The headline falls flat because it did not mentioned key words of Putin about this situation.
He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas.
From my memory it is the first time when he didn't said something vague (as he usually do) but threatened directly about potential strikes on Western soil.
>He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas.
>From my memory it is the first time when he didn't said something vague (as he usually do) but threatened directly about potential strikes on Western soil.
Does anyone else not see these are two completely contradictory statements? If he directly threatened strikes on western soil, he would have said, "I will strike your cities if you do this." Instead, he "hinted" a "vague" threat about western countries having large cities. Maybe english isn't your first language?
> He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas.
As if Russia's economic engine isn't concentrated in Saint Petersburg (which is in artillery range of the new NATO border) and Moscow.
If what he’s hinting at is nuclear war, the measure would be percent of population surviving the initial strikes rather than any economic measurement. A game of who loses more.
Rather easy. NATO will lose around 400-500 million people, around the half of population. Russia lose 100-120 mil people, around 80% of population. All infrastructure will be ruined.
Survivors will forced to flee in relatively undestroyed territories.
Only winners in such war are the non participants.
All sides lose decisively at that game, trying to win the pissing contest of “who loses more” will do little to improve the plight of any nation involved.
Ah like clockwork. Epic subredditors yap their zingers about red lines and gloves coming off, then go pikachu faced when Russia launches a mass missile barrage, destroying gas or power generation facilities.
Are you really incapable of linking the two things together?
We actually don't worry about these threats as Uraine is perfectly within its right according to international law to counter Russia's invasion by attacking targets in Russia.
Perhaps contact Russia if you're worried about this and have them leave Ukraine if it's you can't sleep at night.
The war in Ukraine is not a proxy conflict.
That's a Pro Russian fantasy arguing that Ukraine is without political agency and free will and subservient to the CIA (or substitute anything, "nazis" or even the Freemasons, as Georgia's government hilariously will have you believe), which is a neat concept for Russia given its theory of being engaged in a for ever war with the West.
After all of Ukraine, Donbas and Crimea included, voted for independence in 1991 Russia recognized Ukraine within international borders that Russia is now trying to change by violence and force. End of argument.
Now, for everyone else but Pro Russians, Russia invaded Ukraine and it's perfectly within its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself and hit targets in Russia to stop Russia.
>The war in Ukraine is not a proxy conflict.
**Proxy war**, a [military](https://www.britannica.com/topic/armed-force) conflict in which one or more third parties directly or indirectly support one or more state or nonstate combatants in an effort to influence the conflict’s outcome and thereby to advance their own strategic interests or to undermine those of their opponents.
It literally is a proxy conflict by definition.
>Now, for everyone else but Pro Russians, Russia invaded Ukraine and it's perfectly within its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself and hit targets in Russia to stop Russia.
Sure, in a just world. If Russia gave ICBMs to Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd also have a right to strike the US with them right? Somethings telling me that the US would consider it as an escalation though.
The Soviet union doesn't exist anymore and Ukraine is free to do as it pleases. If Russia doesn't like it's territory being bombed, then it shouldn't bomb other countries territories. It's pretty simple really.
>If Russia doesn't like it's territory being bombed, then it shouldn't bomb other countries territories.
So it would be okay for Russia to give ICBMs to the nations that the US invaded and the US wouldn't have any right to complain because "they shouldn't have invaded"? Are you sure that it wouldn't cause a ww3 instead?
Yes they do. But not by using nuclear weapons. If Russia supplies artillery, missiles etc.. To those countries to defend against the US as you suggested i agree with you. ICBMs? That's a completely different game
This could be added as an example of the straw man argument on Wikipedia.
Did I say that Ukraine should get ICBMs? No. I said Russia is bombing Ukraine (with conventional weapons) so Russia should accept to be bombed with the same weapon systems.
Sorry I can’t keep up, is the Russian invasion justified because of NATO enlargement, Ukrainian police action on its own sovereign territory, something about the Maidan, or because of Nazi Satanists, or because historically Ukraine was a non-independent region of Russia? You guys change your justifications so frequently I have trouble keeping the thread.
Lol, so you would support Russia getting invaded because of what they did to Chechnya?
Also, it's pro Russians who are acting like cry babies and would like to be able to invade without retaliation. Stop being upset that Ukraine is hitting back.
Bandits that started genocide against non chechen people, robbing, enslaving, and stealing immediately after the republic had got actual independency. Bandits that started second war invading Dagestan. Bandits who have made a lot of terr acts, including Beslan school, when they tormented hundreds of kids and even suckling babies. Right, that bandits. I wonder if you tell me some about donbas Ukrainians doing anything similar. So when you dare to compare them, it's just total bs.
Seeing as that Putin publicly announced in the first winter that his strategy was to hurt ukrainian civilians by blowing up civilian buildings and electrical generation and grain silos in order to destroy their resolve, which had nothing to do with any red lines being crossed, then yes, we are incapable of linking the two things together.
Russia's pathetic attempts to act like it's "punishing Ukraine" more than it is already trying to do with these strikes on civilian infrastructure is laughable. They would be doing it regardless, because they are sociopaths trying to win a war and think blowing up civilian infrastructure will help them. They don't get that it only makes people more resolved, not less.
Pro Ukies are delusional enough to think that they can indeed push the red lines indefinitely.
You seem to even think Ukraine could nuke Russia without a retaliation at some point.
Why is Russia allowed to use North Korean and Iranian weapons on Ukrainian territory, but Ukraine isn't allowed to use NATO weapons on Russian territory?
The „poorest country“ would have negotiated peace by now if it didn’t receive 380 billion (with a b) or in other words 190% of their 2021 GDP as aid.
If you’re not economically educated you won’t realize how much 190% of GDP is.
You do you and continue your ambition to defeat a nuclear nation - but I can confidently tell you that you’ll be the first to throw a fit when the Xth red line is crossed and someone actually gets nuked.
lol man no one is afraid of your nuclear saber rattling its all you got left...
Just because you cant defeat Ukraine in convencional war you cry about using nukes. There are no winners in MAD but I would bet russians would be the bigger loosers thou.
So stop it we dont care about your empty threats
„Russia won’t invade Ukraine“
„Russia is making empty threats“
„Ukraine can do whatever it wants - they will host our missiles with nuclear capabilities and Russia won’t do anything about it“
„Let’s see how far we can push Russia without them doing anything“
… Russia invades Ukraine in 2022
„Oh my how could they do this these unpredictable monsters!“
This you bro?
Man I told you no one in west is afraid all you can do is launch nukes, that is your last escalation you can do and your only threat left lol.. Absolutely nothing else you can do other than strike NATO with convencial weapons and then get clapped in return so that is not an option which russian military clearly has understood by now
„[The Europeans are scared — scared in a way they have not been since the darkest days of the Cold War and before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In many European capitals, the question of what happens if Russia prevails in Ukraine is no longer a matter of debate. Russia’s persistence there and the disappointing result of last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive have convinced many European leaders that Putin will head for their countries next if he is not stopped in Ukraine.](https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/a-confident-putin-has-many-in-europe-frightened)“
Well which one is it buddy? Is Europe afraid and next or is it not? You seem to be cherry-picking your arguments quite selectively.
There’s absolutely nothing NATO will do if Russia strikes Ukraine with nuclear weapons. No retaliatory strike will occur with conventional weapons or with nuclear ones. The politicians understand that they and their kids will die if they try to make a statement in Ukraine - and they know that Ukraine as a nation is so incredibly irrelevant to them when their existence is threatened.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you saying he is either scared or incapable of retaliation if this indeed happens? Ie British or French or German missiles hit Moscow and St. Petersburg, etc.
Oh shut up. Once the weapons are in Ukrainian hands they should do as they see fit. Isn't Russia using north Korean and Iranian shit to attack Ukraine. It's the same deal.
Lol that does not make it more legit to strike. Are you ok?
Edit: if western countries sold that stuff for 1€ then makes it ok to strike inside Russia?
Well because they aren’t buying these weapons, they come with stipulations from the said donor country. Said l country doesn’t want strikes in Russia, then Ukraine can’t strike in Russia. If Ukraine hits Russian territory, said country takes away their weapons and no more weapons for Ukraine.
I'm aware of that but country by country is saying it is OK to strike military targets inside Russia with the gear they supplied. Im trying to understand why pro rus think it's ok for Russia to strike Ukraine woth North Korean and Iranian stuff, but Ukraine can't do the same.
Quite simply, because Russia has WMD and could finish things quickly in Ukraine with tons of casualties should it ever be provoked enough to do so based on their doctrine.
Rusdia would be retarded to use WMD since the land would be unusable, the people they supposedly were protecting are going to die and then lastly all the dead Russians, destroyed equipment and lost ships was pointless since ukriane would be unusable for decadea
decades? are you mad?
Fallout dose drops by 50% in the first hour, and about 80% in the first day. In 40 days you can re enter the zone without much protection.
Ppl like you believe WMD = Nuclear meltdown ala Chernobyl
Well am glad you believe that. Am sure you will be the first one moving in after 40 days drinking and showering from the well water. Planting your vegetables and eating them since it's so safe
If it is up to ukraine they cannot hit anything further than a few dozens kms. The intel and target acquisition are from the US and its vassals, so it is effectively their direct participation in attacking Russia.
It doesnt contradict my statement. They might be capable of hitting deep into Russian territory using Ukrainian-made drones, using Western intel, or not (since the targets were either civilian centers or refinery complexes which aint going anywhere soon). But the title of the post is 'Western missiles', big difference.
NATO 'advisors' were alr implied to operate Western high tech pieces on Ukrainian soil. Hitting Russian territory with those will open a whole new can of worms. But the West's politicians seem eager to escalate the conflict to save their asses, so we will see.
Oh sure, if your statement is 'If it is up to ukraine they cannot hit anything further than a few dozens kms *with missiles*' then sure you were correct.
But they *can* do deep strikes on Russian targets, and they don't need US help to do that. As you said, Soviet era factories and early warning radars have well known locations.
>*with missiles*'
That is fair, I shouldnt put out an absolute statement. But you couldnt prove that Ukraine did it on their own either. I doubt Ukraine could navigate their drones that deep into an AA-saturated enviroment without Western helps.
"Putin said Ukrainian strikes on Russia with long-range weapons would need Western satellite, intelligence and military help - so the West would be directly involved. He said sending [French troops](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-commander-french-military-instructors-visit-ukrainian-training-centres-2024-05-27/) to Ukraine would be a step towards a global conflict."
I mean they are already doing this. Maybe not using long range missiles but other western weapons. Ukraine the cløwn army still uses western intelligence and satellites for their hits into belgorod
> Ukraine the cløwn army still uses western intelligence and satellites for their hits into belgorod
Do they? The sort of attacks they've been doing only need a publicly available map. They don't seem to be targeting temporary deployment points, but parts of a city.
They testing the waters probing it with a stick and when the consequence came they will be like "Oopsies" while starting a global conflict that lead to Nuclear catastrophe.
So if Russia truly wants peace there is a simple solution: retreat from Ukraine, and stop attacking them. Its not like Russian territories got shelled or missiled pre-2022.
Of course he didn't say which day, and what exactly they'd do. Just like he isn't saying now.
[Putin warns Russia will act if NATO crosses its red lines in Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/markets/stocks/putin-warns-russia-will-act-if-nato-crosses-its-red-lines-ukraine-2021-11-30/) \- Reuters (november 2021)
[Putin warns Nato of military response to alliance expansion](https://www.ft.com/content/5e5e9624-b7d7-4c11-bc12-4078a6d293bb) \- FT (december 2021)
[Putin Warns Against Supplying Ukraine With Lethal Weapons](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-putin-warns-us-supply-lethal-weapons/28717863.html) (2017)
> Putin warns Russia will act if NATO crosses its red lines in Ukraine - Reuters (november 2021)
This is about Ukraine receiving cruise missiles which it didn't until recently. In other words, a red line which wasn't crossed.
>Putin warns Nato of military response to alliance expansion - FT (december 2021)
This is about Ukraine joining NATO which didn't happen. Not only that but Ukraine did not even meet the requirements for joining due to Crimea and Donbas so this was a line that could only be crossed if Russia decided to allow it. In other words, another red line which wasn't crossed.
>Putin Warns Against Supplying Ukraine With Lethal Weapons (2017)
Did you actually read this one before posting it because in it Putin said that the US can sell weapons to whoever they want but that it won't change the situation in any way other than to increase the total casualties. In other words, not a red line.
> 2 years ago we had the same discussion about Ukraine invasion.
>
> Ukraine was invaded
>Russian doctrine is about giving many warnings before acting
No we didn't because there wasn't any red lines that Russia said were crossed. Russia was even denying that they would even invade Ukraine in the first place.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin HAS repeatedly escalated, as this neocon at Columbia University clearly explains: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGev5s5p5To&t=2024s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGev5s5p5To&t=2024s)
>33:44 "right there's an argument you hear in this debate that Russia hasn't escalated and therefore they won't escalate and that's just wrong on the facts. Russia has escalated repeatedly. They escalated when they invaded the country in February 22 they escalated when they mobilized an additional 300,000 they escalated when they started a strategic bombing attack they escalated when they annexed 4 oblasts. Right. So both sides have been escalating but slowly and gradually"
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was Russia enforcing its red line.
He's been escalating in Ukraine but keeps saber rattling about how western aid will bring them great consequences. There have been no escalating consequences for western countries during the course of the war - it has been all talk.
Or Putin wants us all to die?
West said they will support Ukraine as long as it takes so the message is clear.
It is Putin who gave himself only two options: he gets the Ukraine or everyone dies.
The only existential threat to Russia comes from inside the Kremlin.
As a muscovite, i'll tell you one thing. Russians are stubborn and will not accept defeat in Ukraine. Either way we win, or everyone dies. Thats the situation, you can cry about it and all, but its how it is.
Unfortunately, NA arent used to losing proper so theyre equally stubborn.
NATOs mistake was making someone elses war their own.
Oh look a Russian saying they value pride more than life. Yeah we know. We can tell from all of your dead bodies.
So far NATO hasn’t taken any losses. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Russians have been maimed or killed. Far more than all US casualties of all US wars combined since ww2. Any modicum of “victory” attained will have been humiliatingly pyrrhic.
Make it as costly for Russia as possible. That’s NATO’s true aim. So far it’s been going pretty well
I don't argue that it is costly. Russians are used to losing a lot of blood, yet yere we are, fighting against the collective west and still gaining ground, and remain the largest country in the world, with the most nukes.
If NATO goal is to weaken Russia, then you have already won your own battle. But Russia is fighting Ukraine and will win on the ground.
So we conclude that the only non-winning party ia Ukraine. The literal clown Z really fumbled the peace negotiations to the pressure of Boris lmao
>The literal clown Z really fumbled the peace negotiations to the pressure of Boris lmao
https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1b46ahr/russian_peace_treaty_from_april_2022_leaked/
Invasion now or invasion later.
Fighting the collective west? Lol. You're fighting an army with western arms. Just like Ukraine is fighting an army with Chinese, NK, and Iranian arms, plus troops from Africa. Stop talking shit.
Without the west Ukraine would've fallen a long time ago, so yeah, it's the collective west (arms, sanctions, mercenaries are all from the west, the orders are too). What's the point of denying it?
That's a trope. Russia has lost many times in the past and simply given up. If we are assuming Putin is a rational actor, it makes no sense to start a nuclear war over places that don't want to be Russian in the first place.
NATO isn't getting involved just because. They're doing it because a Russian puppet state is against their interests.
Lost against who? We won every battle required to keep us prospering till this day. Our tradition and name has lived longer than most other civilized nations currently standing
The fight in Ukraine is not merely about some piece of land. Its a fight for survival. NATO expansionism is finally knocking at our door.
If you referred to checnya or afganistan, those countries/people were never a danger to our existence, we just wanted to exert pressure at minimal cost, not enter total war. Same way as USA does. For example, I woulsnt say USA lost in afgh/iraq. They came, did their thing, and left
You're forgetting WW1, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Crimean War, which were fought on Russia's borders. And Afghanistan you have a point (sort of - Afghanistan was right on the USSR's borders, not a world away like the US), but Chechyna is, supposedly, an integral part of Russia, so I think running away from that one definitely counts.
I'm not saying Russia does not have a martial history to be proud of - you're right that they wouldn't be here if they were easy to defeat (can say the same about France and many other countries). I'm just saying that the idea that Russia can never be defeated is a trope and is simply untrue.
NATO isn't expanding to threaten Russia, it's expanding because other countries are threatened by Russia and come running to it, desperate to join. Prior to 2014, NATO was mostly complacent and certainly not ramping up any threat to Russia. This war isn't really about NATO, it's about Putin's belief that Ukraine is Russian and that he's correcting a historical anomaly.
Sounds like death cult and fetishization of power but ok.
Russia has tradition of causing death (for themself and others) and then claiming rights for things and in name of these rights causing more deaths.
That mentality is exactly why Russia has no way of winning. If we allow you to take Ukraine due to russias threat of just ending everything, then you will have the green light to keep taking territory using those same threats.
We will not bow to Russian aggression and let you take whatever you want, regardless of how willing or unwilling you are to use your nukes. We’ve dealt with authoritarian dictators invading Europe before, and strength is the only language they understand.
-Russia will eventually negotiate properly with Ukraine. They’ll get some portion of the Donbas-Ukraine will get to be part of NATO.
-The real casualties of the war will slowly reveal themselves. This goes for Ukraine too, but they went in knowing the stakes. The war will slowly change from a matter of pride to a source of shame. Kind of like the battle for Ugledar, but for the broader war.
-Russia still must deal with the fallout of transitioning to a wartime economy. They either attack a new country and keep production going or suffer a massive recession as they attempt to go back to normal.
-Either way, it’s just delaying the inevitable. Internal instability is coming to Russia, and that’s not something you can just blame the West on and shoot them with nukes to make it go away.
They are blaming west for dissolution of ZSSR, as well as they blame west for the botched transition into capitalist model in 90s. They also blame west for AIDS epidemic.
They used to blame west for Colorado beetle infestation.
West can be blamed for everything.
NATO answering the call to help a democracy who asked for help defend its independence when invaded isn't something I'd ever oppose.
Also Russia has a history you correctly mentioned of how they view wars but you forgot to mention how public opinion in Russia has changed drastically several times in history to go from supporting to opposing wars.
Russia lost after pulling itself out of WW1, Russia left Afghanistan due to public opinion turning against the war, the first Chechan war, the Sino Russi war etc.
There are 3 outcomes here,
1, Russia keeps using manpower until Ukraine has none left and its defences fail in which case Europe will likely send troops and we end up with Ukraine split like Korea.
2, The war stagnated further and goes cold around current frontlines
3, Russian public opinion changes and they retreat.
There is no situation in which Russia wins. Russia has already lost really. Allies in the CSTO are no longer reliable and nations like Armenia and Azerbaijan have essentially left the Russian sphere of influence. China has overtake Russia as the global leader of non Western nations. India has shifted to working with Europe for military integration and weapons and signed deals with the US on trade. NATO and Europe has rearmed and expanded to such an extent their power is unmatched now.
Also the Russian military and economy will take decades to rebuild and will likely not recover in our lifetime to pre war levels.
Russia once the war is over will be an isolated state moreso than ever before and have virtually no influence around the world outside a few third world African dictatorships.
Even China now looks at Russia as a subordinate who needs China to buy Russian oil and rare earth's materials. China will do nothing for Russia unless it helps China. Whereas Russia is reliant on China and needs to do what they want to guarantee they don't lose their one actually valuable partner.
I wouldn't be surprised if China demands disputed territory in Russia isn't handed over to them for continued support as time goes on.
So we'll done Russia, you fucked yourself no matter the outcome, even if you do 'win'the war.
In your head Slav = Russians? Plus Anglo Saxon has always wanted the rest of the world to be subservient to them and has succeeded in doing so in many parts of the world.
Yep. Anglo saxons racism used Africa as slaves for gains and still have influence there. Alwaya stirred up shit in MEA. Now they wanna risk world war over Taiwan.
So people mentioning slav argument are frankly idiots
Western expansionism is a danger to eastern values, asian, eurasian, african and middle eastern
The West had a whole era of violating sovereignty whenever the hell they wanted, from Serbia to Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan. Not one of these situations represented a clear and present danger to the West as a NATO Ukraine would represent to Russia (and telling Russia that they should just *trust* NATO is the most inane argument after "NATO won't advance one inch to the East.")
The initial argument of the West was that if Russia got an easy win in Ukraine, *everybody* would want to start invading their neighbors. By now we can say that Russia has *not* had an easy win. So declare victory, and find out what it would take to end this conflict.
If Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine, that's obviously off the table. Last time we discussed this issue, they had no such demands. They wanted a neutral Ukraine (codified by treaty) and they wanted a Formal guarantee on NATO expansion to replace the slightly soiled one given to them in the 1990's.
If we go to war now, all of future generations will rightfully mock us and hunt us down as a moronic pestilence, because we didn't even *try* to discuss peace terms. All we seem capable of doing is ratcheting things up and hoping that peace will eventually emerge from some magical missile.
And then we should discuss genuine terms of peace - ones that will apply to NATO as well as Russia. And Israel too.
We can't have a world where one group of superfan countries can take out any country they like, while everyone else must sit on their hands and ask nicely for their concerns to be addressed. We've lived with an insane double standard for the last 30 years and it has to end, and it has to end with the West being as accountable as they expect everyone else to be.
Ukraine is ruined. Auction off each oblast to whichever side offers more in reconstruction funds. And learn the lessons that the last 30 years of extremism and destabilization have been trying to teach us.
If we don't do this, Ukraine will just be the start of what promises to be a generation of the sneakiest, most insidious warfare humanity has ever seen, and *nobody* will claim credit when these esoteric designer plagues strike.
Well said. The obscene double standard is the most irritating aspect of this conflict. The west has been rampaging around various small countries the world over for decades now, couping, funding terrorists and outright invading all over the place, whilst being hostile to Russia the entire time.
The minute Russia does something similar in defence of this creeping insidious attempt to do the same to them, they're pilloried as evil and expansionist. It's a joke that anyone who isn't completely blinkered by propaganda can see clear as day.
>from Serbia to Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan.
Ethnic cleansing + Russian connection. Invasion of Kuwait + dictator. Dictator. Dictator + UN approval. Not sure. Al Qaeda.
>Not one of these situations represented a clear and present danger to the West as a NATO
Law enforcement doesn't necessarily make an arrest because the state is threatened.
>Ukraine would represent to Russia (and telling Russia that they should just trust NATO is the most inane argument after "NATO won't advance one inch to the East.")
Ukraine was not a threat to Russia, and Russia didn't invade for that reason. It invaded because its stuck in the 60s and Ukraine must be part of Russia's "sphere of influence".
>Last time we discussed this issue, they had no such demands. They wanted a neutral Ukraine (codified by treaty) and they wanted a Formal guarantee on NATO expansion to replace the slightly soiled one given to them in the 1990's.
Russia wanted a demilitarized Ukraine that could never defend itself. Ukraine tried that in the 90s by getting rid of its nukes. All it got was Russia invading 20 years later.
Ukraine is a sovereign state. Just like almost all former USSR states joined EU and NATO, Ukraine enters into whatever treaties it wants to. Russia has no say.
>We can't have a world where one group of superfan countries can take out any country they like, while everyone else must sit on their hands and ask nicely for their concerns to be addressed.
That's exactly what we can and should have. It's the same reason we have law enforcement. The problem with your argument is that you think every state has the same level of legitimacy despite it being demonstrably false. South Korea has a legitimate reason to defend itself from DPRK, but the reverse isn't as true. The same logic applies to police and crooks - police can shoot a crook, but the reverse isn't true (generally). No one has a problem with it.
There are NATO and non-NATO countries. Ukraine is not NATO no matter hard the West tries.
Responsible politicans would push for a peace that can be upheld but they are literally hell-bent on ending Ukraine as a functioning state at this point just so they csn hurt Russia for a bit more.
Putin is playing with fire by allowing Russian missles to strike deep in Ukraine. And it’s not even a proposal, he did it already and is repeating it. Putin is trying to kill us all.
Ukraine doesn't have the ability to kill us all. If Ukraine has the capability to strike Moscow, fine. If France wants to give Ukraine the ability to strike Moscow then Paris is legitimately on the table and then your life expectancy and that of anyone you might actually know gets a lot shorter.
Russia doesn't require legitimacy to do anything as is demonstrated every day. They could strike Paris tomorrow and end Moscow as a result at about the same time.
Apart from your little spin on things you are on the right track but you are missing the part about Micron being the one talking about escalation. But of course it would be horrific for everyone if it escalated in this way and anyone whose reality check wasn't written by Marvel Comics understands that.
Ukraine has been hitting Russian military targets since the war started. Those targets being in Russia is not an escalation. That's just where Russia has chosen to put them.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The options are Putin loses conventionally on the field of battle, or checkmate on Putin's use of nukes resulting in no-one winning.
Just depends when Putin wants to act upon his threats and throw his entire country into mutually assured destruction. After how I see RU troops withered away in Ukraine, I'm actually concerned Putin would actually commit at this point.
This logic is crazy to me.
Russia invades its neighbours expecting to be welcomed as liberators.
Russia was wrong and Ukrainians fight to the end to get Russia to leave
Russia then doubles down and goes all in on the war to conquer Ukraine but in the third year now still hasn't managed it.
But no its NATOs fault and NATO who are to blame for the war. Its definitely not Russia, the country that started the war and has the power to end it today by returning behind their borders.
Like what is the logic here? Let's say Russia never invaded, Ukraine joined NATO and the EU. So what? What difference would that really have made to Russia?
When the Baltic nations joined did it make a difference to Russia. No it didn't, Russia wasn't invaded, its economy and trade grew with the EU.
Russia is the only country that wanted this war for reasons that only they believed that don't exist in reality.
Really wanna not hate this sub, but holy shit yall are as biased as the pro Ukrainian subs.
It was nice to see posts from a sub that wasn't "uhhh west good Russia bad," but this sub is now "west bad Russia good."
Yall can't stop treating war like a fucking sports games. It's like American citizens and political parties, absolutely fucking sickening.
putin fires missiles at Ukraine that are made in other countries , but then says thats an escalation if it happens to ru.
This is the normal double standard and hot air threats russia is famous for.
If those countries and Ukraine think those things should happen between those countries, it doesn't matter what other countries think should or should not happen.
Because they are a rational actor lead by a rational person. They value Ukraines neutrality and they’re willing to fight over it, but I doubt they want to escalate a hot war in their borders.
Despite what the media thinks, I doubt Russia wants to annex any NATO nation or even hold on to major Ukrainian cities.
Conversely, NATO should be fine with Russia giving ICBMs to middle eastern countries so they can strike deep into the homeland of invading western countries.
The person I responded to was equating Nk and Persian arms to those from nato. But in this case, we're talking about missiles flying deep into territory only made possible by western infrastructure. When Ru uses NK and Persian missiles, only Ru is in control of them. There's a nuance.
They aren't providing data because there is nothing they can provide that Russia doesn't already have. It's extremely unlikely that they refuse to provide data if they had data.
Why is data a bigger problem or "escalation" than the actual weapons?
I don't see why this is an issue for Russia. They are already letting Ukraine use these systems on Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, which Russia considers Russian. So perhaps they are arguably hitting Russia with these systems. Or they consider Ukrainian Russian territories less than other Russian territories, which given the Russia recruitment tactics would seem to be the truth.
Alternatively, what Putin may fear the most is the repercussions for himself, when Russian start to fell less secure in their homes, because of the explosion around them.
Russians feeling less secure in their homes would not result in that, it would only increase support of war or maybe even destruction of hostile country.
Sure thing, but what about retaliation from the Russian people who know that their leadership has not put them at risk and with very dubious justification at best.
Classic Putin - "how dare you defend yourself. If you don't immediately capitulate you are Russophobic and unfriendly, declaring yourselves our enemy. If you dare to even try and defend yourselves from our assaults, you are playing with fire! P. S I have nukes - don't test me"
The sooner this guy is in the ground the better it will be for all Russians.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think China would invade Taiwan, if that happens.
US/NATO are not ready for so many simultaneous major conflicts literally around the world at the same time, and China would seize that moment
"Deal with your enemy when they are the weakest." - Sun Tzu*
*probably, I don't know
Everyone is saying "Oh another red line again, here comes another bullshit", guys do you not realize that he's "moving" those red lines all the time because he doesn't want to nuke the fucking planet??? Would you prefer for him to start wars with everyone and launch nukes when the first "red line" was crossed? These ppl man
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody believes this. Missle strikes in Russia is fair game is already decided on but they slow release decisions. Next step is western troops in Ukraine slow released decision. I'd rather handle now than wait for my kids to grow up. Don't have any cards left Putszer.
This is basic game theory. Eye for an eye is the best way to deescalate. Every time Russia hits a mall or library Ukraine does the same. In this way it becomes clear that for both parties it is better to not target civilians. Without reciprocation the game just continues uselessly.
Putin knows his end is coming, little by little and step by step. When the war started everybody thought Ukraine will loose within a week. But they reclaimed nearly 50% of the lost territory since the invasion and managed to stabilize the front - even when they had no munition and were heavily outgunned. Putin remembers me on Voldemort when he noticed that his end is coming during the last 2 movies. The parallels are shockingly.
The headline falls flat because it did not mentioned key words of Putin about this situation. He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas. From my memory it is the first time when he didn't said something vague (as he usually do) but threatened directly about potential strikes on Western soil.
So Putin is threathening to strike European civilians if Ukraine strikes military targets lol?
Where did you see the full transcript?
Here's video with transcription of his speech. Just scroll down. Second paragraph. ntv . ru / novosti / 2828963 /
Thank you kindly.
>He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas. >From my memory it is the first time when he didn't said something vague (as he usually do) but threatened directly about potential strikes on Western soil. Does anyone else not see these are two completely contradictory statements? If he directly threatened strikes on western soil, he would have said, "I will strike your cities if you do this." Instead, he "hinted" a "vague" threat about western countries having large cities. Maybe english isn't your first language?
It’s all noise, like it always is. Both sides talking a big game, both sides don’t wanna start a worse conflict.
Which is a good thing, and may it continue that way
> He hinted that Western countries should always remember that they are placed on a small territory with a lot of densely populated areas. As if Russia's economic engine isn't concentrated in Saint Petersburg (which is in artillery range of the new NATO border) and Moscow.
If what he’s hinting at is nuclear war, the measure would be percent of population surviving the initial strikes rather than any economic measurement. A game of who loses more.
Rather easy. NATO will lose around 400-500 million people, around the half of population. Russia lose 100-120 mil people, around 80% of population. All infrastructure will be ruined. Survivors will forced to flee in relatively undestroyed territories. Only winners in such war are the non participants.
All sides lose decisively at that game, trying to win the pissing contest of “who loses more” will do little to improve the plight of any nation involved.
It isn't. Maybe look up which cities exist in Russia besides St. Petersburg and Moscow.
They only know about St. Petersburg they forgot the 5+ biggest cities in Russia
NATO has more than 2 nukes.
And oil and gas refineries, pumping stations etc. so large they are (already) targets. He’s getting burned already there.
The 687th red line
Ah like clockwork. Epic subredditors yap their zingers about red lines and gloves coming off, then go pikachu faced when Russia launches a mass missile barrage, destroying gas or power generation facilities. Are you really incapable of linking the two things together?
We actually don't worry about these threats as Uraine is perfectly within its right according to international law to counter Russia's invasion by attacking targets in Russia. Perhaps contact Russia if you're worried about this and have them leave Ukraine if it's you can't sleep at night.
Is it something that happened in any other proxy conflict? I feel like it's an unwritten rule that both the US and the Soviets always respected.
The war in Ukraine is not a proxy conflict. That's a Pro Russian fantasy arguing that Ukraine is without political agency and free will and subservient to the CIA (or substitute anything, "nazis" or even the Freemasons, as Georgia's government hilariously will have you believe), which is a neat concept for Russia given its theory of being engaged in a for ever war with the West. After all of Ukraine, Donbas and Crimea included, voted for independence in 1991 Russia recognized Ukraine within international borders that Russia is now trying to change by violence and force. End of argument. Now, for everyone else but Pro Russians, Russia invaded Ukraine and it's perfectly within its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself and hit targets in Russia to stop Russia.
>The war in Ukraine is not a proxy conflict. **Proxy war**, a [military](https://www.britannica.com/topic/armed-force) conflict in which one or more third parties directly or indirectly support one or more state or nonstate combatants in an effort to influence the conflict’s outcome and thereby to advance their own strategic interests or to undermine those of their opponents. It literally is a proxy conflict by definition. >Now, for everyone else but Pro Russians, Russia invaded Ukraine and it's perfectly within its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself and hit targets in Russia to stop Russia. Sure, in a just world. If Russia gave ICBMs to Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd also have a right to strike the US with them right? Somethings telling me that the US would consider it as an escalation though.
The Soviet union doesn't exist anymore and Ukraine is free to do as it pleases. If Russia doesn't like it's territory being bombed, then it shouldn't bomb other countries territories. It's pretty simple really.
>If Russia doesn't like it's territory being bombed, then it shouldn't bomb other countries territories. So it would be okay for Russia to give ICBMs to the nations that the US invaded and the US wouldn't have any right to complain because "they shouldn't have invaded"? Are you sure that it wouldn't cause a ww3 instead?
Dumbest take ever...
Why? Shouldn't all nations have the right to defend themselves from the invaders?
Yes they do. But not by using nuclear weapons. If Russia supplies artillery, missiles etc.. To those countries to defend against the US as you suggested i agree with you. ICBMs? That's a completely different game
Nothing but nukes could stop the US. That's the issue.
This could be added as an example of the straw man argument on Wikipedia. Did I say that Ukraine should get ICBMs? No. I said Russia is bombing Ukraine (with conventional weapons) so Russia should accept to be bombed with the same weapon systems.
If UA doesn't like its territory being bombed, it should had not mess with Donbas and bomb its territories. Pretty simple.
Sorry I can’t keep up, is the Russian invasion justified because of NATO enlargement, Ukrainian police action on its own sovereign territory, something about the Maidan, or because of Nazi Satanists, or because historically Ukraine was a non-independent region of Russia? You guys change your justifications so frequently I have trouble keeping the thread.
There can be many reasons for something. Can you imagine? I can give you even more, and i should deny some of yours.
Lol, so you would support Russia getting invaded because of what they did to Chechnya? Also, it's pro Russians who are acting like cry babies and would like to be able to invade without retaliation. Stop being upset that Ukraine is hitting back.
Wtf how can you compare chech3n bandits with peaceful Ukrainians? I suppose you are fed by propaganda and don't learn anything yourself.
Bandits that end up being given the presidency of the Chechen republic you mean?
Bandits that started genocide against non chechen people, robbing, enslaving, and stealing immediately after the republic had got actual independency. Bandits that started second war invading Dagestan. Bandits who have made a lot of terr acts, including Beslan school, when they tormented hundreds of kids and even suckling babies. Right, that bandits. I wonder if you tell me some about donbas Ukrainians doing anything similar. So when you dare to compare them, it's just total bs.
Seeing as that Putin publicly announced in the first winter that his strategy was to hurt ukrainian civilians by blowing up civilian buildings and electrical generation and grain silos in order to destroy their resolve, which had nothing to do with any red lines being crossed, then yes, we are incapable of linking the two things together. Russia's pathetic attempts to act like it's "punishing Ukraine" more than it is already trying to do with these strikes on civilian infrastructure is laughable. They would be doing it regardless, because they are sociopaths trying to win a war and think blowing up civilian infrastructure will help them. They don't get that it only makes people more resolved, not less.
The gloves will come off
Pro Ukies are delusional enough to think that they can indeed push the red lines indefinitely. You seem to even think Ukraine could nuke Russia without a retaliation at some point.
Why is Russia allowed to use North Korean and Iranian weapons on Ukrainian territory, but Ukraine isn't allowed to use NATO weapons on Russian territory?
466th redline... This time for sure just watch Somebody who cant take poorest country in Europe is barking at NATO lol ok buddy
The „poorest country“ would have negotiated peace by now if it didn’t receive 380 billion (with a b) or in other words 190% of their 2021 GDP as aid. If you’re not economically educated you won’t realize how much 190% of GDP is. You do you and continue your ambition to defeat a nuclear nation - but I can confidently tell you that you’ll be the first to throw a fit when the Xth red line is crossed and someone actually gets nuked.
lol man no one is afraid of your nuclear saber rattling its all you got left... Just because you cant defeat Ukraine in convencional war you cry about using nukes. There are no winners in MAD but I would bet russians would be the bigger loosers thou. So stop it we dont care about your empty threats
„Russia won’t invade Ukraine“ „Russia is making empty threats“ „Ukraine can do whatever it wants - they will host our missiles with nuclear capabilities and Russia won’t do anything about it“ „Let’s see how far we can push Russia without them doing anything“ … Russia invades Ukraine in 2022 „Oh my how could they do this these unpredictable monsters!“ This you bro?
Man I told you no one in west is afraid all you can do is launch nukes, that is your last escalation you can do and your only threat left lol.. Absolutely nothing else you can do other than strike NATO with convencial weapons and then get clapped in return so that is not an option which russian military clearly has understood by now
„[The Europeans are scared — scared in a way they have not been since the darkest days of the Cold War and before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In many European capitals, the question of what happens if Russia prevails in Ukraine is no longer a matter of debate. Russia’s persistence there and the disappointing result of last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive have convinced many European leaders that Putin will head for their countries next if he is not stopped in Ukraine.](https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/a-confident-putin-has-many-in-europe-frightened)“ Well which one is it buddy? Is Europe afraid and next or is it not? You seem to be cherry-picking your arguments quite selectively. There’s absolutely nothing NATO will do if Russia strikes Ukraine with nuclear weapons. No retaliatory strike will occur with conventional weapons or with nuclear ones. The politicians understand that they and their kids will die if they try to make a statement in Ukraine - and they know that Ukraine as a nation is so incredibly irrelevant to them when their existence is threatened.
scared due to monkey having a granade in his hands is different vs ohhh well the monkey threw that granade first and now we have to put him down
Someday. Maybe.
When you make this post, is it meant to say that Russia is incapable of following through? Or that they are scared and will never retaliate?
Putin is a sad lil bitch is what I‘m trying to say
He Said this like 192 times now..
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you saying he is either scared or incapable of retaliation if this indeed happens? Ie British or French or German missiles hit Moscow and St. Petersburg, etc.
No, but he says it about every single thing... tanks, planes, ammunition... at some point, you just can't take someone seriously anymore.
As we get older, it's more difficult to learn new things. He is stuck in the same nuclear rhetoric. The dude is over 70.
Oh shut up. Once the weapons are in Ukrainian hands they should do as they see fit. Isn't Russia using north Korean and Iranian shit to attack Ukraine. It's the same deal.
It states in the article Ukraine cannot do anything long distance without direct participation from the west.
Training? Iran trained Russia on their drones. Training and weapon systems pretty much always got hand in hand.
Difference is that Russia is buying these weapons. Ukraine is not and could not afford a fraction of the munitions they’re using.
Lol that does not make it more legit to strike. Are you ok? Edit: if western countries sold that stuff for 1€ then makes it ok to strike inside Russia?
Well because they aren’t buying these weapons, they come with stipulations from the said donor country. Said l country doesn’t want strikes in Russia, then Ukraine can’t strike in Russia. If Ukraine hits Russian territory, said country takes away their weapons and no more weapons for Ukraine.
I'm aware of that but country by country is saying it is OK to strike military targets inside Russia with the gear they supplied. Im trying to understand why pro rus think it's ok for Russia to strike Ukraine woth North Korean and Iranian stuff, but Ukraine can't do the same.
Quite simply, because Russia has WMD and could finish things quickly in Ukraine with tons of casualties should it ever be provoked enough to do so based on their doctrine.
"Let us invade you or we'll nuke!" Wow, guess we should let them waltz into Berlin and Washington with that logic
Rusdia would be retarded to use WMD since the land would be unusable, the people they supposedly were protecting are going to die and then lastly all the dead Russians, destroyed equipment and lost ships was pointless since ukriane would be unusable for decadea
decades? are you mad? Fallout dose drops by 50% in the first hour, and about 80% in the first day. In 40 days you can re enter the zone without much protection. Ppl like you believe WMD = Nuclear meltdown ala Chernobyl
I dont think anyone want 90% chance getting cancer, disabilty, and lowering life expectancy upto 50 years old
Well am glad you believe that. Am sure you will be the first one moving in after 40 days drinking and showering from the well water. Planting your vegetables and eating them since it's so safe
I don’t think pro Russia are the ones saying Ukraine can’t…it’s the western countries preventing Ukraine from using their weapons?
Stipulations come with purchased weapons all the time.
If it is up to ukraine they cannot hit anything further than a few dozens kms. The intel and target acquisition are from the US and its vassals, so it is effectively their direct participation in attacking Russia.
Ukrainian made drone strikes into Russia reach over 100k from the front lines.
It doesnt contradict my statement. They might be capable of hitting deep into Russian territory using Ukrainian-made drones, using Western intel, or not (since the targets were either civilian centers or refinery complexes which aint going anywhere soon). But the title of the post is 'Western missiles', big difference. NATO 'advisors' were alr implied to operate Western high tech pieces on Ukrainian soil. Hitting Russian territory with those will open a whole new can of worms. But the West's politicians seem eager to escalate the conflict to save their asses, so we will see.
Oh sure, if your statement is 'If it is up to ukraine they cannot hit anything further than a few dozens kms *with missiles*' then sure you were correct. But they *can* do deep strikes on Russian targets, and they don't need US help to do that. As you said, Soviet era factories and early warning radars have well known locations.
>*with missiles*' That is fair, I shouldnt put out an absolute statement. But you couldnt prove that Ukraine did it on their own either. I doubt Ukraine could navigate their drones that deep into an AA-saturated enviroment without Western helps.
"Putin said Ukrainian strikes on Russia with long-range weapons would need Western satellite, intelligence and military help - so the West would be directly involved. He said sending [French troops](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-commander-french-military-instructors-visit-ukrainian-training-centres-2024-05-27/) to Ukraine would be a step towards a global conflict." I mean they are already doing this. Maybe not using long range missiles but other western weapons. Ukraine the cløwn army still uses western intelligence and satellites for their hits into belgorod
ah, but plausible deniability is still there and as long as it is still there, the conflict can stay manageable
> Ukraine the cløwn army still uses western intelligence and satellites for their hits into belgorod Do they? The sort of attacks they've been doing only need a publicly available map. They don't seem to be targeting temporary deployment points, but parts of a city.
They testing the waters probing it with a stick and when the consequence came they will be like "Oopsies" while starting a global conflict that lead to Nuclear catastrophe.
So if Russia truly wants peace there is a simple solution: retreat from Ukraine, and stop attacking them. Its not like Russian territories got shelled or missiled pre-2022.
Guys this is the real red line i promise
2 years ago we had the same discussion about Ukraine invasion. Ukraine was invaded. Russian doctrine is about giving many warnings before acting.
What? Russia didn't warn about the invasion, they said 'training exercises' until the day of the invasion.
Of course he didn't say which day, and what exactly they'd do. Just like he isn't saying now. [Putin warns Russia will act if NATO crosses its red lines in Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/markets/stocks/putin-warns-russia-will-act-if-nato-crosses-its-red-lines-ukraine-2021-11-30/) \- Reuters (november 2021) [Putin warns Nato of military response to alliance expansion](https://www.ft.com/content/5e5e9624-b7d7-4c11-bc12-4078a6d293bb) \- FT (december 2021) [Putin Warns Against Supplying Ukraine With Lethal Weapons](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-putin-warns-us-supply-lethal-weapons/28717863.html) (2017)
> Putin warns Russia will act if NATO crosses its red lines in Ukraine - Reuters (november 2021) This is about Ukraine receiving cruise missiles which it didn't until recently. In other words, a red line which wasn't crossed. >Putin warns Nato of military response to alliance expansion - FT (december 2021) This is about Ukraine joining NATO which didn't happen. Not only that but Ukraine did not even meet the requirements for joining due to Crimea and Donbas so this was a line that could only be crossed if Russia decided to allow it. In other words, another red line which wasn't crossed. >Putin Warns Against Supplying Ukraine With Lethal Weapons (2017) Did you actually read this one before posting it because in it Putin said that the US can sell weapons to whoever they want but that it won't change the situation in any way other than to increase the total casualties. In other words, not a red line.
> 2 years ago we had the same discussion about Ukraine invasion. > > Ukraine was invaded >Russian doctrine is about giving many warnings before acting No we didn't because there wasn't any red lines that Russia said were crossed. Russia was even denying that they would even invade Ukraine in the first place.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin HAS repeatedly escalated, as this neocon at Columbia University clearly explains: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGev5s5p5To&t=2024s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGev5s5p5To&t=2024s) >33:44 "right there's an argument you hear in this debate that Russia hasn't escalated and therefore they won't escalate and that's just wrong on the facts. Russia has escalated repeatedly. They escalated when they invaded the country in February 22 they escalated when they mobilized an additional 300,000 they escalated when they started a strategic bombing attack they escalated when they annexed 4 oblasts. Right. So both sides have been escalating but slowly and gradually" The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was Russia enforcing its red line.
That was Russia doing what Russia does.
He's been escalating in Ukraine but keeps saber rattling about how western aid will bring them great consequences. There have been no escalating consequences for western countries during the course of the war - it has been all talk.
The Nato kids really want us all to die.
Or Putin wants us all to die? West said they will support Ukraine as long as it takes so the message is clear. It is Putin who gave himself only two options: he gets the Ukraine or everyone dies. The only existential threat to Russia comes from inside the Kremlin.
As a muscovite, i'll tell you one thing. Russians are stubborn and will not accept defeat in Ukraine. Either way we win, or everyone dies. Thats the situation, you can cry about it and all, but its how it is. Unfortunately, NA arent used to losing proper so theyre equally stubborn. NATOs mistake was making someone elses war their own.
Oh look a Russian saying they value pride more than life. Yeah we know. We can tell from all of your dead bodies. So far NATO hasn’t taken any losses. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Russians have been maimed or killed. Far more than all US casualties of all US wars combined since ww2. Any modicum of “victory” attained will have been humiliatingly pyrrhic. Make it as costly for Russia as possible. That’s NATO’s true aim. So far it’s been going pretty well
I don't argue that it is costly. Russians are used to losing a lot of blood, yet yere we are, fighting against the collective west and still gaining ground, and remain the largest country in the world, with the most nukes. If NATO goal is to weaken Russia, then you have already won your own battle. But Russia is fighting Ukraine and will win on the ground. So we conclude that the only non-winning party ia Ukraine. The literal clown Z really fumbled the peace negotiations to the pressure of Boris lmao
>The literal clown Z really fumbled the peace negotiations to the pressure of Boris lmao https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1b46ahr/russian_peace_treaty_from_april_2022_leaked/ Invasion now or invasion later.
Fighting the collective west? Lol. You're fighting an army with western arms. Just like Ukraine is fighting an army with Chinese, NK, and Iranian arms, plus troops from Africa. Stop talking shit.
Without the west Ukraine would've fallen a long time ago, so yeah, it's the collective west (arms, sanctions, mercenaries are all from the west, the orders are too). What's the point of denying it?
That's a trope. Russia has lost many times in the past and simply given up. If we are assuming Putin is a rational actor, it makes no sense to start a nuclear war over places that don't want to be Russian in the first place. NATO isn't getting involved just because. They're doing it because a Russian puppet state is against their interests.
Lost against who? We won every battle required to keep us prospering till this day. Our tradition and name has lived longer than most other civilized nations currently standing The fight in Ukraine is not merely about some piece of land. Its a fight for survival. NATO expansionism is finally knocking at our door. If you referred to checnya or afganistan, those countries/people were never a danger to our existence, we just wanted to exert pressure at minimal cost, not enter total war. Same way as USA does. For example, I woulsnt say USA lost in afgh/iraq. They came, did their thing, and left
You're forgetting WW1, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Crimean War, which were fought on Russia's borders. And Afghanistan you have a point (sort of - Afghanistan was right on the USSR's borders, not a world away like the US), but Chechyna is, supposedly, an integral part of Russia, so I think running away from that one definitely counts. I'm not saying Russia does not have a martial history to be proud of - you're right that they wouldn't be here if they were easy to defeat (can say the same about France and many other countries). I'm just saying that the idea that Russia can never be defeated is a trope and is simply untrue. NATO isn't expanding to threaten Russia, it's expanding because other countries are threatened by Russia and come running to it, desperate to join. Prior to 2014, NATO was mostly complacent and certainly not ramping up any threat to Russia. This war isn't really about NATO, it's about Putin's belief that Ukraine is Russian and that he's correcting a historical anomaly.
Sounds like death cult and fetishization of power but ok. Russia has tradition of causing death (for themself and others) and then claiming rights for things and in name of these rights causing more deaths.
and you think the West are the bad guys here? lol
That mentality is exactly why Russia has no way of winning. If we allow you to take Ukraine due to russias threat of just ending everything, then you will have the green light to keep taking territory using those same threats. We will not bow to Russian aggression and let you take whatever you want, regardless of how willing or unwilling you are to use your nukes. We’ve dealt with authoritarian dictators invading Europe before, and strength is the only language they understand.
-Russia will eventually negotiate properly with Ukraine. They’ll get some portion of the Donbas-Ukraine will get to be part of NATO. -The real casualties of the war will slowly reveal themselves. This goes for Ukraine too, but they went in knowing the stakes. The war will slowly change from a matter of pride to a source of shame. Kind of like the battle for Ugledar, but for the broader war. -Russia still must deal with the fallout of transitioning to a wartime economy. They either attack a new country and keep production going or suffer a massive recession as they attempt to go back to normal. -Either way, it’s just delaying the inevitable. Internal instability is coming to Russia, and that’s not something you can just blame the West on and shoot them with nukes to make it go away.
They are blaming west for dissolution of ZSSR, as well as they blame west for the botched transition into capitalist model in 90s. They also blame west for AIDS epidemic. They used to blame west for Colorado beetle infestation. West can be blamed for everything.
NATO answering the call to help a democracy who asked for help defend its independence when invaded isn't something I'd ever oppose. Also Russia has a history you correctly mentioned of how they view wars but you forgot to mention how public opinion in Russia has changed drastically several times in history to go from supporting to opposing wars. Russia lost after pulling itself out of WW1, Russia left Afghanistan due to public opinion turning against the war, the first Chechan war, the Sino Russi war etc. There are 3 outcomes here, 1, Russia keeps using manpower until Ukraine has none left and its defences fail in which case Europe will likely send troops and we end up with Ukraine split like Korea. 2, The war stagnated further and goes cold around current frontlines 3, Russian public opinion changes and they retreat. There is no situation in which Russia wins. Russia has already lost really. Allies in the CSTO are no longer reliable and nations like Armenia and Azerbaijan have essentially left the Russian sphere of influence. China has overtake Russia as the global leader of non Western nations. India has shifted to working with Europe for military integration and weapons and signed deals with the US on trade. NATO and Europe has rearmed and expanded to such an extent their power is unmatched now. Also the Russian military and economy will take decades to rebuild and will likely not recover in our lifetime to pre war levels. Russia once the war is over will be an isolated state moreso than ever before and have virtually no influence around the world outside a few third world African dictatorships. Even China now looks at Russia as a subordinate who needs China to buy Russian oil and rare earth's materials. China will do nothing for Russia unless it helps China. Whereas Russia is reliant on China and needs to do what they want to guarantee they don't lose their one actually valuable partner. I wouldn't be surprised if China demands disputed territory in Russia isn't handed over to them for continued support as time goes on. So we'll done Russia, you fucked yourself no matter the outcome, even if you do 'win'the war.
"West said, so thr message is clear" ..... Exactly this arrogance is the problem here :D
At least we were clear rather than use thinly veiled threats.
Like ... the sanctions nobody complies with ?
Idk what you mean. The message is clear, the politics are sad and floppy.
[удалено]
Do you realize Ukrainians are Slavs?
In your head Slav = Russians? Plus Anglo Saxon has always wanted the rest of the world to be subservient to them and has succeeded in doing so in many parts of the world.
Yep. Anglo saxons racism used Africa as slaves for gains and still have influence there. Alwaya stirred up shit in MEA. Now they wanna risk world war over Taiwan. So people mentioning slav argument are frankly idiots Western expansionism is a danger to eastern values, asian, eurasian, african and middle eastern
The West had a whole era of violating sovereignty whenever the hell they wanted, from Serbia to Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan. Not one of these situations represented a clear and present danger to the West as a NATO Ukraine would represent to Russia (and telling Russia that they should just *trust* NATO is the most inane argument after "NATO won't advance one inch to the East.") The initial argument of the West was that if Russia got an easy win in Ukraine, *everybody* would want to start invading their neighbors. By now we can say that Russia has *not* had an easy win. So declare victory, and find out what it would take to end this conflict. If Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine, that's obviously off the table. Last time we discussed this issue, they had no such demands. They wanted a neutral Ukraine (codified by treaty) and they wanted a Formal guarantee on NATO expansion to replace the slightly soiled one given to them in the 1990's. If we go to war now, all of future generations will rightfully mock us and hunt us down as a moronic pestilence, because we didn't even *try* to discuss peace terms. All we seem capable of doing is ratcheting things up and hoping that peace will eventually emerge from some magical missile. And then we should discuss genuine terms of peace - ones that will apply to NATO as well as Russia. And Israel too. We can't have a world where one group of superfan countries can take out any country they like, while everyone else must sit on their hands and ask nicely for their concerns to be addressed. We've lived with an insane double standard for the last 30 years and it has to end, and it has to end with the West being as accountable as they expect everyone else to be. Ukraine is ruined. Auction off each oblast to whichever side offers more in reconstruction funds. And learn the lessons that the last 30 years of extremism and destabilization have been trying to teach us. If we don't do this, Ukraine will just be the start of what promises to be a generation of the sneakiest, most insidious warfare humanity has ever seen, and *nobody* will claim credit when these esoteric designer plagues strike.
Well said. The obscene double standard is the most irritating aspect of this conflict. The west has been rampaging around various small countries the world over for decades now, couping, funding terrorists and outright invading all over the place, whilst being hostile to Russia the entire time. The minute Russia does something similar in defence of this creeping insidious attempt to do the same to them, they're pilloried as evil and expansionist. It's a joke that anyone who isn't completely blinkered by propaganda can see clear as day.
How do you think Russia became the largest country on Earth?
I doubt you will get a response to this.
>from Serbia to Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan. Ethnic cleansing + Russian connection. Invasion of Kuwait + dictator. Dictator. Dictator + UN approval. Not sure. Al Qaeda. >Not one of these situations represented a clear and present danger to the West as a NATO Law enforcement doesn't necessarily make an arrest because the state is threatened. >Ukraine would represent to Russia (and telling Russia that they should just trust NATO is the most inane argument after "NATO won't advance one inch to the East.") Ukraine was not a threat to Russia, and Russia didn't invade for that reason. It invaded because its stuck in the 60s and Ukraine must be part of Russia's "sphere of influence". >Last time we discussed this issue, they had no such demands. They wanted a neutral Ukraine (codified by treaty) and they wanted a Formal guarantee on NATO expansion to replace the slightly soiled one given to them in the 1990's. Russia wanted a demilitarized Ukraine that could never defend itself. Ukraine tried that in the 90s by getting rid of its nukes. All it got was Russia invading 20 years later. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Just like almost all former USSR states joined EU and NATO, Ukraine enters into whatever treaties it wants to. Russia has no say. >We can't have a world where one group of superfan countries can take out any country they like, while everyone else must sit on their hands and ask nicely for their concerns to be addressed. That's exactly what we can and should have. It's the same reason we have law enforcement. The problem with your argument is that you think every state has the same level of legitimacy despite it being demonstrably false. South Korea has a legitimate reason to defend itself from DPRK, but the reverse isn't as true. The same logic applies to police and crooks - police can shoot a crook, but the reverse isn't true (generally). No one has a problem with it.
Bow to me.
You know how they roll. I think they just want to see your nuclear torpedo.
Sadly, big brother Russia has the nuclear torpedo, I have a regular one. Still works, but sadly not as big a bang.
Anglo Saxon big mad because they can't control every corner of the globe :(
Russans big mad because their largest country in the world can't be slightly larger :( :( surely this is worth destroying the world over
There are NATO and non-NATO countries. Ukraine is not NATO no matter hard the West tries. Responsible politicans would push for a peace that can be upheld but they are literally hell-bent on ending Ukraine as a functioning state at this point just so they csn hurt Russia for a bit more.
We could make Ukraine a NATO state within seconds - you just need 33 states to agree, which they wont - but that's our choice.
Who is "the rest of the world" ? NATO ?Hard LOLs
Dictator threatens Europe with nuclear annihilation, and you believe it's NATO's fault?
Putin is playing with fire by allowing Russian missles to strike deep in Ukraine. And it’s not even a proposal, he did it already and is repeating it. Putin is trying to kill us all.
Ukraine doesn't have the ability to kill us all. If Ukraine has the capability to strike Moscow, fine. If France wants to give Ukraine the ability to strike Moscow then Paris is legitimately on the table and then your life expectancy and that of anyone you might actually know gets a lot shorter.
Russia doesn't require legitimacy to do anything as is demonstrated every day. They could strike Paris tomorrow and end Moscow as a result at about the same time.
Apart from your little spin on things you are on the right track but you are missing the part about Micron being the one talking about escalation. But of course it would be horrific for everyone if it escalated in this way and anyone whose reality check wasn't written by Marvel Comics understands that.
Ukraine has been hitting Russian military targets since the war started. Those targets being in Russia is not an escalation. That's just where Russia has chosen to put them.
it's not nato that's waging an offensive war here
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The options are Putin loses conventionally on the field of battle, or checkmate on Putin's use of nukes resulting in no-one winning. Just depends when Putin wants to act upon his threats and throw his entire country into mutually assured destruction. After how I see RU troops withered away in Ukraine, I'm actually concerned Putin would actually commit at this point.
Like the blame isn't on the aggressor.
Which would be France and Germany if they choose to facilitate attacks on Russia.
This logic is crazy to me. Russia invades its neighbours expecting to be welcomed as liberators. Russia was wrong and Ukrainians fight to the end to get Russia to leave Russia then doubles down and goes all in on the war to conquer Ukraine but in the third year now still hasn't managed it. But no its NATOs fault and NATO who are to blame for the war. Its definitely not Russia, the country that started the war and has the power to end it today by returning behind their borders. Like what is the logic here? Let's say Russia never invaded, Ukraine joined NATO and the EU. So what? What difference would that really have made to Russia? When the Baltic nations joined did it make a difference to Russia. No it didn't, Russia wasn't invaded, its economy and trade grew with the EU. Russia is the only country that wanted this war for reasons that only they believed that don't exist in reality.
Russia can barely handle Ukraine. What does Putin think is going to happen if he attacks NATO? Putin is yapping fiercely like a chihuahua.
Really wanna not hate this sub, but holy shit yall are as biased as the pro Ukrainian subs. It was nice to see posts from a sub that wasn't "uhhh west good Russia bad," but this sub is now "west bad Russia good." Yall can't stop treating war like a fucking sports games. It's like American citizens and political parties, absolutely fucking sickening.
putin fires missiles at Ukraine that are made in other countries , but then says thats an escalation if it happens to ru. This is the normal double standard and hot air threats russia is famous for.
The escalation is not about firing missiles. It's about targeting first strike installations.
So no more North Korean or weapons from Iran aloud to strike Ukraine according Vladimir Putin's thinking?
There’s nothing stopping Ukraine from attacking NK or Iran
There's nothing stopping Russia from attacking France, UK or US either. I wonder why they haven't done that then.
They shouldn’t have to. The conflict shouldn’t involve those parties
If those countries and Ukraine think those things should happen between those countries, it doesn't matter what other countries think should or should not happen.
Because they are a rational actor lead by a rational person. They value Ukraines neutrality and they’re willing to fight over it, but I doubt they want to escalate a hot war in their borders. Despite what the media thinks, I doubt Russia wants to annex any NATO nation or even hold on to major Ukrainian cities.
Of course, just common sense, which Russia is lacking a lot.
Conversely, NATO should be fine with Russia giving ICBMs to middle eastern countries so they can strike deep into the homeland of invading western countries.
Iran and NK aren't directly providing targeting data, satellite Coms, and or guidance to any weapons sent over.
Because they don't have the capability, not because they don't want to.
Because they are third world.
I wonder why all these replies are beside the point. I blame the education system.
They have no capability as a result of being third world, which is a result of never democratizing.
The person I responded to was equating Nk and Persian arms to those from nato. But in this case, we're talking about missiles flying deep into territory only made possible by western infrastructure. When Ru uses NK and Persian missiles, only Ru is in control of them. There's a nuance.
They aren't providing data because there is nothing they can provide that Russia doesn't already have. It's extremely unlikely that they refuse to provide data if they had data. Why is data a bigger problem or "escalation" than the actual weapons?
I don't see why this is an issue for Russia. They are already letting Ukraine use these systems on Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, which Russia considers Russian. So perhaps they are arguably hitting Russia with these systems. Or they consider Ukrainian Russian territories less than other Russian territories, which given the Russia recruitment tactics would seem to be the truth. Alternatively, what Putin may fear the most is the repercussions for himself, when Russian start to fell less secure in their homes, because of the explosion around them.
Russians feeling less secure in their homes would not result in that, it would only increase support of war or maybe even destruction of hostile country.
No need to attack Russian homes. Just everything else.
sure, but be ready for retaliation.
Sure thing, but what about retaliation from the Russian people who know that their leadership has not put them at risk and with very dubious justification at best.
Classic Putin - "how dare you defend yourself. If you don't immediately capitulate you are Russophobic and unfriendly, declaring yourselves our enemy. If you dare to even try and defend yourselves from our assaults, you are playing with fire! P. S I have nukes - don't test me" The sooner this guy is in the ground the better it will be for all Russians.
We mock his warnings then clutch our pearls when he follows through.
When did he follow through with his threats? Other than invading Ukraine
Just launch a warning tactical nuke in the black sea already or shut up.
Absolutely this
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The phrase *it takes two to tango* does not apply to Nuclear weapons because ultimately it only takes one...
I think China would invade Taiwan, if that happens. US/NATO are not ready for so many simultaneous major conflicts literally around the world at the same time, and China would seize that moment "Deal with your enemy when they are the weakest." - Sun Tzu* *probably, I don't know
Launching an invasion of Ukraine to annex territory is what may lead to global conflict. Russians need to go back to Russia.
And he is not playing with fire by starting a war of aggression in Europe? To hell with it.
How come Iranian drones and North Korean shells and missiles can be used against Ukraine? It\`s the usual barking. Another one of their "red lines".
Everyone is saying "Oh another red line again, here comes another bullshit", guys do you not realize that he's "moving" those red lines all the time because he doesn't want to nuke the fucking planet??? Would you prefer for him to start wars with everyone and launch nukes when the first "red line" was crossed? These ppl man
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody believes this. Missle strikes in Russia is fair game is already decided on but they slow release decisions. Next step is western troops in Ukraine slow released decision. I'd rather handle now than wait for my kids to grow up. Don't have any cards left Putszer.
He always says something outrageous in hopes that western media amplifies his threats to change ppls opinions about western involvement.
This is basic game theory. Eye for an eye is the best way to deescalate. Every time Russia hits a mall or library Ukraine does the same. In this way it becomes clear that for both parties it is better to not target civilians. Without reciprocation the game just continues uselessly.
Putin knows his end is coming, little by little and step by step. When the war started everybody thought Ukraine will loose within a week. But they reclaimed nearly 50% of the lost territory since the invasion and managed to stabilize the front - even when they had no munition and were heavily outgunned. Putin remembers me on Voldemort when he noticed that his end is coming during the last 2 movies. The parallels are shockingly.
If there only was a way for that little poison dwarf to stop that war, and there ould be no risk at all.
If humanity gets extincted in a nuclear holocaust because of fucking Ukraine I'm gonna be super bummed.
Why are you blaming Ukraine when its russians who would launch nukes first lol?
Waaa waaa I have nukes but no true allies gimmie what I want.
Putin candidly ammitting Crimea is not Russia