[schnitzelstoat]

Well, yeah but they have nuclear weapons so that limits the amount the West can do to help.

For a comparison of what happens when a country does this and doesn't have nuclear weapons - see the First Gulf War.

It seems the energy situation has gone better than expected so far, but if the war drags on it could be hard to sustain that.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the Russians are the bad guys here.

[account42]

> Well, yeah but they have nuclear weapons so that limits the amount the West can do to help.

It doesn't limit it, it makes it risky. How big of a risk is questionable and depends on wether you think Russia will risk MAD over Ukraine which personally I think is ridiculous. I don't think the Russian leadership have deluded themselves into thinking that they are in the right - they are doing this because they think they can.

If the west had the balls to send actual support from day one then Russia might have pulled out quite soon. Instead it seems NATO wants to use Ukraine to wear down Russia. Good for NATO perhaps but I'm not entirely convinced this drip feed of weapons is actually helping Ukrainians - their losses aren't publicised but they are definitely not small.

[Gordonjcp]

If their nuclear weapons are as good as their tanks and trucks, I don't see any reason to worry.

[deno]

Let’s hope half of their nuclear arsenal malfunctions. No worries.

[dsq]

Even if one third of Russias nuclear weapons work (2k out of 6k), its far more than enough to destroy the US and Europe. The counterstrike would obliterate Russia. Eighty percent of the rest of the world would starve (all the way to death starvation) in the aftermath.

[Gordonjcp]

None of them are going to function.