Emblemator t1_itk0njs wrote
Reply to comment by div414 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
div414 t1_itkp2qd wrote
Dont be coy, that isn’t it.
Historically, you’re also wrong.
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.
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.
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.
div414 t1_itkto47 wrote
May I suggest investing in the stock market or lottery ticket with such a unique crystal ball? :)
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkttwn wrote
I can suggest the same to you, buddy. ;)
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.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkpa01 wrote
Nope, I just don't believe Russian bluff unlike you.
Gullygod111 t1_itkz16f wrote
People like you really want to see the world burn.
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.
Gullygod111 t1_itsm2g7 wrote
Okay, join the foreign legion.
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.
[deleted] t1_itkdl3v wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments