upvote

points

by kgeist3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 9dev2 hours ago|
next
[-]
> Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia.

Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.

I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.

reply
upvoteby fierycatnet1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Finally a lucid comment.
reply
upvoteby azan_2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?

Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.

reply
upvoteby yakshaving_jgt3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?

Because it would force NATO to divert resources away from Ukraine.

reply
upvoteby kgeist2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How would a direct war with NATO on several fronts help Russia win in Ukraine? Russia isn't ready for it in the slightest. As I said, if they wanted to go all in (full mobilization instead of partial, martial law, converting all industry to military production, etc.), it would be more logical to focus first on that 1 country they want to defeat, rather than immediately triggering Article 5 and fighting 32 countries at once. It just doesn't make any sense, and judging by the Kremlin's decisions over the last 4 years, I don't think they're that stupid.
reply
upvoteby yakshaving_jgt1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you're interested in the logic behind this war, you might be interested in learning from Anders Puck Nielsen, author of The Logic of War.

- https://youtu.be/z61ZuZ08jRA?si=_GChfuUptluluave&t=602

- https://youtu.be/NCEKsF9w8uQ?si=WkguFDu0vSdm1dbR&t=405

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opa3s2VuD0s

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmxNTloGmw

reply
upvoteby athrowaway3z2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
this goes both ways; they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia. From the accounts I've seen they did strip down the rest of the border forts to supply Ukraine.

Also, most of NATO's existing resources are currently not doing much but standing around. You can question how useful NATO's 'pre-drone' material is, and how much hasn't already been sent to Ukraine, but it's not nothing.

reply
upvoteby kgeist2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia

The official discourse in Russia is that NATO is already helping Ukraine launch things into Russia. So there's no gamble; for them, it's already a fact. Except, currently, it's just a proxy war where Ukraine has to jump through hoops to get military aid and targets approved, and it can only fire from Ukraine's territory. With a direct confrontation, there's no doubt that far more would be launched into Russia.

reply