this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
28 points (83.3% liked)
Science
13206 readers
8 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given that the US is currently debating whether to start a full on WW3, it's absolutely something to worry about right now.
I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source for that?
It's probably a discussion for allowing Ukraine to do what they want with long range weapons.
Russia has made pretty direct statements about what happens then - they will consider NATO to be in direct war with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-threatens-ukraine-west-long-range-strikes-decision-looms-2024-09-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-will-be-fighting-directly-with-russia-if-it-lets-kyiv-use-long-2024-09-12/
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Please do provide a previous official quote from Russia stating that. I'll save you the trouble though, cause it doesn't exist.
Putin: NATO's Approval of Use of Long-Range Missiles by Ukraine Will Mean It is at War With Russia
‘Extremely Clear’: Kremlin Comments on Putin's Warning About West’s Arms Striking Deep Into Russia
Putin Warns NATO Long-Range Missile Strikes Will Put Them at War with Russia
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
Enemies must realize Russia could go nuclear – ex-Kremlin adviser
Do note that I did not have to look for "western anti russian propaganda media" like.... mainstream news. These are Russian state sponsored news websites.
Yes, all of those say that use of long range missiles within Russia would be the red line. And the reason it would be a red line is because this would be NATO personnel doing strikes directly into Russia.
Idk where you're going with this, I just felt like looking for direct quotes, because you asked for any quote from Russian officials saying that X would mean war with NATO.
While stating :
I was very clearly replying to this statement claiming that Russia has supposedly outlines lots of previous red lines that have been broken.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the context here?
No I believe you're being intellectually disingenuous, because you're now paraphrasing the comment you responded to, to try and twist the argument in your favour, the previous interaction was :
To which you directly replied
I'm not sure I quite like where this is going and I'm not in the mood for arguing over such a minimal thing, so I'd like to end the interaction here, see ya around !
I'm not twisting anything here. I've been very clear regarding the specific point I was making. The context of this whole thread is that the use of long range weapons do do deep strikes is the one clear red line that Russia articulated. The fact that you're trying to twist this into something else shows that you're the one being intellectually dishonest here. Bye.
Ah, I might've mixed it up with threatening or insinuating nuclear war.
Either way, it just seems like more sabre-rattling. Also, it's not something that the US is doing, it's something that Putin's being a pansy about.
This is an absolutely deranged attitude to have towards a possibility of starting a nuclear war. It absolutely isn't going to matter who you think pansy was about what when we all die. One has to be an imbecile to be willing to gamble with the future of all humanity over western hegemonic interests.
Was it western hegemonic interests that started an invasion of Ukraine? I seem to recall it was Russia.
The role the west played in provoking the war is well documented https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
In fact, RAND openly published a whole paper detailing why the US wanted a war in Ukraine in 2019 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Yet, here we have you acting like a clown.
Nato is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. The only way it could be perceived as a “threat” by Russia is id Russia had intention of expanding in that direction.
And what happened to the self-determination of countries, if countries like, say, Sweden and Finland want to join NATO as additional defence against a militaristic expansionist Russia, that is absolutely their right.
But since you are not debating in good faith, I’m not gonna spend more words and effort on this.
NATO is objectively an offensive alliance that has invaded numerous countries. But since you are not debating in good faith, I’m not gonna spend more words and effort on this.
lol, who has NATO invaded?
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, just to name a few. How can anybody be such an utter ignoramus is truly astounding.
Operations on terrorist organizations. Geography was not taken from any of those countries. I was against the Iraq war and I think many Americans were, I wouldn’t try to defend it.
Now how is Putin invading Ukraine to expand Russia’s territory similar to those?
You Russian shills love to call everyone idiots because no one understands global conflict like you do, but do you really?
These were violent invasions of sovereign countries. Period. Thanks for confirming that you're just a troll without any intellectual integrity.
At this point you know you're wrong you're just being a little shit
I know I’m wrong? Notice you replied on my first and, at the time, only message in the whole thread. And my statement is the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.
So no, I don’t know I’m wrong. In fact I know I’m right.
Another example of deliberate bad faith: lying about what you said
You could have edited your previous comment to make it appear you were telling the truth but you're stupid and lazy apparently
Maybe try debating people when you learn to form coherent thoughts. What I said is “Russia invaded Ukraine”, there is no bad faith or lying about it. It is an objective fact.
It does indeed seem that someone is stupid and lazy between the two of us, try looking in a mirror and you’ll find them.
Why are you using quotation marks around something that isn't a quote? You said something completely different.
"No U" all you want, dummy. You're being evasive for a reason.
Does it trigger you that I am saying that Russia invaded Ukraine? You seem to be quite tilted about it. Maybe learn the meaning of words before using them, I am being the opposite of evasive. You said I am wrong, and I said I have nothing to be wrong about because I did not provide opinions, only a single fact: Russia invaded Ukraine.
Goodbye
Go read your original comment, you petulant child.
Your statement there is objectively different than "Russia invaded The Ukraine"
My attitude isn't going to matter if we all die. Neither will yours, lol
...I thought this was about Ukraine fighting back against the country that's been invading it
That's why avoiding a nuclear war is in everyone's interest. Yet, clearly plenty of imbeciles in the west don't understand that.
That's because you're utterly ignorant on the subject you're attempting to discuss here. Ukraine is just a proxy for the US to attempt and extend Russia as the RAND paper puts it.
Russia is in the drivers seat here. All they have to do is stop attacking a sovereign nation and not fire nuclear missiles. It’s pretty simple.
The fact that you don't understand how utterly idiotic your statement is shows that no rational discussion with you will be possible.
US is about to approve deep strikes into Russia. The difference here from previous escalations is that the strikes would have to be done by NATO personnel. Russia stated that it would consider this to be a direct act of war by NATO against Russia because it would be NATO troops launching strikes into Russia. At that point we are effectively in WW3 between NATO and Russia.
Thank you! I read most of the first one and skimmed the second -- I don't get why they strikes would need to be done by NATO personnel.
Both articles allude to the fact that Putin considers it to be an attack by NATO because they'd be NATO-supplied weapons, but given his track record, he'd probably say anything more than turning a blind eye is an offense by NATO.
The strikes have to be done by NATO personnel because these missiles use NATO satellite guidance, and are designed to only be operated by military personnel of the respective countries. This was earlier confirmed by Scholtz as a justification for not sending taurus missiles to Ukraine, and the leaked conversation of German officers.
Western media omits the important part of the statement, but If you listen to what he says, he's specifically talking about NATO personnel operating the weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBjK08eM1Ys
That could make sense. I'm not familiar enough with military weaponry to know how true it all is
I'm sure Scholz is properly informed on the subject https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html
Ah, so if they just provide training to members of the Ukrainian military, then everything's fine in Putin's eyes? Loopholes are great
What part of the concept of a direct conflict are you struggling with?
I'm not talking about nuclear war. I'm talking about the climate after a nuclear war - what the article and the headline is about. The implication of my comment is that there would be no people to worry about the climate because they'd all be dead on account of global thermonuclear war.
Ah yeah, vast majority of human population isn't going to be worried about much of anything once we're dead.