13.05.2023, 17:28
Zumindest greifen sie tatsächlich genau dort an, wo beide aneinander grenzen. Macht durchaus Sinn.
Macronomist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kN7Zb_4wTo
https://mwi.usma.edu/catastrophic-succes...-expected/
Macronomist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kN7Zb_4wTo
https://mwi.usma.edu/catastrophic-succes...-expected/
Zitat:What if Ukraine ends up routing Russian occupation positions relatively swiftly and effectively, with the Russian military in a hopeless retreat?
If the counteroffensive is surprisingly successful, Putin will be forced to respond in one of two ways—negotiation or escalation. Given Putin’s belief in the value of a long-game scenario, his willingness to absorb significant costs, and the potentially disastrous domestic political consequences of unfavorable negotiations, it is more likely than not that Putin would choose escalation. In a situation where Russian forces are routed, Putin would face only two realistic escalation options: throw more human bodies at the Ukrainians or use a nuclear weapon.
The use of a nuclear weapon would drastically change not just the war, but the entire world. Given what we know about Putin, it is in fact plausible that a tactical nuclear weapon could be used, particularly if Crimea is threatened by advancing Ukrainian forces. This threat, moreover, is amplified depending on how quickly momentum on the battlefield shifts.
That is precisely why preparations must be made now in case, once again, the world is surprised at Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russian aggression.