Public opinion is polarized but leans towards concern over potential nuclear conflict, with support for Russia's withdrawal seen as a necessary counter to perceived Western aggression. Many cite the historical context of tensions while expressing apprehension about the implications for global safety.

Russia

United States

Ukraine

The assumption with Nuclear war has always been that if Russia suddenly launched a preemptive massive strike, the US would immediately respond and...game over. So Russia don't attack. Mutually assured destruction.

At what point does Russia start to feel that maybe, just maybe the political situation in America will have lowered the capacity to respond past the point of effectiveness? If they launched right now, you reckon Trump would be functional enough to respond properly? Or would he start phoning his stock buddies? He's fired all the experienced senior command, so would the new guys be able to act independently? How many major decisions would get made while the russian birds are in the air? Is the missile report fake news?

Might Russia risk it?

TCristatus

Yeah but Europe is still buying Russian oil via India, so it's all for show anyway. There are no effective sanctions really. I spend a lot of time in Egypt where many russians travel to with no issue, they book out whole hotels in rubles, then cancel all but a few and are paid the refund in dollars. The world talks as if it cares, while making money from it.

Ok_Afternoon_3084

We get fissile material, they lose fissile material.

twitch_delta_blues

It’s $3.4 Billion. 3,409,000,000 Billion is equivalent to 3.4 quintillion, which is something like 30,000x the value of the global economy.

Even at $3.4 billion, it’s still financing Russia’s aggression.

theEndIsNigh_2025

Australia is one of the worlds largest uranium exporters.  But it cannot be used for weapons.

Quick_Assignment_725

I live in the UK. Born and raised here and can 100% tell you that nobody even bats an eyelid about all the shit Russia talks about ‘bombing UK’ nuking the Uk etc In the news

British people don’t scare easy, not saying we are all super tough, it’s just part of our DNA. Keep calm and carry on. That kind of stoic mentality still exists today 

Notice how all these recent drone incursions in Europe and none of them were over the Uk?? That’s because Russia knows the British military is very very dangerous and will happily shoot down anything going into our territory. Russian ships for years have passed in the English channel and are always ‘escorted’ by Royal Navy vessels, same with Russian jets that fly near our airspace, we immediately get a few jets up to remind them we aren’t sleeping. This has been happening for years even before the Ukraine war. Fuck around with us and the Russians will find out like they did with Turkiye 

That’s because quite simply the UK is a very dangerous military force. Don’t be fooled by stuff in the media. Those in the know are well aware of Britains military power. It’s the second most powerful in NATO behind US, special nods to France and Turkiye who are also very powerful and comparable to the British army

People look at Russias ‘on paper’ military power and do a direct comparison to the British military and assume it’s a huge mismatch. However the UK spends a very similar amount on their military each year as Russia but is also aiming to increase this amount as a percentage of GDP. And where Russia claims to spend similar they have far more corruption than the UK so you could argue that more actually gets spent on British military. So how do Russia have a bigger force than the UK’s if they spend so similar amounts? Upkeep! The British military maintains all of its equipment and constantly upgrades all of its stock. Whereas Russia still has soviet era and even WW2 era equipment. This equipment is constantly counted towards their military capability yet it is obsolete and in various states of repair. For example Russia counts its huge tank inventory yet most of them are 60+ years old, rusted and in various states of repair. The British military doesn’t do this. They either sell, scrap or decommission old equipment and don’t count it as inventory anymore. 

Anyway going back to the British military, they have a smaller in size armed force but a very modern cutting edge elite military with highly trained NATO standard fighter pilots flying stealth F35s or typhoons with state of the art missiles. The navy again whilst smaller has 2 aircraft carriers. Again all armed forces aren’t conscripts, they want to be there and chose to be there and are extremely well trained. Take the SAS for example widely regarded as the best special forces on earth (even by the Americans) and our intelligence GCHQ MI6 MI5 and part of 5 eyes. Don’t forget it was the US and the UK only who kept saying the Russians were imminently going to invade Ukraine, so we are on the ball intelligence wise that’s for sure

Also the British have nukes too!! And ours work!! And are constantly at sea ready to go.

Add in the fact we are an island which makes it  much much more difficult to invade, in fact virtually impossible to invade (imagine trying to invade a nuclear armed island with advanced jets)

Oh and not to mention article 5 and our very powerful friends would come to our aid if needed, makes anyone with half a brain cell realise that Russias threats are a distraction. I would fancy us in a straight shootout with Russia tbh anyway. We repelled the Germans in WW2 who were far far far more powerful than Russia is now, when the nazis tried to invade

I sleep very very well at night knowing that paper tigers like Russia would never be able to do shit to the UK, unless they were on a suicide mission, and that’s not gonna happen

deanopud69

Double down and watch 'The Day After' on YouTube.

Joking aside, Russia isn't going anywhere near Britain it's all saber rattling and psychological games.

The bigger worry is if US, China, Russia and India ever secretly strategises against Europe.

Administrative_Suit7

I don't think so. 

Explaining why is... Complicated. Increase the amount of news sources on the topic, including those who disagree with each other.

onlyaseeker

My only issue with your comment, which is superb in analysis and intellect, is that it refers to mostly on the ground conventional warfare. 

What I am concerned about is miscalculation with nuclear warheads.

cryptochaserjsy

How about naming the states that refused to and their reasons?

exdees

Mega loan makes it sound like it will be paid back.

PoppedCork

ninzus

Don't worry about taking the necessary steps to safeguard Europe and support Ukraine, just blame the US.

Vatnik_Annihilator

Why loan them just give them to Ukraine . Those assets are forfeit

JazzlikeAmphibian9

In most analysis I’ve read, they gain leverage (or they hope to) against the West.  In the short term, that leverage is mostly about Ukraine and the hope that they can coerce the West into facilitating a negotiated truce where Russia holds on to large sections of Ukraine it’s already occupying.  Longer term, it creates risk and uncertainty for the West as Russia pursues larger regional goals.  Russia’s alliance with China (who is not part of START) and Iran (who Russia claimed might be actually given a nuclear bomb by “someone” in light of this weeks’ actions) provides a platform for Russia to blunt the West’s influence on the global stage. For Russia (and China/Iran), their economy isn’t as robust and multifaceted as the West’s so strategic arms are a way to achieve influence and parity as they pursue their goals.  Nukes provide them some protection against economic warfare being used against them. It also raises the risk for NATO in its expansion plans and the U.S. as it attempts to blunt Russian influence.

Semi-Chubbs_Peterson

Mist likely to hide the fact that their warheads and missiles are in shit state.   

The RS-28 Sarmat heavy ICBM, with fordimable perfermonance claims.  Which was supposed to constitute 100% of Russia's silo based ICBMs by 2020 and is officially in active service hasn't had a successful test in years but has had several failures.  One of its two successful tests, only traveled a few dozen kilometers.    

The warheads are old and haven't been tested since the early '90s.   They don't have the advanced engineering and skills needed to maintain them and to develop new warheads.  

According to auditors from the Russian army and intelligence services.  The more secretive a program is and the less ownership of the program there is, the more susceptible it is to corruption and lack of maintenance.  It's highly likely that a lot of the Russian ICBM silos have inadvertently flooded.   

Then there's the issue that soldiers and in particular recruits at Strategic Rocket Force bases are subjected to extreme pressure by local gangsters.  With Russian authorities doing little to stop it and maybe encouraging it.  With the pressure including being forced to get money from relatives and to steal items that the gangsters can then resell.

Russia has always boasted about its military prowess, exaggerating their strength.  Which then causes the West, in particular the US to develop counters in numbers and technical superiority.  For a threat that doesn't exist.    As according to Kruschev "The West can never learn how weak we really are".   Which he said to his son, after he met Vice-President Nixon in Moscow in the late 1950s and claimed that Russia was producing ICBMs "like sausages".

AnOtherGuy1234567

Russia's parliament has approved a withdrawal from a crucial nuclear agreement with the U.S., amid tensions regarding global security.

Russia Withdrawal from Plutonium Agreement

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want