33
Russia Has 'Every Right' to Attack NATO Targets Now: Retired US Colonel
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
33 points (77.0% liked)
World News
32492 readers
722 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda... Sorry to bother... But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision... If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?
The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.
ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn't have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don't have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.
This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.
And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country... All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show... Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture...
And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.
I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:
in both outcome Russia loose
The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don't get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.
you forget that France and UK both have Nuke too... For France 1 launch from a submarine lead to 160 nuke warhead on Russia in case of war...
What France and UK don't have is a delivery system that Russia has. Meanwhile, if France or UK tried to lob a nuke at Russia then they'd simply cease to exist within 20 minutes.
delivery system? France can send Nuke from ICBM, submarine (from all over the world) and Rafale (which can take off from French aircraft carrier which also mean nuke can be send from all over the world...). De Gaulle built the France defense without US because he though that the next French war would be against US not Russia and all president after him kept that strategic independence from US for the same reason... Russia-French friendship and French distrust in US was still strong until Russia invaded Crimea leading to the cancellation of Mistral ships and the beginning of tension between both countries.
So Yes, if a Nuclear War start between Russia and France, as a said, both countries would be vitrified and we will be all dead...
A delivery system that cannot be intercepted. ICBMs are old tech, and Russia has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to intercept missiles. France or UK simply lack the arsenal wipe out all of Russia, while Russia very much could complete wipe out either country in case of a nuclear war.
However, my original point was that Russia can use a non nuclear Oreshnik system to hit UK or France, and if the US fails to intervene then it will be the end of NATO. It's that simple.
you know that EU has an equivalent of NATO article 5:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdf
and which countries are about to join EU? Ukraine and Moldova. So even without US, nuke have a good chance to rain all over the old continent...
You know that EU has no actual military to speak of?
Russia outproduces all of the west militarily, and EU is only a small fraction of NATO spending https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Here's what FT had to say about the UK military:
Similarly, no part of German military is ready for war https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/03/no-part-of-german-military-ready-for-war-armed-forces-official-warns/
Europe is absolutely nothing without the US. It's just a bunch of chihuahuas yapping.
Also, It's funny that you should mention Ukraine since it is the biggest and most experienced army in Europe right now. This army is now collapsing trying to fight Russia according to BBC.
in 2023 Russia military spending was $84bn, even without US, EU spending is bigger (even French+UK alone is bigger)... and because of EU article, as I said it has a big chance to be a nuclear war and on nuclear war the important part is Air Defense saturation... As I said each submarine can send 160 nuke... Even if Russia can intercept 159 warhead (which is discutable since Russia was not even capable of intercepting an old URSS drone that hitted a building at Moscow), if those 160 warhead target moscow, 1 nuke succeeding is enough to deal huge damage on the city. Russia will replicate and it's over for EU...
But that's only submarines nuclear capability. France is a big country, not as big as Russia, but big nonetheless. France kept a lot of it's historic territories from when the country was a colonial empire: Guyana and in south america, Caraibes in central america, Saint-Pierre de Miquelon in North America (both very close to USA, very dangerous to send nuke there), Mayotte and Reunion in Africa, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia in the Pacific (not that far away from China, sending nuke there from Russia can be dangerous too...).
thos territories also have nuclear capabilities.
Russia has a state owned military industry, and as all the western media now openly admits, Russia is outproducing all of NATO militarily. These are just basic facts of the situation. If an all out nuclear war happens, then we likely all die. So, the question for the geniuses living in Europe is if they'll want to all die in response to a conventional strike by Russia. Clearly you haven't thought this through.
Have you heard Macron speech? No more red line after the IRBM use on Ukraine... France has fought and won more war in History than any other country on the planet. It's a country of Warmonger :). Don't underestimate French aggressive soul, Even after Hitler won, he failed to break the country war eager needs :). The French nuclear doctrine reflect that. It's the only warning shot doctrine: Even if France is not threaten, but it feels threaten, the nuclear doctrine says to use a small nuke on the country France think is a threaten to ask it to calm down before bigger nuke are used.
So to answer your question, yes is very well prepare to be the one that will enter the History as the one who triggered the nuclear war...
lmfao might want to learn some history of French adventures in Russia 🤣
I never said we won all our war, I said we won the most war in History... If you want the complete list of modern France war History:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France
and for the Kingdom of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Kingdom_of_France
so yeah France loves war and is good at it...
So proud of being colonizer. 🤡
So once it became clear that France doesn't have the material ability to win against Russia, we switched to talk of souls.
Everyone dying is hardly a loss for just Russia, mankind as a whole would lose because it would no longer exist.
What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West's adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.
Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia's responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.
The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don't think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia's strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.
You're requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.
That's quite the tantrum. Are you ever going to acknowledge how ATACMs works?
not what I say, what I say is NATO soldiers are not on the frontline fighting Russia and unlike what Putin says, he really not want to start that war with NATO...
So that's a no lol
The fact that you felt the need to write an essay about how offended you are to step out of your bubble is hilarious.
As a c/NonCredibleDefense member I'm not offended by your message, I laughed a lot while writing that "essay"... but the fact that you are diverting from the question on why NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia spend 3 years saying they are at war with NATO and threatening of nuclear retaliation while doing nothing (not even a non nuclear missile or a bomb on NATO territory) tells a lot about the fact that you can't answer...
The mismatch between what Putin says and what Putin does is so big that instead of using his IRBM on NATO soil to proof that he has to be taken seriously, Putin used it on non NATO soil which lead to more NATO help to Ukraine next Tuesday... And Putin will continue to threaten but will do nothing against NATO countries... I can bet a lot on that... So much for the not so strong leader that is Putin... XD
🤣
Oh now your talk about being a proud warmongerer makes sense to me.
As a person living in Europe my wallet tells me that we actually did face some severe consequences.