1–10 of 17 posts
I would imagine it's simply too risky. Can someone please explain why they're taking such risks, or why the risks are in fact smaller than they appear. Thanks!
The main fronts are in the east and south, not Kiev. The impression I get is that Russia either lacks the airpower to or doesn't want to conduct the war like the US would, so it hasn't been bombing cities it's not actively trying to take. They've occassionally sent missiles at Kiev as "warnings", though. Maybe they think Zelensky will be under more pressure to negotiate/capitulate if the west remains relatively peace…
Warnings dont kill civilians. Russia runs regular Kalibr missile strikes on Kyiv and Odessa, they have 6 subs in the theatre. Then there are Iskander launches from Belgorod.
Or at least a much higher involvement of their respective countries in the conflict.
I can only offer speculation. During those visits you mentioned, combat was taking place far (for some definition of distance) away from the place of visit, which sets the base risk. I understand that NATO has fairly good intelligence on all troop movements in the area which further quantifies the actual risk. Lastly: a prominent casualty might sway public support further in Ukraine's favour which probably isn't in R…
I can only offer speculation. During those visits you mentioned, combat was taking place far (for some definition of distance) away from the place of visit, which sets the base risk. I understand that NATO has fairly good intelligence on all troop movements in the area which further quantifies the actual risk. Lastly: a prominent casualty might sway public support further in Ukraine's favour which probably isn't in R…
Support would be the least of their worries. Triggering a direct NATO response would mean fighting first class armies, not their deprecated weapon systems.
Agreed. However a political casulty probably would not provoke a military response, yet.