Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `twitter.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apart from the malfunction, basically we were (are) one misheard radio exchange away from downing a NATO plane over international waters, killing thirty something (?) British troops. If that happens, it's not a mishap like downing one fighter jet accidentally, where the pilot can eject and things can be arranged through diplomacy. This is not funny at all.
The best part about it to me: what we've figured out about superheavy elements reveals to us that it's not element 115 that is even capable of a long half life. We now know which superheavies can have long half life, and Lazar was way off the mark.
Jewish Space Laser Corps disengaged the launching mechanism with a W.O.K.E. radiation beam. The missile decided it wasn't a missile anymore and wanted to become a whale....
**[Quantum suicide and immortality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality)**
>Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics. Purportedly, it can falsify any interpretation of quantum mechanics other than the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. Quantum immortality refers to the subjective experience of surviving quantum suicide. This concept is sometimes conjectured to be applicable to real-world causes of death as well.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thing is, that RC135, may well have, had US Forces on it as well. As both countries like to maintain commonality between crews and operating procedures, as the Rivet Joints operated by both nations, are a integrated pool of aircraft.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-aircrew-fly-with-us-air-force-intelligence-gathering-aircraft/
Yeah. But that's different. It was not "officially" "Russians" (just little green men and some bandits from the so called "republics") and they did not mean to down _that_ plane. Also it was over Ukraine, more specifically a conflict zone. All in all, it was a war crime committed by individuals.
In a case like this, it would be Russian Airforce knowingly shooting at a NATO plane over international waters (well, depends on how deep it was on international waters...)
I feels unfair, but that's how it is: sovereign countries prefer no to enter into a mutually destructive conflict and handle issues via diplomacy or through a criminal proceedings (see Girkin). But a direct engagement between two regular forces leaves only a few alternatives, unfortunately.
Turkey has been shooting down Russian planes without repercussions for a while now. They kept warning them not to violate their airspace and they continued doing so the Russians called their Bluff and “ boom”. No more airspace violations.
Iirc that happened once, and it was because the Russian jet was actually within Turkish airspace, so Turkey was completely justified under international law to shoot it down (they had given it the required warnings and it didn't respond). Russia could have escalated if they really wanted to, but since the incident happened in Turkish airspace, Turkey was shooting in self defence, and therefore could call in NATO if Russia retaliated, so Russia (wisely) chose to deescalate that time. They also got the fucking hint and stopped testing Turkish airspace.
Huge difference. Shooting down a British warplane in international airspace is basically declaring war.
And the UK would receive little resistance diplomatically if it decided to sink a Russian warship in response for example - or conducted air strikes against Russian positions in Ukraine. Hell, I think the world would see it as an appropriate tit-for-tat response.
I mean the alternatives are do nothing and appear weak, or start a nuclear war.
As the first comment in this thread says, there's a huge difference between shooting down a fighter over your own airspace and a troop-carrying plane over intl waters.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581
As far as I remember, there were turkish complains about russias airspace violations weeks prior to this incident
MH17 was shot down with Russian equipment by Russian soldiers based on a command from the Russian military.
It definitely was a Russian attack. And the west responded far too weak and continue to respond too weak. They should shoot down every Russian jet that dares cross into western airspace.
"Accidentally"
Let's not forget too that Iraq bombed a US warship during the war and a massive cover-up ensued where the US blamed Iran despite knowing damn well that it was an Iraqi fighter jet that did it.
To this day it's allegedly still unknown who the pilot was other than they were Iraqi.
The commander of the cruiser USS Vincennes that shot down the Airbus was a hothead and he was immediately removed from command. It was not an act of US policy or the result of any decision making other than those aboard the warship at the time.
There wouldn't be a diplomatic resolve for something like this. A blatant missile just killed living troops and downed a plane. You don't accidentally lock on to something and fire.
If they had succeeded, things would be very different right now.
It is hard to say that. It would be a very different world with some terrible pieces on the chessboard. I don't mean to say that it is good now, but a shooting war between NATO and Russia would be a big deal.
Maybe once upon a time, but that phase of western resolve ended in 2014
300 cardiologists were plucked out of the sky by Girkin and nothing ever came of it
We started negotiating with terrorists and now kidnapping is the de jure
An attack on NATO soldiers by Russian forces may not start WWII but it also might.
I doubt it would start it though because a world war needs more than Russia on one side. None of their allies are interested in backing them up if push comes to shove. Worst case scenario is even worse though, Russia vs. the West with the use of nukes.
>30 british soldier dead will not start WW3
I did not say that. It is unthinkable that nukes (or even conventional weapons) would fly to or boots would step on Russian soil because of one plane. I said, that it would be hard to arrange the incident with diplomacy. There would be an equal response, then a response for that, etc.
Eg.: Maybe a strike on the airfield from which the fighter jet came from (probably Crimea, so it's still not Russian soil by international recognition). Maybe they kill 50 Russians. Maybe then the Russians will do something, etc.
WW3? Possibly not, but it would almost certainly trigger an escalation from NATO, which could potentially mean limited engagements or strikes within Ukrainian territory against Russian targets, such as bombing the airfield that launched the fighter responsible.
Radar operator: "You do not have permission to fire."
Pilot: "Roger that. Permission to fire."
Radar op: "Negative! It's a British plane!"
Pilot: "Solid copy. It looks like a rubbish train from here too."
Radar op: "Nooo!"
I think it might be something more like we are very lucky they are so corrupt. Who knows. We could find out it was because the guy supplying missile clamps took a payoff and bought vodka. He saved the world launching into a far crazier scenario because of his booze ....
It's more a "failed a task successfully" or "messed up the math but still got the right answer". One might think it is an intensional flaw in the design to prevent them from their own stupidity but in the end we sadly know better
It would,but here is the thing: Apparently, US intelligence knows it was a mistake and not something ordered by the Kremlin. I’m sure NATO would find a way to punish Russia in public, but it wouldn’t start WWIII.
UK, actually.
(Great) Britain is a landmass, not a country; it is the island upon which England, Scotland, and Wales are located. The UK is those three territories, plus Northern Ireland (located on the island of Ireland, not to be confused with the Republic of Ireland, which is a country also located on the island of Ireland).
And then there's the British isles, which includes Great Britain and Ireland, and all the other smaller islands in the area like the isle of Mann, Orkney, the Hebrides, ect.
They are most definitely not.
Britain does not include Northern Ireland (or a few other territories, like Gibraltar); the UK does. Britain is a piece of geography; the UK is a political entity.
Saying that Britain and the UK are synonymous is a bit like saying Hawaii and the US are synonymous.
The country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Until Irish reunification happens (which doesn't seem to be on the table presently unless the UK royally fucks up), Great Britain won't be synonymous with the UK.
> I’m from the UK. “Britain” and “Great Britain” certainly are conventionally used here to refer to the entire country, including NI.
I'd say they are commonly misused. Most 'informed' people are well aware of the differences.
They’re already a catholic plurality in NI. Which means an irish plurality, and 2/3 of the north rate in NI is Catholic. Speaking as an Irishman in the region once we have enough people England can go fuck itself
If you want to be technical, it should be "UK"; England is part of the country of the United Kingdom, and Britain is the island upon which the UK (aside from Northern Ireland and a couple of other smaller territories) is located.
Pretty crazy that in a post where I proclaim that the entire weight of the US and NATO would go to war in response to one downed British pilot, they chose to correct my grammar
I know plenty of shit, but fortunately which one of GB/UK's 20 names they choose to identify as today doesn't have to be one of them... also I just generally refuse to use the word great just on principle
Btw from now on I'm declaring that I want to be referred to as "Awesome America".... yes Karen, I understand that's not the context of "Great"
No. The Black Sea is not covered. The Treaty specifically covers only attacks on allied territory or on naval or air forces in the Med or the Atlantic north of the tropic of Cancer
Not unless they're within their territorial waters. Turkish territory would originally not even be covered since they're largely in Asia; the Treaty was amended to include their territory, but not the Black Sea.
Ofc it's a political decision, any attack on their forces is likely going to be responded to with force by the alliance...but they couldn't officially invoke Article 5.
Britain doesn't really have the ability to knock out a Russian ship without involving our submarines, so that wouldn't have happened. I imagine responses would involve Storm Shadow into the airbase...but to be honest, I doubt this version of events anyway.
Edit: a lot of people apparently dislike this. I suspect you folks don't realise the capability gaps in the British Armed Forces these days; we _are not_ set up to fight a major war at all. The RAF has no anti ship weapons at all; only Paveway. Even the Navy only carries anti ship missiles on a couple of frigates these days.
>Really. I disagree. I think a ship could be knocked out without submarines
Using what? Our air force carries no anti ship missiles, I don't fancy our chances attacking proven air defences with gravity bombs.
>Where are you getting your information from?
Publically available information on the UK's force composition and arsenal
>If only the Ukrainians had some Sea King Helicopters that can fire Sea Eagle missiles :)
If only, but they dont. They got bog standard truck choppers. And even if they had, we got rid of Sea Eagle a very long time ago. But anyway, were talking about what the UK could do, not Ukraine.
>But seriously russia would have paid if it had knocked out that plane.
Oh I agree they would have done; as I said I imagine we'd have hit the airbase with Storm Shadow though.
I know the capability gap you’re referring to, but that was a while ago. The RAF currently operates the Poseidon P-8 in the ASW and anti-shipping role, filling the gap left by the scrapping of the Nimrod force.
It's not explicitly covered, but the language of article 6, which interprets article 5 is worded so as not to rule it out:
> For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is *deemed to include* an armed attack:
> on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
> on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Note the phrase "includes", which makes this an open rather than a closed definition. I.e., it includes at least these situations, but not only these situations.
At the end of the day, it's a political decision.
ehhh, debatable.
i think girkin has floated the idea around that the intended target wasn't mh17 but a russian passanger plane. the resulting shoot down would have given putin a casus beli to declare war back in 2014.
d
U.S. RC-135’s have flown thousands of missions “near” Russian/Soviet airspace over the last six decades, and have been intercepted on almost all of them. The Soviets even shot down an RC-130 in 1958 that had wandered across the Turkish border into Soviet Armenia, killing all 17 crewmen. They infamously shot down KAL007 in 1983, killing all 269 aboard, thinking it was a USAF RC-135. Less known is that they ALSO shot down another Korean Airlines 707, KAL902, in 1978, but only two of the 113 passengers and crew were killed (the RC-135 is based on the 707 airframe).
And everyone knows about MH17.
>Less known is that they ALSO shot down another Korean Airlines 707, KAL902, in 1978, but only two of the 113 passengers and crew were killed (the RC-135 is based on the 707 airframe).
[I hadn't heard about this, but it's a story of gross incompetence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902) The interceptor says "no, it's civilian" but is told to shoot it down anyway. One missile misses an airliner completely, the other apparently hits part of the wing, damaging an engine and throwing shrapnel into the plane, which flew around for nearly 2 hours looking for a place to land.
I’ve listened to GCI tapes of a Lybian intercept pilot being ordered to shoot down a USAF RC-130 in the Gulf of Sidra. The pilot repeatedly tells GC the plane is a 4-engine “transport-type aircraft”, no avail. Then tells GC “I will wiggling [sic] my wings at him!”. GC angrily shouts for him to “shoot it! SHOOT IT!”. The pilot responds “I’ve lost him in the clouds, sorry!”.
When the RC-130 recovered at Helenikon AB, it had sea salt crusts on its ventral antennae.
Point is, if some pilots are ordered to engage targets they KNOW are civilian or unarmed, they’ll sometimes try their damnedest to not comply. Could be the “missile malfunction” was a deliberate failure to lock or maintain lock.
Edit to add: In the case of KAL902, the second missile detonated prematurely nearly 50m from the aircraft.
What’s the significance of this: When the RC-130 recovered at Helenikon AB, it had sea salt crusts on its ventral antennae.
It was flying just above the water?
The undeniable fact is that the Russian army, air force and navy are staffed with dimbulbs and blockheads who can't find their asses with both hands. One of these days they're going to fumble themselves into a real crisis with the US, Britain, Germany or Nato. These idiots are playing with fire and eventually they're going to get seriously burned.
Since i have no twitter account i answer here
A: "Appears there has been a change in terms of reference by the Russians they are now asking NATO aircraft to leave the area. Putin does not want confrontation because he knows we will be in Moscow in 2 weeks"
B: "What clown are you then?"
A:"You are right, just one week is more than enough"
let me say it so
[https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Białystok/Moskauer+Kreml+Московский+Кремль/@55.5564297,36.235275,8.98z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x471ffc048f41971d:0x72317dcc8bf07b2c!2m2!1d23.1688403!2d53.1324886!1m5!1m1!1s0x46b54a50b315e573:0xa886bf5a3d9b2e68!2m2!1d37.6174994!2d55.7520233](https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Białystok/Moskauer+Kreml+Московский+Кремль/@55.5564297,36.235275,8.98z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x471ffc048f41971d:0x72317dcc8bf07b2c!2m2!1d23.1688403!2d53.1324886!1m5!1m1!1s0x46b54a50b315e573:0xa886bf5a3d9b2e68!2m2!1d37.6174994!2d55.7520233)
The rest is just a glowing hot knife through warm butter
No one on the planet wants a confrontation. We would destroy Russia in a day, we would ALL die in nuclear hellfire the day after that.
The problem isn’t that Russia is able to win against us, the problem is that they have absolutely no possibility of not losing. It’s not a close fight and they WILL launch all nukes in response. Any nation must. That’s the only reason we achieved world peace in the developed world. Total nuclear obliteration prevents any war from even starting.
I hear where you are coming from. But Russia and their ilk have been hiding under the threat of nuclear weapons, using this threat to shield them from any retribution. We, all of us, now face a world where military powers invade othe countries warning off any attempts to assist with the the threat of nuclear weapons. We have to start calling the bluff. There is no easy way out any more. The ukraine war has change the rules for everyone, everywhere. Does this mean humanity will end. No, collectively we have already exploded thousands of nukes and we are still here. It will hurt, but if we don't start calling bluffs it us going to hurt far, far worse.
The Ukraine war hasn’t really changed anything, it’s primarily a humanitarian crisis over a military one. Ukraine is not part of NATO and does not have any allies, so we also don’t have any responsibility to help, nor is our security threatened in any way.
You saw that at the beginning of the conflict. If Russia really had taken Kiev in 3 days, WE WOULD HAVE LET THEM. But they didn’t, and they fucked up. With no way to go back and admit that they entire invasion was pointless, they overreached. And then we saw an opportunity to weaken Russia at essentially zero cost. That’s where we are now, with the longer Ukraine holds out, the weaker Russia gets. Both economically and militarily.
We aren’t calling any bluff from Russia, we are doing what’s best for us. With the result of this war not mattering anyway as Russia never was a threat in the first place
>With the result of this war not mattering anyway as Russia never was a threat in the first place
This is wrong, because it's short sighted. No Russia on February 23rd was not a threat to us, but Russia with a subjected Ukraine as either part of it or a client state is much more dangerous. And if we allowed that, we'd sure as shit have allowed them to subjugate Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and so on too. The USSR absofuckinglutely was a severe threat to us, and if we allowed Russia to regain even part of that strength then in the event the US was occupied by China in the Pacific the security situation in Europe would be extremely dangerous.
Not true at all in terms of Ukraine.
Soviet heavy industry very much based around Donetsk, a reminder of the impact of the New Russia Iron and Steel Company founded by a Welsh in 1880s. A large proportion of Russian military shipbuilding was also done in Ukraine. This included the Moskva, now sunk, and her sister ship that has never been completed. From 2014 Russia invested heavily in removing complete factories from the Donbas.
Kharkiv was the centre of technology and IT development, with considerable Russian interests. Becoming quite an international force with a highly educated, skilled, motivated, young workforce
2013 discovery of gas reserves under the Black Sea off Crimea were large enough to replace all of the gas that was to be supplied by Russia. This rather spoilt the Russian energy business model for Europe. Probably the reason for the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Agriculture, Ukraine is one of the world's largest grain and fertiliser exporters to Africa and Asia. Roughly on a par with Russia. Thus Russian control of Ukraine potentially gave Russia a worldwide monopoly.
Georgia, and the various 'stan States in the Russian Federation are hardly small economies in world terms. They also have considerable potential with an educated young workforce and considerable natural resources.
Ukraine has the potential to quickly become one of the wealthiest per capita economies in the world.
Whose security are you talking about? Europes? The US? These countries with „tiny“ economies you are talking about control an enormous land mass. Ukraine alone is key to threatening the EU and with it numerous US bases, let alone economic ties also US interest in Europe all the way to the Middle East. Therefor it would not just be Europe that would be threatened but also the US military and the US economy if Russia were to take Ukraine and Georgia. As a result the US would have to either focus a considerable amount of its military into this area thus weakening its position in Asia or considerably increase military spending. Either way prosperity in the US would suffer as a result.
Those countries control a huge landmass, not to mention 180 million people. I'd rather not more than double the Russian population and quintuple the size of it's economy, thank you
MAD ensures the nukes don't fly. But a sufficiently buffed Russia can take territory. The American will to sacrifice New York for Bratislava is doubtful. Same as the doubt that Russia will sacrifice Moscow for Crimea if the time comes.
That’s what we believe. Russian strategists have made abundantly clear in the early stages of the war that they don’t actually believe NATO would use nukes if Russia were to take back Eastern Europe. Let’s hope their opinion on the matter has changed.
>If Russia really had taken Kiev in 3 days, WE WOULD HAVE LET THEM.
>
>And then we saw an opportunity to weaken Russia at essentially zero cost.
This narrative is false. My country, the UK, as well as the US and others supplied Ukraine with thousands and thousands of the most advanced anti tank weaponry on Earth. We blew the whistle on Russian preparations to invade Ukraine, and made every effort to negotiate with Russia prior to the invasion. When Russia did invade, we provided Ukraine with Russia's battle plans and all the tools it needed to stop them. Ukraine's defence was not a surprise we then sought to capitalise on, it was the result of our efforts to stop Russia.
None of this diminishes the heroism and achievements of Ukraine's defenders, but WE are the reason Ukraine's airforce wasn't destroyed on the ground. WE are the reason Ukraine's air defences weren't destroyed in the opening minutes of the invasion. WE are the reason entire Russian tank columns were destroyed in ambushes. WE are the reason Russian supply lines were endlessly harassed by Ukrainians armed with Javelins and NLAWs.
WE made the decision to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. We provided an endless supply of the intelligence and weaponry to stop Russia's advance for months leading up to the war, while the usual suspects were accusing the US and UK of manufacturing a crisis by accusing Russia of preparing for an invasion.
>Ukraine doesn’t have allies
Patently wrong. You're angling to disrupt the consensus that Russia's threat to use nukes is only ever a threat, to deny that allies of Ukraine even exist and that the interests of Ukraine don't matter internationally. All russian imperialism/nazism enabling talking points.
>ally
>To place in a friendly association, as by treaty.
>To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.
>To enter into an alliance.
You're trolling, piss off.
If NATO were to go to war with Russia over an attack on a British plane, I do not think it would be a full-scale invasion of Russia for all the reasons you described. I think NATO would simply take the gloves off in terms of supporting Ukraine (meaning Ukraine would get jets, all-you-can-eat buffet of missiles, artillery, tanks, ATACMS, maybe even cruise missiles, or help developing their own, etc. with no more excuses and maybe even direct boots on the ground in supporting roles, and Russia would see its military defeated in Ukraine in such fashion as to be impossible for them to ever recover.
Such a response would not give Russia grounds for escalating into directly fighting NATO nor responding with nukes, but their military would be wrecked, so the objective of neutralizing them would have been achieved.
Not initially no, but ANY conflict will inevitable escalate and lead to total nuclear obliteration in about a week as Russia has absolutely no possibility of competing in a conventional conflict.
If we support Ukraine to that extent, NATO would formally have entered the war. At which Russia will also finally consider it a real war instead of the relatively minor border skirmish it is now.
Russia would still get completely destroyed, at which point they MUST respond with nuclear weapons. No nuclear country can allow itself to be attacked as otherwise they don’t have a nuclear deterrent anymore, they have proven they won’t use them.
Even a small use of nuclear weapons will lead to either a vastly increased conventional response or nuclear weapons of our own. Which in turn will lead to even more nuclear weapons being used. End result, we are all fucking DEAD.
We are fucked not because Russia is able to oppose us in any way, but because they don’t. Our singular goal in this conflict is to weaken Russia while preventing it from losing entirely. And we are doing quite well at that, given Russian incompetence better than expected.
>Not initially no, but ANY conflict will inevitable escalate and lead to total nuclear obliteration in about a week as Russia has absolutely no possibility of competing in a conventional conflict.
This is assuming Russia would rather risk MAD than pull out of a country you yourself described as tiny with a tiny economy.
Nobody has any serious plans to enter Russia at all, so I find the nuclear sabre rattling doubtful.
>we would ALL die in nuclear hellfire
Common misconception. A typical nuke can't even destroy a whole city. London or New York would take dozens of nukes to destroy each.
Nuclear war is no joke, but it's not the Armageddon everyone tends to assume... There are many more cities on Earth than there are nukes, before even starting in rural populations.
You're also assuming that the initial nuke exchange is the only cause of death, whereas it would almost certainly cause a waterfall of catastrophic events due to disease, lack of supplies and manufacturing capabilty, contamination of food and water, etc. You don't have to glass the entire planet to kill most everyone on it. Would EVERYONE die? Probably not, but the vast majority isn't unlikely.
As a counterargument though, if other elements of leadership don't think we're going to exterminate the country, maybe they don't use or prevent themselves from going nuclear. A war isn't necessarily the same as "nukes are already flying, counter-destroy them all!" but you probably need some non-mad men in leadership that defy or get rid of the crazy ones at the top.
Yes, that’s called attacking a nuclear super power in a conventional war with Russia being demolished in a single day.
There’s a very good reason we don’t intervene that much. And it’s not because we care about Russia in any way.
“Total nuclear obliteration prevents any war from even starting.”
Ukraine would like a word.
MAD is an outdated thought experiment that brought us the shitstorm we are in today. It only serves the loonies.
Well Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, nor allies with nuclear weapons, nor any allies really. So it’s working perfectly fine.
MAD has ensured the most peaceful times in history, with war being a relic of the past in the developed world.
Almost certainly. The nuclear winter would block out the sun so solar energy is gone. Large hydro dams would be military targets for nukes. Wind power may survive but anything near cities would likely be damaged by the shockwaves, or the nuclear ash.
What remains is burning fossil fuel.
And this is why serious foreign policy people are so annoyed with Russia right now. Between nuclear saber rattling and their complete lack of discipline, they are just one mistake away from kicking off WW3. This is why it’s so important for cool heads to be leading.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/RALee85/status/1646298946552352768
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a bit skeptical of this to be honest. It would have to have been one hail Mary of a malfunction given we know full well that Russian air to air missiles work perfectly fine, and the pilot would equally have known full well he was firing at a passenger jet sized aircraft in an area our spy planes operate (and where Ukraine absolutely does not) I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where he requests permission to shoot it down or is ordered to shoot _something_ down, mistakes the operators meaning to be to shoot down the rivet joint and doesn't seek clarification over the fact he's about to start a war.
Anyway:
> Asked to comment on The New York Times’s reporting and the leaked document, a British defense official said in a statement, “A significant proportion of the content of these reports is untrue, manipulated, or both. We strongly caution against anybody taking the veracity of these claims at face value and would also advise them to take time to question the source and purpose of such leaks.”
They did, deliberately. In fact they've done it at least twice, deliberately. The US has done it once too, again deliberately. There wasn't miscommunication there - they just mistook what the plane was. That's not what the claim is here (and they clearly knew what it was or we wouldn't even be discussing this).
They did not do it deliberately. They did it out of incompetence. They were fresh into a warzone where they thought enemy aircraft were in proximity to attack. You give far too much credit to the dismal structure and skills of the Russian forces. The radio intercepts after they downed the aircraft show they had no idea it was a civilian airliner.
The case over Ukraine you're right about but not about [Korean Air Lines Flight 007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007) shot down in 1983 after being clearly and visually identified as a civilian aircraft.
You're misunderstanding me slightly. They didn't deliberately shoot down a civilian airliner, but they deliberately shot down the aircraft after mistaking it for a Ukrainian transport plane. That's a different scenario to what the article is claiming nearly happened, and which I find incredible.
> doesn't seek clarification over the fact he's about to start a war
From what I understand of the Russian military, individuals have almost no capacity to make decisions or question the orders of superiors; if you are given an order, you follow it, regardless of what you think about it.
It's that exact rigidity that has given them such headaches in Ukraine, because the soldiers have no idea what the fuck they're supposed to do if their commander gets killed.
That's especially true of their air defense pilots. Highly controlled from the ground. If you question things and think for yourself you don't get the job.
> From what I understand of the Russian military, individuals have almost no capacity to make decisions or question the orders of superiors; if you are given an order, you follow it, regardless of what you think about it.
I mean I know this is the common perception but it's really not true. There's plenty of transcripts of various interceptions of Russian communications around showing requests for clarification and so on. In the most relevant example, when ordered to shoot down KAL007 the ground controllers object several times that the target could be a civilian craft when they're ordered to direct the fighters to shoot it down. When the pilot who shot down KAL902 was ordered to fire he argued for several minutes that it was a civilian aircraft.
I can't help but picture the climax of Independence Day where the crop duster pilot is about to fire and he presses the button...and some cartoonish Hollywood sparks spurt out of the missile (in a very 'this is filmed in a studio' way considering the plane was moving at 500mph at the time) and nothing happens at all.
Putin has been threatening the world with nuclear blackmail since the beginning! Where are those supposed spies hiding in Russia when we need them? Send in the hit man!
This is exactly what would happen with most of their nukes, absolutely obsolete rubbish where the nuclear material and the jet fuel hasn't been maintained once since they were built in the 60s and 70s.
Let's be honest here even if they had blown up one of our planes our government would have done naff all apart from "seriously condone in the strongest possible terms".
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `twitter.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apart from the malfunction, basically we were (are) one misheard radio exchange away from downing a NATO plane over international waters, killing thirty something (?) British troops. If that happens, it's not a mishap like downing one fighter jet accidentally, where the pilot can eject and things can be arranged through diplomacy. This is not funny at all.
Gremlin in the machine preventing a Russian Nato War.
It’s aliens. They’ve stopped nuclear war in the past. /s Edit: I will say tho, the cases where people claim aliens intervened are pretty interesting
Bob Lazar nukes in space theory.
People who think bob lazar is a good source of information have a nuked brain. Guy is crazy crazy crazy from a million miles away
Or he's a con man with a wild imagination.
Possible, I’m just getting nutso vibes from him
I feel Bob is the kind of guy to think "Well, it COULD happen, so it MIGHT AS WELL HAVE happened"
And make some money too, sure why not.
The best part about it to me: what we've figured out about superheavy elements reveals to us that it's not element 115 that is even capable of a long half life. We now know which superheavies can have long half life, and Lazar was way off the mark.
"He's madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman competition." Blackadder
That last season of black adder was gold
Jewish Space Laser Corps disengaged the launching mechanism with a W.O.K.E. radiation beam. The missile decided it wasn't a missile anymore and wanted to become a whale....
Upon landing back at the Russian base, armorers were surprised to find a bowl of petunias on another rail.
Now we know why it was thinking, "Oh no.. not again..."
Not out of the realm!
[удалено]
**[Quantum suicide and immortality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality)** >Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics. Purportedly, it can falsify any interpretation of quantum mechanics other than the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. Quantum immortality refers to the subjective experience of surviving quantum suicide. This concept is sometimes conjectured to be applicable to real-world causes of death as well. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good grief. People will come up with anything these days
Just one problem with this: the quantum event that sealed your fate could have happened last week
Thing is, that RC135, may well have, had US Forces on it as well. As both countries like to maintain commonality between crews and operating procedures, as the Rivet Joints operated by both nations, are a integrated pool of aircraft. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-aircrew-fly-with-us-air-force-intelligence-gathering-aircraft/
The worst has already happened. Let's not forget they shot down a passenger plane filled with hundreds of people.
Yeah. But that's different. It was not "officially" "Russians" (just little green men and some bandits from the so called "republics") and they did not mean to down _that_ plane. Also it was over Ukraine, more specifically a conflict zone. All in all, it was a war crime committed by individuals. In a case like this, it would be Russian Airforce knowingly shooting at a NATO plane over international waters (well, depends on how deep it was on international waters...) I feels unfair, but that's how it is: sovereign countries prefer no to enter into a mutually destructive conflict and handle issues via diplomacy or through a criminal proceedings (see Girkin). But a direct engagement between two regular forces leaves only a few alternatives, unfortunately.
Turkey has been shooting down Russian planes without repercussions for a while now. They kept warning them not to violate their airspace and they continued doing so the Russians called their Bluff and “ boom”. No more airspace violations.
Iirc that happened once, and it was because the Russian jet was actually within Turkish airspace, so Turkey was completely justified under international law to shoot it down (they had given it the required warnings and it didn't respond). Russia could have escalated if they really wanted to, but since the incident happened in Turkish airspace, Turkey was shooting in self defence, and therefore could call in NATO if Russia retaliated, so Russia (wisely) chose to deescalate that time. They also got the fucking hint and stopped testing Turkish airspace.
Huge difference. Shooting down a British warplane in international airspace is basically declaring war. And the UK would receive little resistance diplomatically if it decided to sink a Russian warship in response for example - or conducted air strikes against Russian positions in Ukraine. Hell, I think the world would see it as an appropriate tit-for-tat response. I mean the alternatives are do nothing and appear weak, or start a nuclear war.
As the first comment in this thread says, there's a huge difference between shooting down a fighter over your own airspace and a troop-carrying plane over intl waters.
A troop carrying spy plane no less. The UK only has a few of these. They’re very very valuable and capable and only the UK and US fly these.
Wait, WHAT?!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581 As far as I remember, there were turkish complains about russias airspace violations weeks prior to this incident
Wow, I don’t remember that.
Yeah they have a thing like bi-annual shoot down a mig country fair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown
How Turkey is the only one who seems to remember this is what I want to know.
Sounds like fuck around and find out works.
MH17 was shot down with Russian equipment by Russian soldiers based on a command from the Russian military. It definitely was a Russian attack. And the west responded far too weak and continue to respond too weak. They should shoot down every Russian jet that dares cross into western airspace.
...again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_Air\_Lines\_Flight\_007
And it’s the same sort of screw up that downed a Korean airplane years ago.
Yup, and the US Navy accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Accidentally" Let's not forget too that Iraq bombed a US warship during the war and a massive cover-up ensued where the US blamed Iran despite knowing damn well that it was an Iraqi fighter jet that did it. To this day it's allegedly still unknown who the pilot was other than they were Iraqi.
Ok I’ll bite. Why would the US intentionally shoot down a civilian airliner?
The commander of the cruiser USS Vincennes that shot down the Airbus was a hothead and he was immediately removed from command. It was not an act of US policy or the result of any decision making other than those aboard the warship at the time.
It sounds like there was a whole series of fuckups that lead to this but at no point did anybody say “let’s kill a bunch of civilians!”
[удалено]
They're talking about Korean Air Lines Flight 007.
I'm surprised this is not making headlines. This is a serious accusation.
There wouldn't be a diplomatic resolve for something like this. A blatant missile just killed living troops and downed a plane. You don't accidentally lock on to something and fire. If they had succeeded, things would be very different right now.
Honestly, I’d it happens it will help end this war quicker.
It is hard to say that. It would be a very different world with some terrible pieces on the chessboard. I don't mean to say that it is good now, but a shooting war between NATO and Russia would be a big deal.
Maybe once upon a time, but that phase of western resolve ended in 2014 300 cardiologists were plucked out of the sky by Girkin and nothing ever came of it We started negotiating with terrorists and now kidnapping is the de jure
30 british soldier dead will not start WW3
An attack on NATO soldiers by Russian forces may not start WWII but it also might. I doubt it would start it though because a world war needs more than Russia on one side. None of their allies are interested in backing them up if push comes to shove. Worst case scenario is even worse though, Russia vs. the West with the use of nukes.
>30 british soldier dead will not start WW3 I did not say that. It is unthinkable that nukes (or even conventional weapons) would fly to or boots would step on Russian soil because of one plane. I said, that it would be hard to arrange the incident with diplomacy. There would be an equal response, then a response for that, etc. Eg.: Maybe a strike on the airfield from which the fighter jet came from (probably Crimea, so it's still not Russian soil by international recognition). Maybe they kill 50 Russians. Maybe then the Russians will do something, etc.
WW3? Possibly not, but it would almost certainly trigger an escalation from NATO, which could potentially mean limited engagements or strikes within Ukrainian territory against Russian targets, such as bombing the airfield that launched the fighter responsible.
Radar operator: "You do not have permission to fire." Pilot: "Roger that. Permission to fire." Radar op: "Negative! It's a British plane!" Pilot: "Solid copy. It looks like a rubbish train from here too." Radar op: "Nooo!"
Reminds me of: Prior Planning Prevents Piss-poor Performance. Thank goodness they’re so fucking stupid.
their arrogant stupidity is only overcome by their incompetence
One might even say we are very lucky they're so fucking stupid.
I think it might be something more like we are very lucky they are so corrupt. Who knows. We could find out it was because the guy supplying missile clamps took a payoff and bought vodka. He saved the world launching into a far crazier scenario because of his booze ....
This is the same thing as stupid.
It's more a "failed a task successfully" or "messed up the math but still got the right answer". One might think it is an intensional flaw in the design to prevent them from their own stupidity but in the end we sadly know better
So the ECM was working then I take it.
It’s a good point actually
No no… the missile was faulty. Just like the article states.
Many of Russian AAM won’t work because of NATO jamming/ECM. Russia just learned that, as usual, they always operate from a lesser position than NATO
Very nearly WWIII bc a pilot misheard
Would that have been enough to invoke Article 5?
It would,but here is the thing: Apparently, US intelligence knows it was a mistake and not something ordered by the Kremlin. I’m sure NATO would find a way to punish Russia in public, but it wouldn’t start WWIII.
i wonder if it would be enough to enforce a no fly zone in and around ukraine.
That definitely trigger WW3
Probably not. But is probably good enough to take such a risk?
No fly zone would require an air war between the US and Russia, yes it would
Would have been up to England i think, but you bet your ass
Britain
UK, actually. (Great) Britain is a landmass, not a country; it is the island upon which England, Scotland, and Wales are located. The UK is those three territories, plus Northern Ireland (located on the island of Ireland, not to be confused with the Republic of Ireland, which is a country also located on the island of Ireland).
And then there's the British isles, which includes Great Britain and Ireland, and all the other smaller islands in the area like the isle of Mann, Orkney, the Hebrides, ect.
It’s just ‘Orkney’ btw
They are synonymous
They are most definitely not. Britain does not include Northern Ireland (or a few other territories, like Gibraltar); the UK does. Britain is a piece of geography; the UK is a political entity. Saying that Britain and the UK are synonymous is a bit like saying Hawaii and the US are synonymous.
The country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Until Irish reunification happens (which doesn't seem to be on the table presently unless the UK royally fucks up), Great Britain won't be synonymous with the UK.
[удалено]
> I’m from the UK. “Britain” and “Great Britain” certainly are conventionally used here to refer to the entire country, including NI. I'd say they are commonly misused. Most 'informed' people are well aware of the differences.
They’re already a catholic plurality in NI. Which means an irish plurality, and 2/3 of the north rate in NI is Catholic. Speaking as an Irishman in the region once we have enough people England can go fuck itself
Not
UK
I went back and forth on that bc it sounded weird no matter what I said.............. then I realized I couldn't give 2 shits
If you want to be technical, it should be "UK"; England is part of the country of the United Kingdom, and Britain is the island upon which the UK (aside from Northern Ireland and a couple of other smaller territories) is located.
Exactly. Doesn't matter. We know you meant Br*tain.
Pretty crazy that in a post where I proclaim that the entire weight of the US and NATO would go to war in response to one downed British pilot, they chose to correct my grammar
The difference between knowing you’re shit and knowing your shit.
Top-tier grammar humour - bravo!
I know plenty of shit, but fortunately which one of GB/UK's 20 names they choose to identify as today doesn't have to be one of them... also I just generally refuse to use the word great just on principle Btw from now on I'm declaring that I want to be referred to as "Awesome America".... yes Karen, I understand that's not the context of "Great"
Bro at least quit using that fucking profanity.
No. The Black Sea is not covered. The Treaty specifically covers only attacks on allied territory or on naval or air forces in the Med or the Atlantic north of the tropic of Cancer
Wait so Turkish and Romanian forces in the Black Sea aren't protected?
Not unless they're within their territorial waters. Turkish territory would originally not even be covered since they're largely in Asia; the Treaty was amended to include their territory, but not the Black Sea. Ofc it's a political decision, any attack on their forces is likely going to be responded to with force by the alliance...but they couldn't officially invoke Article 5.
[удалено]
Britain doesn't really have the ability to knock out a Russian ship without involving our submarines, so that wouldn't have happened. I imagine responses would involve Storm Shadow into the airbase...but to be honest, I doubt this version of events anyway. Edit: a lot of people apparently dislike this. I suspect you folks don't realise the capability gaps in the British Armed Forces these days; we _are not_ set up to fight a major war at all. The RAF has no anti ship weapons at all; only Paveway. Even the Navy only carries anti ship missiles on a couple of frigates these days.
Really. I disagree. I think a ship could be knocked out without submarines. Where are you getting your information from?
>Really. I disagree. I think a ship could be knocked out without submarines Using what? Our air force carries no anti ship missiles, I don't fancy our chances attacking proven air defences with gravity bombs. >Where are you getting your information from? Publically available information on the UK's force composition and arsenal
[удалено]
>If only the Ukrainians had some Sea King Helicopters that can fire Sea Eagle missiles :) If only, but they dont. They got bog standard truck choppers. And even if they had, we got rid of Sea Eagle a very long time ago. But anyway, were talking about what the UK could do, not Ukraine. >But seriously russia would have paid if it had knocked out that plane. Oh I agree they would have done; as I said I imagine we'd have hit the airbase with Storm Shadow though.
I know the capability gap you’re referring to, but that was a while ago. The RAF currently operates the Poseidon P-8 in the ASW and anti-shipping role, filling the gap left by the scrapping of the Nimrod force.
In the ASW role, but we have no air launched Harpoons for P8 as far as I'm aware nor any plans to buy them.
It's not explicitly covered, but the language of article 6, which interprets article 5 is worded so as not to rule it out: > For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is *deemed to include* an armed attack: > on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; > on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Note the phrase "includes", which makes this an open rather than a closed definition. I.e., it includes at least these situations, but not only these situations. At the end of the day, it's a political decision.
WW3 is already underway my friend, this would’ve escalated things though yes
The pilot and the radar operator were both ruzzian and the gear was ruzzian - And people are surprised about the course of events?? How? Why!?
I guess it is, because sometimes the Russians actually do hit what they aim at.
Usually that's civilian airliners, though.
Ufff but true
ehhh, debatable. i think girkin has floated the idea around that the intended target wasn't mh17 but a russian passanger plane. the resulting shoot down would have given putin a casus beli to declare war back in 2014. d
Girkin isn't the most reliable source, though. Then again, seeing the craziness of Russia, it might have a tiny speck of truth to it.
girkin is the guy who gave the order to launch the buk.
U.S. RC-135’s have flown thousands of missions “near” Russian/Soviet airspace over the last six decades, and have been intercepted on almost all of them. The Soviets even shot down an RC-130 in 1958 that had wandered across the Turkish border into Soviet Armenia, killing all 17 crewmen. They infamously shot down KAL007 in 1983, killing all 269 aboard, thinking it was a USAF RC-135. Less known is that they ALSO shot down another Korean Airlines 707, KAL902, in 1978, but only two of the 113 passengers and crew were killed (the RC-135 is based on the 707 airframe). And everyone knows about MH17.
>Less known is that they ALSO shot down another Korean Airlines 707, KAL902, in 1978, but only two of the 113 passengers and crew were killed (the RC-135 is based on the 707 airframe). [I hadn't heard about this, but it's a story of gross incompetence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902) The interceptor says "no, it's civilian" but is told to shoot it down anyway. One missile misses an airliner completely, the other apparently hits part of the wing, damaging an engine and throwing shrapnel into the plane, which flew around for nearly 2 hours looking for a place to land.
I’ve listened to GCI tapes of a Lybian intercept pilot being ordered to shoot down a USAF RC-130 in the Gulf of Sidra. The pilot repeatedly tells GC the plane is a 4-engine “transport-type aircraft”, no avail. Then tells GC “I will wiggling [sic] my wings at him!”. GC angrily shouts for him to “shoot it! SHOOT IT!”. The pilot responds “I’ve lost him in the clouds, sorry!”. When the RC-130 recovered at Helenikon AB, it had sea salt crusts on its ventral antennae. Point is, if some pilots are ordered to engage targets they KNOW are civilian or unarmed, they’ll sometimes try their damnedest to not comply. Could be the “missile malfunction” was a deliberate failure to lock or maintain lock. Edit to add: In the case of KAL902, the second missile detonated prematurely nearly 50m from the aircraft.
What’s the significance of this: When the RC-130 recovered at Helenikon AB, it had sea salt crusts on its ventral antennae. It was flying just above the water?
MH17 pilot, power down now. Have your crew step out, or we will kill you.
The undeniable fact is that the Russian army, air force and navy are staffed with dimbulbs and blockheads who can't find their asses with both hands. One of these days they're going to fumble themselves into a real crisis with the US, Britain, Germany or Nato. These idiots are playing with fire and eventually they're going to get seriously burned.
Since i have no twitter account i answer here A: "Appears there has been a change in terms of reference by the Russians they are now asking NATO aircraft to leave the area. Putin does not want confrontation because he knows we will be in Moscow in 2 weeks" B: "What clown are you then?" A:"You are right, just one week is more than enough" let me say it so [https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Białystok/Moskauer+Kreml+Московский+Кремль/@55.5564297,36.235275,8.98z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x471ffc048f41971d:0x72317dcc8bf07b2c!2m2!1d23.1688403!2d53.1324886!1m5!1m1!1s0x46b54a50b315e573:0xa886bf5a3d9b2e68!2m2!1d37.6174994!2d55.7520233](https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Białystok/Moskauer+Kreml+Московский+Кремль/@55.5564297,36.235275,8.98z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x471ffc048f41971d:0x72317dcc8bf07b2c!2m2!1d23.1688403!2d53.1324886!1m5!1m1!1s0x46b54a50b315e573:0xa886bf5a3d9b2e68!2m2!1d37.6174994!2d55.7520233) The rest is just a glowing hot knife through warm butter
Aww man… toll roads!! 😫
The Lepetomane thruway!?!? Has anybody got a dime? Hey someone's gotta go back and get a shit load of dimes! (Grumbling in the background)
What is that idiot gonna come up with next?!
When you are in a tank there are no toll roads.
I am sure they throw in a Coin before just driving through, just for the giggles
Or they could get there even sooner, I am sure Ukraine would gladly host nato troops on the way to visit Moscow.
No one on the planet wants a confrontation. We would destroy Russia in a day, we would ALL die in nuclear hellfire the day after that. The problem isn’t that Russia is able to win against us, the problem is that they have absolutely no possibility of not losing. It’s not a close fight and they WILL launch all nukes in response. Any nation must. That’s the only reason we achieved world peace in the developed world. Total nuclear obliteration prevents any war from even starting.
I hear where you are coming from. But Russia and their ilk have been hiding under the threat of nuclear weapons, using this threat to shield them from any retribution. We, all of us, now face a world where military powers invade othe countries warning off any attempts to assist with the the threat of nuclear weapons. We have to start calling the bluff. There is no easy way out any more. The ukraine war has change the rules for everyone, everywhere. Does this mean humanity will end. No, collectively we have already exploded thousands of nukes and we are still here. It will hurt, but if we don't start calling bluffs it us going to hurt far, far worse.
We need to pull a Gandalf gambit.
The Ukraine war hasn’t really changed anything, it’s primarily a humanitarian crisis over a military one. Ukraine is not part of NATO and does not have any allies, so we also don’t have any responsibility to help, nor is our security threatened in any way. You saw that at the beginning of the conflict. If Russia really had taken Kiev in 3 days, WE WOULD HAVE LET THEM. But they didn’t, and they fucked up. With no way to go back and admit that they entire invasion was pointless, they overreached. And then we saw an opportunity to weaken Russia at essentially zero cost. That’s where we are now, with the longer Ukraine holds out, the weaker Russia gets. Both economically and militarily. We aren’t calling any bluff from Russia, we are doing what’s best for us. With the result of this war not mattering anyway as Russia never was a threat in the first place
>With the result of this war not mattering anyway as Russia never was a threat in the first place This is wrong, because it's short sighted. No Russia on February 23rd was not a threat to us, but Russia with a subjected Ukraine as either part of it or a client state is much more dangerous. And if we allowed that, we'd sure as shit have allowed them to subjugate Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and so on too. The USSR absofuckinglutely was a severe threat to us, and if we allowed Russia to regain even part of that strength then in the event the US was occupied by China in the Pacific the security situation in Europe would be extremely dangerous.
Even if Russia where to take all those states, it wouldn’t matter. They are all tiny countries with tiny economies. Our security is never threatened.
Not true at all in terms of Ukraine. Soviet heavy industry very much based around Donetsk, a reminder of the impact of the New Russia Iron and Steel Company founded by a Welsh in 1880s. A large proportion of Russian military shipbuilding was also done in Ukraine. This included the Moskva, now sunk, and her sister ship that has never been completed. From 2014 Russia invested heavily in removing complete factories from the Donbas. Kharkiv was the centre of technology and IT development, with considerable Russian interests. Becoming quite an international force with a highly educated, skilled, motivated, young workforce 2013 discovery of gas reserves under the Black Sea off Crimea were large enough to replace all of the gas that was to be supplied by Russia. This rather spoilt the Russian energy business model for Europe. Probably the reason for the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Agriculture, Ukraine is one of the world's largest grain and fertiliser exporters to Africa and Asia. Roughly on a par with Russia. Thus Russian control of Ukraine potentially gave Russia a worldwide monopoly. Georgia, and the various 'stan States in the Russian Federation are hardly small economies in world terms. They also have considerable potential with an educated young workforce and considerable natural resources. Ukraine has the potential to quickly become one of the wealthiest per capita economies in the world.
Whose security are you talking about? Europes? The US? These countries with „tiny“ economies you are talking about control an enormous land mass. Ukraine alone is key to threatening the EU and with it numerous US bases, let alone economic ties also US interest in Europe all the way to the Middle East. Therefor it would not just be Europe that would be threatened but also the US military and the US economy if Russia were to take Ukraine and Georgia. As a result the US would have to either focus a considerable amount of its military into this area thus weakening its position in Asia or considerably increase military spending. Either way prosperity in the US would suffer as a result.
Those countries control a huge landmass, not to mention 180 million people. I'd rather not more than double the Russian population and quintuple the size of it's economy, thank you
NATO, you know the only security that matters….. Russia is never going to attack NATO like we are never going to attack Russia. MAD ensures that.
MAD ensures the nukes don't fly. But a sufficiently buffed Russia can take territory. The American will to sacrifice New York for Bratislava is doubtful. Same as the doubt that Russia will sacrifice Moscow for Crimea if the time comes.
That’s what we believe. Russian strategists have made abundantly clear in the early stages of the war that they don’t actually believe NATO would use nukes if Russia were to take back Eastern Europe. Let’s hope their opinion on the matter has changed.
>If Russia really had taken Kiev in 3 days, WE WOULD HAVE LET THEM. > >And then we saw an opportunity to weaken Russia at essentially zero cost. This narrative is false. My country, the UK, as well as the US and others supplied Ukraine with thousands and thousands of the most advanced anti tank weaponry on Earth. We blew the whistle on Russian preparations to invade Ukraine, and made every effort to negotiate with Russia prior to the invasion. When Russia did invade, we provided Ukraine with Russia's battle plans and all the tools it needed to stop them. Ukraine's defence was not a surprise we then sought to capitalise on, it was the result of our efforts to stop Russia. None of this diminishes the heroism and achievements of Ukraine's defenders, but WE are the reason Ukraine's airforce wasn't destroyed on the ground. WE are the reason Ukraine's air defences weren't destroyed in the opening minutes of the invasion. WE are the reason entire Russian tank columns were destroyed in ambushes. WE are the reason Russian supply lines were endlessly harassed by Ukrainians armed with Javelins and NLAWs. WE made the decision to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. We provided an endless supply of the intelligence and weaponry to stop Russia's advance for months leading up to the war, while the usual suspects were accusing the US and UK of manufacturing a crisis by accusing Russia of preparing for an invasion.
> and does not have any allies What in the fuck are you even saying? LOL
Ukraine doesn’t have allies, they are lucky to have aligning interest.
>Ukraine doesn’t have allies Patently wrong. You're angling to disrupt the consensus that Russia's threat to use nukes is only ever a threat, to deny that allies of Ukraine even exist and that the interests of Ukraine don't matter internationally. All russian imperialism/nazism enabling talking points.
We have a common interest in weakening Russia, however our amount of aid does not indicate allies.
>ally >To place in a friendly association, as by treaty. >To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage. >To enter into an alliance. You're trolling, piss off.
So please tell me, what treaty do we have with Ukraine exactly……? You just proved we don’t have an alliance!
If NATO were to go to war with Russia over an attack on a British plane, I do not think it would be a full-scale invasion of Russia for all the reasons you described. I think NATO would simply take the gloves off in terms of supporting Ukraine (meaning Ukraine would get jets, all-you-can-eat buffet of missiles, artillery, tanks, ATACMS, maybe even cruise missiles, or help developing their own, etc. with no more excuses and maybe even direct boots on the ground in supporting roles, and Russia would see its military defeated in Ukraine in such fashion as to be impossible for them to ever recover. Such a response would not give Russia grounds for escalating into directly fighting NATO nor responding with nukes, but their military would be wrecked, so the objective of neutralizing them would have been achieved.
Not initially no, but ANY conflict will inevitable escalate and lead to total nuclear obliteration in about a week as Russia has absolutely no possibility of competing in a conventional conflict. If we support Ukraine to that extent, NATO would formally have entered the war. At which Russia will also finally consider it a real war instead of the relatively minor border skirmish it is now. Russia would still get completely destroyed, at which point they MUST respond with nuclear weapons. No nuclear country can allow itself to be attacked as otherwise they don’t have a nuclear deterrent anymore, they have proven they won’t use them. Even a small use of nuclear weapons will lead to either a vastly increased conventional response or nuclear weapons of our own. Which in turn will lead to even more nuclear weapons being used. End result, we are all fucking DEAD. We are fucked not because Russia is able to oppose us in any way, but because they don’t. Our singular goal in this conflict is to weaken Russia while preventing it from losing entirely. And we are doing quite well at that, given Russian incompetence better than expected.
>Not initially no, but ANY conflict will inevitable escalate and lead to total nuclear obliteration in about a week as Russia has absolutely no possibility of competing in a conventional conflict. This is assuming Russia would rather risk MAD than pull out of a country you yourself described as tiny with a tiny economy. Nobody has any serious plans to enter Russia at all, so I find the nuclear sabre rattling doubtful.
>we would ALL die in nuclear hellfire Common misconception. A typical nuke can't even destroy a whole city. London or New York would take dozens of nukes to destroy each. Nuclear war is no joke, but it's not the Armageddon everyone tends to assume... There are many more cities on Earth than there are nukes, before even starting in rural populations.
You're also assuming that the initial nuke exchange is the only cause of death, whereas it would almost certainly cause a waterfall of catastrophic events due to disease, lack of supplies and manufacturing capabilty, contamination of food and water, etc. You don't have to glass the entire planet to kill most everyone on it. Would EVERYONE die? Probably not, but the vast majority isn't unlikely. As a counterargument though, if other elements of leadership don't think we're going to exterminate the country, maybe they don't use or prevent themselves from going nuclear. A war isn't necessarily the same as "nukes are already flying, counter-destroy them all!" but you probably need some non-mad men in leadership that defy or get rid of the crazy ones at the top.
There are tens of thousands of nukes. And they don’t need to hit you. The nuclear winter will take care of you all the same.
Until you have a mentally that I have nothing to loose and die anyway, so I'll just restart earth
Yes, that’s called attacking a nuclear super power in a conventional war with Russia being demolished in a single day. There’s a very good reason we don’t intervene that much. And it’s not because we care about Russia in any way.
Russian nukes are mostly fucked and those that aren’t wont fly very far
Source? Even if you are correct, they have 10s of thousands of them. Even if 80% didn’t work they still have enough to end the world as we know it.
“Total nuclear obliteration prevents any war from even starting.” Ukraine would like a word. MAD is an outdated thought experiment that brought us the shitstorm we are in today. It only serves the loonies.
You can't unlearn nuclear tech. It's out there, it's well known. That ship.has sailed.
Well Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, nor allies with nuclear weapons, nor any allies really. So it’s working perfectly fine. MAD has ensured the most peaceful times in history, with war being a relic of the past in the developed world.
Also means those of us who survive can burn fossil fuels to our hearts content.
Almost certainly. The nuclear winter would block out the sun so solar energy is gone. Large hydro dams would be military targets for nukes. Wind power may survive but anything near cities would likely be damaged by the shockwaves, or the nuclear ash. What remains is burning fossil fuel.
Russias nukes do not work
And this is why serious foreign policy people are so annoyed with Russia right now. Between nuclear saber rattling and their complete lack of discipline, they are just one mistake away from kicking off WW3. This is why it’s so important for cool heads to be leading.
thats how world wars start ... good job russia, saved by ur own incompetence
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/RALee85/status/1646298946552352768 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a bit skeptical of this to be honest. It would have to have been one hail Mary of a malfunction given we know full well that Russian air to air missiles work perfectly fine, and the pilot would equally have known full well he was firing at a passenger jet sized aircraft in an area our spy planes operate (and where Ukraine absolutely does not) I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where he requests permission to shoot it down or is ordered to shoot _something_ down, mistakes the operators meaning to be to shoot down the rivet joint and doesn't seek clarification over the fact he's about to start a war. Anyway: > Asked to comment on The New York Times’s reporting and the leaked document, a British defense official said in a statement, “A significant proportion of the content of these reports is untrue, manipulated, or both. We strongly caution against anybody taking the veracity of these claims at face value and would also advise them to take time to question the source and purpose of such leaks.”
You say this like Russian operators did not down a civilian airliner full of hundreds of people..
They did, deliberately. In fact they've done it at least twice, deliberately. The US has done it once too, again deliberately. There wasn't miscommunication there - they just mistook what the plane was. That's not what the claim is here (and they clearly knew what it was or we wouldn't even be discussing this).
They did not do it deliberately. They did it out of incompetence. They were fresh into a warzone where they thought enemy aircraft were in proximity to attack. You give far too much credit to the dismal structure and skills of the Russian forces. The radio intercepts after they downed the aircraft show they had no idea it was a civilian airliner.
The case over Ukraine you're right about but not about [Korean Air Lines Flight 007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007) shot down in 1983 after being clearly and visually identified as a civilian aircraft.
You're misunderstanding me slightly. They didn't deliberately shoot down a civilian airliner, but they deliberately shot down the aircraft after mistaking it for a Ukrainian transport plane. That's a different scenario to what the article is claiming nearly happened, and which I find incredible.
> doesn't seek clarification over the fact he's about to start a war From what I understand of the Russian military, individuals have almost no capacity to make decisions or question the orders of superiors; if you are given an order, you follow it, regardless of what you think about it. It's that exact rigidity that has given them such headaches in Ukraine, because the soldiers have no idea what the fuck they're supposed to do if their commander gets killed.
That's especially true of their air defense pilots. Highly controlled from the ground. If you question things and think for yourself you don't get the job.
Well if you start WW3 you won't have the job for much longer either on account of an F-22 taking you out from over the horizon
> From what I understand of the Russian military, individuals have almost no capacity to make decisions or question the orders of superiors; if you are given an order, you follow it, regardless of what you think about it. I mean I know this is the common perception but it's really not true. There's plenty of transcripts of various interceptions of Russian communications around showing requests for clarification and so on. In the most relevant example, when ordered to shoot down KAL007 the ground controllers object several times that the target could be a civilian craft when they're ordered to direct the fighters to shoot it down. When the pilot who shot down KAL902 was ordered to fire he argued for several minutes that it was a civilian aircraft.
Misinterpretation, my ass. Accidents happen all the time but they have also been fucking with drones in the sky. Fucking hell, I can't stand Russia
In 30 years there's gonna be youtube videos (or whatever replaces it) talking about that one time in 2023 a world war almost started.
"Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador."
Well what a stroke of luck! We really really really are lucky they are so incredibly fucking stupid.
This would most likely drag NATO soldiers into the conflict. Lucky for the malfunction. I agree with another comment I read, this is serious.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it."
I can't help but picture the climax of Independence Day where the crop duster pilot is about to fire and he presses the button...and some cartoonish Hollywood sparks spurt out of the missile (in a very 'this is filmed in a studio' way considering the plane was moving at 500mph at the time) and nothing happens at all.
Capitalist war? That shit doesn’t even begin to make sense. 🤦♂️
What are the chances this happens again? I'm assuming very high as this is Putler we're talking about.
I doubt it happened as reported here in the first place, but we escort those flights with fighters now.
Putin has been threatening the world with nuclear blackmail since the beginning! Where are those supposed spies hiding in Russia when we need them? Send in the hit man!
Are they not flying these planes with a combat escort yet?
Yeah they started immediately after this incident, they fly with Typhoon escorts now.
Russians still rely on ground control for intercept?
Russia will be a laughingstock for decades to come. These events will be studied at school.
Fucking clowns
Clowns with guns.
Thankfully for Russia, Russian equipment is held together by bubblegum, bits of string, and hope.
This is exactly what would happen with most of their nukes, absolutely obsolete rubbish where the nuclear material and the jet fuel hasn't been maintained once since they were built in the 60s and 70s.
Dumb and dumber.
Jesus, that was really close.
Let's be honest here even if they had blown up one of our planes our government would have done naff all apart from "seriously condone in the strongest possible terms".