8 ms·

> The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII t

> The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII to start. Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched? Warmongers in the Pentagon have been trying to start a "winnable" nuclear war since the 1960s. Perhaps we can minimize casualties to only a few tens of millions on our side, if we are lucky. London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. Even if we shoot down every one of their bombers and nuke every one of their silos, they have a fleet of nuclear submarines waiting to destroy our population centers. Only a complete psychopath would continue to escalate things at this point.

mayormcmatt 4y ago
I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.
- apostacy 4y ago
  > I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West. So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII. Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets? Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.
  - avmich 4y ago
    > So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will. Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
    - lurquer 4y ago
      > The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.
      - avmich 4y ago
        Ever heard of Genghis Khan?
    - apostacy 4y ago
      > No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. First of all, it does not matter to Russia if NATO uses nuclear weapons or not. If Russia is on the verge of total defeat in their own country, they will use nuclear weapons on us. They have no reason not to, and they have said that they would. So they will. How exactly is NATO going to use conventional weapons to neutralize nuclear launch facilities buried deep under mountains and in remote parts of Siberia? What are we going to do if a single ICBM is launched? We do not have any effective defenses against even a 1960s style ICBM, much less Russia's hypersonic ICBMs. They can be launched from anywhere on the planet, and Russia has many of them. What if we assume that only 1/10th of them are in working order. Or even 1/1000. Many of them would still get through. > Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible. We have no right to risk hundreds of millions of lives. This was a debate that was already had in the 1960s, and thankfully people like you did not get their way. The millions of people who risk nuclear incineration are not acceptable losses. Any leader who would casually put us in harms way like that has no business making decisions at all. You should educate yourself about concepts like mutually assured destruction, and the nuclear triad.
neoromantique 4y ago
>Is Ukraine worth the risk? Ukraine isn't what's at stake here. Give in to Russia, and local conflicts will flare up all over the world, Russia escalating to Nuclear would definitely lead to WW3 one way or another, but I'd sure prefer it being World VS Russia instead of free for all that giving in to Russian agression will spark.
- lakomen 4y ago
  That is nonsense. When the US attacks other sovereign nations than it's a freedom fight that can't be televised, when someone else does it it's an evil act of aggression. I'm tired of the double standards.
  - avmich 4y ago
    Yes, it's very tiring. If you're an American, use your vote to demand answers from leaders. If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level. If you're not in a democracy, work towards the ability to influence the better behavior - that is, work towards democracy.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level So, has that ever worked? The US for example still has a law to invade Netherlands if even one of its military criminals is caught and brought to Hague to stand trial.
      - avmich 4y ago
        > So, has that ever worked? Are you implying that democracy as a state model never worked, i.e. democratic process never brought improvements in areas like these?
        foverzar 4y ago
        I am implying that countries with capable military that present themselves as "democratic" don't seem to fare substantially better in this matter. In fact, the things that are considered ok for them to do are some of the worst examples. Did democracy help Assange after he had uncovered the evidence of US' warcrimes? Were Bush era "no one will dare to hold the US accountable" laws repelled? IMO, all it did is helped people "vent out" and "voice concerns" without any real and meaningful change in politics. This all lead us to a point where we see people profiting from war and taking a hypocritical moral high-ground at the same time. Which in turn leads to that most outside observers don't even take "democratic" states seriously anymore in that matter.
anonAndOn 4y ago
> Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. We've all seen the "mighty" Russian military at this point and how pathetic it truly is. It's so gutted at this point it's sending old men to the frontlines as cannon fodder for the impending military defeat. A last ditch effort to scare the world with a nuclear weapon would bring much of the western world into its borders to dismantle whatever military and industrial capability it has left. Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave. There would be no WWIII. It would be the end of the Russian empire and all of the Russian oligarchs would carve up the remnants (Prigozhin, Kadyrov, etc). ps- the oligarchs are likely to do it anyway, but they prefer to get the spoils before the West destroys the infrastructure.
- supergirl 4y ago
  urban combat is not working for them. but their rockets are working. just you can't conquer using rockets. you need to go door to door in a prolonged war
  - anonAndOn 4y ago
    > but their rockets are working ... against soft targets, which just add to the list of war crimes. Shoigu et al. will spend the rest of their days behind bars should the West nab them before they fall out of windows.
  - rasz 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574767567843037184 https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574767567843037184 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8Ipjn6wZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8Ipjn6wZE russians burned down couple of houses and villages around Belgorod while using S-300 for destroying civilian ground targets in Kharkiv. They have tank companies with some tanks unable to reload or turn the turret. Plenty of recordings from BTRs with jammed turrets/guns. Just a couple of days ago some russian soldier uploaded a video of them shooting rpg-7s without removing shaped charge safety pins. Recruits receiving rusted thru AK47 is a classic. Consensus is their soviet era weapons are falling apart, and on top of that they dont know how to use them.
- 4y ago
baybal2 4y ago
> Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched? No, but Russia can hardly kill more than 5% of NATO population even if it fires all munitions it has, to the last one, on cities. The casualty calculations are squarely in NATO's favour.
- apostacy 4y ago
  Which 5% of NATO's protectorate population do you consider an acceptable loss? Will losing the London or New York metro area be worth it? That is probably still <5% the population. Maybe we can be ok with just having Lisbon or Munich or Lion incinerated instead?
- foverzar 4y ago
  Population? What? Since when do nukes target "population" and since when is it a success metrics of a nuclear strike? Nukes target industrial and economic centers. Both NATO and Russia have enough nukes for at least 1% to bypass missile defense end ensure mutual industrial and economic collapse. Most of the global population would likely survive, it's just that there won't be any NATO or Russia anymore, just random tribes of survivors.
  - baybal2 4y ago
cmurf 4y ago
This sounds familiar. Chamberlain's appeasement to tyranny. Giving Putin what he asks for would kick the can down the road for couple years, too. Meanwhile, a genocidal antagonistic ideological social group, this Russian regime, will gladly spend the time preparing for more war. Putin's speech is a demand for a ceasefire in exchange for annexation. It's illegal on the face of it, aside from being unethical to agree to it. There is no trusting the Russian regime, at all. No peace treaty with Russia is trustworthy. They are already signatories to agreements saying they would not do the very goddamn thing they are doing right now. https://human-rights.cmc.edu/2022/04/14/russias-genocide-handbook/ https://human-rights.cmc.edu/2022/04/14/russias-genocide-han... https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1575890822590889984 https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1575890822590889984 >London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about) We know this how? We can't verify it either way, but I think it would be appropriate and useful for Xi and Mobi to ask if Russia is abiding by at least this prior agreement, given the proclivity to disregard their other more important agreements. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/CrimeOfAggression https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/CrimeOfAg...
- apostacy 4y ago
  >>London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about) > We know this how? I can't educate you on the basics of known Russian nuclear capabilities. If you don't know about it, then you are not serious and should not be involved in this discussion.
  - cmurf 4y ago
    If you can't educate the basics, then you don't really know anything. Anyone spouting appeasement has already removed themselves from any discussion.
confidantlake 4y ago
So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?
- foverzar 4y ago
  Why do you imply that it is a some discrete "just for lulz" action, rather than a continued mutual process?
_kbh_ 4y ago
> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world. Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers? Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.
- foverzar 4y ago
  It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set. > Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country. Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that. My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth. Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west. I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there. > It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?. > It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. > Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine? The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia. If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.
dnqthao 4y ago
> Is Ukraine worth the risk? It is not only Ukraine that is at stake here. Putin will not stop at Ukraine if we give in. Next he will try with a NATO member (e.g. Baltic countries), if we repeat the same fear about ww3 and nuclear war, it is the same situation as of now (except that Russia is stronger with Ukraine occupation).

mayormcmatt 4y ago

I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.

apostacy 4y ago
> I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West. So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII. Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets? Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.
- avmich 4y ago
  > So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will. Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
  - lurquer 4y ago
    > The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.
    - avmich 4y ago
      Ever heard of Genghis Khan?
  - apostacy 4y ago
    > No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. First of all, it does not matter to Russia if NATO uses nuclear weapons or not. If Russia is on the verge of total defeat in their own country, they will use nuclear weapons on us. They have no reason not to, and they have said that they would. So they will. How exactly is NATO going to use conventional weapons to neutralize nuclear launch facilities buried deep under mountains and in remote parts of Siberia? What are we going to do if a single ICBM is launched? We do not have any effective defenses against even a 1960s style ICBM, much less Russia's hypersonic ICBMs. They can be launched from anywhere on the planet, and Russia has many of them. What if we assume that only 1/10th of them are in working order. Or even 1/1000. Many of them would still get through. > Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible. We have no right to risk hundreds of millions of lives. This was a debate that was already had in the 1960s, and thankfully people like you did not get their way. The millions of people who risk nuclear incineration are not acceptable losses. Any leader who would casually put us in harms way like that has no business making decisions at all. You should educate yourself about concepts like mutually assured destruction, and the nuclear triad.

neoromantique 4y ago

>Is Ukraine worth the risk? Ukraine isn't what's at stake here. Give in to Russia, and local conflicts will flare up all over the world, Russia escalating to Nuclear would definitely lead to WW3 one way or another, but I'd sure prefer it being World VS Russia instead of free for all that giving in to Russian agression will spark.

lakomen 4y ago
That is nonsense. When the US attacks other sovereign nations than it's a freedom fight that can't be televised, when someone else does it it's an evil act of aggression. I'm tired of the double standards.
- avmich 4y ago
  Yes, it's very tiring. If you're an American, use your vote to demand answers from leaders. If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level. If you're not in a democracy, work towards the ability to influence the better behavior - that is, work towards democracy.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level So, has that ever worked? The US for example still has a law to invade Netherlands if even one of its military criminals is caught and brought to Hague to stand trial.
    - avmich 4y ago
      > So, has that ever worked? Are you implying that democracy as a state model never worked, i.e. democratic process never brought improvements in areas like these?
      - foverzar 4y ago
        I am implying that countries with capable military that present themselves as "democratic" don't seem to fare substantially better in this matter. In fact, the things that are considered ok for them to do are some of the worst examples. Did democracy help Assange after he had uncovered the evidence of US' warcrimes? Were Bush era "no one will dare to hold the US accountable" laws repelled? IMO, all it did is helped people "vent out" and "voice concerns" without any real and meaningful change in politics. This all lead us to a point where we see people profiting from war and taking a hypocritical moral high-ground at the same time. Which in turn leads to that most outside observers don't even take "democratic" states seriously anymore in that matter.

anonAndOn 4y ago

> Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. We've all seen the "mighty" Russian military at this point and how pathetic it truly is. It's so gutted at this point it's sending old men to the frontlines as cannon fodder for the impending military defeat. A last ditch effort to scare the world with a nuclear weapon would bring much of the western world into its borders to dismantle whatever military and industrial capability it has left. Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave. There would be no WWIII. It would be the end of the Russian empire and all of the Russian oligarchs would carve up the remnants (Prigozhin, Kadyrov, etc). ps- the oligarchs are likely to do it anyway, but they prefer to get the spoils before the West destroys the infrastructure.

supergirl 4y ago
urban combat is not working for them. but their rockets are working. just you can't conquer using rockets. you need to go door to door in a prolonged war
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  > but their rockets are working ... against soft targets, which just add to the list of war crimes. Shoigu et al. will spend the rest of their days behind bars should the West nab them before they fall out of windows.
- rasz 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574767567843037184 https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574767567843037184 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8Ipjn6wZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8Ipjn6wZE russians burned down couple of houses and villages around Belgorod while using S-300 for destroying civilian ground targets in Kharkiv. They have tank companies with some tanks unable to reload or turn the turret. Plenty of recordings from BTRs with jammed turrets/guns. Just a couple of days ago some russian soldier uploaded a video of them shooting rpg-7s without removing shaped charge safety pins. Recruits receiving rusted thru AK47 is a classic. Consensus is their soviet era weapons are falling apart, and on top of that they dont know how to use them.
4y ago

baybal2 4y ago

> Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched? No, but Russia can hardly kill more than 5% of NATO population even if it fires all munitions it has, to the last one, on cities. The casualty calculations are squarely in NATO's favour.

apostacy 4y ago
Which 5% of NATO's protectorate population do you consider an acceptable loss? Will losing the London or New York metro area be worth it? That is probably still <5% the population. Maybe we can be ok with just having Lisbon or Munich or Lion incinerated instead?
foverzar 4y ago
Population? What? Since when do nukes target "population" and since when is it a success metrics of a nuclear strike? Nukes target industrial and economic centers. Both NATO and Russia have enough nukes for at least 1% to bypass missile defense end ensure mutual industrial and economic collapse. Most of the global population would likely survive, it's just that there won't be any NATO or Russia anymore, just random tribes of survivors.
- baybal2 4y ago

cmurf 4y ago

This sounds familiar. Chamberlain's appeasement to tyranny. Giving Putin what he asks for would kick the can down the road for couple years, too. Meanwhile, a genocidal antagonistic ideological social group, this Russian regime, will gladly spend the time preparing for more war. Putin's speech is a demand for a ceasefire in exchange for annexation. It's illegal on the face of it, aside from being unethical to agree to it. There is no trusting the Russian regime, at all. No peace treaty with Russia is trustworthy. They are already signatories to agreements saying they would not do the very goddamn thing they are doing right now. https://human-rights.cmc.edu/2022/04/14/russias-genocide-handbook/ https://human-rights.cmc.edu/2022/04/14/russias-genocide-han... https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1575890822590889984 https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1575890822590889984 >London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about) We know this how? We can't verify it either way, but I think it would be appropriate and useful for Xi and Mobi to ask if Russia is abiding by at least this prior agreement, given the proclivity to disregard their other more important agreements. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/CrimeOfAggression https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/CrimeOfAg...

apostacy 4y ago
>>London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about) > We know this how? I can't educate you on the basics of known Russian nuclear capabilities. If you don't know about it, then you are not serious and should not be involved in this discussion.
- cmurf 4y ago
  If you can't educate the basics, then you don't really know anything. Anyone spouting appeasement has already removed themselves from any discussion.

confidantlake 4y ago

So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?

foverzar 4y ago
Why do you imply that it is a some discrete "just for lulz" action, rather than a continued mutual process?

_kbh_ 4y ago

> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world. Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers? Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.

foverzar 4y ago
It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set. > Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country. Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that. My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth. Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west. I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there. > It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly? Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?. > It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year. > Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine? The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia. If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.

dnqthao 4y ago

> Is Ukraine worth the risk? It is not only Ukraine that is at stake here. Putin will not stop at Ukraine if we give in. Next he will try with a NATO member (e.g. Baltic countries), if we repeat the same fear about ww3 and nuclear war, it is the same situation as of now (except that Russia is stronger with Ukraine occupation).