5 ms·
If "nuclear strikes" were advantageous to Russia, then they'd have already executed them. They don't want the response. More than that, the idea that they can
by unclebucknasty 3y ago
If "nuclear strikes" were advantageous to Russia, then they'd have already executed them. They don't want the response.
More than that, the idea that they can invade a country and the country's allies shouldn't enter the country to help defend because it would result in a "nuclear strike" ends where, exactly?
It's a completely irrational posture that Russia would love the world to assume. They could literally take all of Europe without firing a shot.
- thehappypm 3y agoIf a NATO country attacked Russia directly, then the response very well could be a nuclear strike. NATO is a threat to Russia. Russia would need to take a direct attack very seriously and would reply in kind. Maybe we need a stronger definition of “ally”. The USA is in a treaty with 32 member states that obligates boots-on-the-ground. Ukraine isn’t one of them. The line of where a country’s obligations to help an “ally” is defined in terms like that.
- unclebucknasty 3y agoThe discussion was not about "attacking Russia directly". It was about NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. In that case, there's a near-zero percent chance that Russia would use nukes. Allyship does not require NATO membership. Clearly, the U.S. and NATO members consider Ukraine an ally.