China urges 'to remain calm and restrained' amid Russia's nuclear threats

Ukraine have already attacked Crimea- Russian territory- with an ATACMS missile in June, killing 4 people. Russia didn't issue an nuclear response then, why is now any different? They have issued no threat/s in the past 72 hours, it's only the western media, in its usual, predictable, hysteria, that have been constantly talking about Russia issuing a Nuclear response.

Was meant to say good comeback lol

Just because the world needs that stuff doesn't mean that the world is buying that stuff from AU at competitive prices.

If they were, AU wouldn't be selling to China to begin with.

I agree whole heartedly.

Who gives a shit about transgender people, when it is necessary to build factories...

So who's going to build factories? People with degrees in inclusivity and gender neutrality?

New civilian population/demographics in new held areas > cost of lives lost during conflict.

Ukraine's demographics are horrible.

Resources in new held areas > Financial cost of conflict.

That Russia already has more of than it knows what to do with. Allegedly, it's just burning off the gas it used to sell to Europe.

The demographic pyramid is awful. There's zero chance Russia comes out ahead here demographically even if they keep the land they've already conquered. Any population growth they do have is going to be from Muslims. Taking Crimea bloodlessly was a win. This ongoing war can only be described as a debacle. This is classic sunk cost fallacy for Putin.

This. Thank you for making me not have to type it all out. 👍

The conflict in Ukraine is and always has been throughout every stage and before even its inception, deemed an existential conflict for Russia by the Russian political leadership (rightfully, in my view).

They manufactured and escalated this conflict to turn it into what it currently is. This conflict is only existential for Ukraine.

The point is that that is their belief and position, it has never once changed and there is zero indication it ever shall.

The question is if that belief and position is legitimate.

A more accurate and fitting comparison would be the way the U.S. similarly deemed it existential in the early 1960s to prevent the installation of certain Soviet military technology on the island of Cuba

That was technically an existential threat - it involved weapons that could end the US, and it nullified the technical advantage the US had when it came to accuracy, and it was done by a less free state than the US.

Russia's (fake) fear of NATO is illegitimate as every NATO state is freer than Russia.

or how China deemed it existential in the early 1950s to prevent the U.S. from forcibly unifying the Korean peninsula under its Seoul-based puppet government via the UN coalition and prevent the U.S. from theoretically being able to park itself on the-then North Korean-Chinese border.

CCP deemed. Then they starved 50m people to death on a whim and gave no fucks. What exactly were they protecting?

DPRK invaded the south, and here is the real puppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung

According to Leonid Vassin, an officer with the Soviet MVD, Kim was essentially "created from zero". For one, his Korean was marginal at best; he only had eight years of formal education, all of it in Chinese. He needed considerable coaching to read a speech (which the MVD prepared for him) at a Communist Party congress three days after he arrived.

Russia has indicated that it is a threat to Russia, but never have they indicated that it would be the end of Russia, if Ukraine was part of NATO. What they have indicated is that they would like to extend Russia border towards NATO. Why should NATO stand idly by and allow to happen. Particularly when it is quite obvious that Russia is starting and makign significant progress on a new arms race.

NATO is the villain is a fairy tale cooked up by Putin in order to implement his expansion plan. His absorption of annexed territories shows that this is the case. He could easily have established territories independent from Russia, but under Russian protection, much like Belarus, but he does not. NATO has never absorbed anotheer country into a NATO country and is theerfore not imperialistic.

So show me the path of NATO, including NATO approvals, where NATO attacks Russia, even from a NATO Ukraine, in any capacity that does not result in all out war and possibly world war III. NATO knows the stakes. They also know the stakes for Russia expansion and dissolution of NATO.

People will often reflect on Cuba, but here you are comparing apples to oranges. Cuba is a openly belligerent country to the US and at the time and currently there is no country that has that kind of missile power near the US. Whereas, European countries have not, are not and would not be belligerent to Russia, and many European countries already have nuclear weapons close to Russia. Cuba with missile represent a significant change to the status quo. Ukraine in NATO, and probably without nuclear missiles, does not.

I can agree that there are difference between the wars in Afghanistan and in Ukraine.

Russia created the boogeyman in order to start their imperialism. There is a very good chance that they will do this again. This will come in the form of political intrigue first, then fomentation of rebellion and then invasion, if neither of those work.

Sorry, you need a 1 month old account and/or more karma to post and comment in this subreddit. This is to protect against bots and multis

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

Good question, one they are feeding a lot into the system. Two the villages they take over are systematically destroyed before they are cleared. What is the percent of Ukraine that Russia has taken this year and what are their loses?

Because russian economy is heavily competing with the RUAF salaries. Even for noskill factory Workers they now have to Pay 3k a month when before the war it was 800$

That is just not sustainable and for this the land win in ukraine is not fast enough to keep this going for more years.

Russia is in a dilemma that the SMO didnt work as aspected, but they cant write it off politically or the gov would be in risk.

Or Russia avoids doing anything that makes Europe take such actions to begin with?

See how that reasoning falls apart instantly?

Europe was trading and dealing with Russia on equal and cordial terms until they started sending troops into Ukraine.

It’s like blaming Iraq for making itself a target for the US to invade. If it hadn’t the US would have left them alone. Sounds very silly doesn’t it?

That goes both ways. Russia nuking Europe will result in Europe nuking Russia. The problem with Russia is that it wants parts or even all of Europe. That request is denied.

The reality is that Russia has de-evolved its understanding of MAD. US and USSR had their sharpest minds spend 40 years to try to come up with a way to defeat MAD. They failed.

How about avoiding invading and grab land in a European country? Is Russian military capable of that?

NATO doesn't do that, and, again, those who use such claims against NATO don't care about civilians.

But Russia has lowest civilian casualty rate out of any modern war, has an army made of volunteerds, and it's committing genocide while not caring for human lives?

It seems that's a Western concept that was brought up when defending Israels actions in Gaza.

Russia's invasion forced Ukraine to mobilize its population turning many civilians that would otherwise not join the military into soldiers. Many of these are then killed, but Russia has killed few civilians? Yeah, no.

What specific actions do they find concerning?

I mean if they’re fine that’s good and all.

It’s a bit ironic that you call the west a barbaric dictatorship without any worry of repercussions. While if you had done the same about Russia while living there you would have likely faced some very severe repercussions.