[bingohbangoh]

does nobody think this will risk nuclear war? Is this really a place we want to risk it? I'm amazed at the comments section here

[jagraff]

Abandoning Ukraine risks emboldening Russia to continue their conquest of Eastern Europe - which, ultimately, increases the risk of nuclear war anyway, only with a stronger Russia with even more leverage. Being nuclear armed should not give a country license to seize any territory they wish.

[jsiepkes]

You think letting Russia harass and invade their former vazal states is without risk? They've occupied eastern Europe until 1989. With the invasion of Crimea in 2014 they've basically only not harassed and not occupied eastern European countries for only 25 years. The only thing which provokes Russia is weakness.

[bingohbangoh]

So we all blow ourselves up and kill everybody? † To own Russia?

†: everybody == a lot of people, just to be clear

[foxyv]

Typically this would require something to be gained from engaging in nuclear war. If you bring out the nukes then you are pretty much asking to be utterly destroyed. Sure you may get some of your enemies in the meantime, but you won't survive to see them dead. Using nukes in Ukraine is just a quick way to turn every other country in the world against you.

I think it is far more likely that Russia is waiting for a change of leadership in America that is friendly to their cause. In the meantime they are digging fortifications and stocking up for a future offensive to retake Kursk and expand their holdings in Ukraine when they lose access to American munitions.

[rwyinuse]

I think it reduces the risk of a nuclear war. The thing to understand about Russia is that all their "red lines" are empty talk, and what they really respect is force. Ukraine appeared weak to Putin, and that's why he invaded. Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet, or having enough strength to make an invasion seem obviously bad idea.

IMO the best way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons. Then they would have nowhere to invade without risking their own destruction.

[protomolecule]

>Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet

Finland has been peacefully coexisting with USSR and Russia for almost 80 years after the WW2.

>would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons

Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example. Think of every country the US ever invaded or bombed having nukes and the means to deliver them to the US.

[stoneman24]

Can’t really see nuclear war.

I think that Russia (Putin) thought that ukraine would collapse within days and it would be a walkover.

But it wasn’t and Zelensky bound his people together to resist the Russian army. The Russian army showed its capabilities and more surprisingly it’s huge limitations.

The oligarchy in Russia may well determine that getting rid of Putin might be less risky than letting him escalate the situation, especially if he starts talking about using even battlefield nukes.

[monetus]

Do you view this as significantly different than the f-16s or himars being allowed?

[rightbyte]

'National security' as a political question has at some point been taken over by emotional lunatics. I don't know what to say really.

[rcxdude]

The US's national security interests in supporting Ukraine are pretty blindingly obvious. Turning isolationist and emboldening Russia helps no-one but Russia.

[talldayo]

With fairness to these "emotional lunatics", their assumption that Russia would be too afraid to attack NATO territories has thus far been proven right.

[jfengel]

That's exactly it. Up until now, it was widely believed that this would risk nuclear war, which is why it wasn't allowed.

But now the US is about to have a President who is far, far more favorable to Putin. Would Putin blow up the US just before it's going to cease support for Ukraine entirely?

This is a calculated risk. Everything about this war has been a calculated risk (and indeed, any war). There is a strong argument to be made that nuclear war was never really going to happen, and that we should have allowed Ukraine to attack Russia more directly all along. The present administration rejected that, but now that calculation has changed.

Is it correct? Who the heck knows.

[dzhiurgis]

Giving US nukes to every Eastern European country (including Ukraine) would be biggest contribution to humanity safety in history.

[krapp]

Why would Russia bother with nuclear war when they just have to wait a couple of months until Putin's biggest fanboy is in power?

[TiredOfLife]

> does nobody think this will risk nuclear war?

Only russian bots and people with mental development problems.

[asdf123qweasd]

Better to be dead then to be a slave in russia- which almost always means you will become a slave dragged against your will to the trenches to die in another enslavement campaign. So the choice boils down russia or not russia - and beeing dead either way.

[bingohbangoh]

this is an insane reply and proves why NATO never put nuclear weapons in russia-adjacent states like the Baltics

Nuclear war is not something to be lightly risked

[ganeshkrishnan]

And here I am thinking only reddit has unhinged posts...

[GenerocUsername]

The same people who were very wrong about the election seem to believe everything the same media says about Russia. Very strong correlation, very questionable propaganda

[anon373839]

I don’t know what media you consumed, but the media I read indicated the race could go either way, and that a 300+ EV tally for either candidate was possible. It’s literally impossible to have been “wrong”.

[munksbeer]

The media here in the UK told us that intel was saying Russia had gathered troops and equipment near the border of Ukraine, preparing for an invasion. Putin said they were lying.

Then Putin invaded Ukraine, but called it a special military operation.

Now our news tries to keep us updated about which territory is controlled by Russia or Ukraine, what the rough estimated casualties are, and so on.

Which part do you think they're misinforming us about?