3 ms·
Also nobody wants to be the next country to be invaded and fight that war on their own territory, or deal with all the issues of having Russia as the direct nei
by viraptor 3y ago
Also nobody wants to be the next country to be invaded and fight that war on their own territory, or deal with all the issues of having Russia as the direct neighbour, so at some point something's got to give. There are no good options left, just more/less bad.
(Russia already published it's keen to keep going. You can discuss whether that's just posturing or not, but that part's public)
- panarky 3y ago>> massive red line and a huge escalation When someone argues it would be a huge escalation for the US, UK and France to directly defend Ukrainian territory against Russia's attacks, they should explain how the same nations directly defending Israeli territory from Iran's attacks is constructively and strategically different.
- rainworld 3y agoOne action served to de-escalate, to keep the Israelis from actually starting a war. Which these powers would almost inevitably be dragged into. The other would almost certainly end up being called WW3, and would likely involve at least a limited nuclear exchange.
- panarky 3y agoSo shooting down drones and missiles from one regional power is de-escalatory, while shooting down drones and missiles from a different regional power is massively escalatory. Makes perfect sense, thanks.
- rainworld 3y agoYes, very different situations. If for no other reason than that in one situation every involved party had consented. Including Iran, tacitly. The reason it was “de-escalatory”: It helped Iran prove what it sought to prove: no AD in the world will stop their missiles from getting through. For Israel it provided the face-saving “99.9%”. Also, the Ukraine situation has no Jordan, Iraq, accessible ocean (ask the Turks about that) to operate from.