4 ms·

What crimes are going to move the needle further at this point

pjc50 5y ago
They could shoot down a plane full of NATO nationals (again), or deploy chemical weapons of mass destruction in European cities (again)?
- swarnie 5y ago
  Oh oh, want about more extra-judicial assassinations in NATO countries? 123m spire ect ect (be sad)
  - 14 5y ago
    “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.” As per site guidelines
    - swarnie 5y ago
      Fixed it just for you =)
- RobertRoberts 5y ago
  - pjc50 5y ago
    I don't think Russia is likely to invade Iraq.
    - slavslave 5y ago
  - finiteseries 5y ago
    Russia is entirely incapable of projecting force that far, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics are about their level.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Russia is entirely incapable of projecting force that far, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics are about their level. Though they have been palling around with Assad in Syria.
      - iso1210 5y ago
        Syria is only 500 miles from Russia
zalfon 5y ago
t_mann 5y ago
Russia hasn't even begun retaliating for Finland's NATO application yet, which they announced they would (potentially even with 'military consequences', as per a Kremlin spokesperson). Besides, the EU has been ramping up sanctions against Russia pretty much continuously since the start of the war, so we're definitely not at peak sanctions yet (unless Russian aggression suddenly ceases).
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Russia has nuclear weapons, but seemingly nothing else sitting around to use. They’re over extended in Ukraine already.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    They have plenty of artillery too, so they can gradually turn cities to rubble. But they simply don't have then power to occupy much territory with any real degree of control, except maybe in the east.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      It doesn’t seem like it. Their artillery is old and can’t aim well. Their intel sucks. Their supplies suck. It seems very unlikely that they could launch another front against Finland and achieve anything, even shelling a city.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Yes, I agree on Finland, they just don't seem to have the resources or logistics to fight on two fronts like that. My comment was more with respect to Ukraine. You don't need pinpoint accuracy-- or much accuracy at all-- to gradually demolish the city. The ability hit the desired quadrant may suffice. As Ukrainians push more resources towards the east Russia's problem might be that such artillery isn't quite mobile, there's no run-and-gun capability there, while weapons capable of taking them out are man-portable. Despite that, I don't see a happy ending for the Ukrainians here. As much as Russia has already lost, they can't accept defeat in this without the power structure suffering what might be a deadly blow.

They could shoot down a plane full of NATO nationals (again), or deploy chemical weapons of mass destruction in European cities (again)?

swarnie 5y ago
Oh oh, want about more extra-judicial assassinations in NATO countries? 123m spire ect ect (be sad)
- 14 5y ago
  “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.” As per site guidelines
  - swarnie 5y ago
    Fixed it just for you =)
RobertRoberts 5y ago
- pjc50 5y ago
  I don't think Russia is likely to invade Iraq.
  - slavslave 5y ago
- finiteseries 5y ago
  Russia is entirely incapable of projecting force that far, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics are about their level.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Russia is entirely incapable of projecting force that far, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics are about their level. Though they have been palling around with Assad in Syria.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      Syria is only 500 miles from Russia

zalfon 5y ago

t_mann 5y ago

Russia hasn't even begun retaliating for Finland's NATO application yet, which they announced they would (potentially even with 'military consequences', as per a Kremlin spokesperson). Besides, the EU has been ramping up sanctions against Russia pretty much continuously since the start of the war, so we're definitely not at peak sanctions yet (unless Russian aggression suddenly ceases).

oneoff786 5y ago
Russia has nuclear weapons, but seemingly nothing else sitting around to use. They’re over extended in Ukraine already.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  They have plenty of artillery too, so they can gradually turn cities to rubble. But they simply don't have then power to occupy much territory with any real degree of control, except maybe in the east.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    It doesn’t seem like it. Their artillery is old and can’t aim well. Their intel sucks. Their supplies suck. It seems very unlikely that they could launch another front against Finland and achieve anything, even shelling a city.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Yes, I agree on Finland, they just don't seem to have the resources or logistics to fight on two fronts like that. My comment was more with respect to Ukraine. You don't need pinpoint accuracy-- or much accuracy at all-- to gradually demolish the city. The ability hit the desired quadrant may suffice. As Ukrainians push more resources towards the east Russia's problem might be that such artillery isn't quite mobile, there's no run-and-gun capability there, while weapons capable of taking them out are man-portable. Despite that, I don't see a happy ending for the Ukrainians here. As much as Russia has already lost, they can't accept defeat in this without the power structure suffering what might be a deadly blow.