It is puzzling why UK is risking its national security over Ukraine. UK is a small geographical area and all of it will be pulverized in a nuclear exchange.
It would be entertaining if Milei stirs up Falklands dispute and Russia arms him with hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The French betrayed Argentina by sharing Exocet disabling codes with the British. Russians won't.
someone has to be first...of all the countries involved, uk and france are the best positioned for this...falklands talk is just a plain distraction, on the other hand sub-saharan coups + new caledonia uprising are real suspicious with russia/china involvement
There is surely a lesson to be learnt from history. The UK offered certain assurances to Poland before WWII then backed off when it realised that the heat was too much.
In the UK's defense, 2 days after Germany's invasion of Poland, the UK declared war on Germany and started a blockade against Germany (which persisted till 1945). The next day, the UK bombed German warships in German harbors.
This has been debunked. The French and English did not intervene in force because Poland fell unexpectedly fast. If Ukraine had fallen in a matter of days, there also would not have been Western help.
Your focus is wrong. Poland made a number of political decisions based on British advice and promises. That the British and French couldn't lend a hand in time, is beside the point.
I am not convinced that Putin would risk using nuclear weapons and the language is short of that. Using them once becomes pretty much a one way street for much of the world. Also remember that even without nuclear UK is part of NATO and other members are obliged to respond to an attack on another member state.
OTOH, if history is any guide, contracts may not be worth their paper if survival is at stake. It is an open question if the US or the French will risk losing half of their population and most of their cities over UK.
The invasion of Ukraine was in fear of them joining NATO. If any country reneged on the agreement it would suddenly itself become more vulnerable. The USA under Trump may decide to become further isolationist and leave but that is more internal politics than good sense.
Finland or others will have something to say about it if they take any short route. But the long routes or high routes are very limited to mainly ICBMs. Not even intermediate ranges.
I legit don't see them doing this, making the threat hollow at best.
This has been stated many times and forms a unified strategic concept. So far, Russia has not done that, despite foreign weapons used in deep strikes.
This is precisely the same concept that Israel uses to strike four other sovereign countries (in addition targeting diplomatic and civilian structures) without declaring war, albeit, nobody is really striking Israel the way that UK/US is planning for Russia. Israel's military doctrine in that case is total all out nuclear war (check it).
US has been fighting proxy wars just as much if not more as the other guy. They bombed countries for less than someone striking their territory. Even destroyed several countries which had nothing to do with it.
So, what I do want to know, how is this solving anything, and who is there to benefit from this strategy (of total escalation)?
The question is not if he is an easy killing target, the question is, how long is the queue of similarly minded citizens, you would have to join...it can get boring.
Russia uses drones and mercenaries supplied to Russia by other countries. While nuclear war is an ongoing danger, the world cannot allow itself to be held hostage by the likes of Putin.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] threadIt would be entertaining if Milei stirs up Falklands dispute and Russia arms him with hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The French betrayed Argentina by sharing Exocet disabling codes with the British. Russians won't.
OTOH, if history is any guide, contracts may not be worth their paper if survival is at stake. It is an open question if the US or the French will risk losing half of their population and most of their cities over UK.
But it's not the real reason, of course.
As evidenced by Putin's countless bombastic speeches on the topic (and the simple vacuousness of the claimed NATO threat).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Karaganov#Karaganov_Doc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Russian_chauvinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Russian_nation
When Putin speaks of "The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" -- this is what he's alluding to.
Finland or others will have something to say about it if they take any short route. But the long routes or high routes are very limited to mainly ICBMs. Not even intermediate ranges.
I legit don't see them doing this, making the threat hollow at best.
This is precisely the same concept that Israel uses to strike four other sovereign countries (in addition targeting diplomatic and civilian structures) without declaring war, albeit, nobody is really striking Israel the way that UK/US is planning for Russia. Israel's military doctrine in that case is total all out nuclear war (check it).
US has been fighting proxy wars just as much if not more as the other guy. They bombed countries for less than someone striking their territory. Even destroyed several countries which had nothing to do with it.
So, what I do want to know, how is this solving anything, and who is there to benefit from this strategy (of total escalation)?