The Guardian calls for NATO to declare war on Russia
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
So here's what I don't understand: NATO's motto is "an attack on one is an attack on all", but that means the reverse is also true- war waged with a single NATO state means war with all 30.
Why doesn't Russia simply state that a war against 30 nations is an existential threat that justifies the full use of its military, to include nuclear weapons? And that in order to maximize its chances for survival, upon indications that a war has begun it will immediately launch nuclear weapons at the capitals of every NATO state with the remainder of its arsenal being targeted to maximize damage to the US and the UK.
I mean, sure, Russia would get glassed too, but that's cold comfort when it has effectively destroyed every country in western Europe and the United States. Basically, if they want a de-escalate this they need to convince NATO that it will result in World War III if they intervene.
That’s kind of the point of mutually assured destruction and why it’s nothing more than sending arms and money to Ukraine. They did the same in Korea and Vietnam, and we did it to each other in Afghanistan. This is just the new proxy front of a new Cold War.
Part of the reason why there’s no nato forces in Ukraine is for that very reason. Russia is probably being a bit measured with its Sabre rattling as well since taking Ukraine on paper should not have been this difficult for them. They aren’t losing. But this isn’t the similar to the 6 day war results anyone was expecting either. Which leads to a wide range of questions from their command structure to does their tech actually perform as well as they say it does. Which also may have them doubting their delivery method for their bombs.
The Soviets did send combat troops to fight in (North) Korea and Vietnam (North Vietnam, also KGB in Laos).