• pimento64
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah we’ve already tried shit like that 20 or 30 times, we do eventually learn our lesson.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering they’re arguably even worse than Putin, we probably don’t want them to actually have a chance at being successful, it’s just that any forces Russia has to use to stop them are forces they aren’t using in Ukraine. Giving them funding would be a seriously bad move.

    • Jumper775@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Biden funds them Biden funds a direct attack on Russia, due to the increased pressure Russia will take that as an attack from the US and will escalate. We want to deescalate everything we can because we don’t know if putin will use his nukes, and if he does the world ends. Putin will not win a war with the us though, so he may not care about the end of the world.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every near nuclear war has been averted by Russian officers. The dude on the sub near Cuba and the other dude who realised that the USA hadn’t launched nukes, it was their computer system falsely alerting.

        100% success rate so far!

        • Jumper775@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure so far, but a direct order from Putin directly after killing the last man who crossed him? If it came to it he would launch everything he’s got because anything not launched gets destroyed by mutually assured destruction, so every single Russian officer would have to refuse to launch. And it only takes one launch to be devastating and trigger a complete reaction from the US as our anti-Russian propaganda is still strong.

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I doubt propaganda has any bearing on the choice to react. Because you know at that point it is shooting back?

            • Jumper775@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              While it is shooting back, it’s also the end of the world. It’s very possible the people would not fire back and instead just let America die for the sake of the world. The propaganda makes them feel like they are “just shooting back” and they will.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        nukes were never on the table. putin’s goal number one is holding power in russia, and it’s no fun when it’s all shiny glass or when you’re dead. the reason behind invasion? believe it or not, also holding more power within russia. over two decades of putin’s presidency, he carefully molded his electoral base to consist of nationalists, and every time he invaded another country his ratings went up (2008, georgia, 2014, donbas, 2022, ukraine, at least initially) because even if your elections are faked, you need it to be believable and you need to have some real support. that’s even how he got presidency in the first place, by initiating second chechen war

        in this situation, what options putin does have?

        • he can’t sue for peace right now, or deescalate in a big way, because his electoral base will see this as a sign of weakness and move on to another rabid nationalist
        • he can’t escalate, because he has little to escalate with, in terms of (modern) equipment and (mobilized) manpower. mobilization is an unacceptable political risk, additionally, he runs a risk of corresponding western escalation, with west is much more capable of, and would consist of equipment only, which is much less politically risky
        • he can’t use nukes, because there’s already nuclear bunker buster with his name somewhere in the midwest and he probably wants it to stay there

        the only survivable option for putin seems to keep intensity at this level or lower, try to limit western aid, and try to slowly grind through to whatever propaganda objective he wants. remember all these russian threats, that if west provides whatever equipment, they will use nuukes! it seems that everyone called bluff on this one, multiple times. conversely, the more favourable scenario for ukraine is escalation. more info here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4 https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4