40
Russia Has 'Every Right' to Attack NATO Targets Now: Retired US Colonel
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
40 points (79.4% liked)
World News
32353 readers
248 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda... Sorry to bother... But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision... If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?
ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn't have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don't have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.
This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.
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 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.