They could deescalate by getting the fuck out of Ukraine.

Putin’s saber has been rattled so much that it functions more as a seppuku vibrator than anything else these days.

We get it, Putin. You’re shitting your pants because no one is taking you serious anymore, and your orange ass puppet has been charged who is also shitting his pants both literally and figuratively.

Sounds like Russia’s “final warning”

So… lemme get this straight. (Neglecting the fact that Putin started thus and can end it at any time) Russia can buy and use Iranian, North Korean (and possibly/likely Chinese) weapons on Ukraine, but Ukraine reciprocating using western weapons would justify a nuclear response?

Say when. 😂

You’re not in a position to warn us of anything. We’re ready to bring a world of hurt to anyone dumb enough to escalate this conflict.

Edit: bring China and NK. We’ll give you a head start.

What’s Putin going to do? Attack a NATO nation? Bring it the fuck on, loser. We’ll be flying sorties over Moscow within the week

Say bye-bye to the rest of your palaces, shitforbrains.

All you had to do is GTFO of Ukraine, but no, now you get to find out what it’s like being on the wrong end of an F-16.

I think this may be the first time this phrase has been used appropriately:

Oh yeah? You and what army?

“Russia said…”

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ok. But you should know that we love proportional response. You might even say it’s our hobby.

Oh plz Putin, do the world a favor and “accidentally” fall out of a window.

Add the West will do it again, one more little step, and another one, unless there is a real escalation happening from Russia that at is at a worrisome level, but below a “Release the Poles” level. The classical salami slice method. We know it, Putin knows it and fears it, but if there was something he could do he would’ve done it by now.

I mean, it is an escalation. But on the other hand, there’s not a whole lot by way of other reasonable response to Russia using the previous policy for tactical benefit, being able to attack without being attacked.

I think that there are basically two options that don’t involve Ukraine being disadvantaged:

• What was done here, permit limited cross-border use.

• Maybe try to work out some kind of terms on which Russia agrees not to do cross-border attacks. But the problem there is enforcement. For Ukraine to be able to pull people away from a border, they have to be very sure that Russia will not attack across that border. If Russia leverages this and builds up to a major attack across the border and breaking that agreement, in order to make it clearly not worthwhile, we’d have to have serious consequences for Russia. I don’t know what would be sufficiently-dissuasive short of attacking Russian forces ourselves.

And if Russia had refrained from exploiting that policy, they also wouldn’t be facing the current change.

I also feel like the broader goal of avoiding Russian cities being attacked is still generally intact, and it’s not as if Russia has extended a comparable policy of trying to limit damage to Ukrainian cities. Quite the opposite, really. And given that Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine and take those cities for themselves, if anyone’s got incentive to try to cut some kind of agreement to not damage Ukrainian cities, aside from Ukraine, you’d think that it’d be Russia.

How dare they hit back.