Kevin Rothrock on Nostr: I wonder if there would be lower escalatory risk in U.S.-approved ATACMS strikes on ...
I wonder if there would be lower escalatory risk in U.S.-approved ATACMS strikes on Russian territory *not* in Kursk (forgetting the annexed territories, which Putin obviously accepts aren't actually 100% Moscow's). As it is, Washington is now supplying longer-range strike capacity for defending Ukrainian occupation forces, which violates Putin's new "territorial integrity" nuclear doctrine even more than theoretical ATACMS strikes where there's no occupation factor.
Published at
2024-11-19 08:55:09Event JSON
{
"id": "b3f0c302aa46ca96020b08f7ff153ed4bf2c285fd5f108648ae8df4a0e4ef3c1",
"pubkey": "2fd8ae523b87f465adcb3e3f58a382821ea93dc3cb99561e562a706ff86e9870",
"created_at": 1732006509,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/users/kevinrothrock/statuses/113508778577651361",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "I wonder if there would be lower escalatory risk in U.S.-approved ATACMS strikes on Russian territory *not* in Kursk (forgetting the annexed territories, which Putin obviously accepts aren't actually 100% Moscow's). As it is, Washington is now supplying longer-range strike capacity for defending Ukrainian occupation forces, which violates Putin's new \"territorial integrity\" nuclear doctrine even more than theoretical ATACMS strikes where there's no occupation factor.",
"sig": "db47b4b72ca1ae66f128dc7919ee8ca4fbe4af96b6b83e6714c53966ef327c25c89a348db2704f14ef230dd9bee414bd462fa2591d40a898e72ec017d993ecc0"
}
