• TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think the issue has been that Russia has stated that the US not having limits on the use of their supplied weapons would be seen as a US escalation of the war. And that becomes tricky because Ukraine is not a NATO country, but Russia drawing the US into the war would bring are NATO allies in as well potentially allowing WW3 (although for Trump it would be only WW2).

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That’s meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn’t actually do anything. The only way for the US to get “drawn into” the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can’t win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Nukes. The hesitation is always about who is unhinged enough to actually fire a nuke.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?

          Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that’s more favorable to them doesn’t cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.

          It’s not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It’s about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.