• PortableHotpocket
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they offer an invitation right now, then this is no longer a war between Ukraine and Russia, it will be a war between NATO and Russia. How do you think that ends?

    WW3 may be the last world war. No one is eager to start it.

    • LegendofDragoon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

      It’s usually attributed to Einstein but I’m not sure if that’s true. It’s hard to believe any quote that’s attributed to him at this point, honestly.

    • maporita@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It ends with Russia losing. As long as NATO makes it explicitly clear they will not attack Russian territory nor violate Russian sovereignty Russia has no basis to escalate beyond Ukraine. A nuclear war between Russia and NATO would result in the total destruction of Russia (and everything else of course). Russia wouldn’t start one unless they felt their existence was threatened.

    • BunkerBusterKeaton@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It already has been a war between Russia and Nato. Where do you think Ukraine is getting all of their military equipment?

      • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s obvious there’s a difference between lend-lease support of a nation defending itself and full on world war.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The difference is we can use Ukraine as a proxy and don’t have to send our own children to die. This war could last for 100 years and the only cost is NATO treasure, plus Ukrainian and Russian blood.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually there’s no military difference except Russia will implode because of the news alone.

          Now, until it implodes there’s simply no realistic chance any nukes will fly from Russia. After it implodes, the chance is minimal, though there may be some nuclear blackmail like what North Korea does, always ending with a humanitarian shipment of grain or something.

          The whole point of all this maneuvering is to preserve Russia’s integrity. This is why weaponry given to Ukraine is limited in class and modernity.

          This is rather cruel to Ukrainians (and Russians, because also means that NATO countries are not interested in real regime change, they are interested in controlling the current regime), but is really obvious.

          • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But NATO getting fully and directly involved - As in moving in with 10s of thousands of troops to take part of Ukraine that Russia has claimed (Eg Crimea) would be a massive escalation, and I don’t think there’s a credible military or geopolitics expert who would disagree.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t see NATO putting boots on the ground TBF. Bombs, missile strikes, limited activity of special forces, jamming etc, - possible.

              It’s just too convenient to have Ukraine pay the price in lives. Ukrainian military may be getting more experience than any spectator, even a spectator with access to data from them, but it’s less qualified to use that experience for improvement, while NATO militaries are very well qualified.

              Also the war going on is in some sense stability, while the war ending would be destabilization in the same sense. They just prefer things moving slowly.