The president's justified, overdue, but probably too-late authorization to Ukraine isn't pushing us toward World War 3.

Summary

President Biden recently authorized Ukraine to use longer-range U.S. missiles to strike inside Russia, marking a small but overdue escalation in the conflict.

This decision aims to disrupt Russia’s military operations and bolster Ukraine’s position, especially with the potential Trump administration favoring pro-Russian policies.

Russia’s retaliatory missile strike on Ukraine, though deadly, represents more of the same tactics.

Analysts argue Biden’s earlier caution was excessive, and calling Russia’s nuclear bluffs is strategically necessary to counter further extortion.

  • @[email protected]
    9•4 days ago

    I’m actually pretty doubtful that Russia still has much of a nuclear capacity. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is very expensive, and the Russian oligarchs have been embezzling massive amounts of money from the military.

    They’ve had to resort to asking NK for help, so I don’t think they have a good chance of winning the current conflict, much less an actual NATO power.

    • AnyOldName3
      2•3 days ago

      The trouble with that is that the Soviets had such a large arsenal that even if only a vanishingly small fraction of it still works, it’s still ruining someone’s day. An ICBM with a dodgy guidance system or leaky fuel tank still hits a populated area even if it misses a city. An H-bomb that misfires is still an A-bomb, and an A-bomb that misfires is still a dirty bomb. It’s plausible that NATO could win a nuclear war against Russia without even firing back just from Russia embarrassing itself and giving an excuse for a conventional war they’d also lose, but that’s a huge gamble that no one wants to make, especially when winning is still worse than the status quo.

    • @[email protected]English
      -3•4 days ago

      It takes 26 minutes and 40 seconds for a ballistic missile to get from a launchpad in Russia to the East Coast of the United States.