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

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      3 months ago

      oh now that they have been invaded they really did it. They will attack so many others. they will go totally two front. maybe three or four. there is no limit to the number of fronts they will do because thats some 5d chess warfare.

  • N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Russian nukes would be aimed at western countries.

        China sells to western countries.

        • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even if Russia only used nukes in the Kursk region in response to these events, the global condemnation would be close to universal. China would risk their own sanctions if they continued supporting Russia after that sort of escalation.

      • A1kmmA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            57
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              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

              • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                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.

                • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

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

                • Skua@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  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.

          • Darkard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            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.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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.”

  • vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    There’s obviously no problem whatsoever with Ukraine making counter-attacks to Russian’s side. I hope they can keep it up.

    Perhaps they can circumvent Crimea’s stronger northern defences by attacking it from the east. Yes, I know, a bit of a fantastic scenario, but one can dream.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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.

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You know, SMERCH took the Walter PPK Hitler used, maybe it’s still in their possession…

  • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    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?