• Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That’s meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn’t actually do anything. The only way for the US to get “drawn into” the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can’t win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Nukes. The hesitation is always about who is unhinged enough to actually fire a nuke.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?

        Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that’s more favorable to them doesn’t cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.

        It’s not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It’s about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.

        • copd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Putin is old, if Putin has a health condition which significantly shortens his immediate life span we can all see him saying “fuck it” and press that button.

          We just have to hope for some kind of takeover by younger ambitious dictators at that point to recognise they want to live and stop him