Professor Mark Maslin (UCL Geography) highlights in The Conversation research that used modern climate models to map the effects of a nuclear war, and which found the resulting nuclear winter would plunge the planet into a “nuclear little ice age” lasting thousands of years.
It’s probably a discussion for allowing Ukraine to do what they want with long range weapons.
Russia has made pretty direct statements about what happens then - they will consider NATO to be in direct war with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-threatens-ukraine-west-long-range-strikes-decision-looms-2024-09-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-will-be-fighting-directly-with-russia-if-it-lets-kyiv-use-long-2024-09-12/
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Please do provide a previous official quote from Russia stating that. I’ll save you the trouble though, cause it doesn’t exist.
Putin: NATO’s Approval of Use of Long-Range Missiles by Ukraine Will Mean It is at War With Russia
‘Extremely Clear’: Kremlin Comments on Putin’s Warning About West’s Arms Striking Deep Into Russia
Putin Warns NATO Long-Range Missile Strikes Will Put Them at War with Russia
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
Enemies must realize Russia could go nuclear – ex-Kremlin adviser
Do note that I did not have to look for “western anti russian propaganda media” like… mainstream news. These are Russian state sponsored news websites.
Yes, all of those say that use of long range missiles within Russia would be the red line. And the reason it would be a red line is because this would be NATO personnel doing strikes directly into Russia.
Idk where you’re going with this, I just felt like looking for direct quotes, because you asked for any quote from Russian officials saying that X would mean war with NATO.
While stating :
I was very clearly replying to this statement claiming that Russia has supposedly outlines lots of previous red lines that have been broken.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the context here?
No I believe you’re being intellectually disingenuous, because you’re now paraphrasing the comment you responded to, to try and twist the argument in your favour, the previous interaction was :
To which you directly replied
I’m not sure I quite like where this is going and I’m not in the mood for arguing over such a minimal thing, so I’d like to end the interaction here, see ya around !
I’m not twisting anything here. I’ve been very clear regarding the specific point I was making. The context of this whole thread is that the use of long range weapons do do deep strikes is the one clear red line that Russia articulated. The fact that you’re trying to twist this into something else shows that you’re the one being intellectually dishonest here. Bye.
Ah, I might’ve mixed it up with threatening or insinuating nuclear war.
Either way, it just seems like more sabre-rattling. Also, it’s not something that the US is doing, it’s something that Putin’s being a pansy about.
This is an absolutely deranged attitude to have towards a possibility of starting a nuclear war. It absolutely isn’t going to matter who you think pansy was about what when we all die. One has to be an imbecile to be willing to gamble with the future of all humanity over western hegemonic interests.
Was it western hegemonic interests that started an invasion of Ukraine? I seem to recall it was Russia.
At this point you know you’re wrong you’re just being a little shit
I know I’m wrong? Notice you replied on my first and, at the time, only message in the whole thread. And my statement is the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.
So no, I don’t know I’m wrong. In fact I know I’m right.
Another example of deliberate bad faith: lying about what you said
You could have edited your previous comment to make it appear you were telling the truth but you’re stupid and lazy apparently
The role the west played in provoking the war is well documented https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
In fact, RAND openly published a whole paper detailing why the US wanted a war in Ukraine in 2019 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Yet, here we have you acting like a clown.
Nato is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. The only way it could be perceived as a “threat” by Russia is id Russia had intention of expanding in that direction.
And what happened to the self-determination of countries, if countries like, say, Sweden and Finland want to join NATO as additional defence against a militaristic expansionist Russia, that is absolutely their right.
But since you are not debating in good faith, I’m not gonna spend more words and effort on this.
NATO is objectively an offensive alliance that has invaded numerous countries. But since you are not debating in good faith, I’m not gonna spend more words and effort on this.
My attitude isn’t going to matter if we all die. Neither will yours, lol
…I thought this was about Ukraine fighting back against the country that’s been invading it
That’s why avoiding a nuclear war is in everyone’s interest. Yet, clearly plenty of imbeciles in the west don’t understand that.
That’s because you’re utterly ignorant on the subject you’re attempting to discuss here. Ukraine is just a proxy for the US to attempt and extend Russia as the RAND paper puts it.
Russia is in the drivers seat here. All they have to do is stop attacking a sovereign nation and not fire nuclear missiles. It’s pretty simple.
The fact that you don’t understand how utterly idiotic your statement is shows that no rational discussion with you will be possible.