NATO approves use of deep strike weapons against Russia

[putnam6]

NATO approves the use of  NATO deep-strike weapons against Russia. We might be a large, long-distance artillery barrage away from escalation beyond Ukraine.


Well, if we have a game-changing weapon(doubtful), now might be the time to demonstrate it. Feels like it just got a lot more dangerous, not that NATO had any other choice

So, where does NATO/Ukraine target? And where does Russia strike back? Is Putin that desperate?


Glenn Diesen

@Glenn_Diesen
·
May 25, 2024

NATO calls for using NATO weapons to strike inside Russian territory - The thin line between proxy war and direct war is almost completely gone


Instant Info

@InstantInfo07
·
5h

Vladimir Putin "If the decision to permit long-range artillery strikes deep inside Russian territory is taken, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the USA, and Europe in the war in Ukraine. This, of course, will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia."

[putnam6]

 

The development where NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg calls for lifting restrictions on using NATO-supplied weapons against targets inside Russia is a significant escalation in the context of the Ukraine conflict. This move could be considered a game-changer for several reasons:

1. Escalation of Conflict: Allowing Ukraine to use NATO weapons inside Russian territory marks a shift from a proxy war to a scenario that risks direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. This blurs the line between indirect support and direct involvement, potentially increasing the risk of a broader conflict.
   
2. Strategic Implications: The ability to strike inside Russia could alter the dynamics of the war, providing Ukraine with a tactical advantage by targeting Russian military infrastructure closer to the border, such as in the Kharkiv region. This could disrupt Russian operations and supply lines, but it also risks provoking a stronger Russian response, possibly including escalation to more severe measures.
   
3. International Law and Legitimacy: Stoltenberg's argument that this is a matter of self-defense under the UN Charter attempts to frame the action within legal bounds. However, this interpretation is contentious and could be seen by Russia as an act of aggression, further complicating international relations and potentially leading to diplomatic fallout or sanctions.
   
4. NATO-Russia Relations: This development exacerbates tensions between NATO and Russia, which have been strained since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent conflict in Donbas. It could lead to a reevaluation of NATO's defensive posture and possibly prompt Russia to take countermeasures, such as increasing its military presence or targeting NATO assets.
   
5. Global Stability: The risk of escalation could have broader implications for global stability, affecting energy markets, economic sanctions, and international alliances. Countries outside the immediate conflict zone might also reconsider their stance on the war, potentially leading to shifts in global power dynamics.
   
6. Domestic and Allied Politics: Within NATO, this decision could face opposition or support from different member states, depending on their risk tolerance and strategic interests. It might also influence public opinion and political landscapes in NATO countries, especially those closer to Russia.
   

In summary, while this development could provide short-term tactical benefits to Ukraine, it significantly raises the stakes of the conflict, potentially leading to a more dangerous and unpredictable situation. The long-term consequences could reshape international relations and security architectures, making it a pivotal moment in the ongoing geopolitical struggle.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...873457.gif]

[Tecate]

Absolutely pushing for the end of days in my opinion.
Should stay out of it.

oh well, I hope the flash is close enough so I don’t have to watch my loved ones suffer and die a slow radiation poisoning death.

Fucking morons the lot.

Ukraine isn’t a NATO country, it was only the 3rd most corrupt nation in the world, the best money laundering nation ever until this.

I hope Zelenskyy gets vaporized first.
Oh well, been good to be here as long as I have.


My 2 pesos…

Tecate

[RickyD]

Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was Ukraine doing the targeting with western missiles. Ukraine doesn't have that ability though. They don't have satellite networks and such nor any real long range ISR to peer into Russia. That is the problem...it means the western countries themselves are basically doing everything but manning the launchers. Hell I would not at all be surprised if we had ex-SF contractors over there overseeing the actual data input and operation of the launchers. It would be like Russia giving Syria Iskanders and saying but they aren't shooting them Syria is. Syria doesn't have those capabilities to my knowledge...not for precision strikes on dynamic targets.

That would make the owners of the infrastructure that allows the operation of such weapons directly involved in strikes on Russia in Russia. Then when Russia retaliates and say starts hitting the satellites doing the data gathering for targeting or drops an Oreshnik on a ground link station in a NATO country everyone will be all up in arms. Like punching someone in the back while they are in a fight with your friend then being surprised when they hit you back.

[putnam6]

Absolutely pushing for the end of days in my opinion.
Should stay out of it.

oh well, I hope the flash is close enough so I don’t have to watch my loved ones suffer and die a slow radiation poisoning death.

Fucking morons the lot.

Ukraine isn’t a NATO country, it was only the 3rd most corrupt nation in the world, the best money laundering nation ever until this.

I hope Zelenskyy gets vaporized first.
Oh well, been good to be here as long as I have.


My 2 pesos…

Tecate

They just keep inching closer and closer till somebody screws up, It's like the alledged drone strikes when Putin was in Kherson, sure it sounds great on the surface if Putin was sanctioned, but what happens in the the Kremlin power vacuum. What would their response be? 
Putin has run Russia for so long, hardliners might get the upper hand; hell, both sides are suggesting it's inevitable.

BUT much like I can't see Ukraine beating Russia. A fully engaged NATO smokes Russia, but they can inflict some damage before they get smoked, and then we will find out how psychotic Putin really is

[putnam6]

Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was Ukraine doing the targeting with western missiles. Ukraine doesn't have that ability though. They don't have satellite networks and such nor any real long range ISR to peer into Russia. That is the problem...it means the western countries themselves are basically doing everything but manning the launchers. Hell I would not at all be surprised if we had ex-SF contractors over there overseeing the actual data input and operation of the launchers. It would be like Russia giving Syria Iskanders and saying but they aren't shooting them Syria is. Syria doesn't have those capabilities to my knowledge...not for precision strikes on dynamic targets.

That would make the owners of the infrastructure that allows the operation of such weapons directly involved in strikes on Russia in Russia. Then when Russia retaliates and say starts hitting the satellites doing the data gathering for targeting or drops an Oreshnik on a ground link station in a NATO country everyone will be all up in arms. Like punching someone in the back while they are in a fight with your friend then being surprised when they hit you back.

Im surprised we haven't arrived here before now...

NGL saw the 4 of them walking in Trump, Vance, Hegseth, and Major General Trevor Bredenkamp... and the four horsemen flashed into my head, this was before long range weapons were authorized

but better these 4 than BIden Harris And Austin and damn sure better than Harris Walz and Austin

Our only hope is that all MIC corporations around the world are just burning through equipment, knowing huge contracts are on the way. Surely they will shut it down before it goes nuclear.

[annonentity]

All things have to come to an end at some time. The West hasn't the stomach for a war on at least three fronts.  The people leading the west must know this and the eventual outcome, maybe that's why they want all the guns out of the hands of civilians ,simply because a guerilla war can't be won.

[putnam6]

All things have to come to an end at some time. The West hasn't the stomach for a war on at least three fronts.  The people leading the west must know this and the eventual outcome, maybe that's why they want all the guns out of the hands of civilians ,simply because a guerilla war can't be won.

Here's the best reason Ive heard that WWIII is on the horizon because...

This is the Boomers' hast hurrah, it's thier twilight's last gleaming, sure we wanted to leave a better world for our children but thier children are mostly whiney little shits wishing they hadn't been born. So screw it, lets settle the old scores it was bound too happen the only question how soon before we have to hit China and North Korea.



Some suggest this is just humanity's lifecycle, we can't evolve past destroying ourselves, as many indigenous cultures believe there were great civilizations before ours 



The current tensions between America and Russia, as highlighted by NATO's consideration of allowing strikes inside Russian territory, indeed bring to mind historical close calls that nearly escalated into direct conflict. Here are some notable instances from the past:

1. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): This is perhaps the most famous close call. The deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba led to a 13-day standoff with the United States. The crisis peaked when an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba, and another U-2 pilot, Charles Maultsby, inadvertently crossed into Soviet airspace. The situation was defused when Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles, averting nuclear war.
   
2. Able Archer 83 (1983): A NATO military exercise that simulated a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union was misinterpreted by Soviet leaders as a potential first strike. The realism of the exercise, including encrypted communications and increased military readiness, led to a heightened state of alert in the Soviet Union, with nuclear forces nearly activated. The situation de-escalated when it became clear it was an exercise.
   
3. Korean War Nuclear Considerations (1950s): During the Korean War, the United States considered using nuclear weapons against North Korea and China due to the intervention of Chinese forces. This was part of a broader strategy to contain communism, but the decision was ultimately not executed, avoiding a potential escalation with the Soviet Union, which was a key ally of North Korea and China.
   
4. 1983 Soviet Nuclear False Alarm: A Soviet early warning system mistakenly detected a U.S. missile launch, leading to a brief period where nuclear retaliation was considered. The error was quickly identified, and the crisis was averted, but it underscored the fragility of nuclear deterrence systems.
   
5. 1995 Norwegian Rocket Incident: A Norwegian scientific rocket launch was misinterpreted by Russian radar as a potential nuclear attack, leading to the activation of Russia's nuclear briefcase by President Boris Yeltsin. The situation was resolved once it was confirmed to be a research mission, not a threat.
   

These instances highlight how close the world has come to nuclear conflict due to miscalculations, misunderstandings, or escalatory actions. The current situation, with NATO's potential policy shift, echoes these historical close calls by raising the risk of misinterpretation or overreaction, potentially leading to unintended consequences. The stakes are high, and the lessons from these past events underscore the importance of clear communication and de-escalation strategies.

[quintessentone]

NATO approves the use of  NATO deep-strike weapons against Russia. We might be a large, long-distance artillery barrage away from escalation beyond Ukraine.


Well, if we have a game-changing weapon(doubtful), now might be the time to demonstrate it. Feels like it just got a lot more dangerous, not that NATO had any other choice

So, where does NATO/Ukraine target? And where does Russia strike back? Is Putin that desperate?


Glenn Diesen

@Glenn_Diesen
·
May 25, 2024

NATO calls for using NATO weapons to strike inside Russian territory - The thin line between proxy war and direct war is almost completely gone


Instant Info

@InstantInfo07
·
5h

Vladimir Putin "If the decision to permit long-range artillery strikes deep inside Russian territory is taken, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the USA, and Europe in the war in Ukraine. This, of course, will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia."

It is long overdue.

[Karl12]

These instances highlight how close the world has come to nuclear conflict due to miscalculations, misunderstandings, or escalatory actions.

Yes they are all literally insane mate.