8 ms·

Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? The U.S. media loves gloating about this kind of stuff but it s

Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? The U.S. media loves gloating about this kind of stuff but it seems gratuitous at best.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? Cognisant of, yes. Worried, no. For the same reasons we aren’t sending a carrier strike group to bomb Crimea. To the extent there is a media circus in this fight, it’s around pandering to Russian escalation theatre.
nradov 3y ago
What sort of retaliation?
- petre 3y ago
  Providing Hamas with missiles for instance. They're not retaliating directly against the US but using asymetric tactics.
verdverm 3y ago
I think they are more worried about drawing in the US and NATO, despite their chest puffing, than we are of them. I mean, they are barely passing by as it is. What are you thinking they might try?
- March_f6 3y ago
  I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sdfghswe 3y ago
    Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons though, common misconception. Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?
    - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
      This is a ridiculous and easily debunked assertion. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
      - sdfghswe 3y ago
        Sorry, which part of that 47 pages document debunkes my assertion? I thought you were gonna link me to a video of a Russia nuclear weapon detonating... oh wait that hasn't happened in 70 years...
        lp0_on_fire 3y ago
        Literally the entire document debunks your assertion that the Russians have no nuclear weapons.
        sdfghswe 3y ago
        No it doesn't. The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Let me know if I've missed otherwise. I searched the document and couldn't find any discussion on this point.
        verdverm 3y ago
        > The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up
SkyPuncher 3y ago
February 2022, yes. Now, no. It has become clear that Russia had no capacity to wage war in Ukraine and take on anyone else in a meaningful way. As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support. Also noteworthy is the fact that the support from US in particular and NATO in general has been decades-old and potentially decommissioned hardware that was either mothballed or phased out, and the overall investment, with regards to each nation's budget, amounts to pocket change.
sdfghswe 3y ago
It's easy to avoid retaliation, you just have to surrender.
snakeyjake 3y ago
>Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? No. Direct retaliation would mean the end of the Putin regime. Total financial aid to Ukraine from the US over the last 21 months has amounted to $77 billion so far. About $30 billion or so more has been appropriated but has not been spent yet. That is a lot of money, but the amount spent so far is only ~0.3% of the US's GDP and ~5.4% of its annual Federal Budget-- spread out over nearly 2 years. With that, and contributions from other allies roughly doubling that total, Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill and is very slowly gaining ground. Any direct conventional retaliation against the United States would bring to bear a much, much, larger percentage of its resources and very likely result in the complete annihilation of any involved forces. Russian forces are very poorly equipped, trained, and led which means there have been single weeks (particularly the last several weeks) in the War in Ukraine where more Russian losses occurred than occurred in total over 20 years of US involvement in the Global War on Terror. So that leaves a nuclear response. A nuclear response would end in the annihilation of Russia itself. The Putin regime seems very interested in self-preservation. That leaves indirect proxy responses. Historically, proxy wars against the United States have not ended well for either the proxy or the supporter of the proxy. Even proxies who "win" are often damaged to the point of ruin, taking decades to recover.
- whydonny 3y ago
  [dead]
- addicted 3y ago
  Also very important is that the vast majority of military aid to Ukraine involves decades old technology the U.S. would never use. If anything, some of these will end up saving the U.S. money because maintenance and eventual disposal would have been far more expensive than shipping it to Ukraine.
- coffinbirth 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hydrok9 3y ago

Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? The U.S. media loves gloating about this kind of stuff but it seems gratuitous at best.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? Cognisant of, yes. Worried, no. For the same reasons we aren’t sending a carrier strike group to bomb Crimea. To the extent there is a media circus in this fight, it’s around pandering to Russian escalation theatre.

nradov 3y ago

What sort of retaliation?

petre 3y ago
Providing Hamas with missiles for instance. They're not retaliating directly against the US but using asymetric tactics.

verdverm 3y ago

I think they are more worried about drawing in the US and NATO, despite their chest puffing, than we are of them. I mean, they are barely passing by as it is. What are you thinking they might try?

March_f6 3y ago
I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons though, common misconception. Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?
  - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
    This is a ridiculous and easily debunked assertion. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
    - sdfghswe 3y ago
      Sorry, which part of that 47 pages document debunkes my assertion? I thought you were gonna link me to a video of a Russia nuclear weapon detonating... oh wait that hasn't happened in 70 years...
      - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
        Literally the entire document debunks your assertion that the Russians have no nuclear weapons.
        sdfghswe 3y ago
        No it doesn't. The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Let me know if I've missed otherwise. I searched the document and couldn't find any discussion on this point.
        verdverm 3y ago
        > The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up

SkyPuncher 3y ago

February 2022, yes. Now, no. It has become clear that Russia had no capacity to wage war in Ukraine and take on anyone else in a meaningful way. As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support.

rewmie 3y ago
> As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support. Also noteworthy is the fact that the support from US in particular and NATO in general has been decades-old and potentially decommissioned hardware that was either mothballed or phased out, and the overall investment, with regards to each nation's budget, amounts to pocket change.

sdfghswe 3y ago

It's easy to avoid retaliation, you just have to surrender.

snakeyjake 3y ago

>Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? No. Direct retaliation would mean the end of the Putin regime. Total financial aid to Ukraine from the US over the last 21 months has amounted to $77 billion so far. About $30 billion or so more has been appropriated but has not been spent yet. That is a lot of money, but the amount spent so far is only ~0.3% of the US's GDP and ~5.4% of its annual Federal Budget-- spread out over nearly 2 years. With that, and contributions from other allies roughly doubling that total, Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill and is very slowly gaining ground. Any direct conventional retaliation against the United States would bring to bear a much, much, larger percentage of its resources and very likely result in the complete annihilation of any involved forces. Russian forces are very poorly equipped, trained, and led which means there have been single weeks (particularly the last several weeks) in the War in Ukraine where more Russian losses occurred than occurred in total over 20 years of US involvement in the Global War on Terror. So that leaves a nuclear response. A nuclear response would end in the annihilation of Russia itself. The Putin regime seems very interested in self-preservation. That leaves indirect proxy responses. Historically, proxy wars against the United States have not ended well for either the proxy or the supporter of the proxy. Even proxies who "win" are often damaged to the point of ruin, taking decades to recover.

whydonny 3y ago
[dead]
addicted 3y ago
Also very important is that the vast majority of military aid to Ukraine involves decades old technology the U.S. would never use. If anything, some of these will end up saving the U.S. money because maintenance and eventual disposal would have been far more expensive than shipping it to Ukraine.
coffinbirth 3y ago
[flagged]
- hydrok9 3y ago