Which is stupid. "An attack on one is an attack on all" works both ways.
There's nothing that says Russia has to wait for the rest of NATO to declare war or mobilize against it if it gets into a border skirmish with Finland, or Poland, or Latvia, or... They have ample justification to immediately glass DC and London at the first sign of hostilities as NATO's slogon means in for a penny, in for a pound. Nobody wins in a nuclear war, so setting up a tripwire to start one is like shooting yourself in the foot.
One would think that the US and other Western European powers wouldn't want to put so much risk of another world war in the hands of a bunch of bum-fuck Eastern European countries. Unless they plan on reneging on the pact (which is absolutely something the US would do if it suits them). The problem is that Russia has no way of knowing when they will follow through and when they won't.
The reason they wouldn't nuke London or DC is because both nations would have a nuclear response. So unless they have a Red Alert mind control phone nukes would be suicide.
As would be a conventional war with NATO, who would most assuredly impose "regime change" on Russia after fucking them up nicely.
Given that probability, the most effective defensive strategy is to to say "if any of your new flunkies fuck with me I'll kill us all". Mutually assured destruction kept the peace during the cold war.
The most effective defensive strategy would be to get into bed with China and India and cut the West out. The West entirely relies on China for manufacturing and India is quickly becoming a major player in the drug world.
The West cannot afford to lose those two as trading parties and China and India would love Russian gas.
Which is stupid. "An attack on one is an attack on all" works both ways.
There's nothing that says Russia has to wait for the rest of NATO to declare war or mobilize against it if it gets into a border skirmish with Finland, or Poland, or Latvia, or... They have ample justification to immediately glass DC and London at the first sign of hostilities as NATO's slogon means in for a penny, in for a pound. Nobody wins in a nuclear war, so setting up a tripwire to start one is like shooting yourself in the foot.
One would think that the US and other Western European powers wouldn't want to put so much risk of another world war in the hands of a bunch of bum-fuck Eastern European countries. Unless they plan on reneging on the pact (which is absolutely something the US would do if it suits them). The problem is that Russia has no way of knowing when they will follow through and when they won't.
You underestimate the hubris of european so-called "leaders". And I don't mean the politicians.
They have no problem throwing a billion people to the wolves.
As far as I can tell, this is literally the plan.
The reason they wouldn't nuke London or DC is because both nations would have a nuclear response. So unless they have a Red Alert mind control phone nukes would be suicide.
As would be a conventional war with NATO, who would most assuredly impose "regime change" on Russia after fucking them up nicely.
Given that probability, the most effective defensive strategy is to to say "if any of your new flunkies fuck with me I'll kill us all". Mutually assured destruction kept the peace during the cold war.
The most effective defensive strategy would be to get into bed with China and India and cut the West out. The West entirely relies on China for manufacturing and India is quickly becoming a major player in the drug world.
The West cannot afford to lose those two as trading parties and China and India would love Russian gas.
What prevents or has prevented Russia from becoming a powerhouse in manufacturing like China?