President Joe Biden's administration will allow Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, three sources told Reuters.
That’s meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn’t actually do anything. The only way for the US to get “drawn into” the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can’t win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?
What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?
Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that’s more favorable to them doesn’t cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.
It’s not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It’s about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.
Putin is old, if Putin has a health condition which significantly shortens his immediate life span we can all see him saying “fuck it” and press that button.
We just have to hope for some kind of takeover by younger ambitious dictators at that point to recognise they want to live and stop him
Also remember that Russia has North Korea and China on its side (among others - the dictators Trump loves). Without nukes to kill everyone, that’s a YEARS long war of attrition.
Also the idea of the US giving Ukraine weapons is to defend itself, so long range missiles for the sole purpose of striking the Russian interior could look to some like the US attacking Russia by proxy. And we don’t want to be in a war, especially one that would surely become a World War. Trump is going to “end the war in a day” though so this discussion is really just moot anyway.
That’s meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn’t actually do anything. The only way for the US to get “drawn into” the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can’t win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?
Nukes. The hesitation is always about who is unhinged enough to actually fire a nuke.
What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?
Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that’s more favorable to them doesn’t cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.
It’s not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It’s about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.
Putin is old, if Putin has a health condition which significantly shortens his immediate life span we can all see him saying “fuck it” and press that button.
We just have to hope for some kind of takeover by younger ambitious dictators at that point to recognise they want to live and stop him
You honestly think that every single person around Putin is ready to burn in nuclear fire for his sake?
No, that’s the entire point of my second sentence.
Also remember that Russia has North Korea and China on its side (among others - the dictators Trump loves). Without nukes to kill everyone, that’s a YEARS long war of attrition.
Also the idea of the US giving Ukraine weapons is to defend itself, so long range missiles for the sole purpose of striking the Russian interior could look to some like the US attacking Russia by proxy. And we don’t want to be in a war, especially one that would surely become a World War. Trump is going to “end the war in a day” though so this discussion is really just moot anyway.
Russia has been claiming that they are functionally at war with all of NATO for the last two years. Did that result in all out nuclear war?
If not, why would this be any different?