead of starting WWIII.

2

sexyloser1128 t1_itmk38g wrote

> It’s an effort to not re-ignite the Cold War. > > > > Those who lived through it understand.

I would say Russian actions already re-started the Cold War and letting Russia take Ukraine which has immense natural resources and huge geographic strategic value would be a huge mistake to the rest of the world who opposes tyranny.

1

Gullygod111 t1_itslwm5 wrote

Okay, join the foreign legion and fight for Ukraine.

1

Emblemator t1_itk0njs wrote

Yeah the problem is Russia already says they're fighting actual Nato, not Ukraine, in their internal propaganda. They've been saying that for months now. It causes an interesting side-effect in that if Nato actually did go in now, it wouldn't really escalate anymore now would it? Send in the planes and even boots on ground, and push Russia out then, since from their end they already played this card. It shouldn't give them a moral high-ground to escalate for some action we did that they already claimed we were doing to begin with.

13

div414 t1_itkjsr9 wrote

It absolutely would escalate.

Russia has nukes.

Russia claims annexed territories are Russian land.

Read up on their nuclear doctrine.

NATO is a defensive pact Ukraine isn’t a part of it.

They simply cannot, and will never take the initiative unless Putin does something stupid.

Blowing up appartements unfortunately isn’t it.

9

dweeelll t1_itknbp8 wrote

Finally someone with a brain. Feels like most people here don’t know how badly this would escalate if NATO hopped in. This is only a good idea if you’re ready for WW3 and nuclear weapons being used.

3

div414 t1_itknicj wrote

Geopolitics are complex and nuclear doctrines are dusty things for most.

Hopefully this War gets people interested about the gears that make the world turn, and burn.

3

Gullygod111 t1_itkytfu wrote

Sounds like a good idea if redditors on here demanding we intervene directly are okay with flashes of blinding light engulfing their bedroom/basement windows.

2

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itko585 wrote

I don't agree that it would escalate. Russia would just fold and back away. Putin would cry and bitch about it, but there would be no nuclear war or WW3. He wants everyone to think there would be though, but IMO that's just a bluff.

−1

div414 t1_itko8dr wrote

I understand that you feel this way. I’m just telling you it’s wrong.

The doctrines are very clear, and we’re dealing with a dangerous man stuck in a corner with no way out.

2

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkozmk wrote

Hey, and I understand why you are feeling the way you do and I'm telling you it's wrong.

We are dealing with a moron doing typical Soviet-style negotiations (aka ask for 200% of what you want and compromise at 150%) combined with China's Final Warning. That's it.

−4

div414 t1_itkp2qd wrote

Dont be coy, that isn’t it.

Historically, you’re also wrong.

1

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkppcn wrote

That's really it. Putin just plays a cornered rat to push Ukraine's allies back into the status quo so they wouldn't send weapons or assist Ukraine in fear "to escalate". That's exactly the reason for the "political cover" you mentioned in your first comment. The West needs it so that Putin's escalations in Ukraine cannot be blamed on the West. Although he still blames the West, lol.

Also, a tip to you, don't use "historically" if you are not going to elaborate.

−5

div414 t1_itkqar8 wrote

There are numerous instances of near-nuclear engagements in history, specifically with Russia.

Here’s a list.

My bad for assuming you had a perspective of history on nuclear engagements and their doctrines.

You’ve just explained why NATO is acting this way.

Why are we arguing this anymore?

Good on you for realizing your initial argument is unfounded.

5

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itktazp wrote

Have you really shifted the responsibility to prove YOUR point to me? LOL, you just raised a major "I am arguing in bad faith" flag. Point me to a specific precedent when Russia followed up on its nuclear threats for the Russian-occupied territory of the country with internationally recognized borders. If you won't I will consider that you had no actual idea what you were talking about when you wrote:

>Historically, you’re also wrong.

That has nothing to do with the consequences of the NATO military intervention though. It's unknown if Russia will actually escalate if NATO intervenes, you just choose to believe that they will double down citing "omg I spent an hour reading about military doctrines, trust me bro" while I choose to believe that they will retreat because it just isn't rational to start a conventional or nuclear war against NATO. Perhaps it will be some combination of both so Putin can "save face", but all-out nuclear war or WW3? Definitely nope.

1

div414 t1_itkto47 wrote

May I suggest investing in the stock market or lottery ticket with such a unique crystal ball? :)

3

dweeelll t1_itkom8k wrote

If you think that Russia would just kindly fold and back away after NATO started attacking “their land” (in their mind the annexed areas are part of russia) you’re out of touch.

1

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkpa01 wrote

Nope, I just don't believe Russian bluff unlike you.

0

Gullygod111 t1_itkz16f wrote

People like you really want to see the world burn.

1

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkzr47 wrote

Why is it so hard to understand that bluffing is in Russia's interest while dying in nuclear apocalypse isn't? People like you just get off from fearmongering.

1

Gullygod111 t1_itsm2g7 wrote

Okay, join the foreign legion.

0

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itssxxp wrote

How is joining a foreign legion relates to my opinion on Russian politics? Are you saying that to anyone who has a different opinion than you? LOL.

1

Prestigious_Plum_451 t1_itk506p wrote

> If the west sent more advanced air defenses earlier like people wanted, then the recent damage might not have even happened.

Honestly, it takes time to train people to use advanced systems properly... you can throw gear in to the field all day long, but it wont mean a damn thing if the people needing them are not trained on using them right. Such an act would not only be wasteful, but strategically unwise.(see Russia for examples on consequences of sending improperly trained, and at times poorly equipped/supplied soldiers in to theater.)

Being said, depending on the scope, and complexity of training it can take weeks to months, and what you perceive as dillydallying may very well be more about the delay caused by such than a lack of willingness to send stuff in outright.

4

dbratell t1_itkqfqu wrote

> And it was only the recent barrage that forced Germany to send the Iris-T,

That is factually false. The reason they could be sent as quickly was that the transfer had been planned for months and after training and preparations is was about time to deliver the first system.

One theory is that Russia started the terror campaign to get ahead of the upgrading of Ukraine's air defences that was in progress.

2

Gullygod111 t1_itkzlwk wrote

Agreed, people making baseless assertions when the facts are easily obtainable.

We get it that Ukraine needs more AA systems but the S-300 platform they deploy is sufficient enough.

They simply need more of said platform to increase the efficacy rate of their interceptions. They also are familiar with the S-300 platform meaning no training is required.

1