So if a land invasion by foreign troops is going to be interpreted as no big deal, why would the fall of Poland matter from a nuclear standpoint? You can see it building in the public discourse as people convince themselves that they can push to an absurd distance without Russia being able to respond - we've seen their border integrity violated, strikes on Moscow, British missiles being lobbed in to Russian territories, an explicit US strategy of bleeding them out and fairly credible calls for regime change where it isn't obvious how far the US is acting on the idea.
If we assume by symmetry that the US would take similar abuse before it launched any nukes, what on earth is supposed to happen in Europe to provoke a serious response? I wouldn't chance it, but it looks a lot like they're bluffing a willingness to do anything and some idiot dressed up as a general will one day will do something really stupid. We're exploring for the line where Russia breaks the nuclear taboo here; as far as I remember the game-theoretic response to salami tactics is supposed to be wildly disproportionate aggression. And there is a decent chance that it'll go unpunished since the US is clearly not going to stand up for Ukraine to the point where it risks blowback to the US proper.
Maybe Putin's non-invocation (up to now) of the nuclear umbrella shows he is as eager as anyone to maintain it as the ultimate protection against existential threats. The US's sharp turn away from globalism is a gift to Putin, and, given that the US population is strongly divided over the changes the current administration is making, that might be threatened if Russia were to act more belligerently than it already is.
Personally, I'm more concerned over what will happen if and when the situation becomes one in which Trump realizes he's going to be seen as the president who 'lost' Taiwan.
The US is claiming 700,000+ Russian killed and wounded so far. Moscow obviously think something here is a threat to the long term integrity and security of Russia. That is serious commitment.
Unless the US is lying. I hope they are, to be honest. Mountains of skulls are fun in D&D but not in real wars.
I share your feelings about the entirely avoidable horror of it all.
Some sources please (ideally not Russian propaganda, but I would be asking for too much, would I?). I haven't noticed any change in Chinese stance after Kursk incursion. The operation has been a gambit by the Ukraine to divide the attention of weary Russian occupants.
> atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians.
War is hell and everything, but Ukrainians seem to be much more precise when trying to achieve their goals. Did you not notice Russian army targeting schools and hospitals? Bucha massacre?
> You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives
As you do.
> If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Are you really comparing military operation to US opioid epidemic?
> Russia is intentionally going it slow
Sources? Russia planned a 2 day special operation. It seems that Ukrainians have been doing most of the grinding, not the other way around.
> … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.
Like Putin, Trump and their supporters (yeah, looking at you).
And then there’s the reality that Kursk has only played into the Russian’s hands in many different ways, including, that it split already inferior forces in an attrition war and on the geopolitical level where it caused Chinese caution and reluctance about the whole Russian operation to essentially immediately fall away due to the insanity and recklessness if the Kursk operation, which only has gotten more solidified due to the atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians.
You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives. If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Do you want nuclear exchanges? Would you have preferred for Russia to have nuked its own territory instead of just using it to their advantage to draw in immense resources in a Ukrainian self created kettle?
The fundamental misunderstanding of all the Ukie cheer leaders is that they think this is one type of war, when it’s actually a whole different type of war where Russia is intentionally going it slow. “Russia Is losing their shock and awe, blitz war” they tell you, not knowing Russia is fighting more of a millstone war, grinding up all the Ukrainian men Downing Street and Biden fed into it.
This is simply not a scenario where something as reckless as using nuclear weapons is yet warranted even though the West and people like you keep trying to edge us closer to it in the belief that you can just feet away with these kinds of provocations forever … until humanity finds out that there was a line … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.