4 ms·

If NATO shoots down a Russian plane in Ukraine it is most likely WW3. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.

xdennis 5y ago
NATO already shot down a Russian plane in 2015 and nothing happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... .
squarefoot 5y ago
If Russia starts WW3 they'll be nuked as well. Contrary to popular belief, Putin is all but stupid or crazy, and he'd never put himself and his country in a position to lose everything. If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. But this time they know the odds might be against them and probably will be more inclined to real negotiations, not the farce they have been conducting until now.
- nradov 5y ago
  Even if Putin is intelligent and sane (questionable), it's still possible for him to miscalculate and get into a situation where it's impossible to de-escalate. Calls for a no-fly zone are just idiotic and display a complete disconnect from the military reality. Anyone who believes it can work should watch this video where military aviators with actual experience in enforcing no-fly zones explain the problems. https://youtu.be/himAfYxkigk https://youtu.be/himAfYxkigk
- ashwagary 5y ago
  >If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. I think this is a sensitive area where acting like there is any certainty is dangerous. I can't agree with your assumptions about 2nd order and 3rd order effects because there are too many known and unknown variables to consider.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    I think it is safe to assume nobody would like to start a nuclear war because of ensured mutual partial or total destruction; intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level.
    - ashwagary 5y ago
      >intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level. This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate. We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
      - squarefoot 5y ago
        That is what hurts me the most: want to be untouchable? Get nukes! Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.

NATO already shot down a Russian plane in 2015 and nothing happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... .

squarefoot 5y ago

If Russia starts WW3 they'll be nuked as well. Contrary to popular belief, Putin is all but stupid or crazy, and he'd never put himself and his country in a position to lose everything. If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. But this time they know the odds might be against them and probably will be more inclined to real negotiations, not the farce they have been conducting until now.

nradov 5y ago
Even if Putin is intelligent and sane (questionable), it's still possible for him to miscalculate and get into a situation where it's impossible to de-escalate. Calls for a no-fly zone are just idiotic and display a complete disconnect from the military reality. Anyone who believes it can work should watch this video where military aviators with actual experience in enforcing no-fly zones explain the problems. https://youtu.be/himAfYxkigk https://youtu.be/himAfYxkigk
ashwagary 5y ago
>If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. I think this is a sensitive area where acting like there is any certainty is dangerous. I can't agree with your assumptions about 2nd order and 3rd order effects because there are too many known and unknown variables to consider.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  I think it is safe to assume nobody would like to start a nuclear war because of ensured mutual partial or total destruction; intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    >intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level. This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate. We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      That is what hurts me the most: want to be untouchable? Get nukes! Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.