For the best, no sense in them getting blown up and causing an escalation.
I’m ready for an escalation. This has gone on too long and should have already been stopped. The idea that the Kremlin will commit suicide by using nukes over a failed land grab in Donbas is ridiculous.
I’m ready for an escalation. This has gone on too long and should have already been stopped.
Great, when are you joining the front lines?
Really. On the Ukraine war subreddit “launch nukes” is like the majority opinion. I guess it’s easy to be bloodthirsty from behind a keyboard.
Attacking me personally does nothing to address my argument.
You didn’t make an argument. You gave your opinion, which was that the war should be escalated. Asking if you’ll be affected by the escalation is not a personal attack.
Calling you a coward would be a personal attack.
Really not worth either of our time to continue this.
Is it though? “Directly in a fight with the West that they will lose”, and which would still probably be politically existential, seems like exactly the moment to push the big red button.
Commit suicide, kill your family and everything you’ve ever known because your political career is over?
Also, there isn’t a big red button, even in “crazy Russia” there’s a procedure. There have already been times when lower military officers opted not to fire, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Commit suicide, kill your family and everything you’ve ever known because your political career is over?
In Russia that’s an implied outcome of your career being over, see Prigozhin. Actually, since your family is related to a political leader they may have better chances during a nuclear exchange, being in whatever bunker.
Not all of Russia is like that. Just one example is Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor. He lived to a ripe old age and died years after Putin took over.
I think you have your wires crossed - Yeltsin
died in officeleft in terrible health. You could use Gorbachev, but then you’re going back to the Soviet era that was completely different, if also not democratic. It’s also not unique to Russia. Autocrats everywhere make enemies while at the top, and retiring in peace is rare.I guess it’s possible they could opt to ignore a direct attack and just take one for the team, as could the US if China invaded, but in both cases I think it’s more likely the threat is credible. Heck, by that logic, they could launch a limited nuclear strike on the US using the logic that the US wouldn’t escalate next, and win that way.
Removed by mod
This is the best summary I could come up with:
To date, Britain and its allies have avoided a formal military presence in Ukraine to reduce the risk of a direct conflict with Russia.
British defence minister Grant Shapps, who was appointed to the role last month, said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph newspaper that he wanted to deploy military instructors to Ukraine, in addition to training Ukrainian armed forces in Britain or other Western countries.
“What the defence secretary was saying was that it might well be possible one day in the future for us to do some of that training in Ukraine,” Sunak told reporters at the start of the governing Conservative Party’s annual conference in Manchester.
Shapps added that he hoped British defence companies such as BAE Systems (BAES.L) would proceed with plans to set up arms factories in Ukraine.
Shapps also said hundreds of British peacekeeping troops were being sent to Kosovo in the coming days after the worst violence in north of the country in years.
British fighter jets were also sent to Poland this weekend, Shapps said, to help protect NATO’s eastern flank following a request from the Polish government ahead of the country’s national elections this month.
The original article contains 442 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is there any country other than Russia who has official plan to send troops in Ukraine right now?
