5 ms·
They’ll strongly condemn. It was a mistake after all. What else should we do, strike a Russian village?
by exitb 4y ago
They’ll strongly condemn. It was a mistake after all. What else should we do, strike a Russian village?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> What else should we do, strike a Russian village? Strengthen air defences. In practice, this means placing SAMs closer to Russia, which isn’t exactly stabilising.
- Arrath 4y agoMore Patriot batteries farther forward, on higher readiness. Give longer ranged munitions, like ATACMS, to Ukraine, along with intelligence pinpointing missile launch sites and let nature take its course.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoThe problem is, Russia is deliberately shooting many of these from aircraft cruising over the Caspian Sea. Ukraine would need even longer range.
- Arrath 4y agoYeah, I was wondering if these were ALCMs or some form of ground launched platform.
- whitepaint 4y ago> It was a mistake after all How do you know that? Maybe it was intentional to test out how Nato responds.
- exitb 4y agoIt measures how NATO responds to singular strike on a random village, which isn’t very valuable knowledge.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> which isn’t very valuable knowledge Of course it's valuable. Our air defenses were, if not evaded, pierced. Biden's "fully prepared" and "every single inch" warning was challenged. That, in turn, lays groundwork for intimidating e.g. the Baltics.
- josephcsible 4y agoWhat if the response were that from now on, NATO shoots down every missile that Russia launches?
- tekknik 4y agoI was thinking along the same lines, but everything leaving Russia. Tanks and other equipment as well. Either way this is still interference
- josephcsible 4y agoIsn't it an important difference that we're not killing people if we just shoot down missiles, but we are if we blow up tanks too?
- tekknik 4y agoIt’s certainly better in my mind, who knows how Russia will take it. Even with missiles you are still interfering with the attacks. That’ll raise aggression against NATO.
- josephcsible 4y ago> you are still interfering with the attacks If we don't interfere with the attacks at all, then aren't we effectively letting them get away with attacking a NATO state? And if we do that, won't they get even bolder?
- Hamuko 4y agoOne thing that the US could do, without getting into a direct conflict, would be providing Ukraine access to more advanced weapons that it's been hesitant to give earlier. No direct conflict, but sending a message to Russia that actions have consequences and those consequences aren't good for their already-uphill war.