of nothing on Nostr: kravietz 🦇 >US allows Ukraine to hit Russian airports The chief problem is that ...
kravietz 🦇 (nprofile…3w02)
>US allows Ukraine to hit Russian airports
The chief problem is that this isn't what's happening. What's happening is
>US allows US soldiers to obey Ukrainian orders to hit Russian airports
The weapon systems aren't fully under Ukrainian control, which a big part of why "US allows" is part of the discussion at all.
The picture simplifies too readily to "US attacks Russia", which is WW3.
Lesser problem:
>Russian invades Ukraine
this is one country attacking another country. The first word in 'WW3' is 'World'. The conflict so far has not extended much outside of Ukraine, despite Ukraine's occasional psychotic terror attack on Russian soil or even "Ukrainian soil" like Crimean beaches full of civilians.
This was already preceded by ten years of
>Ukraine attacks secessionist states in the Donbas
which also wasn't WW3, just like Israel attacking Gaza isn't (yet) WW3.
>brings thousands of North Korean soldiers
to rear parts of Kursk. So what? Western special forces have been 'volunteering' in Ukraine since the outset.
If you have a problem thnking of it in terms of WW3, just think of it in terms of "nuclear war with Russia". Right now, only Ukraine is at war with Russia. And despite the full support of NATO, Ukraine is losing very badly. NATO, having depletes its weapon systems and failed even to deter Yemen from blockading a sea route to Israel, and having helped to increase Russian veterancy and Russian familiarity with NATO weapon systems, is now not able to Russia in any capacity except with nukes.
Nukes are bad, OK? We also have different nukes: Russia has super-poisonous super-fallout world-ending nukes, and the US has clean backpack nukes for bunker-busting and disclaimable nuclear terrorism.
>US allows Ukraine to hit Russian airports
The chief problem is that this isn't what's happening. What's happening is
>US allows US soldiers to obey Ukrainian orders to hit Russian airports
The weapon systems aren't fully under Ukrainian control, which a big part of why "US allows" is part of the discussion at all.
The picture simplifies too readily to "US attacks Russia", which is WW3.
Lesser problem:
>Russian invades Ukraine
this is one country attacking another country. The first word in 'WW3' is 'World'. The conflict so far has not extended much outside of Ukraine, despite Ukraine's occasional psychotic terror attack on Russian soil or even "Ukrainian soil" like Crimean beaches full of civilians.
This was already preceded by ten years of
>Ukraine attacks secessionist states in the Donbas
which also wasn't WW3, just like Israel attacking Gaza isn't (yet) WW3.
>brings thousands of North Korean soldiers
to rear parts of Kursk. So what? Western special forces have been 'volunteering' in Ukraine since the outset.
If you have a problem thnking of it in terms of WW3, just think of it in terms of "nuclear war with Russia". Right now, only Ukraine is at war with Russia. And despite the full support of NATO, Ukraine is losing very badly. NATO, having depletes its weapon systems and failed even to deter Yemen from blockading a sea route to Israel, and having helped to increase Russian veterancy and Russian familiarity with NATO weapon systems, is now not able to Russia in any capacity except with nukes.
Nukes are bad, OK? We also have different nukes: Russia has super-poisonous super-fallout world-ending nukes, and the US has clean backpack nukes for bunker-busting and disclaimable nuclear terrorism.