A Russian attack on a NATO member would be just what we need, to finally end this war swiftly on the good guys’ terms.
Or just what Putin needs to launch nuclear strikes.
NATO members need to buckle under to Russia, because if Russia invades then it will bring about nuclear Armageddon?
Not in the least. NATO cannot surrender to Russia. But there are some posters on this board who seem to be looking forward to a nuclear exchange. I think we need to put that off as long as possible.
Please fail to make it seem inevitable.
I am not looking forward to nukes. I am looking forward, however, to a massive NATO conventional response that will sweep Russia out of Europe and Putin out of office. And Russia dutifully accepting defeat without pushing the red button.
If Russia tries to use military force to reopen a corridor to Kaliningrad it will be in everybody’s interests to keep it as a local conventional conflict. But there will be huge amounts of sabre rattling and a risk of a misunderstanding or escalation that triggers a nuclear exchange. I don’t have any idea what that risk would be. Maybe 2% or 3%? But that’s not a wheel you’d really want to spin.
IMHO Putin doesn’t want to push the red button. Sure, he’ll rattle the saber, but that’s about the extent of it. Which is why he started with Ukraine rather than one of the Baltics. Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania would have been easier than Ukraine to defeat one on one in a conventional war, but Putin knows that it wouldn’t have remained a one on one conventional war. The end result would have been, as you say, either a conventional response that would have resulted in a massive Russian defeat, or the pushing of the red button. As much of a shitshow as Ukraine has been, from the Russian perspective the current state of affairs is obviously better than either one of those options.
The soldiers holding the Ukrainian lines are facing unimaginable horrors. It sounds more like France in WWI. Except the trench systems probably aren’t as sophisticated in offering protection from artillery barrages.
Guardian blog
I think it is also because all of the post-Maidan Ukrainian leadership has somewhat tried to balance pro-West and pro-Russian sentiment, even as recently as the month before this war started, there was still decent pro-Russian sentiment in some parts of Ukraine. It’s one reason why choosing to fight a shooting war was so stupid, Russia lost some political ground in the country with Maidan, but there is little reason to suspect in future elections Russia couldn’t get friendly politicians elected. Both Poroshenko and Zelenskyy were both not really firebrand anti-Russians. Poroshenko had made most of his wealth in business dealings with Russia, and Zelenskyy’s native tongue is Russian.
First time I’ve heard Zelenskyy speak English. There’s a heavy accident but I can understand him. He would improve a lot if he spoke English every day.
It could have been a potential banana skin.
Lol just like me tripping over auto-correct.
Excuse me, Prime Minister, a hot potato can’t become a banana skin. If you don’t do anything a hot potato will merely become a cold potato.
Another Russian Colonel goes down. Interesting footage of two helicopters. One uses flares to escape.
The death has been acknowledged by a Russian source.
I remember Russian pilots going down in Afghanistan. A early use of Western supplied Sams. I can’t recall if total losses were ever acknowledged.
Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov put his Nobel Peace Prize medal up for auction, with proceeds to go to Ukrainian child refugee relief.
It did rather well.
A Russian pilot captured and interrogated by Ukrainians, revealed that he was a mercenary. It has been reported in that past that the Wagner Group is a private army answering to Putin.
Agreed. Get Alexander Vindman’s book. He is an expert on Ukraine and Russia. The Russian government has an extensive history of trying to get what it wants through bullying and intimidation.
Why does Putin need anything besides evil to launch nuclear strikes. “Oh, if we hold our mouth wrong, Putin will nuke X” implies we have some control over Putin. We don’t.
There is zero chance that Ukraine by itself will launch a counter-invasion against non-Crimean Russia. They could, if Russian forces absolutely collapse in non-Crimean Ukraine, try to retake Crimea. Putin could respond with tactical nuclear strikes against the Ukrainian forces. That would earn him and Russia global condemnation, sanctions, and pariah status far worse than they are already experiencing. But it would not ignite a nuclear response from the US, UK or France.
If NATO armed forces decide to intervene in Ukraine in significant numbers, they will surely be seeking a decisive victory. Such a victory would put a force capable of invading Russia on Russia’s doorstep. If we’re considering that Putin might order a tactical nuclear attack to defend Crimea, then how much more likely is it that he would order a tactical nuclear response to defend Russia? And if Russia is utilizing nuclear attacks, will NATO respond with nuclear counterattacks? If so, do the escalative counter-responses stop short of ICBM’s?
Western support for Ukraine is necessary and noble. Ukraine was in an existential fight for survival and although the existential threat has diminished, they still face severe territorial loss. The west should continue to support Ukraine to prevent that loss. However, they must also recognise the severe hazard of becoming an existential threat to Putin/Russia.