- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
What about if the US is supplying arms to the other side?
I don’t like presenting things as black and white but I also feel the same - if US is no longer part of NATO we should expect them to be in opposition to it.
In a conventional fight Russian forces would be wiped off the Ukrainian map in less than a week. The problem is that nobody dares to engage them now that they are at their absolute weakest. The situation might look very different depending on how much time they get to rearm and the stance that the Americans will take.
I hate all the posturing. If NATO is so strong, then show it! For 3 years, there have been breathless articles about the power of Nato.
But if the EU can’t even supply weapons to Ukraine, then they’re a paper tiger. Supply Ukraine, then talk about how NATO is strong.
In a FAIR fight. We all know the Russkis don’t do fair. Expect Skripal-like poisonings in order to sow chaos and distrust.
Expect? Russia is already at war with every at least somewhat democratic society, and they just won in the US.
That article mentions “nuclear” once.
I believe when facing NATO, Russia would not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
NATO vs Russia is a completely different conflict without the US in NATO.
France and UK have nukes too.
France and uk have plenty enough nukes to assure the mutual destruction of russia.
I don’t think russia would use nukes. That would open them up to retaliatory nuking. France and Britain both have nukes and the russian border is a lot more porous and a lot longer than the european ones. Much easier to get a nuke to moscow than to london.
Only if nato attacks, which it won’t do as it’s a defense pact.
I’m not saying NATO would but they did intervene in Kosovo. That was not defensive. There’s some wiggle room in being a defensive pact.
Fair point, I actually don’t know how the USA got involved in Kosovo.
