To Syria to strike Israel? Would be nice to see.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Yemen maybe interested too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

could happen

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I think they probably need a lot of AA first to defend themselves from aggression.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

As a Western target, I’m excited.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Same. I don’t know if I’m lucky or unlucky to live in such an important European city. At least it will be over quick I guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

I don’t know what they’re waiting for honestly. Europe needs to start feeling some pain. There are too many mindless racists enjoying this war and thinking they could crush Russia without breaking a sweat.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

Basically, Russia is winning soundly in Ukraine right now, and they have situation under control. Rapid escalation creates more uncertainties, so Russia has been avoiding doing that. The reason the west is escalating is precisely because they’re losing and they’re starting to panic. However, Russia also has to show that there are red lines, and looks like one has just been crossed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Agree. But I think a lot of that escalation is only possible because Western masses are too comfortable, sitting in their sofas and enjoying this war as if it’s some football game. If the pain was felt back home, and people were protesting daily against sending more arms to Ukraine, I doubt they could keep escalating like this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

While that’s true, the flip side is that things can quickly escalate to a nuclear holocaust that way. So, I’m personally glad that Russia is playing things cool here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

This is a genuine question because your comment got me thinking: does Russia even have just-cause to attack Europe (jus ad bellum)? I’m worried that if they attacked now that there wouldn’t be enough reason to do so and then it would escalate even further.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Under the rules of war, Russia has a right to strike targets where weapons are being manufactured for use against them, and where recruits are trained for use against them. There are also facilities that are operated by Western military personel, in Poland and in Western Ukraine, which relay satellite reconaissance information to the Ukrainians so they can make strikes with drones and Western missiles. Those facilities and satellites are also legitimate targets.

These are the same justifications that the US was using for drone striking Pakistan, Iran and other neighbouring countries while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that the Russians have been so patient and reluctant to strike at these targets shows how serious they take the danger of nuclear war. But the West keeps doing what it’s doing because they like to pretend that this way, they don’t seem to be at war with Russia, and they don’t stop, because they think Russia is bluffing when.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Thank you for the explanation, this makes sense. So under international law Russia does have just cause to attack countries who are supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence, thats interesting because I have a feeling that if Russia did do that then the international judicial system would throw a fit…

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The Europeans have played party to overthrowing the neighboring neutral government to install and arm a bunch of Nazis on their doorstep- and to make matters worse, alongside the asset seizures and constant provocative language (as an understatement) by various Euro officials, there’s incredibly good reason to believe that various European states have:

  • played a role in the targeting and guidance of missile/drone attacks, including on Russian soil- not only in regards to providing intelligence and training at that, but in their mercenaries, ““mercenaries,”” foreign legions, and various other agents directly targeting Russian troops and territory

  • supported, if not potentially outright engaged in facilitating a deadly terror attack on Russian civilians (as well as a campaign of assassinations)

  • the Nordics are likely implicated in the Nordstream bombing (working alongside the US, of course) if Seymour Hersh’s report is to be believed- which it should be

Frankly, if Russia or any other country had done any of the above to the west, they would have gone in guns blazing and baying for blood indiscriminately. The Afghans didn’t even aid in 9/11 and offered up al-Qaeda (who were a pain in their ass anyways) and we all know what happened.

If you ask me, Russia has more reasonable, justifiable casus belli than the west has ever had throughout all of their constant warmongering in almost 100 years- since the last world war, in fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Every time I see your comments they are always so detailed, it’s great.

With all of this, Russia has more than enough reason to strike back, but they’re very clearly holding back and I do not fault that decision. I can’t begin to understand their motives for staying within Ukraine, but for me I would hesitate striking anyone else because, even though international law gives them that right, I don’t believe the global judicial system will let that slide. Russia is public enemy number one and any attack they do is already seen as unjustified, so if they went after let’s say France, people would go fucking insane because everything Russia does is inherently bad, no matter how much legal justification they have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

A country has a casus belli to attack anywhere where weapons used against them are produced or shipped from, where intel and surveillance used in the war against them are conducted from, and where soldiers who fight against them are trained. Thus according to the laws of war Russia has every right to strike not only Europe but the US too.

Whether a country also has the means to do this in practice is another matter. In Russia’s case they most certainly do, but so far they have chosen not to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So in international law, Russia has every right to strike a good chunk of European countries + the US and Canada, but a problem I have with that is would they even be allowed to? Considering how much international law is catered to the West, even though Russia has just cause to strike outside of Ukraine, would the Judicial system really let it slide? Russia has been labeled the villain and I don’t know if any amount of legal justifications will let them do what they can, if that makes sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They have a decent reason to do so, but that doesn’t preclude escalation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0? Except this time the US is even more deranged?

permalink
report
reply
24 points

It makes perfect sense, but it’s still crazy to me how everyone in the west knows at least in passing about the term “Cuban missile crisis,” but nothing of its origin or resolution. It should really be named the Turkish missile crisis, but of course the empire won’t name propaganda events after its own overreach and posturing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Looking that way

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 834

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 17K

    Comments