The public opinion is generally negative towards Russia's actions in the Ukraine conflict, with many commenters critical of Russia's military aggression and territorial expansion, particularly the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent regions. There is notable support for Ukraine's right to defend itself, with frustration directed towards organizations perceived as pro-Russian, like 'Stop the War'. The sentiment is one of urgency and demand for firm action against Russian aggression, coupled with disappointment in global responses and skepticism about peaceful resolutions.

Russia

Ukraine

Stop the War

NATO

Snapshot of _Stop the War calls for halt to Ukraine's 'terrifying escalation' in Russia_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/12/stop-the-war-terrifying-escalation-ukraine-russia/)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/12/stop-the-war-terrifying-escalation-ukraine-russia/)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I've got an idea to stop the war! The Russian Military leaves all occupied Ukrainian territory. Anything less is appeasement.

[deleted]

Does anyone here know of a time when Stop the War actually called on Russia to stop its war against Ukraine? I looked on their website, and there's lots of covert support for Russia (by constantly trying to get the West to not support Ukraine) but an absence of telling the country which started the war to end it?

The war could end in a few days if Russia withdrew from Ukraine - Ukraine will continue to fight if attacked, but they've been worn down enough that they will take an opportunity to end the war if Russia withdrew.

Known_Week_158

&gt;“As we’ve continually warned, these are the very real consequences of Nato’s intervention – escalating the Ukraine war in very dangerous ways,” the group wrote.

&gt;“This escalation is down to Nato’s refusal to allow a settlement. The anti-war movement must fight to end this war.”

Don't worry everyone!  I know we were all worried that Stop The War wouldn't find a way to somehow blame NATO, but they managed to pull through in the end.

LycanIndarys

If Stop the War had existed in 1944: "Stop the War calls for halt to Allied 'terrifying escalation' in Nazi-occupied France."

TaxOwlbear

The war can stop in days.  Russia just has to get the fuck out of Ukraine, go back behind the Russian border, and stay there.

Somhlth

"terrifying escalation"

do they understand what the war is? Ukraine is NOT a willing participant of this war, they are literally defending their land and country.

Russia is the country wilfully participating as they instigated it on 2014 and escalated it further... why would call out Ukraine for giving the "bully" a bloody nose while it's defending itself? it's their right to take the defense to Russia's land as a good offensive is a good defense.

people actively supporting Putin or Russia today should really be considered against our country as they are supporting a war monger that is no better than Hitler, appeasement DOES NOT WORK! we literally have books covering all this, it's why WW2 was even worse than what it could have been due to the fact we all thought "well he will stop after that bit of land he's taken" instead they keep going as their ego is not put in check.

This is a NATO proxy war as Ukraine is our buffer and unfortunately for them are not a NATO member so we want them to win as they take Russia's strength down for us without our troops being at risk, we should be giving them everything and letting them chuck it all over Russia at this point, Putin could have left at any moment and all deaths are due to HIS decision to start and continue this invasion.

stop the war\*\*(oops!) members make my blood boil, bet they would change their tune if it was their family being butchered and raped, honestly they disgust me how idiotic their views can be.

hicks12

The tankies just can't help themselves can they?

joeykins82

Tankies are completely detestable and they should be shunned as much as fascists are.

Ajax_Trees_Again

Oh, look, it's Corybyn's morons asking others to give up their territory for peace.  Then, in five years, when Russia invades further, he will ask for more to be given. Then Moldova? 

If people don't like Ukraine advancing into Russia, perhaps Russia should just pack and leave Ukraine.

Their analysis is flawed as it portrays anyone connected with the UK or NATO as bad. It's the same for anything they do.

Saltypeon

&gt;The imperialist pro-war of conquest group 'Stop the War' calls for...

FTFY

UchuuNiIkimashou

For fucks sake, these idiots have made me agree with The Spectator and The Telegraph.

PM_ME_BEEF_CURTAINS

God they're so pathetic. Anyone who can't see them for what they are (blindly anti-western useful idiots) is as foolish as they are.

FishUK_Harp

Who the fuck are these clowns and why are they getting inches in the Telegraph?

&gt;Stop the War, whose deputy president is Jeremy Corbyn, was founded in 2001 to protest against military operations in Afghanistan.

Ah christ alive

clydewoodforest

“Stop the War” = Russian PsyOp. 

They are specifically targeting well intentioned but badly informed members of the public with their message. 

Their goal is to reduce public support for Ukraine to advantage Russia.

These people are the most spineless cowards in the country. The UK could be getting carpet bombed and they'd be saying not to retaliate of fear of escalation. Ofc corbyn is a key member. 

God help us if we ever have to conscript in this country.

THE_KING95

Stop the War are delusional. This pains me greatly as I marched against the war in Iraq, am myself on the left of the spectrum and do feel that an organisation to question one's own government involving itself in wars is a healthy thing. However in relation to Russia all of Stop the War's arguments for disarmament, appeasement and concessions are not only worthless, but they're also dangerous and immoral. 

Russia has been heavily promoting to its own people the idea of a war with Ukraine and NATO since 2010. I remember being worried at the time as the news came out that they were educating their population as to the idea of sacrifice fighting for their motherland in an expansionist war. From that point on I knew that Russia  was firmly reorientating itself again as an aggressive nationalistic nation and would eventually conduct an aggressive war. 

NATO is a defensive organisation, and it's one that lost its strength and ability during the peace with Russia. It was by no means a threat to Russia as it had no capacity or desire to conquer Russia. Indeed some of NATO's own members were questioning whether it was still really needed. So this talk by Stop the War of 'aggressive eastward expansion' is false. Back in the early 2000s Russia was even idly considering joining NATO, however that fell through when Russia found that NATO wasn't open to ideas of 'sphere's of interest' and the controlling of junior partners, and woudn't accept a return of Russia to Eastern-European dominance. They were surprised when they found that it was literally just a defensive organisation.  Subsequent membership of East European countries came after Russia started invading her neighbours. There was never any desire for NATO to have Ukraine join prior to this, in unspoken accession to Russia's fears which were, in truth, less about being invaded and more about being denied a free hand in politically dominating Eastern Europe.  
  
The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is a purely aggressive act of conquest. It's not a defensive war. Russia has claimed Ukrainian territory, denied Ukraine's existence as a real country, committed the technical definition of genocide by forcing Russian passports on Ukrainians and brainwashing their children, in the torturing, imprisonment and killing of Ukranians in positions both of local governmental authority and NGO authority, and in threatening the rest of Europe with nuclear weapons. In denying Ukraine the weapons she needs to defend herself, we would be willing bystanders to this assault, and accepting of Russia's 'new reality' of destroying a country and making it part of Russia.  We would also be betraying the post-war European pledge of 'never again' by allowing genocide in Europe.   
  
Russia herself has loudly proclaimed that the Baltics, Poland and all land east of Germany is Russian and regularly has its national television displaying animations and mash-ups of Russian armies marching their way across Europe. Russia now has her children dress up as tanks. NATO, conversely, up to the invasion, was happy to allow a slow decay of military capabilities and her European members increase trade with Russia. The cry of NATO Imperialism is a lie, and it is married to the grotesque repeated implications, and sometimes downright statements, by Stop the War that Russia's war is on some level justfied, and is not born of the same constant aggressive Imperialism that made Russia the largest nation on Earth.    
  
Further, the Stop the War stance that Ukraine should be made to negotiate entirely rewards the aggressor and removes any agency and nationhood from Ukraine, and plays into the very 'spheres of influence' Stop the War claims to decry. Ukraine has asked for all possible aid and under the Minsk agreement - that Russia signed - and international law we have every right and indeed moral duty to support her. Furthermore the fall of Ukraine coupled with Stop the War's pleas of disarmament and dissolution of NATO would merely result in both Russia and Belarus carving up the Baltics, claiming them as their territory, and gift them an ally in Hungary who would look for own piece of neighbouring lands. We would quickly return to a 'Might Makes Right' world where European nations were once again absorbed into a Russian empire, which no amount of handwringing and verbal protests would oppose.   
  
The idea that NATO is some imperialist power when it has had difficulty getting its own members to maintain even a basically workable defence, and that Russia is some justifably aggrieved state merely defending itself when for the last ten years it has done all it can to destabilise nations and expand its borders is a grotesque lie. And by helping to pedal this lie I could never, despite my slight socialist leanings, ever support the Stop the War organisation again.   
  
(Phew. Sorry about the essay, but I'm genuinely angry with them.)

petetakespictures

Ukraine is doing this counter invasion to both pull Russian troops from the front lines but also more importantly to stop a tactic the Russians were using. That being they'd rush over the international border, attack something and then run back over to Russia, doing the geopolitics equivalent of "you can't touch me".

local_meme_dealer45

They mean stop the war but only in a way that lets Russia win

Sysody

*Over two years of Russia militarily occupying Ukrainian land and continuing to wage a war of aggressive expansion.*

Stop the War: i sleep

*Ukraine launches a comparatively minor tactical incursion into Russian territory in order to cripple their logistics and force them to divert their invading forces from the frontline.*

Stop the War: REAL SHIT!

aSensibleUsername

They love anything anti-West. They hate us, our way of life and our global alliances, but they love our enemies and those who would do us harm

Thandoscovia

&gt;“This escalation is down to Nato’s refusal to allow a settlement. The anti-war movement must fight to end this war.”

You mean Ukraine's refusal to allow Russia to keep land stolen in an unprovoked invasion.

fairlywired

neosituation_unknown

STW showing yet again how crap they are as an organisation.

iamnosuperman123

Earlier in the year, the co-founder of Stop the War was on the Moral Maze.

For an organisation that purports to abhor conflict and promote peace he was remarkably sanguine about the use of force- provided it was an enemy of the west that was waging war. 

CarlxtosWay

What a cowardly, false statement from 'Stop the War'.

&gt;“As we’ve continually warned, these are the very real consequences of Nato’s intervention – escalating the Ukraine war in very dangerous ways,” the group wrote.

This may escalate combat on Russian territory, but it's deescalating combat on Ukrainian territory, by pushing Russian troops away from the border and threatening supply lines inside Russia that service Russian troops inside Ukraine (e.g. the recent assaults near Kharkhiv - which was another escalation by the butcher Putin that 'Stop the War' didn't bother complaining about).  Complete and total bias from 'Stop the War' as they attempt to undermine UK and European defence.

&gt;“This escalation is down to Nato’s refusal to allow a settlement. The anti-war movement must fight to end this war.”

Nah, the escalation is down to Putin ordering the invasion of a neighbouring, sovereign state and then setting about murder, rape, pillage, torture, kid-napping, and robbery on a mass scale in the territories it has occupied and indiscriminate bombing of those it hasn't.  The fact that this horrendously violent imperialism is being supported by alleged anti-imperialist tankies in 'Stop the War' just takes the biscuit.

But 'Stop the War' should be told that 'fighting' to end a war just looks like a bit more war... the daft, illogical winkers.

DuncG

It’s not a terrifying escalation it’s a Ukrainian special military operation. Russia needs to take note of the new territorial realities /s

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the invading army’s territory”

hypothetician

Stop the west coalition. These jokers would have had the ear of the prime minister if Corbyn had got lucky. Makes me shudder.

AKAGreyArea

The narrative coming from some of these obvious Russiophiles is ridiculous.

It's an esaclation for Ukraine, who have probably 10% of their landmass violated by Russia, to return the favour?

And the wild accusations against Ukraine of "firing blindly on civilians" after Russia literally launched a random assault of carpet bombs over Kyev?

The proxy wars kicking off in the middle east are a fairly transparent attempt to expand Russia's attack vectors on the west, too. For whatever reason, they're being sold as zionist propaganda.

The longer this war goes on for, the more people are catching on to the inevitable outcome... Not only that, but more that people are willing to support it. If Russia doesn't stop and retreat from all Ukrainian territory, the net result will be WWIII. I'm generally anti-war, but I'm edging ever closer to supporting British and NATO troops on the ground defending the eastern front.

A hilariously ironic footnote to the whole "Stop the War" campaign, with it's anti-western alliance, is the fact that we saw rumours during Johnson's Conservative party leadership and General Election campaigns that he was funded by Russia because of his alleged links through Trump, yet now we see quite clearly that his direct opponent Corbyn is deputy president of an organisation vocalising their propaganda in the west.

TheJoshGriffith

Clearly anti-western and clearly hypocrites

ZiVViZ

The war ends as soon as Russia fucks off out of Ukraine

Cpt_Soban

Yeah because before this ‘terrifying escalation’, everything was peaceful, civilians weren’t being bombed, and cities weren’t being reduced to rubble. 

Beyond moronic.

st1101

Fascinating to see that russia actually has the chutzpah to play the victim here when the country they’ve been blowing up and war crime-ing for two years actually says “that’s a bit unsporting, chap” and punches back.

FoxyInTheSnow

With this announcement they really show themselves to be the Russian agents that they are.

trisul-108

Dragonrar

It's only a terrifying escalation for the Russians. The Ukrainians have had to deal with this for 3 years. Who can blame them for giving the Russians a taste of retaliation. 

Beat the bustards.

BalianofReddit

&gt;"terrifying escalation"

AKA - 

"STOP DEFENDING YOURSELF WHEN RUSSIA ATTACKS YOU! NOT FAIR! NASTY!"

inthekeyofc

Wrong side of history. Not that they'd care, the mask has well and truly slipped for these lot now.

whatapileofrubbish

So they are Russian stooges then. At least they are upfront about it. 

AcidJiles

Stop The War showIng themselves up as Putin apologists? 

Colour me surprised...

Proof_Drag_2801

I’d say the stop the war movement has been compromised/infiltrated or it’s just full of tankies

Admiral-snackbaa

Stop the War literally just became satire of itself

CHawkeye

STW are Russian apologists.

Let's see them demonstrate in Red Square demanding the Russian terrorist regime stands trial in an international court &amp; then I might listen to what they've got to say.

Kinis_Deren

Useful fucking idiots.

Be interested to see a deep dive into their funding streams.

Alekazam

General rule of thumb should be to take what these guys say and do the exact opposite.

chewingcharacter1234

&gt;“This escalation is down to Nato’s refusal to allow a settlement. The anti-war movement must fight to end this war.

I'm sorry, since when is it the obligation of an invaded country to just lie down on the ground like a doormat and be walked over by its attackers who have killed tens of *thousands* of its people in the name of 'settlement'? The ONLY settlement that should be considered acceptable is a restoration of the pre-2014 boundaries.

CaptainKursk

Ironic that Stop the War is anti-NATO, since NATO has probably done more to prevent wars than any other organization.

ClarkyCat97

*Quote:*

&gt;Stop the War, whose deputy president is Jeremy Corbyn, was founded in 2001 to protest against military operations in Afghanistan.

&gt;The group has consistently opposed the UK and US governments sending military aid to Ukraine following the Russian invasion, claiming it risks starting a war between Nato members and Russia.

&gt;In 2022, Stop the War persuaded several MPs to sign a letter it published that criticised Nato and accused the UK Government of “inflaming tensions and indicating disdain for Russian concerns”.

&gt;After being threatened with losing the whip by Sir Keir Starmer, 11 Labour MPs, including John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, withdrew their names.

&gt;Mr Corbyn, the former Labour leader, and Claudia Webbe – two independents – kept their signatures on the letter.

EduTheRed

They have got this one very wrong. Very disappointing. 
It has Jeremy Corbyn’s Putin sympathizer fingerprints all over it.

nowaternoflower

Keep going Ukraine. The more Putin's eye is blackend the better.

Maybe Russia should surrender to prevent the conflict escalating further. 

CryptographerMore944

Ukraine is going to stop the war by winning. And hopefully Putin will have his own führer bunker moment as well!

covert-teacher

Why don't they go protest against the war in Red Square?

Surely there is no doubt anymore that they are completely compromised by Russia ?

Red_Dog1880

What was that I heard them say? "We should give Ukraine even more weapons and let them strike targets inside Russia with them"? That sounds like a great idea!

slaveofficer

Almost as if all of this could have been avoided if… you know, Russia didn’t invade.

"Stop the War, by just letting Russia conquer Ukraine."

PoachTWC

The war can stop once Russia returns to the pre 2014 borders.

It was a genius strategic move that will thwart any coming Russian offensive. Escalate to de-escalate

Terrifying escalation? They are only matching russias action in Ukraine so how is do what russia did any sort of escalation?

GaryDWilliams_

Oh, so *now* its a terrifying escalation? Jesus christ, what a bunch of morons.

ArchdukeToes

Escalation?

&gt;reciprocal special military operation

Honestly the Russians can STFU with their whining about this

AnomalyNexus

Honestly a bunch of traitors to western liberal democracy, and I don’t use that term lightly

SaltTyre

Escalating the war? They're not even bombing Moscow, in what way is it an escalation if they aren't even meeting like-for-like.

If anything Ukraine is giving itself a land-sized hostage to trade for an end to hostilities.

PilzEtosis

Where were their condemnations of escalation while Russia prosecutes a brutal invasion of Ukraine that has seen tens of thousands of innocents raped, murdered, tortured, displaced, and kidnapped?

Funny how Ukraine's escalation is "terrifying", yet they seem to - by comparison of their responses - be okay with what Russia is doing.

These people genuinely sicken me.

Griffolion

If you look at stop the wars authors they are generally people who are historians and academics who are devout socialists.

It's got nothing to do with stopping war. It's about criticising western governments in favour of more socialist states.

I went to Belfast and did a tour of the troubles. The ex IRA member said "I'm a socialist first and a Republican second".

how many allied incursions into Axis territory during WW2 would they have moaned about?  the aggressor is Russia not Ukraine.

somnamna2516

They're all Russian assets but do you think the makeup is.

* ideological. For Russia? Probably none
* money. Certainly Galloway probably more.
* blackmail. why bother with all the effort?
* useful idiocy. lots of it

taboo__time

Stop The War are a very special kind of stupid

Steamy_Muff

lol, at what point can sToP tHe WaR, be proscribed as a group aiding a hostile nation?

CaliferMau

Here's an idea, Ukraine swaps the territory it claimed with the territory Russia claimed and we all go home. 

I get where Stop the War is coming from but you probably shouldn't back the aggressors

HotMachine9

Why didn't Ukraine think of that. Just tell Russia we're at peace now and they'll stop shooting.

No_Discipline5616

OK. So when Soviet troops entered Germany proper in WW2, was this a terrible escalation? Or just attacking Hitler back? The USSR didn't start the conflict!!

Isn't this like punching somebody in the face and then reacting badly when they strike you back?

In war, one attacks one's enemies! 

Like did Hitler whine when the RAF bombed Hamburg, when he bombed British cities??!

Intelligent_Wind3299

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.

The EU parliament has voted on the 19th of September (425 Yea, 131 Ney) to further increase support of Ukraine, this time including long range weapons that may be used against russian targets deep in Russia itself. It seems to me that we are inching towards a war with russia playing a game of chicken. 

  
I am worried. But I live in Germany and we are a lot closer and would have much less time to prepare.. So what do you think? 

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Russia is so not afraid of NATO that they moved troops away from their 3 NATO borders.

so... nah

Kakamile

I'm sure the chance is not technically 0% but it's practically 0% so I'm not worried at all 

Jswazy

Effectively zero.

Even if Putin orders a nuclear strike, there are many other people who that has to go through, and at least one of them probably does not want to literally commit the world's largest murder-suicide.  There is absolutely zero outcome from a nuclear exchange that does not include the wholesale destruction of the entire Russian nation.

GabuEx

Not worried. Nobody’s gonna end the world over a failed territorial expansion. 

Due_Satisfaction2167

It’s extremely low on my list of day to day worries, but obviously there’s some room for concern. 

I’m from LA, so if there’s ever any nuclear exchange then I’m sure I’m screwed lol

RioTheLeoo

Appeasing Putin, which is the other option, would make everything worse; cf, *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich* and *If You Give a Mouse a Cookie*

jasper_bittergrab

Not worried at all.  Russia can't fight WWIII, they can't even defeat Ukraine or even retake Kursk which Ukraine is occupying.  Their THREAT of nuclear weapons is much more effective than what actually using them would do.  They're not suicidal and we have nukes too.  Also using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine has been shown by military experts to not be effective, and would further isolate Russia at a time when it needs allies.  

Iran and North Korea don't put any restrictions on Russia's use of their weapons in Ukraine, why should we do any differently? If anything, i'm afraid that by being timid with Russia due to nukes, it's showing to the world that if you obtain nuclear weapons no one will touch you.  If Hezbollah had nuclear weapons, do you think Israel would be waging its air campaign against them right now? 

Ukraine is already using drones very successfully to attack oil depots, air bases, ammo depots and other targets with their domestically produced drones.  Why are US missiles any different? Ukraine rolled into Kursk with American vehicles too, and Putin's response was to bomb a shopping center and visit Mongolia.  

We should remove all restrictions on what Ukraine can hit and give them more aid.

BalticBro2021

Increasing support for Ukraine does not mean inching towards war with Russia although simply by having nuclear weapons, there is always a constant worry over nuclear war. Russia isn't stupid enough to go to war with NATO or what have you. This article on [deterrence theory](https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/) might be helpful in regard to Nuclear warfare, but the basics are that there is a very predictable set of rules here: 

&gt;*Remember: deterrence is a game where a big enough mistake kills hundreds of millions if not billions of people.*[*^(5)*](https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/#easy-footnote-bottom-5-11735) *This is why no one is eager to gamble here. If you aren’t at least a little bit worried, you aren’t paying attention. And yet, as we’ve discussed, there is no way out of the deterrence trap: once one state has nuclear weapons, it can only be deterred from using them by other states having nuclear weapons.*

&gt;*As a result, the nature of deterrence puts both hard limits (no direct intervention) and soft limits (avoid escalatory scenarios) on the ability of NATO to intervene to stop Putin’s War in Ukraine. NATO’s response has been to utilize indirect intervention methods that has been well established by previous usage (usage which might now be seen as decades of exterior maneuvers preparing for this moment) do not cross nuclear red lines: supplying arms (mostly small arms and light weapons) and economic sanctions, but doing so on a frankly extreme scale. There’s a clear logic to that strategy: safer to do a very low risk thing a lot than to do a very high risk thing a little. This is especially true in the midst of a ‘hot’ war where fear and confusion are high, increasing the odds of a miscalculation or error.*

&gt;*At the same time all of this means that observers, especially in NATO countries, need to calibrate their expectations for what the United States, NATO and the global community can do here, because the limits deterrence sets are real, if ambiguous (that is, we cannot know exactly where Putin’s nuclear red line is, but it does exist and crossing it would have disastrous consequences). Those limits are not arbitrary: they exist for very real reasons and while I do not always agree with the assessments of those limits made by the folks in charge, in the end, I’d rather they err on the side of caution.*

NatMapVex

Not even a little bit worried. Putin is crazy but he's not stupid.

MadDingersYo

(I'm also German, as you might remember) 


I don't view this risk as that high. Ukraine isn't trying to destroy Russia, we are telling Ukraine they can't destroy Russia with weapons we sent, and Ukraine agrees to our conditions. The fighting is over some outer parts of land, logistics and munition depots, not about Moscow and St. Petersburg



Keep in mind despite the constant and constantly hollow saber-rattling, if Putin actually starts a nuclear war, he's cooked - in internal politics, in the physical sense, and in the history books he's such a fan of. Nuclear doctrines are about existential threats, or threats to nuclear armament itself - for good reason. 


Ukraine cannot take Moscow, but they don't want to take Moscow either - they want to force Putin to the negotiating table. As long as there is any other path left for them, I'd wager a guess that Russia won't decide to give up every major city to a US second strike just out of spite, and "go to the negotiating table and hash it out" is another path. 


Even more, I'm not expecting a nuclear strike from Russia against Ukraine, which is after all not part of NATO. And since they aren't nuking Kyiv, they are definitely not nuking Brussels

Weirdyxxy

The chances are higher than before the Ukraine war, I’m sure, but still seem exceedingly low. Putin’s a piece of shit, but he’s a selfish piece of shit too who’s at least smart enough to know that’s a one way trip for him too. 

I don’t really think we’re inching closer to a war with Russia either. Neither party wants that. Russia isn’t eager to drag bigger powers into the conflict when they’re already struggling with just Ukraine using some older NATO gear, and Russia’s really knocked themselves off the board as a global player with this war. They’re not really in a position to meaningfully compete or butt heeds with NATO elsewhere. 

China is definitely the bigger threat here. I don’t think war with them is necessarily likely. But, if we’re gunna get into a direct conflict with anyone, my money is on them. And I think supporting Ukraine is one way we can help avoid that.

TheSoup05

Quite worried but I also feel like buckling under fear of “strongmen” is *more* likely to result in such outcomes rather than standing up to them.

Beneath the thin veneer of “strength” from these sorts of historical figures lies a scared toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Giving them what they want or letting them take what they want just emboldens them further.

I think what’s scarier and much more “likely” is escalation with non nuclear weapons. Weapons technology has become so insanely sophisticated that  there are long range missiles that aren’t nuclear, but can still cause massive destruction, just not quite blowing up the world destructive. There’s levels of weapon escalation that would still be terrifying

likeabuddha

I love how everyone is so lackadaisical about this. Biden himself said this is the closest we are to nuclear war since the Cold War. And this was *before* we were planning to send long range missles into Russia. 

If Putin perceives his life to be at risk, he could very well pull the trigger.

AntiWokeCommie

I am more concerned about the precedent if Russia achieves its aims of annexing a neighboring countries territory. 

So far, Nuclear weapons are meant as a defensive deterrent. “Don’t attack my country because we have nukes.”

Russia broke a lot of norms by explicitly using nuclear threats as an offensive deterrent. “Don’t stop me from invading my neighbor because I have nukes.”

If they achieve their aims, a whole bunch of other countries with territorial, resource, or water disputes with their neighbor will take away “if I get nukes, the world will let me violate my neighbors sovereignty and territorial integrity”. 

A world where a lot more countries get nukes and try to use them for war is a much more dangerous war. 

octopod-reunion

hitman2218

dangleicious13

The Middle East will go nuclear before Ukraine does.

goddamnitwhalen

They have been making vague threats about nuclear war since they invaded Ukraine, which they were supposedly going to conquer in 2 weeks. Here we are, years later. It's bullshit.

Independent-Stay-593

I'm not sure germany has less time to prepare.


I mean technically


But for icbms we are talking 24 minutes from Moscow to nyc/DC if I remember right


So that's not really time to prepare


And yes, this is an escalation game, each side signaling that they are committed to fighting this war but not deploying nukes, it's a risk


But I'm not sure the risk is larger with Russia than for say, north korea or miscommunication.

Dumb_Young_Kid

If you live in Germany, you can learn a little bit what happened one time when France and UK decided not to escalate and appease one of the leaders of your country.

Fluffy_While_7879

Near zero. It’s a bluff by Putin to continue to have the war waged in a way that keeps the exposure of the Russian people low. It’s ridiculous to me that it’s worked for this long.

greenflash1775

Zero percent. Launching a nuclear weapon cannot possibly make the situation better for Russia. Putin is crazy, but he's not stupid. Because NATO can appropriately respond to a limited nuclear attack in Ukraine using exclusively conventional military means, Russia never stands to gain anything under any scenario. Nuke Ukraine and their army gets destroyed by NATO bombers, which puts them in a worse situation than the status quo. Nuke NATO and you get nuked yourself, which kills Putin and his ambitions of an empire. The only time they'd actually do it is if NATO countries start actively trying to overthrow Putin, because then you start getting into nothing to lose scenarios

Certainly-Not-A-Bot

Russia signals significant conflict escalation through troop amassment on Ukraine's northeastern border, raising tensions in Eastern Europe with potential diplomatic implications.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Escalation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want