• erin@social.sidh.bzh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    22 days ago

    oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda… Sorry to bother… But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision… If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      22 days ago

      ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn’t have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don’t have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.

      This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.

      • erin@social.sidh.bzh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        22 days ago

        And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country… All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show… Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture…

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

          Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West’s adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.

          Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia’s responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.

          The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don’t think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in a long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia’s strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.

          1. is why Russia took Crimea and subsequently invaded Ukraine
          2. is why Russia is being judicious with deploying its technology and why it is operating in Africa
          3. is why Russia is supporting the opening of additional fronts in Africa, building material support with military powers aligned against the West, building economic alternatives to the West, and most importantly, not giving the West sufficient casus belli to launch an all out war of attrition

          You’re requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.

          • erin@social.sidh.bzh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            22 days ago

            I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:

            • Russia is demilitarize so fast by NATO countries that the country will not be able to do much (that outcome has even been told by Putin himself in 2023 as the reason Russia has no chance against NATO)
            • Both countries use their nuke and we will be all dead in a beautiful bang :)

            in both outcome Russia loose

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              22 days ago

              The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don’t get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.

              • erin@social.sidh.bzh
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                22 days ago

                you forget that France and UK both have Nuke too… For France 1 launch from a submarine lead to 160 nuke warhead on Russia in case of war…

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  22 days ago

                  What France and UK don’t have is a delivery system that Russia has. Meanwhile, if France or UK tried to lob a nuke at Russia then they’d simply cease to exist within 20 minutes.

                  • erin@social.sidh.bzh
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    22 days ago

                    delivery system? France can send Nuke from ICBM, submarine (from all over the world) and Rafale (which can take off from French aircraft carrier which also mean nuke can be send from all over the world…). De Gaulle built the France defense without US because he though that the next French war would be against US not Russia and all president after him kept that strategic independence from US for the same reason… Russia-French friendship and French distrust in US was still strong until Russia invaded Crimea leading to the cancellation of Mistral ships and the beginning of tension between both countries.

                    So Yes, if a Nuclear War start between Russia and France, as a said, both countries would be vitrified and we will be all dead…

    • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.

      • erin@social.sidh.bzh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        22 days ago

        not what I say, what I say is NATO soldiers are not on the frontline fighting Russia and unlike what Putin says, he really not want to start that war with NATO…

      • erin@social.sidh.bzh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        22 days ago

        As a c/NonCredibleDefense member I’m not offended by your message, I laughed a lot while writing that “essay”… but the fact that you are diverting from the question on why NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia spend 3 years saying they are at war with NATO and threatening of nuclear retaliation while doing nothing (not even a non nuclear missile or a bomb on NATO territory) tells a lot about the fact that you can’t answer…

        The mismatch between what Putin says and what Putin does is so big that instead of using his IRBM on NATO soil to proof that he has to be taken seriously, Putin used it on non NATO soil which lead to more NATO help to Ukraine next Tuesday… And Putin will continue to threaten but will do nothing against NATO countries… I can bet a lot on that… So much for the not so strong leader that is Putin… XD

        • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          21 days ago

          As a c/NonCredibleDefense member

          Oh now your talk about being a proud warmongerer makes sense to me.

          NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia

          As a person living in Europe my wallet tells me that we actually did face some severe consequences.