3 ms·
I think you're mistaken. If Russia didn't have nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have been driven out of Ukraine by now through direct Western military i
by tivert 2y ago
I think you're mistaken. If Russia didn't have nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have been driven out of Ukraine by now through direct Western military intervention. They're the only reason they can throw any weight around in the way they have.
And realistically, they're probably going to end their adventure with a big chunk of conquered Ukrainian territory permanently in their hands.
- wat10000 2y agoI totally agree with this. I just think this is a very weak result. You have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, and all it does for you is limit (not even prevent!) the intervention of foreign powers so that you can engage in a slow, grinding war of conquest that might end up giving you a small bit of additional territory after years of bloodshed. That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. M
- tivert 2y ago> That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. It's that conclusion I disagree with. Their relative ranking has nothing to do with their absolute capability. Russia being able to do what they've already done in the face of the opponents they have probably makes them 2nd or 3rd strongest military power in the world. I think few other countries could manage to do even that. Sure, maybe in an alternate universe a totally politically unrestrained US military could conquer a Ukraine (receiving a similar level of foreign material assistance) from halfway around the world, but that just means the gap between 1st and 2nd/3rd is large.