this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
43 points (63.9% liked)

World News

32348 readers
596 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 55 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Unless we're missing something he doesn't have much more to escalate with.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

He still thinks the west is scared of Russia, when the war in Ukraine has shown the post soviet bogyman to be as scary as modern day Steven Seagal (an unfit, obese senior citizen who still thinks they are a 30 year old bad ass he portrayed in movies but was always bullshit.)

All they have left is the nuke threat and that can never be acted upon.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

West was scared of Russia. Their poker game was good for a long time, but we finally called.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the west called Russia's bluff. Ukraine did.

The bluff was working right up to the 24th of Feb 2022.

Many western analysts expected Russia to win in short order.

Russia expected Ukraine to fold (as did the USA with the offer to flee they gave to Zelenskyy) but instead they called and Russia had to show their cards. which turned out to be a busted flush.

Now it seems everyone knew Russia was a paper tiger for years...

[–] wildncrazyguy@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I conjecture that the people who were in a position to know that Russia was a paper tiger were also the folks who benefited from Russia being the West’s bogeyman.

Notice how quickly the media has repositioned China as the foil. Now, I’m not saying it’s undue, but it seems we’ll always be at war with Eastasia.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 11 points 1 year ago

The west didn't even call. Russia just fumbled and revealed all their cards on their own, showing everyone it was all just a bluff. Now they're playing the "you didn't actually see all of the cards" game, which would work if we didn't already see them all...

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

We never called, he called because he misread his 6 as a 9 and didn't realize he had a busted straight.

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's russia's latest attempt at intimidating the USA. There'll be some nuclear related threat or accident in russia, so pootin can say "look at my crazy countrymen wanting to nuke everything! You'd better give us what we want before my crazy countrymen do something crazy!"

And the USA will ignore it, just as they've done a hundred times before with pootin's nuclear threats.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I don’t think it’s so much aimed at intimidating the US/Europe as it is giving additional cover to his allies in politics and media in those countries. It’s also intended for domestic consumption.

Russia’s disaster in Ukraine demonstrates conclusively that they couldn’t take on even a minor regional power, much less a NATO country.

Yeah the moment the subs surface to launch the SLBMs, a cardboard Ukrainian drone will sink it.

[–] Omegamint@hexbear.net -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hmm. They could use agent orange. Maybe bomb Ukraine to the same extent the US bombed North Korea.

And there’s always tactical nukes. They could just start nuking Ukrainian cities one by one, dropping leaflets to warn them of what’s coming beforehand. It might even be more humanitarian if you consider the loss of life that’ll otherwise happen due to the human meat grinder.

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unsurprising to see redfash once again advocating for genocide and destruction as "humanitarian"

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

It’s downright un-American.

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe drop one to show that Russia still has the capability, then another on a different city to show that Russia can keep dropping bombs for as long as it takes?

[–] boboblaw@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Good idea. I've heard that nuking cities is a very effective way of forcing a stubborn enemy nation to surrender.

It's also preferable to a prolonged invasion and conventional bombing campaign, simply in terms of number of casualties. The number of people killed by the two nuclear bombings it would take to force Ukraine to surrender would be significantly smaller than the number of casualties incurred by a drawn out conventional invasion.

Seems like the only moral course of action for Putin to take.

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, another hexbear genius that thinks Putin and his cabinet would survive if they dropped a nuke.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a shitty, misleading comparison not worth acknowledging.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for your contribution!

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for using your alt to downvote me!

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Sweet of you to think that

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hmm. They could use agent orange. Maybe bomb Ukraine to the same extent the US bombed North Korea.

Never work, they'd have to have aircraft that could cross the border

And there’s always tactical nukes. They could just start nuking Ukrainian cities one by one, dropping leaflets to warn them of what’s coming beforehand. It might even be more humanitarian if you consider the loss of life that’ll otherwise happen due to the human meat grinder.

Was going to ask if you're serious, then I saw you're from hexbear, so you are dumb enough to believe that Pootin might get to use 1 nuke, max.