 |
|
No, I disagree. The main issue really is whether or not
Posted on: November 27, 2024 at 23:24:40 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72837
Member For:
21.59 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
there is a legitimate casus belli for attacking another country.
Russia's nuclear doctrine, like our own, is a self-restricting doctrine that hopefully reassures other countries that one will not willy-nilly decide to nuke someone.
In this case, Russia can make the case, and legitimately so in the opinion of many, that Ukraine had overthrown the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, who had been friendly to Russia. They subsequently began violating some of their agreements with Russia, were persecuting and even killing Russians in Ukraine. That was in addition to NATO violating their own agreements with Russia about not expanding into other countries after Russia dissolved the USSR and started the disarmament process. Of course, the US was also sending weapons to Ukraine, along with "advisors" who were training and equipping them to fight Russia. Of course NATO membership would have meant placing yet more nuclear &/or nuclear capable missiles in close proximity to Russian cities. Ukraine also allegedly had a bioweapons lab built in eastern Ukraine, relatively close to the Russian border.
Russia had repeatedly warned the US & NATO that they were seriously provoking them and to back off. They entered peace talks, came to agreements, and then the US & NATO violated them.
When Russia intervened, NATO and the US were actively and obviously not only arming Ukraine to the teeth, but giving them all kinds of logistical support, and even "advisors" who weren't only training them, but allegedly even involved in the operations of the weapons that were killing Russians. In the case of the long range missiles fired into Russia, military experts were saying that Ukrainians would not have had time for the training to be able to pull that off by themselves. They would have required the active involvement of US personnel to operate the equipment to hit their targets.
By any rational metric, those are actions that would be considered legitimate casus belli and reasons to attack the other country involving itself in a war with you.
The nuclear doctrine, like any other military doctrine, is something that countries draft to give guidance to their military leaders and in some cases, to show potential adversaries the boundaries they have set for themselves. Countries are free to change those doctrines to fit the circumstances, as long as they do not violate international law, nor any existing treaties.
In this case, Russia is signaling that they feel threatened to the point that they are willing to use nuclear weapons under some circumstances, and the West has already crossed the new red line that they have drawn in the sand. From their viewpoint, it is warning NATO & the US to back off or hell may be unleashed.
Russia's nuclear doctrine, like our own, is a self-restricting doctrine that hopefully reassures other countries that one will not willy-nilly decide to nuke someone.
In this case, Russia can make the case, and legitimately so in the opinion of many, that Ukraine had overthrown the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, who had been friendly to Russia. They subsequently began violating some of their agreements with Russia, were persecuting and even killing Russians in Ukraine. That was in addition to NATO violating their own agreements with Russia about not expanding into other countries after Russia dissolved the USSR and started the disarmament process. Of course, the US was also sending weapons to Ukraine, along with "advisors" who were training and equipping them to fight Russia. Of course NATO membership would have meant placing yet more nuclear &/or nuclear capable missiles in close proximity to Russian cities. Ukraine also allegedly had a bioweapons lab built in eastern Ukraine, relatively close to the Russian border.
Russia had repeatedly warned the US & NATO that they were seriously provoking them and to back off. They entered peace talks, came to agreements, and then the US & NATO violated them.
When Russia intervened, NATO and the US were actively and obviously not only arming Ukraine to the teeth, but giving them all kinds of logistical support, and even "advisors" who weren't only training them, but allegedly even involved in the operations of the weapons that were killing Russians. In the case of the long range missiles fired into Russia, military experts were saying that Ukrainians would not have had time for the training to be able to pull that off by themselves. They would have required the active involvement of US personnel to operate the equipment to hit their targets.
By any rational metric, those are actions that would be considered legitimate casus belli and reasons to attack the other country involving itself in a war with you.
The nuclear doctrine, like any other military doctrine, is something that countries draft to give guidance to their military leaders and in some cases, to show potential adversaries the boundaries they have set for themselves. Countries are free to change those doctrines to fit the circumstances, as long as they do not violate international law, nor any existing treaties.
In this case, Russia is signaling that they feel threatened to the point that they are willing to use nuclear weapons under some circumstances, and the West has already crossed the new red line that they have drawn in the sand. From their viewpoint, it is warning NATO & the US to back off or hell may be unleashed.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: Britain and France are talking about sending in their troops - sarasotatiger MU - 11/28 17:11:24No, I disagree. The main issue really is whether or not - JeffB MU - 11/27 23:24:40