61–70 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With a huge nuclear arsenal. So I doubt Moscow would be reduced to rubble, unless everything else was too.
It is very likely that there is no working nuclear arsenal.
My take: The drone sightings is a mix of Russian ops, and copycat actors. The jets that violate airspace, are probably a mix of intentional close flying, under the plausible deniability that navigation jamming in the area causes them to cross into neighboring airspace. In the case of Russian aggression, it is to create more tension. Why on earth would Russia want to escalate this, you might ask? Well, now that pretty…
This has already happened, Turkey shot down a Russian jet in 2015, the Russian state very quickly tucked its tail in after that. The VKS can't afford to lose these planes willy-nilly.
I am not sure what European "leaders" expected. Many of them support Ukraine militarily in the war, so yes, EU is in fact in war with Russia, through Ukraine as a proxy. I oppose the military support to Ukraine. I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. I also disapprove that the military support for Ukraine was decided undemocratically, without any consideration whether this…
NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.
I am not sure what European "leaders" expected. Many of them support Ukraine militarily in the war, so yes, EU is in fact in war with Russia, through Ukraine as a proxy. I oppose the military support to Ukraine. I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation. I also disapprove that the military support for Ukraine was decided undemocratically, without any consideration whether this…
My take: The drone sightings is a mix of Russian ops, and copycat actors. The jets that violate airspace, are probably a mix of intentional close flying, under the plausible deniability that navigation jamming in the area causes them to cross into neighboring airspace. In the case of Russian aggression, it is to create more tension. Why on earth would Russia want to escalate this, you might ask? Well, now that pretty…
> If Russia can provoke any NATO countries to attack first by, say, downing some airplane of theirs (fighter jets, recon, strategic bombers, etc.), they can use this as casus belli, and use it as propaganda. This has already happened, Turkey shot down a Russian jet in 2015, the Russian state very quickly tucked its tail in after that. The VKS can't afford to lose these planes willy-nilly.
> Erdoğan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement, and that a court should find out "the truth".
Russia didn't tuck its tail, they deployed SAMs to their Syrian base, they deployed the late Moskva in the region, and they pressured Erdogan to punish the pilot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very likely that there is no working nuclear arsenal.
This is a ridiculous statement
Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch.
Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets.
The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.
Is there some reason Europeans should go to war to satisfy the desires of American organizations? Is there some reason European citizens should go to war to satisfy the desires of _political_ scientists - a dubious category at best? Or to put it another way - why don't the political scientists at these American organizations put on their fighting gear and go fight in Ukraine?
That is the wrong question. The question is:
Is there some reason Europeans should go to war when Russia invades a European country in order to annex it by force?
The answer is yes. The reason is not letting force impose over things like democracy or rights. If Europeans do we(I am European) will become slaves.
It happened multiple times: The Ottoman Empire, Napoleon or Hitler and Stalin.
You don't have to explain that to a Polish person: They lived the occupation of Russia and Germany and all of them have family members that were exterminated by the germans first and then by the communists. Let alone they were subjugated over decades making then a puppet state of Russia making Russia richer and Poland poorer.
If Europeans do not oppose the dictator Putin controlling Russia, next time we will have to fight against Russia, Ukraine(occupied by Russia) and Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and all the new conquests(of the new Russian Empire) in the same way if you do not oppose the ottomans taking Constantinople, you will have to oppose them in Vienna, when they have become much stronger.
How do you (especially Europeans) understand this move from Russia? Can it really sustain a war against us? Does it want to break NATO by proving the US won't move?
They can't sustain, economically speaking, a war against EU/NATO but Putin can definitely play on our fears much harder than we can play on Russians fears.
Europe should be leading the diplomatic efforts towards Russia, not the US. This sort of rhetorics leads nowhere useful.
This is a joke, right? Diplomacy is something Russians completely disregard, lie about, and only agree to do when they are the only one benefiting, and even then only until they decide to break whatever agreements were made, because they've done so every single time so far. How do you have any diplomacy with someone like that? You can't.