>> Removing the deliberate attack on a NATO member from the equation, are there any red
>> lines with regards the Ukraine where we would get directly involved?
>>
>> Perhaps a major chemical or biological weapons attack leading to 10s of thousands of casualties?
I have had similar thoughts. But if the reason for not tackling Russia directly is avoiding WW3 or a nuclear exchange, then the question becomes "are we prepared to trigger a nuclear war" to which there can only be one answer.
The glib comment here is the first loss is the best loss and if NATO isn't prepared for Ukraine to be flattened then now is the time to act. But the stakes are too high.
A lot of people are trying to decide whether Putin is rational. If he is, and NATO (more acccurately, the NATO allies because it's outside NATO's terms of engagement) were to commit fully, then rationally Russia would withdraw. Putin has attempted to preempt this by implying a nuclear response and saying that "if there is no Russia, we don't need a planet".
Everybody knows he's bluffing,but there's just enough doubt. It's in his interest to look insane to the West. Our best hope is that he looks insane to the Russians.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 23 Mar 22 at 09:07
|