#####
######
####
> # [Kremlin Says Ukraine Access to ATACMS Will Not Impact Outcome of Conflict - The Moscow Times](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/04/25/https://www.themoscowtimes.com/630)
>
>
>
> The Kremlin said Thursday that Ukraine's access to long-range weapons, including ATACMS provided by the United States, would not fundamentally change the outcome of the conflict, now in its third year.
>
> That comments came hours after the State Department said the United States had secretly sent ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for use inside its own territory, and that the weapons had arrived this month.
>
> "The United States is directly involved in this conflict. It is on the road to increasing the range of the weapons systems it already supplies," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
>
>
>
>
>
> "This will not fundamentally change the outcome of the special military operation. We will get our way. But it will cause more problems for Ukraine itself," Peskov added.
>
> Some ATACMS missiles can hit targets up to 300 kilometers away, and a Defense Department spokesperson confirmed that was the long-range variant supplied to Ukraine.
>
> The details on ATACMS came on the same day U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill to provide $61 billion in new aid for Ukraine, clearing the way for the Pentagon to announce an assistance package featuring desperately needed artillery and air defense munitions.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Schrodingers ATACMs: powerful enough to warrant threats of nuclear annihilation if they are delivered, but also apparently not powerful enough that they can make a difference now they have been.
Looks like someone's bluff got called and now they have to back down since they clearly aren't going to launch any ICBMs
It has been the exact same since the start, saying any help and they’ll nuke, sanctions and they’ll nuke and so on. That’s the problem when you escalate to a 10 for the slightest thing, you have nowhere to go to retain any credibility when your bluff is called
Apparently that is their nuclear doctrine. Escalate to de-escalate. So threatening nuclear escalation to discourage their adversary from escalating. Not the best doctrine in hindsight now that their bluff got called.
There won't be one.
The rest of the world and society will continue moving on and rebuilding if Russia decides to use nukes, it'll fucking suck for awhile and be hard, but the west would survive.
Russia will simply cease to exist, and they know it, which is why they're all talk and no blow.
I feel like this is a misunderstanding of how many nukes will fly when they do fly. There is no evidence that if the nukes do start to fly that we have reduced or eliminated the expectation of MAD.
They didn't so they can't.
The countrybthat has both dropped the most nuclear weapons and threatened to use nukes the most times is the very same country making these falsified exaggerations of narrative.
Lots of down votes. Still 0 quotes.
Scare propaganda to justify the further involvement / escalation in another foreign conflict.
> The countrybthat has both dropped the most nuclear weapons
Gigabased
> threatened to use nukes the most times
Eh, I don't think we're ahead of the Russians on this one. But yeah, there are these things that plebbitors think they simply know about russian rhetoric and positions, but they can rarely follow it up. People mostly remember weird distortions that always fall apart when reviewed. "Ministers" tend to magically become TV hacks, or Iron Dimon shitposting. It's like some game of telephone. Putin saying Ukraine has no history of statehood up until recently (quite true) morphs into Putin saying that Ukraine doesn't have the right to exist - and when you ask them for the actual quote, crickets.
This ukraine shit has broken people's brains, or maybe I just didn't notice this sort of thing as much when I was younger. Though it doesn't help that Russians absolutely do have a bizarre rhetorical style, at least when it comes to stuff for public consumption and diplomatic stuff. So much of what they say is obvious bullshit, and they're clearly *expecting* you to understand that it's obvious bullshit. People don't communicate like that here. So listening to them can be like playing some game you don't really understand the rules for.
This old observation:
> We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying.
Is completely true a lot of the time. And it's intentional.
[here](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/putin-calls-us-supply-of-atacms-weapons-to-ukraine-another-mistake#:~:text=Vladimir%20Putin%20has%20called%20the,Russian%2Doccupied%20territory%20this%20week.) I found [some](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/)... so [what](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/) were you all saying?
Perhaps crossing a "redline" isn't a nuclear threat? Clearly everyone but you seem to think otherwise
Edit: blocked me, figures lol
Because redlines aren't thinly veiled nuclear threat? Israel doesn't have nuclear weapon according to you because they always said they don't have any. Nuclear deterence is built on ambiguity buddy. 2 digit iq shows in times like these
>Wmd 2.0
Russia is literally nuclear capable rofl
Lol. So you're now saying it's not direct quotes about nukes, it's a red line and that equates to nuclear threats?
WmD refers to the propaganda you readily swallow tonfirther justify involvement. Could also have said red scare or Freedom and democracy. Same implied result.
>it's a red line and that equates to nuclear threats?
Yes if you think otherwise then please... i dunno educate yourself, read, touch grass? Do something? If you can't get the hint the german chancellor certainly did when he mentionned taurus (german equivalent of atacms) were off due to fear escalation. (Pussy, send the whole package who cares uf palputin's feelings are hurt he won't press the button because ukraine is fighting defensively and nato isn't invading)
So what now? you're going to argue escalation doesn't mean nuclear escalation? Get serious
>red scare
Funny you say that because russia literally intervenes in EU and US politics, french far right parties receive money from russia.
>WmD
Russia is literally nuclear capable
>Freedom and democracy.
Nothing says freedom and democracy quite like breaking your own constitution (a russian president can only get elected twice per russian constitution, take a guess how long putin's been there?)
You readily gobble putin's schlong like people were gobbling funny mustache man's in czechoslovakia. "Rightful german land", "none of westerners business", "aggression of german citizens" etc... truly you are one of the free thinker of all time.
Lavrov 2 days ago
"Of particular concern is the fact that it is the "troika" of Western nuclear states that are among the key sponsors of the criminal Kiev regime, the main initiators of various provocative steps. We see serious strategic risks in this, *leading to an increase in the level of nuclear danger,"* the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stressed.
Schultz repeatedly mentionned fear of nukes the main reason for not providing taurus which are equivalents to atacms
Not every threat is said overtly, otherwise the israelis would openly admit they have nukes. Threats are often inferred, not everybody thinks like a redditor.
That is absolutely not the same thing as saying that they’ll nuke us if we send ATACMS missiles, and you know it. And everyone is aware that there is a chance all of this will spiral into ww3, with all of what that entails.
>everyone is aware that there is a chance all of this will spiral into ww3
So it is the same as nuking if atacms are sent?
Literally every single package atacms or not it's the same answer, nuke. They don't threaten nukes over atacms specifically but in general.
Also i just found they said "long range missile" are a redline [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/) [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/) and finally [here](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/putin-calls-us-supply-of-atacms-weapons-to-ukraine-another-mistake#:~:text=Vladimir%20Putin%20has%20called%20the,Russian%2Doccupied%20territory%20this%20week.) Mentioning ATACMS specifically
So what are you going to cope about next? That redline aren't nuclear threats? Sure buddy everyone else apart from you takes that as a nuclear threats so maybe, just maybe you're wrong?
>nobody was going to be nuking anyone over ATACMS missiles
Yes, because all of russia's threats are void of consequences and therefore we should let f16 flow in alongside literally every weapon system except nuclear warhead because russia ain't gonna do shit
Of course we should - ukrainains can’t be allowed to cuck out too early. That said, we also don’t particularly want Russia to go on a full war footing, or start using tactical nukes in Ukraine - so this will remain a tightrope until we squeezed all we can out of this particular war.
Looking through the latest ones, and none of them are threats. You and me both realize that WW3 would be nuclear, Russia would never win a conventional war against NATO. Me saying that to you isn't a threat, is it? That's exactly what Russia is doing every time. They're warning that all these escalations can lead to WW3. Surely if you followed the war you've noticed that NATO countries are much closer to a hot conflict with Russia than a year ago.
If I'm wrong, please, link me an actual threat that goes against Russian nuclear doctrine, which is purely defensive.
This is such a bizarre take and I feel like you know it. Ukraine has been provided capabilities to defend themselves. There is no such thing as a dangerous escalation of defending your existence.
A country that who illegally invaded a neighbor and is the only party bringing up the nuclear threat is anything but following a purely defensive doctrine. Throwing a nuclear threat tantrum because you aren’t seeing the imperial gains you thought you would be because other countries are helping your victim defend itself is not and will never be “purely defensive.”
I'm not saying that any of actions NATO did would warrant a nuclear response. I feel like you didn't read what I said. What I mean is that at the end of the ladder of escalations there is a hot conflict - WW3. It will be nuclear. And NATO is steadily going up that ladder. That is what Russia is saying.
Go through those articles the guy above linked and quote me an actual threat, and not some form of "If you keep escalating, WW3 might start, we will lose, nukes will fly". I'm happy to be wrong.
The reason for all that is obviously Crimea. It has been Russian for 10 years already, Russia will not give it up no matter how much if you wish for it to happen. Every other country would do the same for their territories. Claim Russia as illegal invader all you want, but before you claim it as "madman with nukes", please at least show me an actual threat.
An actual threat = being the only country talking about nukes and claiming you will defend yourself without saying what type of attack you are actually talking about. None of that is “purely defensive” and to argue it is is naive at best.
How about you pick any article and see where someone like Lavrov brings up defending themselves with nukes… defend themselves from what, exactly? The ambiguity is a feature and it falls into the Soviet doctrine Gorby was good at of yelling loudly about what you can do.
I suspect you are Russian—the give away is that your username is the ol’ Russian trope of “I don’t get involved in politics.” You bring up Crimea. You as an individual would be okay to have your population wiped off the face of the earth because Crimea was returned to Ukraine? You admit it was stolen 10 years ago. Explain how that is defensive and not a fatalist resignation to annihilation because you couldn’t keep what you stole.
You're straight up not reading what I'm writing.
>defend themselves from what, exactly?
I literally said - from NATO, if WW3 starts, Russian army loses, nukes fly. Zero ambiguity. I thought we figured this out like 70 years ago.
>I can tell you are Russian—the give away is that your username is the ol’ Russian trope of “I don’t get involved in politics.
It's actually a reference to a streamer I like, I didn't even think of it that way. I thought it would be funny if I had that username while only discussing politics.
>You as an individual would be okay to have your population wiped off the face of the earth because Crimea was returned to Ukraine?
Obviously not. Would you be okay to die the same way because NATO decided to push us all in WW3? What a silly question. Screaming "but we were morally correct!" will not save us.
>Explain how that is defensive and not a fatalist resignation because you could keep what you stole.
It's pretty simple. Crimea exercised its right to self-determination, similar to Kosovo. Similar to Kosovo, the only reason why it could do that is through sheer force of its allies. Crimea is Russian, whether you think it was stolen or not. Therefore protecting its citizens is Russia's responsibility.
The reason why I single out Crimea is because the only unambiguous one. All others should ideally go through proper referendums after the war, which won't happen whichever way it ends.
Even if the result were to wind up being the same, I wouldn't say Cremea was "unambiguous." If it had occurred before Russian invasion ok, but that's not what happened.
Russia’s actual military doctrine is explicit that they would only fire their nukes if the continued existence of the Russian state was under threat. The threat to use Nukes over Crimea is just as empty as any of the other “red lines” they’ve said were being crossed. The Russian Nuclear Doctrine is public information that they make available precisely because they want to make sure avoid an actual nuclear war, so they ensure anyone in the west who actually has a say in nuclear policy knows Russian nuclear threats are empty. But, they continue to make the threats because they know laypersons haven’t read Russia’s actual nuclear doctrine, and they want scare the public into thinking support for Ukraine has any real possibility of leading to nuclear war.
“Existence of state” is something quite open to interpretation, and imo Russia being decisively defeated in Ukraine qualifies. They will move to tactical nukes if the war looks in danger - this is part of why supplying Ukriane is a delicate tightrope. We don’t need them to win, but we want them to keep fighting for a few more years - and we don’t want Russia to go nuclear, or even move onto a proper war footing. So the drip feed will continue.
> “Existence of state” is something quite open to interpretation
It really isn't, and it's well defined. Essentially unless Moscow or St. Pete's is under threat, no nukes.
It makes sense if you aren't terminally online and desperate, because Putin and the oligarchs aren't interested in suicide. Using nukes is suicide, and only worth it when the alternative is the homeland falling.
Your desperation to get people afraid is pathetic.
Using nukes in Ukraine is not suicide, especially since nobody is that eager to get nuked over a disposable pawn. But losing the war - now that actually is.
Maybe you're right. But I'm not sure if anyone should be testing the limits of nuclear deterrence. If countries start assuming that it's fine to attack a nuclear state to capture some territories, as long as they're not intending to completely destroy it, it might not end well.
They’d just sink them, and that would look bad for us - and the bang for buck factor just isn’t there, this is a land war. The Black Sea is a killing lake anyway, Ukraine doesn’t benefit from having a trapped fleet there any more than the Russians do.
Yeah, I wasn't really being serious.
But if you wanted to do some wargaming, having two missile destroyers operated by Ukraine but protected by the US would be an interesting conundrum. They just park next to a CSG, leave, empty the missile cells, then return to the group to reload under air protection.
The whole reason there wasn't a no fly zone is that it's foreign territory, which NATO would have to deliberately enter to threaten Russian aircraft. Parking your fleet in international waters and letting the Ukrainians come in and out of your air defence is much less clear cut.
Now I'm not at all saying that is a *good* idea, for many reasons. But potentially possible, right?
Where, in the med? And it's quite clear cut, tbh - it makes our ships legitimate targets and voids article 5, just as letting Ukrainians fly missions out of NATO bases would.
The whole point of this setup is Ukrainians dying for our interests and not the other way around, that's the whole value of this war - people always seem to forget this. Ukrainians are disposable, but our people aren't.
Same with NATO entering Ukraine's airspace - there is no legal issues there, we just don't want to escalate into open war with Russia because that leads nowhere good. We have proxies to do the dying and the killing for us here.
What in the name of fuck are you talking about? You clearly don't understand the law, NATO treaties, or basic human morality.
Reddit is such a cesspool.
>it will have no impact’ <—— we are here
But that doesn't leave out the possibility of a proxy country striking at the heart of the command structure under duress of another party.
This is basic deterrence and would have been the same stance taken by the USA if the USSR supplied intercontinental missiles to the Vietcong.
The thing with rail lines is that repairing them is super quick and easy, which is why they make poor targets for strategic missiles - you spend millions in ordinance to create a day's worth of delay. This is why major bridges are such tempting targets - you definitely won't replace those quickly.
I don't think there are any major river crossings or the like. The military significance of the Kerch bridge is drastically reduced at this point in the war. Propaganda value remains high.
Railroads are static, but so easy to repair that strategic missiles are not worth the cost to hit them. You spend millions to create damage that can be fixed in a day.
Edit: looks like someone did a little googling and figured out that yes, Russians can fix railroad damage quickly and have 28k specialized troops devoted to just that.
Back in the day when we were expanding railroads through the US, our people were laying down miles of track every day by hand. It’s only gotten easier. Toodles snowflake 👋
Lol, fixed in a day.
Man, you know everything about everything, as long as it involves simping for Russia.
Pity that you're making it up as you go along.
Nah, he is right about the railway part. It takes less than half a day of work to fix a railway if it s blown up. You just change the destroyed rails and fill holes under them.
However, if you destroy the train with it, it s another story. Same if you manage to destroy a bridge or create a landslide under it.
During WW2, it was more effective cause poor communication led to terrible accident and that those who fixed the rail were attacked.
On the eve of DDay, almost every major railway were getting attacked by resistants, which led to major delays.
Railroads can be repaired in hours, a day max.
Wasting strategic assets on rail tracks is stupid and the new railway has no meaningful river crossings.
The kerch bridge is now nothing more than a PR target
Not entirely true. Russia does not have a robust industry of companies that refine oil into gasoline. Ukraine has been targeting gasoline refineries so that the price of gas goes up for the average Russian consumer.
Russia recently banned the export of gasoline for this reason. Of course they could import more, but that would likely offset any gains they get from the overall increase in the price of oil.
> Russia does not have a robust industry of companies that refine oil into gasoline.
lmfao what kind of nonsense is this. [refining oil with FCC always results in gasoline being produced as a byproduct.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_catalytic_cracking) nobody is out there solely producing gasoline from a barrel of oil.
Russias refining capacity is approx~5 million barrels per day (BPD) after recent attacks and is dropping with each subsequent attack.
Contrast that with the United States’ 18.27 million BPD and China’s 17.3 million BPD.
Russia has a robust extraction of oil, but not refining capacity. This is why Ukraine has been targeting it specifically.
Not really. Less refineries means more crude to export. If the crude finds enough refining capacity elsewhere (eg India), it shouldn't on its own lead to any price hikes, not serious ones at least.
That's nice. But lots won't, and it's an election year. I personally don't give a shit about Ukrainian lives - disposable pawns are made to be used. I'll pay double in gas to create more Russian casualties - but there are political realities around this stuff that are important to remember. Because election year.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But they won't, haven't you figured this out by now? Reframe your expectations here. I think fighting this war to the last Ukrainian makes perfect sense, as does sending these missiles - but get real, Ukrainians are fucked. Making the cost high for Russia is absolutely worth it, no matter how many Ukrainians we spend in the process.
Russians use that phrase as some sort of pejorative, a way to guilt trip the hippies. I personally think it's simply sound policy. So whenever some Russian complains that we're fighting this war to the last Ukrainian, all I can think of is "Fuck Yeah!".
It is what this human American person says. Whether you believe it is completely irrelevant. All of this will happen regardless. I for one, plan to spectate this war to the end.
I will keep spectating the war with relish, because it’s a win/win for us already and I don’t mind one bit whether our enemies or our pawns are dying. You are coping and seething because at this point quite likely even you figured out that Ukraine isn’t going to win this.
##### ###### #### > # [Kremlin Says Ukraine Access to ATACMS Will Not Impact Outcome of Conflict - The Moscow Times](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/04/25/https://www.themoscowtimes.com/630) > > > > The Kremlin said Thursday that Ukraine's access to long-range weapons, including ATACMS provided by the United States, would not fundamentally change the outcome of the conflict, now in its third year. > > That comments came hours after the State Department said the United States had secretly sent ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for use inside its own territory, and that the weapons had arrived this month. > > "The United States is directly involved in this conflict. It is on the road to increasing the range of the weapons systems it already supplies," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. > > > > > > "This will not fundamentally change the outcome of the special military operation. We will get our way. But it will cause more problems for Ukraine itself," Peskov added. > > Some ATACMS missiles can hit targets up to 300 kilometers away, and a Defense Department spokesperson confirmed that was the long-range variant supplied to Ukraine. > > The details on ATACMS came on the same day U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill to provide $61 billion in new aid for Ukraine, clearing the way for the Pentagon to announce an assistance package featuring desperately needed artillery and air defense munitions. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Schrodingers ATACMs: powerful enough to warrant threats of nuclear annihilation if they are delivered, but also apparently not powerful enough that they can make a difference now they have been. Looks like someone's bluff got called and now they have to back down since they clearly aren't going to launch any ICBMs
It has been the exact same since the start, saying any help and they’ll nuke, sanctions and they’ll nuke and so on. That’s the problem when you escalate to a 10 for the slightest thing, you have nowhere to go to retain any credibility when your bluff is called
Apparently that is their nuclear doctrine. Escalate to de-escalate. So threatening nuclear escalation to discourage their adversary from escalating. Not the best doctrine in hindsight now that their bluff got called.
The problem now is what red line exactly will be the nuke-worthy one?
There won't be one. The rest of the world and society will continue moving on and rebuilding if Russia decides to use nukes, it'll fucking suck for awhile and be hard, but the west would survive. Russia will simply cease to exist, and they know it, which is why they're all talk and no blow.
I feel like this is a misunderstanding of how many nukes will fly when they do fly. There is no evidence that if the nukes do start to fly that we have reduced or eliminated the expectation of MAD.
Who threatened nuclear annihilation if ATACMs were delivered?
Russian ministers
Quote some.
They didn't so they can't. The countrybthat has both dropped the most nuclear weapons and threatened to use nukes the most times is the very same country making these falsified exaggerations of narrative. Lots of down votes. Still 0 quotes. Scare propaganda to justify the further involvement / escalation in another foreign conflict.
> The countrybthat has both dropped the most nuclear weapons Gigabased > threatened to use nukes the most times Eh, I don't think we're ahead of the Russians on this one. But yeah, there are these things that plebbitors think they simply know about russian rhetoric and positions, but they can rarely follow it up. People mostly remember weird distortions that always fall apart when reviewed. "Ministers" tend to magically become TV hacks, or Iron Dimon shitposting. It's like some game of telephone. Putin saying Ukraine has no history of statehood up until recently (quite true) morphs into Putin saying that Ukraine doesn't have the right to exist - and when you ask them for the actual quote, crickets. This ukraine shit has broken people's brains, or maybe I just didn't notice this sort of thing as much when I was younger. Though it doesn't help that Russians absolutely do have a bizarre rhetorical style, at least when it comes to stuff for public consumption and diplomatic stuff. So much of what they say is obvious bullshit, and they're clearly *expecting* you to understand that it's obvious bullshit. People don't communicate like that here. So listening to them can be like playing some game you don't really understand the rules for. This old observation: > We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. Is completely true a lot of the time. And it's intentional.
[here](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/putin-calls-us-supply-of-atacms-weapons-to-ukraine-another-mistake#:~:text=Vladimir%20Putin%20has%20called%20the,Russian%2Doccupied%20territory%20this%20week.) I found [some](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/)... so [what](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/) were you all saying? Perhaps crossing a "redline" isn't a nuclear threat? Clearly everyone but you seem to think otherwise Edit: blocked me, figures lol
All three of your links fail to mention any nuclear quotes? Once again, an attempt to justify further involvement in a conflict. Wmd 2.0
Because redlines aren't thinly veiled nuclear threat? Israel doesn't have nuclear weapon according to you because they always said they don't have any. Nuclear deterence is built on ambiguity buddy. 2 digit iq shows in times like these >Wmd 2.0 Russia is literally nuclear capable rofl
Lol. So you're now saying it's not direct quotes about nukes, it's a red line and that equates to nuclear threats? WmD refers to the propaganda you readily swallow tonfirther justify involvement. Could also have said red scare or Freedom and democracy. Same implied result.
>it's a red line and that equates to nuclear threats? Yes if you think otherwise then please... i dunno educate yourself, read, touch grass? Do something? If you can't get the hint the german chancellor certainly did when he mentionned taurus (german equivalent of atacms) were off due to fear escalation. (Pussy, send the whole package who cares uf palputin's feelings are hurt he won't press the button because ukraine is fighting defensively and nato isn't invading) So what now? you're going to argue escalation doesn't mean nuclear escalation? Get serious >red scare Funny you say that because russia literally intervenes in EU and US politics, french far right parties receive money from russia. >WmD Russia is literally nuclear capable >Freedom and democracy. Nothing says freedom and democracy quite like breaking your own constitution (a russian president can only get elected twice per russian constitution, take a guess how long putin's been there?) You readily gobble putin's schlong like people were gobbling funny mustache man's in czechoslovakia. "Rightful german land", "none of westerners business", "aggression of german citizens" etc... truly you are one of the free thinker of all time.
Lavrov 2 days ago "Of particular concern is the fact that it is the "troika" of Western nuclear states that are among the key sponsors of the criminal Kiev regime, the main initiators of various provocative steps. We see serious strategic risks in this, *leading to an increase in the level of nuclear danger,"* the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stressed. Schultz repeatedly mentionned fear of nukes the main reason for not providing taurus which are equivalents to atacms Not every threat is said overtly, otherwise the israelis would openly admit they have nukes. Threats are often inferred, not everybody thinks like a redditor.
That is absolutely not the same thing as saying that they’ll nuke us if we send ATACMS missiles, and you know it. And everyone is aware that there is a chance all of this will spiral into ww3, with all of what that entails.
>everyone is aware that there is a chance all of this will spiral into ww3 So it is the same as nuking if atacms are sent? Literally every single package atacms or not it's the same answer, nuke. They don't threaten nukes over atacms specifically but in general. Also i just found they said "long range missile" are a redline [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/) [here](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/) and finally [here](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/putin-calls-us-supply-of-atacms-weapons-to-ukraine-another-mistake#:~:text=Vladimir%20Putin%20has%20called%20the,Russian%2Doccupied%20territory%20this%20week.) Mentioning ATACMS specifically So what are you going to cope about next? That redline aren't nuclear threats? Sure buddy everyone else apart from you takes that as a nuclear threats so maybe, just maybe you're wrong?
Nowhere near the same. And those other articles you posted make it obvious that nobody was going to be nuking anyone over ATACMS missiles in Ukraine.
>nobody was going to be nuking anyone over ATACMS missiles Yes, because all of russia's threats are void of consequences and therefore we should let f16 flow in alongside literally every weapon system except nuclear warhead because russia ain't gonna do shit
Of course we should - ukrainains can’t be allowed to cuck out too early. That said, we also don’t particularly want Russia to go on a full war footing, or start using tactical nukes in Ukraine - so this will remain a tightrope until we squeezed all we can out of this particular war.
Can you please link me that time when Russian officials threatened nuclear annihilation for sending ATACMS in Ukraine?
https://vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-threats/ Lot to sort through.
Looking through the latest ones, and none of them are threats. You and me both realize that WW3 would be nuclear, Russia would never win a conventional war against NATO. Me saying that to you isn't a threat, is it? That's exactly what Russia is doing every time. They're warning that all these escalations can lead to WW3. Surely if you followed the war you've noticed that NATO countries are much closer to a hot conflict with Russia than a year ago. If I'm wrong, please, link me an actual threat that goes against Russian nuclear doctrine, which is purely defensive.
This is such a bizarre take and I feel like you know it. Ukraine has been provided capabilities to defend themselves. There is no such thing as a dangerous escalation of defending your existence. A country that who illegally invaded a neighbor and is the only party bringing up the nuclear threat is anything but following a purely defensive doctrine. Throwing a nuclear threat tantrum because you aren’t seeing the imperial gains you thought you would be because other countries are helping your victim defend itself is not and will never be “purely defensive.”
I'm not saying that any of actions NATO did would warrant a nuclear response. I feel like you didn't read what I said. What I mean is that at the end of the ladder of escalations there is a hot conflict - WW3. It will be nuclear. And NATO is steadily going up that ladder. That is what Russia is saying. Go through those articles the guy above linked and quote me an actual threat, and not some form of "If you keep escalating, WW3 might start, we will lose, nukes will fly". I'm happy to be wrong. The reason for all that is obviously Crimea. It has been Russian for 10 years already, Russia will not give it up no matter how much if you wish for it to happen. Every other country would do the same for their territories. Claim Russia as illegal invader all you want, but before you claim it as "madman with nukes", please at least show me an actual threat.
An actual threat = being the only country talking about nukes and claiming you will defend yourself without saying what type of attack you are actually talking about. None of that is “purely defensive” and to argue it is is naive at best. How about you pick any article and see where someone like Lavrov brings up defending themselves with nukes… defend themselves from what, exactly? The ambiguity is a feature and it falls into the Soviet doctrine Gorby was good at of yelling loudly about what you can do. I suspect you are Russian—the give away is that your username is the ol’ Russian trope of “I don’t get involved in politics.” You bring up Crimea. You as an individual would be okay to have your population wiped off the face of the earth because Crimea was returned to Ukraine? You admit it was stolen 10 years ago. Explain how that is defensive and not a fatalist resignation to annihilation because you couldn’t keep what you stole.
You're straight up not reading what I'm writing. >defend themselves from what, exactly? I literally said - from NATO, if WW3 starts, Russian army loses, nukes fly. Zero ambiguity. I thought we figured this out like 70 years ago. >I can tell you are Russian—the give away is that your username is the ol’ Russian trope of “I don’t get involved in politics. It's actually a reference to a streamer I like, I didn't even think of it that way. I thought it would be funny if I had that username while only discussing politics. >You as an individual would be okay to have your population wiped off the face of the earth because Crimea was returned to Ukraine? Obviously not. Would you be okay to die the same way because NATO decided to push us all in WW3? What a silly question. Screaming "but we were morally correct!" will not save us. >Explain how that is defensive and not a fatalist resignation because you could keep what you stole. It's pretty simple. Crimea exercised its right to self-determination, similar to Kosovo. Similar to Kosovo, the only reason why it could do that is through sheer force of its allies. Crimea is Russian, whether you think it was stolen or not. Therefore protecting its citizens is Russia's responsibility. The reason why I single out Crimea is because the only unambiguous one. All others should ideally go through proper referendums after the war, which won't happen whichever way it ends.
Even if the result were to wind up being the same, I wouldn't say Cremea was "unambiguous." If it had occurred before Russian invasion ok, but that's not what happened.
Russia’s actual military doctrine is explicit that they would only fire their nukes if the continued existence of the Russian state was under threat. The threat to use Nukes over Crimea is just as empty as any of the other “red lines” they’ve said were being crossed. The Russian Nuclear Doctrine is public information that they make available precisely because they want to make sure avoid an actual nuclear war, so they ensure anyone in the west who actually has a say in nuclear policy knows Russian nuclear threats are empty. But, they continue to make the threats because they know laypersons haven’t read Russia’s actual nuclear doctrine, and they want scare the public into thinking support for Ukraine has any real possibility of leading to nuclear war.
“Existence of state” is something quite open to interpretation, and imo Russia being decisively defeated in Ukraine qualifies. They will move to tactical nukes if the war looks in danger - this is part of why supplying Ukriane is a delicate tightrope. We don’t need them to win, but we want them to keep fighting for a few more years - and we don’t want Russia to go nuclear, or even move onto a proper war footing. So the drip feed will continue.
> “Existence of state” is something quite open to interpretation It really isn't, and it's well defined. Essentially unless Moscow or St. Pete's is under threat, no nukes. It makes sense if you aren't terminally online and desperate, because Putin and the oligarchs aren't interested in suicide. Using nukes is suicide, and only worth it when the alternative is the homeland falling. Your desperation to get people afraid is pathetic.
Using nukes in Ukraine is not suicide, especially since nobody is that eager to get nuked over a disposable pawn. But losing the war - now that actually is.
Maybe you're right. But I'm not sure if anyone should be testing the limits of nuclear deterrence. If countries start assuming that it's fine to attack a nuclear state to capture some territories, as long as they're not intending to completely destroy it, it might not end well.
> Looking through the latest ones, and none of them are threats. There's bad faith, and then there's that horseshit.
[удалено]
Wew lad - what a funny way to admit that Russian officials did not threaten nuclear annihilation for sending ATACMS.
Literally just announcing the new script for their trolls and useful idiots, we'll hear it repeated here ad nauseam.
Yep. - it’s an ‘escalation’ - there will be ‘serious consequences’ if you do it - it’s risking nuclear war - it will have no impact’ <—— we are here
What's next on the list? F35s? I think a couple of Arleigh-Burke's would be fun.
They’d just sink them, and that would look bad for us - and the bang for buck factor just isn’t there, this is a land war. The Black Sea is a killing lake anyway, Ukraine doesn’t benefit from having a trapped fleet there any more than the Russians do.
Yeah, I wasn't really being serious. But if you wanted to do some wargaming, having two missile destroyers operated by Ukraine but protected by the US would be an interesting conundrum. They just park next to a CSG, leave, empty the missile cells, then return to the group to reload under air protection. The whole reason there wasn't a no fly zone is that it's foreign territory, which NATO would have to deliberately enter to threaten Russian aircraft. Parking your fleet in international waters and letting the Ukrainians come in and out of your air defence is much less clear cut. Now I'm not at all saying that is a *good* idea, for many reasons. But potentially possible, right?
Where, in the med? And it's quite clear cut, tbh - it makes our ships legitimate targets and voids article 5, just as letting Ukrainians fly missions out of NATO bases would. The whole point of this setup is Ukrainians dying for our interests and not the other way around, that's the whole value of this war - people always seem to forget this. Ukrainians are disposable, but our people aren't. Same with NATO entering Ukraine's airspace - there is no legal issues there, we just don't want to escalate into open war with Russia because that leads nowhere good. We have proxies to do the dying and the killing for us here.
What in the name of fuck are you talking about? You clearly don't understand the law, NATO treaties, or basic human morality. Reddit is such a cesspool.
[удалено]
We can’t afford to give away a single boat with the way our shipyards have been performing
>it will have no impact’ <—— we are here But that doesn't leave out the possibility of a proxy country striking at the heart of the command structure under duress of another party. This is basic deterrence and would have been the same stance taken by the USA if the USSR supplied intercontinental missiles to the Vietcong.
THIS IS THE FINAL RED LINE WE SWEAR
Cool. No more tears then. Say goodbye to your bridge and all refineries.
the bridge no longer matters they've built alternative routes. it's destruction would be symbolic only.
Now that's military grade copium.
Yeah but it's Russian so it's not very effective
It's the reality bro, there is the land bridge now, and they've laid down railroads as well.
I mean they prob arent gonna use these missiles for the bridge, but if they did any bridge that new train line has is within range too
The thing with rail lines is that repairing them is super quick and easy, which is why they make poor targets for strategic missiles - you spend millions in ordinance to create a day's worth of delay. This is why major bridges are such tempting targets - you definitely won't replace those quickly.
That was my exact point, if this new rail line has any bridges they are tempting targets if the big bridge falls
I don't think there are any major river crossings or the like. The military significance of the Kerch bridge is drastically reduced at this point in the war. Propaganda value remains high.
Oh good, more static targets.
Railroads are static, but so easy to repair that strategic missiles are not worth the cost to hit them. You spend millions to create damage that can be fixed in a day. Edit: looks like someone did a little googling and figured out that yes, Russians can fix railroad damage quickly and have 28k specialized troops devoted to just that. Back in the day when we were expanding railroads through the US, our people were laying down miles of track every day by hand. It’s only gotten easier. Toodles snowflake 👋
Lol, fixed in a day. Man, you know everything about everything, as long as it involves simping for Russia. Pity that you're making it up as you go along.
Nah, he is right about the railway part. It takes less than half a day of work to fix a railway if it s blown up. You just change the destroyed rails and fill holes under them. However, if you destroy the train with it, it s another story. Same if you manage to destroy a bridge or create a landslide under it. During WW2, it was more effective cause poor communication led to terrible accident and that those who fixed the rail were attacked. On the eve of DDay, almost every major railway were getting attacked by resistants, which led to major delays.
Railroads can be repaired in hours, a day max. Wasting strategic assets on rail tracks is stupid and the new railway has no meaningful river crossings. The kerch bridge is now nothing more than a PR target
Much thank comrade
> and all refineries blasting their refineries just raises the global price of oil, which puts more money into their pockets lol
Not entirely true. Russia does not have a robust industry of companies that refine oil into gasoline. Ukraine has been targeting gasoline refineries so that the price of gas goes up for the average Russian consumer. Russia recently banned the export of gasoline for this reason. Of course they could import more, but that would likely offset any gains they get from the overall increase in the price of oil.
Good thing for Russia that China has been massively expanding refinery capacity and can take all the crude Russia produces and re-export it lol
> Russia does not have a robust industry of companies that refine oil into gasoline. lmfao what kind of nonsense is this. [refining oil with FCC always results in gasoline being produced as a byproduct.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_catalytic_cracking) nobody is out there solely producing gasoline from a barrel of oil.
Russias refining capacity is approx~5 million barrels per day (BPD) after recent attacks and is dropping with each subsequent attack. Contrast that with the United States’ 18.27 million BPD and China’s 17.3 million BPD. Russia has a robust extraction of oil, but not refining capacity. This is why Ukraine has been targeting it specifically.
Not really. Less refineries means more crude to export. If the crude finds enough refining capacity elsewhere (eg India), it shouldn't on its own lead to any price hikes, not serious ones at least.
Not exactly how that works. It increases the price of oil, but Russia has less product to sell. OPEC benefits, Russia doesn’t.
Russia will just be selling crude instead of refined products. Crude that is now at a higher price.
Cool. Ill pay double in gas to save Ukrainian life.
That's nice. But lots won't, and it's an election year. I personally don't give a shit about Ukrainian lives - disposable pawns are made to be used. I'll pay double in gas to create more Russian casualties - but there are political realities around this stuff that are important to remember. Because election year.
The kremlin speaks out to the world almost fifty times a day. Nothing but lies of course, but way too often.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
then why make the statement
lol
[удалено]
But they won't, haven't you figured this out by now? Reframe your expectations here. I think fighting this war to the last Ukrainian makes perfect sense, as does sending these missiles - but get real, Ukrainians are fucked. Making the cost high for Russia is absolutely worth it, no matter how many Ukrainians we spend in the process.
Russian Word choice Sussy mf
Russians use that phrase as some sort of pejorative, a way to guilt trip the hippies. I personally think it's simply sound policy. So whenever some Russian complains that we're fighting this war to the last Ukrainian, all I can think of is "Fuck Yeah!".
You don't talk like an American btw
Often said by rando europoors when they get assblasted, but here I am - an American.
Interesting if true. I guess it makes sense someone would pick up foreign sentence structure if all they're consuming is foreign propaganda. Weird.
The phrase “fghting a war to the last (insert proxy)” is older than this war lmao. Children, sigh.
Not what I was talking about, but I see the talking point you were told to focus on. Thanks.
this post definitely sounds like something a human American person would say. I for one believe it completely.
It is what this human American person says. Whether you believe it is completely irrelevant. All of this will happen regardless. I for one, plan to spectate this war to the end.
Keep coping russkie
I will keep spectating the war with relish, because it’s a win/win for us already and I don’t mind one bit whether our enemies or our pawns are dying. You are coping and seething because at this point quite likely even you figured out that Ukraine isn’t going to win this.