I don't understand why it's become fashionable in pro-Ukrainian circles to dismiss Russia's nuclear deterrent. Like, you guys didn't even mention the most obvious difference between the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Israel. That's before we get to the scale problem; the area requiring protection in Ukraine is just massively b…
I don't understand why it's become fashionable in pro-Ukrainian circles to dismiss Russia's nuclear deterrent. Like, you guys didn't even mention the most obvious difference between the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Israel. That's before we get to the scale problem; the area requiring protection in Ukraine is just massively bigger than in Israel, and there are a lot more missiles and drones involved, which probably means needing to hit some of those assets left of strike, in Russia. Then you have to do it all in an air denied environment.
All that means you're pretty much guaranteed to have the US directly engaging the Russian military. What could possibly go wrong?
I get that the aid situation is embarrassing, and Ukraine deserves better, but that doesn't mean we should just hand-wave away the risks and Leeroy Jenkins this stuff because it feels bad.
Putin has rattled the saber from the beginning, and we've already crossed lines he warned us about. Russia's nuclear arsenal ostensibly went on "high alert" in February 2022. Putin since has alternated between statements about their readiness, and statements about doctrine that are actually walk-backs. The baseline position is that Russia would use nukes to defend the sovereignty of Russia itself, or in response to a nuclear attack. Which we already knew. And the West makes no threat to Russia here. We are not going to conventionally invade or bombard Russia, and we are not going to nuclear first-strike anything anywhere.
Yes, Ukraine is much larger and any defense is going to be more porous. The difficulty of perfection is not a reason to not try at all.
You are mistaken. Enforcing a no fly zone above Ukraine will inevitably involve strikes against Russian air defense and missile/drone launch sites on Russian soil. At a minimum, it means US troops killing Russian troops and vice-versa. If you support that, that's fine but you need to acknowledge that that puts the US at war against Russia. That's a bell that can't be un-rung. Obviously, that does not mean immediate nuclear escalation, but it starts us down a path over which we have little control.
What do you mean, "inevitably"? Our rules of engagement can be whatever we want them to be. If we say our planes won't go within range of Russian-based air defense, then they won't. We wouldn't be even trying for supremacy on the Russian side of the lines in Ukrainian territory. A limited no-fly zone is *not* air support for an offensive.
Totally agree. Also Israel would have the most powerful military in all of nato (other than us). All their equipment was developed with us or purchased by us. Have the stuff Ukraine is using is s-300s. We wouldn’t know good from bad
I don't understand why it's become fashionable in pro-Ukrainian circles to dismiss Russia's nuclear deterrent. Like, you guys didn't even mention the most obvious difference between the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Israel. That's before we get to the scale problem; the area requiring protection in Ukraine is just massively bigger than in Israel, and there are a lot more missiles and drones involved, which probably means needing to hit some of those assets left of strike, in Russia. Then you have to do it all in an air denied environment.
All that means you're pretty much guaranteed to have the US directly engaging the Russian military. What could possibly go wrong?
I get that the aid situation is embarrassing, and Ukraine deserves better, but that doesn't mean we should just hand-wave away the risks and Leeroy Jenkins this stuff because it feels bad.
Putin has rattled the saber from the beginning, and we've already crossed lines he warned us about. Russia's nuclear arsenal ostensibly went on "high alert" in February 2022. Putin since has alternated between statements about their readiness, and statements about doctrine that are actually walk-backs. The baseline position is that Russia would use nukes to defend the sovereignty of Russia itself, or in response to a nuclear attack. Which we already knew. And the West makes no threat to Russia here. We are not going to conventionally invade or bombard Russia, and we are not going to nuclear first-strike anything anywhere.
Yes, Ukraine is much larger and any defense is going to be more porous. The difficulty of perfection is not a reason to not try at all.
You are mistaken. Enforcing a no fly zone above Ukraine will inevitably involve strikes against Russian air defense and missile/drone launch sites on Russian soil. At a minimum, it means US troops killing Russian troops and vice-versa. If you support that, that's fine but you need to acknowledge that that puts the US at war against Russia. That's a bell that can't be un-rung. Obviously, that does not mean immediate nuclear escalation, but it starts us down a path over which we have little control.
What do you mean, "inevitably"? Our rules of engagement can be whatever we want them to be. If we say our planes won't go within range of Russian-based air defense, then they won't. We wouldn't be even trying for supremacy on the Russian side of the lines in Ukrainian territory. A limited no-fly zone is *not* air support for an offensive.
Totally agree. Also Israel would have the most powerful military in all of nato (other than us). All their equipment was developed with us or purchased by us. Have the stuff Ukraine is using is s-300s. We wouldn’t know good from bad