Summary
The US’s approval for Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles, capable of striking targets nearly 200 miles away, marks a significant escalation in Ukraine’s ability to retaliate against Russian aggression.
The move, coming after intense lobbying by Kyiv, allows Ukraine to target Russian positions with more precision and destruction than prior weapons.
Russia has condemned the decision as a provocation risking world war.
Analysts suggest the policy shift, reportedly limited to Russia’s Kursk region, aligns with U.S. efforts to support Ukraine without triggering broader conflict.
For any of this to lead to “world war” one of two things has to happen:
The US directly enters the war on the side of Ukraine - If this didn’t happen at any point in the last two years, it’s not suddenly going to happen now. And it’s not more likely to happen because the US “provokes” Russia, so it’s irrelevant anyway.
Russia directly attacks a NATO country - Why would Russia ever do this? They can’t even defeat a NATO aligned independent nation. How the fuck would they ever have a hope in hell of defeating all of NATO? In what possible way would they benefit from escalating the war?
Russia claiming that American “provocations” will lead to world war is meaningless because the reality is that for them to be “provoked” into starting a war they would have to be provoked into voluntarily deleting their entire country.
No matter how badly this hypothetical world war 3 goes for anyone else, even if - no, especially if - it becomes a total nuclear war, the one guarantee is that Russia loses. And they lose hard. Putin’s best case scenario here is great he Hitler’s himself in a bunker in a few years and that’s if he’s lucky.
So unless Putin and every single person in his orbit have joined a suicide cult and are already cooking up a big old bowl of spicy Kool-Aid, there is no reason whatsoever to take these claims seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning
Serious question:
What about China and Xi Jinping? North Korea has already thrown they’re very flimsy and small hat into the ring…barely, but they did send troops.
What about them? Suppose China sends 100,000 troops to Ukraine? How does that expand the conflict in any way?
This is the problem with people just buying this Russian line about America “escalating” the conflict. Increasing the scale or intensity of the conflict in Ukraine has zero bearing on its scope. China entering the war doesn’t force America, or any other NATO country, to suddenly become involved.
It doesn’t matter if China sends a million troops. Ten million. At the end of the day the conflict is still between Ukraine, Russia, and Russia’s co-beligerants. Even if Ukraine somehow ended up invading China, this still doesn’t directly involvre NATO in the war.
The only thing that can possibly involve NATO is either NATO choosing to get directly involved, or some opposing party directly attacking NATO. And none of those opposing parties have anything to gain by attacking NATO. So why would they?
Thanks for the detailed answer, appreciate it!
Sorry if I seem like I’m getting a little bent out of shape about this stuff. It frustrates me because Russian propaganda in this area has been far, far more successful than it has any right to be. It’s extremely easy to see through once you sit back and examine the basic mechanics of the situation, but I understand that that’s difficult to do when being faced with something as terrifying as the threat of a global conflict.