And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country… All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show… Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture…
What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West’s adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.
Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia’s responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.
The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don’t think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in a long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia’s strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.
is why Russia took Crimea and subsequently invaded Ukraine
is why Russia is being judicious with deploying its technology and why it is operating in Africa
is why Russia is supporting the opening of additional fronts in Africa, building material support with military powers aligned against the West, building economic alternatives to the West, and most importantly, not giving the West sufficient casus belli to launch an all out war of attrition
You’re requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.
And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.
I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:
Russia is demilitarize so fast by NATO countries that the country will not be able to do much (that outcome has even been told by Putin himself in 2023 as the reason Russia has no chance against NATO)
Both countries use their nuke and we will be all dead in a beautiful bang :)
The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don’t get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.
What France and UK don’t have is a delivery system that Russia has. Meanwhile, if France or UK tried to lob a nuke at Russia then they’d simply cease to exist within 20 minutes.
delivery system? France can send Nuke from ICBM, submarine (from all over the world) and Rafale (which can take off from French aircraft carrier which also mean nuke can be send from all over the world…). De Gaulle built the France defense without US because he though that the next French war would be against US not Russia and all president after him kept that strategic independence from US for the same reason… Russia-French friendship and French distrust in US was still strong until Russia invaded Crimea leading to the cancellation of Mistral ships and the beginning of tension between both countries.
So Yes, if a Nuclear War start between Russia and France, as a said, both countries would be vitrified and we will be all dead…
A delivery system that cannot be intercepted. ICBMs are old tech, and Russia has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to intercept missiles. France or UK simply lack the arsenal wipe out all of Russia, while Russia very much could complete wipe out either country in case of a nuclear war.
However, my original point was that Russia can use a non nuclear Oreshnik system to hit UK or France, and if the US fails to intervene then it will be the end of NATO. It’s that simple.
And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country… All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show… Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture…
What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West’s adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.
Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia’s responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.
The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don’t think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in a long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia’s strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.
You’re requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.
And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.
I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:
in both outcome Russia loose
Everyone dying is hardly a loss for just Russia, mankind as a whole would lose because it would no longer exist.
The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don’t get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.
you forget that France and UK both have Nuke too… For France 1 launch from a submarine lead to 160 nuke warhead on Russia in case of war…
What France and UK don’t have is a delivery system that Russia has. Meanwhile, if France or UK tried to lob a nuke at Russia then they’d simply cease to exist within 20 minutes.
delivery system? France can send Nuke from ICBM, submarine (from all over the world) and Rafale (which can take off from French aircraft carrier which also mean nuke can be send from all over the world…). De Gaulle built the France defense without US because he though that the next French war would be against US not Russia and all president after him kept that strategic independence from US for the same reason… Russia-French friendship and French distrust in US was still strong until Russia invaded Crimea leading to the cancellation of Mistral ships and the beginning of tension between both countries.
So Yes, if a Nuclear War start between Russia and France, as a said, both countries would be vitrified and we will be all dead…
A delivery system that cannot be intercepted. ICBMs are old tech, and Russia has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to intercept missiles. France or UK simply lack the arsenal wipe out all of Russia, while Russia very much could complete wipe out either country in case of a nuclear war.
However, my original point was that Russia can use a non nuclear Oreshnik system to hit UK or France, and if the US fails to intervene then it will be the end of NATO. It’s that simple.
you know that EU has an equivalent of NATO article 5:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdf
and which countries are about to join EU? Ukraine and Moldova. So even without US, nuke have a good chance to rain all over the old continent…