this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
395 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2256 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Pentagon has expressed no concern regarding the advance of Ukrainian forces in Russia's Kursk Oblast, the Pentagon's press service reports.

Source: European Pravda, citing Sabrina Singh, Deputy Spokesperson for the Pentagon

Details: "No, because at the end of the day, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereign territory that its neighbour invaded. So, if we want to de-escalate tensions, as we've said from the beginning, the best way to do that is Putin can make that decision today to withdraw troops from Ukraine," Singh stated, when asked about the potential escalation of tensions due to Ukrainian forces entering Kursk Oblast

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s important to understand Russia’s current economic situation. The sanctions have been brutal, but China has managed to keep them afloat. A significant (nuclear) escalation would turn China against Putin immediately.

China’s economy is also in a precarious position right now. Their massive housing bubble is in the process of bursting. Xi will not tolerate instability on that scale.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Why would China turn against Putin for them using their nukes? I don't keep up much on their relations.

[–] Pancito@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

China needs exports to Europe and the US. A nuclear war is not good for anyone

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 17 points 3 months ago

For one, because they gave Ukraine guarantees to that effect. You might also have noticed that Russia threatened the west plenty with nukes, but not Ukraine.

Noone really knows what the exact Chinese policy is there they like their strategic ambiguity but one thing's for sure they are really big on non-proliferation, and thus aren't exactly fans of nuclear blackmail.

I don't think the Chinese would be triggered by Russia nuking its own territory, but then, well, Russia would be nuking its own territory. They could nuke Sudja to get rid of the incursion but they'd be nuking their own defence. Also, their own city. If they withdraw their defence first, Ukraine would gain even more territory and they'd have to nuke even more. Or, differently put: Just because the term "tactical nuke" exists doesn't mean that nukes are sensible tactical weapons.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Russian nukes would be aimed at western countries.

China sells to western countries.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even if Russia only used nukes in the Kursk region in response to these events, the global condemnation would be close to universal. China would risk their own sanctions if they continued supporting Russia after that sort of escalation.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

This makes sense, thanks

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 12 points 3 months ago

An exchange of nuclear weapons would be expected to ignite many fires and to spread dust and fallout into the atmosphere - similar to a large scale bush fire, volcanic eruption or a meteorite hit, depending on the size and number of weapons. This would have a chilling and darkening effect on the climate, causing crop failures worldwide. A world-wide nuclear winter effect would impact everyone, not just the parties to the conflict.

That's why, for all the posturing and sabre rattling, even the most belligerent states don't want a nuclear war - it means destruction of all sides, and massive casualties around the world.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There's a big chance the West doesn't just retaliates against Russia but at the same time launches to China and North Korea, so it's in everyone's best interest to not launch any nukes. You can imagine China getting a bit antsy every time Putin talks nukes in such a scenario.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Russia using a nuke and the West then retaliating against a couple of countries is too stupid even for a Seagal movie. How did you get this idea?

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

You might say that the China housing bubble has already popped. I haven't kept up over the last few weeks, but prices were plummeting weeks ago, and volume was massive.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 76 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What escalation? They've thrown everything they have at Ukraine already.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago

Its only a special military operation. Why would they need to escalate?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the West appears to be quiet as well. They are pleased with the results. It seems that if Ukraine had told their Western counterparts what they were planning beforehand, they'd be dissuaded. Further threats from Putin might be taken seriously by the West and not call the bluff.

But since the offensive into Kursk was successful and Kremlin is panicking at the moment, the West appears to be satisfied well enough to continue with further incursions. This, in itself, is calling Putin's bluff about escalation.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

It seems that if Ukraine had told their Western counterparts what they were planning beforehand, they'd be dissuaded.

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There's obviously no problem whatsoever with Ukraine making counter-attacks to Russian's side. I hope they can keep it up.

Perhaps they can circumvent Crimea's stronger northern defences by attacking it from the east. Yes, I know, a bit of a fantastic scenario, but one can dream.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Ukrainians using that fucking bridge to liberate Crimea would be peak karma.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I just hope Ukraine knows what it is doing, as it's calling the bluff of a nuclear power. I don't think Russia will nuke with anything big, but they might give the go ahead for small scale tactical nukes. Then again, Russia was already training for their use, so nothing lost and this means that if they use them, they might have to use it within their own territory and assume those repercussions. Best case, corruption has already disarmed any possibility of using them.

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If Russia uses nukes and fallout spreads to Europe, NATO might get involved.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

My gut says they've been searching for any nuke that will actually work after decades of Russian maintenance

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If their nukes are in as good a condition as their trucks were in 2022 we don't have much to worry about.

[–] Irrational_exuberance@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unlike the tanks, all they need is one nuke to work. 1 out of 5000.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Probably don't even need that, if they can get some ICBMs to just launch it is probably going to trigger something humanity may not be able to recover from.

[–] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What is with this place it kind of seems they have been fighting over it for the length of the war?

[–] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 3 months ago

Oblast just means "territory" or similar. Which is why you see it appended onto a lot of the names of places the fighting is taking place in.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Russia wants what Ukraine's got, including control over parts of the Black Sea. These are the areas at the border. It seems like they've been fighting over the same parts because they have. Russia hasn't been able to take and hold much if any ground.

[–] Irrational_exuberance@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At some point poison pill may become an option for someone desperate.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

You know, SMERCH took the Walter PPK Hitler used, maybe it's still in their possession...

load more comments
view more: next ›