388
submitted 3 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

The Pentagon has expressed no concern regarding the advance of Ukrainian forces in Russia's Kursk Oblast, the Pentagon's press service reports.

Source: European Pravda, citing Sabrina Singh, Deputy Spokesperson for the Pentagon

Details: "No, because at the end of the day, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereign territory that its neighbour invaded. So, if we want to de-escalate tensions, as we've said from the beginning, the best way to do that is Putin can make that decision today to withdraw troops from Ukraine," Singh stated, when asked about the potential escalation of tensions due to Ukrainian forces entering Kursk Oblast

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 75 points 3 months ago

It’s important to understand Russia’s current economic situation. The sanctions have been brutal, but China has managed to keep them afloat. A significant (nuclear) escalation would turn China against Putin immediately.

China’s economy is also in a precarious position right now. Their massive housing bubble is in the process of bursting. Xi will not tolerate instability on that scale.

[-] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Why would China turn against Putin for them using their nukes? I don't keep up much on their relations.

[-] Pancito@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

China needs exports to Europe and the US. A nuclear war is not good for anyone

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago

For one, because they gave Ukraine guarantees to that effect. You might also have noticed that Russia threatened the west plenty with nukes, but not Ukraine.

Noone really knows what the exact Chinese policy is there they like their strategic ambiguity but one thing's for sure they are really big on non-proliferation, and thus aren't exactly fans of nuclear blackmail.

I don't think the Chinese would be triggered by Russia nuking its own territory, but then, well, Russia would be nuking its own territory. They could nuke Sudja to get rid of the incursion but they'd be nuking their own defence. Also, their own city. If they withdraw their defence first, Ukraine would gain even more territory and they'd have to nuke even more. Or, differently put: Just because the term "tactical nuke" exists doesn't mean that nukes are sensible tactical weapons.

[-] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 11 points 3 months ago

An exchange of nuclear weapons would be expected to ignite many fires and to spread dust and fallout into the atmosphere - similar to a large scale bush fire, volcanic eruption or a meteorite hit, depending on the size and number of weapons. This would have a chilling and darkening effect on the climate, causing crop failures worldwide. A world-wide nuclear winter effect would impact everyone, not just the parties to the conflict.

That's why, for all the posturing and sabre rattling, even the most belligerent states don't want a nuclear war - it means destruction of all sides, and massive casualties around the world.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's a big chance the West doesn't just retaliates against Russia but at the same time launches to China and North Korea, so it's in everyone's best interest to not launch any nukes. You can imagine China getting a bit antsy every time Putin talks nukes in such a scenario.

[-] suction@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Russia using a nuke and the West then retaliating against a couple of countries is too stupid even for a Seagal movie. How did you get this idea?

[-] jaxxed@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

You might say that the China housing bubble has already popped. I haven't kept up over the last few weeks, but prices were plummeting weeks ago, and volume was massive.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 74 points 3 months ago

What escalation? They've thrown everything they have at Ukraine already.

[-] ShadowRam@fedia.io 15 points 3 months ago
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 18 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's the elephant in the room. Also, am I crazy or is getting Ukraine nuclear missiles the answer to this artificial power imbalance...? Like, I know no NATO country can just pack and ship Ukraine nukes, but... If we provide them aid to defend their country and they saw fit to somehow purchase nuclear warheads and put them on their missiles... Wouldn't that be a good thing?

They're now a stable, mature, corruption-free country. If they publicly and loudly announced: "We now have nuclear missiles, and they're aimed at Moscow and the homes of everyone in the Kremlin, deal with it."

I'm definitely not one for nuclear proliferation, but that would get rid of Russia's "trump" card and might be the only way they back down...

[-] Samsonreturns@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago

You do know that Ukraine willingly dismantled its nuclear arsenal? And I would hardly call their country corruption-free, but that's a different topic altogether. I think this is why it is so important for NATO to be the backbone of the Ukrainian defense efforts, as they were the voices encouraging them to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 57 points 3 months ago

Ukraine willingly dismantled its nuclear arsenal

In exchange for assurances that Russia wouldn't invade them. They won't make that mistake again. And it's not just me, NATO and organizations around the world have vouched for Ukraine's continuing efforts to root out and remove corruption.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 10 points 3 months ago

There is the issue that at the time, Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal. Getting security agreements instead was a sensible thing to do, it just turns out that the ones they got weren't strong enough

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 months ago

Ukraine had absolutely no ability to actually pay to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

And Russia does? At least they'd have the "what if one of them still works" card that the Russians are playing.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 5 points 3 months ago

Russia's GDP and GDP per capita have both been a lot higher than Ukraine's in the entire post-Soviet period. Usually about two to three times higher per capita and five to ten times bigger overall. Post-Soviet Russia hasn't been particularly prosperous, but it has a large population and oil money. It was definitely much more able to pay for it than Ukraine.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

All I'm saying is that if they kept some, they could maintain some ambiguity whether they were maintaining them or not, potentially deterring the current invasion. It's not like Russia has money to spare either, we're taking them at their word that they have a functioning nuclear arsenal.

With how the current invasion is going, I doubt that they know for certain. But let's be honest, that uncertainty is the only thing keeping US F-22s out of Moscow's skies right now.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 3 months ago

I agree it would have been better for them with the benefit of hindsight. My point is more that the decision that they did make was a pretty rational one at the time

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I get that and I agree. Everyone thought Russia will do what's good for Russia, and not this.

[-] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Theoretically yes, although that would mean less yachts for oligarchs, so maybe some maintenance might be neglected or skipped

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Darkard@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Not only got rid of their nukes, but in agreement with Russia that that their territory would be respected.

The nukes were their protection from Russia, and Russia stabbed them in the back after they got rid of them. Russia used the "NATO expansion" excuse, among others, as a reason to invade when it was Europe who worked to de-nuke Ukraine in the first place.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago

Its only a special military operation. Why would they need to escalate?

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I just hope Ukraine knows what it is doing, as it's calling the bluff of a nuclear power. I don't think Russia will nuke with anything big, but they might give the go ahead for small scale tactical nukes. Then again, Russia was already training for their use, so nothing lost and this means that if they use them, they might have to use it within their own territory and assume those repercussions. Best case, corruption has already disarmed any possibility of using them.

[-] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

If Russia uses nukes and fallout spreads to Europe, NATO might get involved.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nato and the west is gonna stand in the corner with its tail between its legs. They have allowed russia into Ukraine by not reacting in 2014.

[-] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 months ago

I dunno, they ignored Crimea because it didn't impact them. Nuclear fallout sprinkling all over Europe impacts Europe. It also shows Putin is way too reckless to tolerate as a neighbor. If he nukes so much as a cornfield, one of those sword missiles is gonna shred him mid meeting at his long ass table in the middle of the Kremlin.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

My gut says they've been searching for any nuke that will actually work after decades of Russian maintenance

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Yeah, the West appears to be quiet as well. They are pleased with the results. It seems that if Ukraine had told their Western counterparts what they were planning beforehand, they'd be dissuaded. Further threats from Putin might be taken seriously by the West and not call the bluff.

But since the offensive into Kursk was successful and Kremlin is panicking at the moment, the West appears to be satisfied well enough to continue with further incursions. This, in itself, is calling Putin's bluff about escalation.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

It seems that if Ukraine had told their Western counterparts what they were planning beforehand, they'd be dissuaded.

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

If their nukes are in as good a condition as their trucks were in 2022 we don't have much to worry about.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Ukrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth) - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Ukrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth):

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - Ukraine
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/9/7469629/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

What is with this place it kind of seems they have been fighting over it for the length of the war?

[-] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 3 months ago

Oblast just means "territory" or similar. Which is why you see it appended onto a lot of the names of places the fighting is taking place in.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Russia wants what Ukraine's got, including control over parts of the Black Sea. These are the areas at the border. It seems like they've been fighting over the same parts because they have. Russia hasn't been able to take and hold much if any ground.

[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 2 points 3 months ago

Sabrina Singh looks cute af, why tf she working for a building full of killers, called The Pentagon, when she could be doing better things for society?

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 months ago

You should try and get of the house and touch some grass.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago

Don't put the grass in danger of his micropenis.

[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 2 points 3 months ago

No dude, my penis is smaller than micro, it's essentially molecular.

[-] suction@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

It's worse, your penis is antimatter.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago
[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago
[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

You’re commenting like a creeper on her looks and claiming she works for killers on a thread about a Democratic country fighting for its life against a dictatorial oppressor. The definition of fucking weird.

[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah you're right, that's pretty weird of me.

[-] suction@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Do you spend a lot of time on the Chans?

[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago

Nah, bro. I've never been to Asia.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
388 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2347 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS