Russia MoD said they are on the verge of a direct armed conflict with the United States.
Ukraine fired HIMARS into Russia, hitting a military target. 7 dead, 40+ wounded soldiers.
Ukraine is doing what they promised Joe they wouldn't do. The irony.
Halturnerradioshow.com
Why not tactically nuke Ukraine first. Problem solved. If there's no command structure, there's always Russian command structure. Because it isn't in Nato, or in the EU. Obviously it won't win them World opinion, in fact it completely threatens it. They'd become a hermit rogue state like North Korea. But a conflict with America, would only happen if other flanks get involved. They don't need them to win their supposed goals. But this conflict can only escalate. As it is with missiles hitting Russian homeland. Anybody else, and nukes would fly? Questioning why would they open another front. Instead of causing victory?
A direct war with America and Nato, can only occur, if they move into Ukraine, ground troops and no fly zones, or if more Russian partnerships become involved.
Presently how does Russia respond to the continuous flow of arms, increasing in the risk of escalation. At what point don't they fully remove Ukrainian command structures. And if they do, does it cause a counter offensive by NaTo? What is Russia's endgame? Partitioning Ukraine, and adopting gained territory into Russian law.
Of course angry Russians are demanding war with Nato and nukes. Currently Russia can still win without using nukes. But at what point doesn't this conflict escalate,
CORRECTION. Target was a Russian base that stages troops on the easter edge WITHIN Ukraine. NOT Russia.
Still HIMARS were used.
Catch is US intelligence used their world iewer-2 satellite, found the camp and forwarded coordinates to Kyev.
Currently 7 dead, 80+ wounded.
Basically US directed coordinates to US weapons in a war theater constitutes war.
Russia, to say the least, is pissed.
Yes, but it has been inside Russia previously, a few times now. Refinery and other depots. Even the sinking of the Moskva.
There is still the very present issue of weapons and Intel being supplied. Particularly missiles, and satellite coverage?
Russia has satellite killers. Why not attack satellites? But these could cause conflict if they're another nation's like Nato. Doubtful if they're operating in hostile airspace, but those rules don't tend to apply if they're in upper orbit. There are still rules, and treaties, regarding space. Speculative. But an increasing option. Or there's removing the Ukrainian command structure with a tactical strike. This is obviously a last resort, because it causes a worse response, and much greater potential for a larger conflict. Still largely unnecessary presently.
However going to war with America is largely a parody at this point. I doubt Russia would strike first, or indeed outside of the present conflict without much larger grounds to do so. Incidents like this increase the risk of it, or at the least the above. Perhaps they could on other involvement. Suggestably in defense of an allies. Speculative. But America or Nato could act inside Ukraine, and it remains an increasing escalation the longer this conflict continues.
I am only debating the topic. Not in support of. Trying to factor the odds.
Russia has already stated they have the ability to take out comms, GPS satellites out.
Also stated the ability to strike decision making centers not yet struck.
On Friday the Duma and National Security Council will decide on a declaration of a state of war.
If it happens, then what? Gives Putin right to strike outside of Ukraine.
How to kill a snake. Take its head off.
But they haven't. Yes it was obvious they had the ability and have demonstrated it. Used it presently in Ukraine. No. Communications becoming disrupted are pivotal to achieving victory and hindering an enemy's ability to successfully attack.
Striking Ukrainian command and power structures hasn't occurred. What are they in command of, where is their morale, once government is hit, what are they protecting, hindering their ability to wage war. Who listens. But it can become problematic, because it could draw other sides in to claim power. If he is even operating from there. Remarkably Parliament, and the presidential compounds haven't been hit, instead they continuously draw increasing aid, and visits?
They are two of the most fundamental ways to win almost any war. But haven't really occurred?
Striking outside the current conflict, often causes a larger conflict. If it hits Nato. Nato becomes more involved.
I am actually quite curious. Apart from it risks a larger conflict. Except it has already drawn other sides into it, too such degrees. I find it quite odd some of the achievable ways to win victory are still being debate, or haven't occurred, and contrary cause increasing opposition.