- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
Russia on Monday threatened to strike British military facilities and said it would hold drills simulating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons amid sharply rising tensions over comments by senior Western officials about possibly deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine.
After summoning the British ambassador to the Foreign Ministry, Moscow warned that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory with U.K.-supplied weapons could bring retaliatory strikes against British military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere.
The remarks came on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inauguration to a fifth term in office and in a week when Moscow on Thursday will celebrate Victory Day, its most important secular holiday, marking its defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.
I would tend to agree. But I think we definitely need to define a line in the sand now, not declare there is no line. Which seems to me to be what such statements say about us.
The point is “the line in the sand” has been crossed multiple times without any reaction.
My point is, someone has to say where the line is (or indeed was). I don’t think any western government wants to be on record saying where it is (or should have been). Some are saying there isn’t a line regardless of what happens, and that’s the problem I’m talking about. It’s worse than not defining the line.
The LINE is attacking a NATO country, then Article 5 get enacted and we are all screwed
What good is it to define “a line” with no consequences or a symbolic gesture for crossing it?