How significant is the recent escalation between NATO and Russia?

NATO is now allowing the use of American and British missiles in Russian territory. In September, Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer decided, after discussions, not to allow this. We can assume the reason is wanting to avoid escalation. Putin issued a very clear warning and they appeared to listen.

What has changed since then? It has only been two months. Russia continues to do well, which is not a change as Russian military has been doing well for over a year. Why is Biden, before he leaves office, allowing Ukraine to use these missiles? He knows what the potential consequences are. Starmer also knows what the consequences are. The deep state know the consequences. This can only be a way to try to sabotage Trump's presidency.

Do you think this escalation is significant? What do you think will happen?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

PeterF15 · 13-15, M

Russia used hypersonic missile to warn the West i would say but question is if Ukraine will continue to attack russian territory with western missiles...

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@PeterF15 all missiles are hypersonic - russia tried using that word as a scarecrow more than a year ago. Turned out the Ukrainians simply shot down the 'unstoppable hypersonic missiles' and still do.

The barbarians recently used a medium-range ballistic missile (of which they have very few) with conventional warheads. Again, a scarecrow that scared nobody.

Russia is desperate, especially as nukes are off the table. Their military is a joke, their economy is crashing, and whatever future they might have had died in Ukraine, causing a demographic catastrophe that will reverse rate for a century or more.

They get off every square centimetre of Ukraine's soil, or they perish.

I don't mind which they choose.