"Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process."

Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?

▲

franktankbank 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them

Isn't that exactly what you would say even if you didn't mean it?

	▲	ethbr1 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You'd think everyone would have learned by this point that none of the belligerent major world powers mean what they say anymore. Definitely not Russia, China, and the US. They all transparently see diplomacy and messaging around it as a tool of war. Small surprise when others do too.
	▲	ifyoubuildit 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean they seem to have made it clear by their actions. They're in an existential situation, so its not like there is any reason to hold anything back. If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.