3 ms·
The article doesn't include an analysis of projected Russian retaliation though? So I wouldn't go far as to say it's a no-brainer since there's always a tit-fo
by MichaelZuo 4y ago
The article doesn't include an analysis of projected Russian retaliation though?
So I wouldn't go far as to say it's a no-brainer since there's always a tit-for-tat process going on behind the scenes.
- Paradigma11 4y agoRussia already has been a hostile nation for more than a decade and will try to do as much damage as it can without incurring additional retaliation anyway. Nothing changes here. Besides after more than a year of war this is an interesting but purely counterfactual analysis without much relevance for today.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago> Russia already has been a hostile nation for more than a decade and will try to do as much damage as it can without incurring additional retaliation anyway. Nothing changes here. Not quite, since there are taboos that even the Kremlin has been afraid to break so far. Such as poisoning diplomats, deploying weapons to space, messing with subsea cables, etc... But theoretically they have less to lose than the U.S. because they have less diplomats, have less space assets, and so on. So one day the decision makers may be tempted to get one back.
- sidewndr46 4y agoWhat exactly is Russian going to do in retaliation? They've already failed to invade an ex-Soviet neighbor. At this point if I were Russian I'd be concerned Finland might just annex the whole country and nothing could be done to stop them.
- rob74 4y agoWell, there's always the (quite literally in this case) nuclear option. But I hope not even Putin is crazy enough for that...
- sidewndr46 4y agoWhile it does exist as an option, I'm not entirely convinced any significant number of the weapons they retain function. Their military seems to be in shambles. They have so many nuclear weapons that certainly at least a handful are usable, but how would they know what weapons function?