> I think it's responsibility of the stronger party, here NATO, to seek deescalation.

NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting in Ukraine and Russia is the stronger party in that conflict.

> NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine

I think this view is delusional. NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons, it's pretty conventional to consider this as being a party to the war.

The only reason we don't say it openly is that elites want to maintain pretense that we are not in a war (that's unpopular in Europe and US) and that NATO is defense-only organization.

So USA was fighting USSR by supplying weapons to Afghanistan?

USSR was fighting USA by supplying weapons to Korea and Vietnam?

I mean, I completely and utterly disagree with js8, but yeah, the wars you mentioned were called proxy wars between USSR and US, in the larger context of the Cold War

Wasn't Russia paying a bounty for American soldiers in Afghanistan? That seems more like 'at war with' than providing arms.

According to your logic it's Canada fighting North Korea in Ukraine.

Just a Russia Today style of whataboutism. Why you take any russian word as true? They can only lie. Whatever they say about Ukraine is a lie.

If you want to believe russians, why not believe that this Ukrainian 3-days special operation is going according 5 years plan of grinding Ukrainian soil treeline a day and pushing neutral neighboring countries to actually join NATO?

> Russia is the stronger party in that conflict

In some sense that remains true, but the war remains a stalemate after three years nonetheless. It's become clear that Russia's per-capita war fighting ability is basically garbage. They aren't a superpower, they're something more like Iran, a regional power that is big enough to be expensive to mess with but not a feasible threat to anyone but weaker neighbors.

Ukraine's infrastructure damage can be backstopped by robust trade with wealthy partners and supporters, while Russia is losing refining capacity and running out of gas. To the extent that the war represents an existential threat to either side, it's Putin that has to be more worried. Ukraine can keep this going for a decade or more, it seems like.

Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls squarely on Russia. Russia has no intention to stop; on the contrary it is ramping up the production of military equipment. As only military means can stop a military aggression, it makes every sense for European leaders to support Ukraine militarily. If anything, European leaders deserve criticism for not supporting Ukraine enough.

Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger.

Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia.

EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.)

Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.

NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine.

People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.

> NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine.

Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis.

> People join NATO in self-defence against Russia.

Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity?

> They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.

U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.

Yes, the bully who keeps attacking their neighbours didn't want anyone to protect their neighbours.

Going along with this seems like a terrible idea, if you value the bully not slowly expanding until they're your neighbour.

It's precisely this mindset, "us vs them", that neutral states cannot exist, which is at the heart of current escalation.

Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club.

It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.

> Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club.

That kind of club might be fine, but NATO simply isn't it. Again, you're not asking the question, what is in it for the U.S. (to promise protection - with nukes - to those countries).

Look at my country - Czechia. After the end of Cold war, in the context of NATO, we have done more for American security than America did for ours. We had soldiers in Afghanistan and 11 of them died. During the same period, no American soldier has died defending Czech Republic.

> It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.

NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. I think it was a mistake - EU should have created its own defense, and start from a clean slate.

Anyway, I don't care much about the question of historic guilt. I commented here because I think western "leaders" should be honest about their goals vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, and they aren't.

> what is in it for the U.S.

Peace and stability for about 100 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, who will in turn consume American products and services and cheaply write code for American companies instead of designing nuclear missiles for Russians to target Washington DC. All that the Americans have to do is give a guarantee that essentially costs nothing, if it's believable enough.

> NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone.

NATO is not some loaf of bread sitting on a windowsill that expands on its own. Most countries in Eastern Europe worked feverishly to join NATO. Why? Because their leaders had seen the grainy VHS tapes from the 1994–1996 First Chechen War, showing horrific Russian atrocities against civilians, similar to what many had personally seen or even experienced in the 1940s and 1950s. These images dispelled any illusion that the Russian Federation was more civil than the USSR or that it would respect the sovereignty and self-determination of other peoples.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, the Russia has been almost continuously at war, and it was only a matter of time before its attention shifted from the Caucasus to Eastern Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#...

By the mid-1990s, Russia had already employed its strategy of setting up fake separatist movements to instigate armed conflicts in Europe, and a good chunk of Moldova remains under Russian military occupation to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_War

Nobody wanted to become the target of the next artificial "separatist movement" that would drain resources, hinder economic development, block EU integration, and leave the country vulnerable to full-scale invasion like Ukraine experienced in 2014 and then again in 2022. In an alternate timeline, Eastern Europe could have ended up like a series of Moldovas. Very poor, stagnating countries, constantly battling Russian meddling in their internal affairs.

Even 30 years ago, this threat was obvious to anyone familiar with Russia. For example, here's Chechen president Dudayev, a former commander of a Soviet nuclear bomber base, predicting the future in a 1995 interview as the Russians were hunting him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk

Sorry, but what you're describing is American exceptionalism, in line with PNAC for instance.

> Peace and stability for about 100 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, who will in turn consume American products and services and cheaply write code for American companies instead of designing nuclear missiles for Russians to target Washington DC. All that the Americans have to do is give a guarantee that essentially costs nothing, if it's believable enough.

Precisely what led to this conflict, the idea that the Eastern Europe (or now specifically Ukraine) should be "owned" by some superpower.

I am not a fan of Russia, in fact, I work for American company and I got rich thanks to that, and I generally like Americans, but if you don't see how incredibly patronizing this is, I don't know what to tell you. (I mean, Eastern Europe aside, the idea that for example Germany (or France), one of the largest economies in the world, needs some help from Americans to defend themselves is ridiculous.)

And paradoxically, the islamophobic sentiment is so strong in Eastern Europe today that most people would actually agree with the Russian approach to the Chechen war, unfortunately. Keep in mind Russia is not that different from U.S. when it comes to waging foreign wars.

The idea that war is in any case justifiable is just something that never works out as a consistent moral principle, and that's true for NATO's support for Ukraine as well (though I don't have a problem with Ukrainians defending their country, I think it's the right thing to do).

But once you start using violence as a means to revenge, or to regain the territory, you have morally lost it (which is what NATO is being asked by Ukraine). In Palestine, most of the world recognizes that the problem of Israeli colonization and apartheid has to be resolved through peaceful means (my preferred solution would be one state), not through Palestinian violence, despite all the Israeli violence (which is more than 10x) towards Palestinians. The same principle should be applied to Ukraine-Russia relations.

"I only burglarized your home because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch" isn't the ironclad defense of Russian imperialism you seem to think it is.

Ukraine was left out of NATO. When Russia first invaded in 2014, European leaders looked the other way. Claims that there plans for Ukraine to join NATO and that Russia felt threatened and was forced to attack are just lies to attempt to justify this war.

At the time fictions like "Russian-backed separatists" were made up to deny the reality: that it was a foreign invasion. Yet all the signs were there: for example, "separatist" leaders like Igor Girkin were citizens of Russia, not Ukraine; OSCE observers found military vehicles containing documentation indicating that the equipment had been maintained in Russia.

European leaders called for "deescalation", "political resolution"; seeing weakness and appeasement in the Minsk agreements, Putin escalated. That's the problem with aggressive leaders like Putin: if you look weak and vulnerable, they will attack you.

Russian leaders see Russia as an empire and regularly say Eurasia should extend from Lisbon to Vladivistok. Putin tries to terrorize us, stating that if we resist it will lead to "World War III" or "nuclear apocalypse". We must not fall for this, or we will gradually lose our freedoms.

Look it up, in 2007 G.W.Bush invited Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. Also look up PNAC. Unfortunately, there was little interest from the U.S. side to end the cold war - they had to be a "world policeman".

Yes EU leaders called for deescalation, that is true. But the U.S., the most important NATO member, did not. There is a 2018 report from RAND that suggests Ukraine should be used as a tool to weaken Russia.

The Ukraine conflict, although there is a contribution from other causes (russian and ukrainian nationalism), is a proxy war between U.S. and Russia, a continuation of the cold war.

I don't disagree with you on Russia, but the US and EU (currently) is unfortunately not interested in deescalating.

Why would the US want to fight a proxy war with Russia? Before the recent Ukraine invasion, nobody really cared about Russia. They were just kind of around, cheating at the Olympics was like the big news if anyone talked about Russia.

What does Russia have that US would want to fight a proxy war over? Certainly isn’t technology or natural resources.

The military industrial complex in the U.S. is constantly lobbying the American government to start and participate in wars. So after Afghanistan, some other place had to be found where to cause trouble, so that ḿilitary contracts can be made.

Now that Ukrainian resolve to fight is cooling off, you can see Trump administration planning more wars - in Palestine, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela..

These operations benefit wealthy class in the U.S. (the profit from government contracts) as well as a fat layer of middle class Americans who are involved in making wars.

Every country that exports weapons has this incentive, including Russia, but the U.S. is by far the largest country producing weapons it doesn't need internally. International arms trade should be IMHO completely banned, because it gives (capitalist) countries strong motivation to cause wars. It's a negative externality.

"Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion."(c) - tell me now, exactly which NATO expansion has happened before the invasion of Ukraine, to trigger the war? You are lying, that's what it is.

PS: to anyone else reading this, the last NATO expansion in the Russian direction has happened 10 years before the invasion, when Putin was hugging western leaders and not bothered at all by the "scary NATO". This user is posting a retcon propaganda by a Kremlin. A lie.

Russia started those wars to prevent Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, which was announced by G.W.Bush in 2007. I am not lying, read my comments more carefully.

This is an insane take. No one, not a single country, has even entertained an idea that Ukraine may join NATO. Not even in 2025, when everyone repeatedly tell Ukraine that NATO is out of the question, stop asking us. Even more, between 2010 and 2014 Ukrainian parliament has officially adopted a neutral status regarding NATO, just because it was clear it will never happen, NATO was too afraid.

So basically on one hand there is factual evidence that NATO did not expand towards Russia for 10 years before invasion, and that Ukraine got a firm rejection about joining NATO and resigned to it 4 years before invasion. And on the other hand is some remark of one person, no longer in charge of anything for a decade and who's remark contradicts all factual actions of his country and his government.

Yet again a kremlin lie, desperately trying to justify a war by looking for literally anything as a pretext and disregarding facts.

I mean look it up: https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html (I thought it was on Wikipedia but it isn't anymore.)

Also, there is no need to speculate about my opinions - I am on this forum and can answer questions. I am quite decidedly not imperialist. :-) I understand that some people have difficulty understanding that somebody might take a position that doesn't conform to tribalistic friend-enemy distinction; but I do (and I am not alone). I think I have morally consistent stance on Ukraine/Russia, which is in fact in line with my stance on Palestine/Israel, for instance.

The article you linked is from 2007. Bush did indeed express strong support for offering Ukraine and Georgia a path to NATO membership at the 2008 NATO summit, but he was overruled by other allies[1] who caved in to pressure from Russia, and the topic was taken off the table and remains there.

Putin's former senior advisor Illarionov maintains that the idea of invading Ukraine goes back much further than the 2008 summit. He says that he personally first heard of the idea from Putin during a closed meeting of senior staff in September 2003, when Russia first violated Ukraine's sovereign territory during the Tuzla Island conflict.[2]

[1] Like Germany under Schröder, who was later rewarded with the well-paid position of chairman of the board of Rosneft, Russia's state-controlled oil company.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict

NATO is not expanding on it's own. It is expanding because states around Russia does not want to be attacked by Russa.

Or you think that Putin would be trying to swallow Ukraine, if Baltics would be outside NATO? Of course not, he would be going after Baltics. Easier prey.

> Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion.

You do realize NATO doesn't expand by itself? It's always a country that asks to join so that Russia can't attack it, not the other way round. NATO is not going around asking new countries to join. On the contrary: Ukraine already asked before the war and was rejected.

(Not to mention the absurdity of this argument when you consider why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.)

Not sure how you came to the idea that supporting Ukraine militarily has been decided undemocratically...

Every European nation can and has made their own decision on this matter. Spain, Portugal, Italy, some Balkan countries have contributed a lot less. Hungary, who are in NATO, have almost contributed zilch.

Thinking that de-escalating the war as-is giving Russia the strategic victory is a very dangerous thought. This will destabilize the Northern and Eastern parts of Europe, which we definitely can not let happen.

What was undemocratic about the decisions to support Ukraine?

To my knowledge, these things are never put forward as an election topic or referendum. There is no discussion with citizens, it's always a fait accompli, we have to do it for national security sort of thing.

The blowback is not discussed. I am from Czechia, and Russians attacked Vrbětice munition factory, because it supplied Ukraine. That's the reason. But in media it's always portrayed without this context.

FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.

Parties in elections certainly have positions on it and representative democracies tend to work that way.

Btw., there is quite a bit on the 2014 attack in various places.

It shouldn't be a referendum.

Representative democracies are supposed to work this way, a government is elected, and they represent their electorate. If the electorate disagrees with the actions the government took they will be voted out the next election cycle, in between it's in the hands of the elected government to make decisions in these matters.

> FWIW, I am not opposed to humanitarian and economic help to Ukraine. But I don't believe military support will end the war in a good way, whatever it means.

It means Ukraine falling in the hands of Russia, is that a better alternative for the rest of us? Have you considered the Pandora Box this opens up to? Without supporting Ukraine militarily they will be defeated, Russia will get a large border with Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Moldova.

And more people to use against other countries, because for sure they would enlist every able bodied Ukrainian by keeping their family hostage. They've done this since day #1 in the occupied parts of Ukraine.

I don't thing this decision was done without population support. We also don't supply the Ukraine to win. We just don't want the Ukraine to fall, because we think we are next.

Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Russia, based on our own decision (not as a defensive measure). This vigilantism (even if it can be argued is employed to protect international law) goes against the idea that we're a peaceful country.

There is no consensus about Russia attacking Czechia (or any EU country) next. In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine.

It's also unclear why, if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it. And to the extent he has reasonable goals, we can put something tangible on the negotiation table to see what he really wants, instead of guessing. We (I mean NATO) didn't - this indicates it's us who doesn't want to negotiate; because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference (Ukraine is already being described as a great next investment).

We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war.

> In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine.

Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying.

> if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it

Internal politics (NS Germany started the expansion when they got bankrupt), being busy in other parts of the world (Middle east), there is not a lack of incentive.

> because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference

We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.

> We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades.

I am curious what are you referring to. I have read some reporting based on BIS reports and Vrbětice is by far the worst incident (2 dead).

> Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war.

As long as you can maintain it, perhaps. But did Putin give us an assurance that he will not escalate to an open war? I am not Putin fan, but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war.

> Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying.

According to quick search, Germans during WW2 had >600k troops in Poland maintaining order. Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine.

Even if we accept that today's Russia has similar ambitions to Nazi Germany, and has to be defeated in a similar way, there are two important obstacles to that victory:

- Russia has nuclear weapons, WW2 Germany had not

- Today, there is no USSR helping to fight, which was significant

So it's a non-starter. And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades - not only it is morally abhorrent, but also bad for European security and economy (unlike U.S., we are their neighbor).

> We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.

Yes, but why should Americans care? See my other comments in this thread.

I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. It's a different system, more adhoc, but U.S. maintains significant economic and military power in many parts of the world.

And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries.

> I am curious what are you referring to.

A lot of cyber attacks in the last decades, stuff like WannaCry, Kaspersky..., Navalny, threats to politicians, espionage for example the recent case about Maximillian Krah, Navalny, bombs in packets that were supposed to be in the air while detonating, drone attacks, purposed limitations in gas supply...

I mean now NATO is discussing responses, but these things aren't exactly new and have been going on for years.

> Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine.

As far as I understand it they are still not really using the official army, since they fear that might have consequences about the stability of the regime.

Also there is an asymmetry as we care about a nation as it's people, but the Russian leadership (it's not only Putin) doesn't feel like that. Troop loss isn't more to them than a number and they have a wast population that they are willing to burn for there own goals.

Ukraine was really underestimated, but I think we underestimate our military ability. We relied to much on the USA and dissolved our armies thinking there will never be another war.

> And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades

I don't think anybody plans for that.

>> Yes, but why should Americans care?

I don't understand what you want to say, this wasn't about Americans?

> I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true.

The USA are/were the major world power, yes they do have influence among the world. But the Israel/Gaza issue is mostly caused by having nationalists on BOTH sides. The other nations on the world also have agency.

> And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries.

Russia wasn't exactly uninvolved either, but I don't see how Ukraine is that much comparable and EU countries investing in the military is very much the agency of ourselves.

> but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war.

This always assumes that Putin has issues that are orthogonal to the war that we can just negotiate. What I perceive to be the case is that they just want territory expansion and control over the run away states of the USSR. The war isn't just a necessary nuisance and a means to the goal, but the goal itself.

I think if Europe was actually at war with Russia, Moscow would have been reduced to rubble.

They talk a big game, but their economy is smaller than Italy's!

There are thousands of nuclear weapons that cannot be stopped in play. NATO is actually behind in missile capabilities. That leaders are not frantically negotiating a settlement makes me wonder if the survival of their constituents is not a goal.

With a huge nuclear arsenal. So I doubt Moscow would be reduced to rubble, unless everything else was too.

It is very likely that there is no working nuclear arsenal.

It's very likely that some of it doesn't work. Maybe even a lot. But I would not care to test how much in a war!

So you will do anything, trade away everything, and capitulate at the slighted provocation to avoid the faintest possibility of war?

If not, where do you draw the line?

Because this isn’t the first time this has been analyzed, and the math is clear: the only winning strategy with terrorists not negotiate under any circumstances. You call their bluff, and you make known that you will always call their bluff in the future, and never back down. Do anything else and the terrorist can manipulate you into anything they want.

No, I certainly would not. You make a lot of assumptions.

However, the idea that a conventional force would obliterate the capital of a nuclear armed power without escalating into full-on nuclear war seems unlikely to me.

I live in a nuclear armed country too.

Exactly. The size of the Russian arsenal is such that - even if 80% of it is broken and entirely useless - it still has about twice as many warheads than the two European nuclear powers, France and the UK, combined.

This is a ridiculous statement

It is an informed statement. The Russian military had ALWAYS operated on grift and cronyism, all the way back to the napoleonic wars. When shit hits the fan, as in Crimea, WW1, WW2, and Ukraine, it turns out all those paper capabilities don’t exist. Even in the height of the Cold War, ICBM silos in Russia were often flooded and inoperable.

Nuclear weapons are extremely sensitive and maintenance heavy devices. They have parts that need to be regularly checked and replaced or else the bomb will fissile. These parts are EXTREMELY precise and very high purity. The rockets have similar needs or else the engine will as likely blow up on launch.

Maintenance cycles are on the order of 10-15 years. We are now 35 years out from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the nuclear and space industries have experienced massive brain drain and almost complete elimination of operational and maintenance budgets.

The likelihood that these strategic weapon systems have been adequately maintained is indistinguishable from zero.

Russia has its own satellite network, its own rockets, the most advance missiles in the world (and demonstrated usage), has continually bombed Kiev and other parts of Ukraine .. but sure, let's listen to you spout your detached-from-reality comments about nuclear war.

Contrast this with many "advanced" nations such as UK, EU, Australia etc. that can't even get a rocket into space. There was a period recently where the US was relying on Soyuz rockets to get into space.

Civilian rockets and military/strategic rockets are not even remotely similar. Totally different technology driven by vastly different needs. Russia hasn’t had a technological edge in military rocketry since the 1950’s.

I believe they used a hypersonic missile before the US has fielded theirs?

No, that's wrong.

The Kinzhal is just a normal ballistic missile. If it is "hypersonic", so were the missiles the US has sitting in bunkers.

China has the first real "hypersonic" weapon.

Besides, Russia's super awesome hypersonic missile that will totally kill the west is regularly intercepted by the Patriot platform. Because it's just a normal ballistic missile, which is what the Patriot is designed to intercept.

I was referring to the Oreshnik, not the Kinzhal. But I'm no missile expert.

All long and medium range rockets are hypersonic, simply by virtue of falling from space fast enough. From any country. So the "reached speed" metric is kinda pointless. Lately people tend to call rockets hypersonic is they can be controlled at the hypersonic flight stage. Oreshnic is an old ballistic missile, whose only innovation is removing third stage from an existing rocket, and can't be controlled with precision. This is why there was no significant damage and hits were all over the place with hundreds of meters of error. It is 80 million dollar equivalent of a single Smerch or Uragan shot, which is a pretty dumb and useless idea, considering price and complexity of a rocket.

>the most advance missiles in the world

Uh, by what metric?

>has continually bombed Kiev and other parts of Ukraine

Yeah, with primarily low sophistication weapons invented by a country that has to build everything from scratch in bunkers. This is only possible because Ukraine does not have much in terms of anti-air missile systems and cannot police its airspace.

Meanwhile, Kyiv is giving back plenty of half-assed weapons systems, including multiple jury-rigged light sport aircraft that Russia was unable to keep out of their airspace.

Both combatants are basically children playing with toys right now.

>There was a period recently where the US was relying on Soyuz rockets to get into space.

At no point was the US relying on Soyuz rockets to "get to space". The entire time the US was using Soyuz to ferry astronauts to the collaborative space station we were launching unmanned payloads with multiple launch vehicles, and the military has at no point lost the ability to put payloads into orbit.

Meanwhile in Russia:

>Despite the Russian claims that the missile is on 'combat alert', since its 2022 flight test, it [Sarmat] has experienced four failed tests, the most recent on 21 September 2024.

Russia is not the Soviet Union.

In terms of their nuclear vehicles, I'd bet on enough of them working to be a deterrent, but there's lots of open questions about what percentage. Russia has been running even their Rocket Force on a remarkably small budget compared to the number of warheads they are supporting. Unless they have magical efficiency, they are likely skimping somewhere, and in a military rife with outright fraud and every step of the chain pocketing money that is supposed to be used for procurement, why should we believe the Rocket Force is free of that behavior?

Russia couldn't even bomb Kyiv reliably, before buying a drone manufacturing line from Iran, of all places. The sanctioned to the gills Iran apparently can produce a flying junker with a gas prop and a 100 kilos of explosives strapped to a planer, while Russia can't. This can tell us something. Russia can't even produce trucks from which to launch these drones, they are all western made on official photos.

While all of this is true, all it takes is literally one nuke that works.

It takes a lot more than one nuke that works. They would need hundreds of strikes, probably thousands to ensure they aren’t immediately annihilated in response. There is a game theory to nuclear warfare, and dropping one city buster on a nuclear armed adversary is the sovereign equivalent of suicide-by-cop.

If this is the case, do France and the UK even have a nuclear deterrent? They have just over 500 weapons total between them - is there any chance that they are able to “ensure that they aren’t immediately anihalated” by a Russian response?

Probably not. But we do not have a first strike doctrine. There is enough to ensure that attacking us would be a very, very bad idea.

Uh yes?

For reference, that number of nuclear weapons is where China decided to draw the line as a nuclear deterrence against the US until recently.

A hundred modern nuclear weapons is plenty to fucking ruin a country, but no, it doesn't not take "just one". Most western countries would survive say, a smuggled terrorist nuke (or 4) just fine. Angry and mourning, but fine.

France alone has enough deterrent in their nuclear weapons. The UK has theirs in submarines, to ensure even if you magically erased the entire British Islands, you still take tens of nukes up the ass.

Nuclear deterrence is not complicated, and it's pretty well understood in public. I don't know why so many people here are so wildly off base.

Meanwhile, all this was always intended to be roughly "backup" to the US's absurd stockpile, including tons of literal gravity drop nukes so we can cosplay Dr Strangelove as the world ends. And the ending of the IRBM treaty means the US has recently told our defense industry that it gets to play with the cool rockets again.

France has a nuclear arsenal as well, making Moscow's kind of useless unless they want to provoke retaliation.

France has about 290 nuclear missiles in its arsenal compared to Russia's ~5500. This is an order of magnitude of difference.

Could you please come back to reality?

It really doesn't matter if you could cause 10x apocalypse or 100x apocalypse. At some point it just becomes a dick measuring contest.

Only two are needed to end Russia as it exists today, that's the reality of nuclear threats.

I sincerely hope one day military support will be denied to you, wherever you live. What a brainwashed cabbage... "escalate into a war"(c) - this is a blatant 100% lie, with no ifs or buts, just a plain lie. There was zero military aid to Ukraine before the invasion.

They also are saying West should deescalate by stopping support of Ukraine. Basically to force then to surrender. Likely they missed modern history class, especially "peace for our lifetime" lesson.

I'm not sure they are brainwashed, they could be a salaried russian who has task to spread RT narratives.

Then USA shouldn't send arms and troops to Europe to fight Hitler. It also wasn't democratic decision.

Not providing military support will actually bring a war to Europe much faster. If Ukraine surrenders Baltic states are next to be annexed by russians.

> I oppose the military support to Ukraine.

That makes you a russia supporter in my book.

He admits he is in Czechia, which is coincidentally one of the three biggest spots for Russian emigration inside EU. Maybe even the biggest, if counted as a percentage of total population. No wonder there are a lot of imperialists there, he may be a Russian citizen himself, pining for the "spheres of influence" and "bipolar world".