• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    I mean Russia has a lot of options here. Hitting the UK would make a huge statement though because it would expose NATO as being a paper tiger. Of course, the risk there is is far higher than other options as well.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, I think the risk is too high to the Russian people. Launching a missile at that distance opens up all of Russia for retaliation from a large number of USA bases and naval launch systems. Further, I’m not sure it’s possible to determine if such a missile is nuclear tipped or not, possibly triggering a whole mess of MAD protocols.

      I think, like Ho, bin Laden, and Xi, Putin is actively engaged in bleeding the empire out and it’s presently working with minimal risk to the Russian and Chinese people. I think the continued expansion of China economically and maintaining and expanding the quagmires that the empire is in will lead to greater results in the near term, especially since doing so will continue to increase unrest in the West, whereas a direct attack would likely galvanized the population.

      Better to let the empire continue to fight smaller battles on multiple fronts far away from home. At least this is what it seems like is happening

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        I do suspect that the risk here might be too high as well, but I wouldn’t rule this out entirely given where we’re at now. Putin was very explicit in his statement that at this point Russia sees US and UK as being direct participants, that Russian citizens died on Russian territory as a result of a NATO strike, and Russia sees direct retaliation on NATO territory as perfectly justified. While there is a danger in Russia actually following through, there is also danger for Russia in NATO treating their red lines as a bluff, as that invites further escalation. Russia has been extremely restrained for the past three years, but that won’t last forever.

        There is pretty much zero chance that the US would start a nuclear war over Europe. Doing so would go directly against the US interests, and that would be the end of America. I’m quite certain that the oligarchs running the place would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in a bunker. Europe would be left to hang if it came to that.

        All that said, I agree that the most likely scenario is that Russia doesn’t take the bait, and finds a way to respond asymmetrically in a way that would be unpleasant enough for US to drop the idea of striking within Russia. Ultimately, the best move is to respond in a way that will force the west to back off without inviting further escalation.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’ll challenge that last point. I think Putin is fully committed to bringing an end to American hegemony, and that means the best move is to respond in a way that causes the West to commit more resources in more fronts in ways that continues to erode the stability of Western relationships domestically and globally.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            Oh yeah I agree there, but Russia would want to do it in a way where it doesn’t directly escalate their own problems. I think sending weapons to Yemen is one of the most obvious moves. Another option would be to start giving more advanced weapons to DPRK because it further pins US forces in occupied Korea and might even force them to send more stuff there in response.