> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."
If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Then, wait until midterms when the president loses the house and senate and doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan. This is one of those happening slowly and then all at once events in history I suspect.
Post-Vietnam the US hasn’t engaged in large scale active combat against communism or Russian-backed forces. It has instead favored selling weapons to Eastern European states and building the NATO alliance.
Putin has been clear about the breakup of the USSR being a mistake in his eyes. He’s been annexing territories (or in his eyes, re-annexing) since 1999. He looks for countries with strong Russian cultural and linguistic backgrounds and props up allies that will take over. If that doesn’t work he ratchets up the pressure until he feels comfortable using military force. See: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine.
The US is far stronger militarily than Russia, but with nuclear weapons in the equation, no one wins.
It’s easy to be an arm chair hawk and say we should go fight, but it’s another thing to look you kids in the eye and explain they’re going to die from radiation fallout.
Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
a band-aid solution at best. The fact that putin has desires to resurrect the soviet superpower, is the problem, and i doubt there would be any possible diplomatic solution to that.
Nobody likes war (least of all nuclear war), but if the threat of such weapons is shown to be a bluff, the peace brought about from it's use in WW2 would all but be in vain.
Somebody must back down, and i would say putin and his ambitions must be the one to back down, or the US & allies must escalate. Otherwise, the next authoritarian country is going to want in.
France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph.
There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).
Though, now that the invasion has started (again),
the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic.
The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow.
And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.
I agree that there are difficulties in developing arms in peace times, war can be a driver of innovation. But it is not the only one and there are preferable alternatives, even if arms suppliers see that differently out of egoistic ambitions.
A civilian population rejecting involvement in arms manufacture is preferable to one that calls for a war.
Which is why the Ukraine should have been accepted into NATO (and preferably the EU too) in 2015 or so.
If so, expect Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and so on to test nukes within the next 10 years.
Or, to be charitable, since India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons and nothing happened.
We have no will to fight a war over this in the US. Any talk of that is absurd.
I keep thinking about the Scorpions song Wind of Change. That spirit is now completely dead. I just can't believe it.
Anecdotally, I've never seen so many people in my (wildly different) social circles agree on something political.
Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help.
That said, one should not make stupid decision how to connect and control such infrastructure and you should prepare with working backups instead of another security product.
Basically, no one wanted to bear all the costs of having secure infrastructure components, this is the tragedy of the commons that government is supposed to solve, but when all the leaders are over 70, it’s hard for them to grok the new reality.
If you have a dedicated hacker with means to acquire exploits, security is probably almost impossible. This is why effective mitigation is very likely the safer approach. Manual overrides or air gapped systems would help too.
But it is wrong to panic about it. The best mitigation is boring, but yes, some investment in IT could really help.
So not an actual event.
Ukraine has been subjected to Russian cyberattacks for nearly a decade now. They’ve accomplished knocking the power off multiple times. It would seem the gun exists.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine they could have some success with cyberattacks against the US. How impactful that would be to disrupting day to day life though is a question that remains to be answered. When the power was out in Texas recently, there was quite an impact. Imagine millions losing power in the rust belt in the winter. There would no doubt be loss of life and significant physical damage.
I wish. The gas pipeline shutdown last year was just a rehearsal I imagine. If the Russian government went full send on a cyber attack, we would probably be completely fucked for months at this point.
And rightly so. I don't care enough about Taiwan to instate a draft. I don't care enough about much of anything for that.
Sure, that would make hypocrites of those who were draft dodgers back then, and advocate the draft now. But how many of those are there? I'd guess the vast majority of baby boomers who now advocate the draft weren't draft dodgers.
And AFAIK, compared to those who went, draft dodgers were a small minority.
No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go."
Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!
If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you.
I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot.
I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside.
I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.
Cut it out with the bullshit: You know very well I never said or meant any of that.
But how many people does it take to sit around and smoke, chant, and block traffic? It's not as if it was necessarily new people at every sit-in, is it -- they could very well have been the same pot-smoking, slogan-chanting, and traffic-blocking protesters at most of those protests, right? Sure, they became the cultural phenomenon remembered from the time. To a large degree because, as you point out, of those 80s Hollywood blockbusters... And how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Hollywood blockbuster producers and directors did it take to make thoseand leave this huge imprint on the collective consciousness of posterity?
OTOH, AIUI a majority of draftees... didn't dodge the draft. The USA sent what, half a million young men? (or more?) over there. I'm not saying they all went willingly -- far from it, AFAIK -- but at least, those who went cannot, by definition, have been "draft-dodgers". So by my reckoning, compared to active protesters quite possibly, and compared to actual draft dodgers almost certainly, there were more non-draft-dodgers.
And also by definition, pretty much exactly all of those young men who were sent to Vietnam to fight -- the non-draft-dodgers -- were baby boomers.
So "boomers are hypocrites because they all advocate the draft now but dodged it back then" just doesn't make mathematical or logical sense. For one thing, even if many of them advocate the draft now that's not all of them; maybe the ones advocating it now are the same ones who obeyed it then, and maybe they've been quite consistently and non-hypocritically in favour of it all their lives. And for another, of course the bit about "they all dodged it then" is BS: If they had, there wouldn't have been any of them there.
Your rantings and ravings about Boomer Bloodlust aside, all I was pointing out was the bullshitness of this collective-hypocrisy accusation.
This is bait and bad bait at that. The longer Russia continues to provide us with video evidence of their bullying only makes it easier for us to convince undecided countries to sanction Russia to submission.
Forever? Look at North Korea: Kim Jong-un is doing fine.
It's a fantasy that the "entire world" would sanction them: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia...:
> China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing.
Putin doesn't care about Russia economy the way you think he does: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-rus...:
> Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
IIRC, Russia media is basically like having pro-Putin Tucker Carlson on all the channels all the time. And if, despite that, anyone in Russia has even a small chance of actually undermine Putin, they'll find poison in their underwear and get an all-expenses paid trip to a gulag.
Everyone saying "but we should let Putin do whatever he wants with lives of innocents because otherwise nuclear war" is Putin supporter, whether they know it or not.
But that's as far as it will go at this point. Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
Putin can be faulted for many things but not looking ahead isn't one of them and you can bet that he has priced this in already. If anything he is probably amazed at the lack of response.
> Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
Yes, there will be all kinds of justification for letting Ukraine burn, this one will be near top of the list for sure.
Why think it will work this time?
EDIT: of course, my opinions are shaped by being in non-nuke-equipped country in Europe, so depending on West's response this time, we're next. I'm sure it looks differently for someone sitting in New Jersey or Australia.
What people are saying is that no one wants to get nuked to save Ukraine and I'd be hard pressed to blame them.
This isn't Call of Duty
Oh wait there was an attempt, people didn't accept a democratic vote and decided to go and find politicians to lynch. I'm still pretty shocked that there hasn't been a more severe reaction to that one.
He's shown time and time again that from within Russia, he's untouchable and everyone who tries will either be killed or deported to gulag. No sources needed, just look it up quickly on your own.
I do not see an easy solution for dealing with him - left alone the assassination route.
But. Nuclear weapons are far beyond the ken and capability of humans’ intuitive game theory, the hueristics we apply in escalatory conflicts of all scales. Applying such intuition risks thoughtless apocalypse; MAD is a novel idea because such weapons required either an entirely new paradigm in power politics, or humanity’s rapid suicide.
Nuclear weapons are a deus, or devil, sprung from the machine of human civilization.
The possibility of their use, even by a bully who wields them especially to intimidate us, must inspire some cowardice in any soul who cherishes humanity’s potential.
The west must find its moral courage within the contraints of antiquarian post-Congress of Vienna style Realpolitik, as others have stated. Partition of Ukraine and many decades applying a new strategy of containment is the most realistic ‘victory’ that can be sought.
We might hope that Russia’s once promising liberal civil society will revolt and save this decade for peace - in vain, I expect.
Putin took control of Chernobyl tonight, you know. How do you think he thinks about this stuff?
And I am no HN founder, but I live in Eastern Europe. NATO planes and helicopters kept flying overhead all day and my house doesn’t even have a basement.
So I bet we are closer to the danger than you are. And I also bet that the ones doing the flagging and burying are other brave "class warriors" and "eaters of the rich" who can’t accept that their beloved ideology has created monsters like Putin while the capitalism they despise has given the world prosperity, (relative) peace and Elon Musk (the last one's a mixed blessing, I admit).
PG if you are reading this, I love you really, man. And if there's any room left down there for a resourceful fella, I will work for bunk and board. (In fact, I've been stockpiling tins since Feb 20, so I only need the bunk ;)
How long was it called that, and when did he start in the game?
I'm guessing most of his background is actually not FSB, but KGB.
Avoiding nuclear war is the top priority.
Problem is, "Avoiding all-out war is the top priority" is exactly what Chamberlain thought in 1938, too. And look what that got him: all-out war.
Great analogy.
But, fine, let's play this game. The US is sends troops into the Ukraine. You do understand this is right at Russia's border. What does Putin do? He'll engage. Great, now we're in a shooting war with our nuclear rival. Now do you want to roll the dice this doesn't escalate further. Does Putin go after neighboring NATO countries? Now the US has to escalate further to defend an ally. And if the US/NATO pushes into Russia, does Russia go nuclear?
This is why the Cold War stayed COLD. We didn't directly engage Russia on anything close to their borders. Yes, we fought two proxy wars in Asia and just look how that turned out.
Do you really want to roll the dice and hope your neighborhood isn't a parking lot in the next five years?
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496865471995523080?s=...
It is up to Biden now to live up to his tough talk of Putin fearing him (from during the election, if you have forgotten) and other western leaders to find an end that doesn't involve bending over.
Why are you singling out "the west"?!? AIUI, Russia also signed that agreement.
Then the NATO charter is useless.
What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".
Because when you admit state that has part of it's territory occupied into a defense pact, you are effectively declaring war on the occupying state.
Imo it's not quite arsehole thing to not start WWIII due to non-alliance country.
People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?"
It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Also the wording is fuzzy when it comes to conventional war, but maybe the wiki has wrong wording. Either way, that is nowhere close to full defense pact which NATO is (with forward allied military bases and such).
NATO treaty itself does not talk about rapid response forces, joint bases and so on. All of that comes beyond the treaty. What stops key states from retreating back to basic treaty and then finding an excuse when Article 5 comes? E.g. if Russia comes as non-marked „rebels“?
Maybe NATO has also weak wording in the treaty itself. So ask yourself - why did Ukraine want so badly to be accepted into it? Why is Russia opposing NATO expansion so much?
Why did Baltic states or Poland wanted into NATO so much? It's one more treaty you can show to media when shit hits the fan. One more treaty your supporters can use debating governments for help.
In reality, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it won't be automatic full-on NATO response. It will still be debates. But certain people will be much more uncomfortable saying „no we won't defend NATO allies“. Yet some will still say it.
Russia wants it's own NATO, with black jack and hookers. And countries joining the real NATO obviously won't join theirs.
EDIT: and wiki wording is unclear whether the treaty applies for conventional war. That's all I meant by "fuzzy"
Baltic states are undefendable, even compared to Ukraine. If Ukraine is down, Poland is as indefendable as Ukraine. Then we are back to Cold War state where Germany is barely defendable.
Yes, Sherlock, that was exactly my point: Dodging that responsibility is what makes NATO an arsehole.
Anything the West does directly they have to expect a response.
That said, I think the west should be using 'distance power'.
There are US Global Hawk drones over Ukraine right now doing surveillance, I think it would be reasonable for the US to launch cruise missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine.
The Russians could make things very difficult for ships in the Black Sea however as one opportunity for retaliation.
We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, but it's impossible to tell, it's just as likely Russia may be able to just smash through Ukranian defences and leave them to some insurgency skirmishes.
Putin won't step back. This is his endgame and he has very little - if not actually nothing - to lose. Going back as a loser is not on the table as a viable option.
Putin is not all powerful, no leader ever is. He has to face realities of the situation, and also populism at home.
And he has a lot to lose, this is a risky manoeuvre. If Russia fails in it's publicly stated objective it will look really bad on him and Russia. Russia could feasibly fail entirely and lose some occupied territory. Unlikely, but it could happen. And then there's the 'overhead' cost of economic disruption.
If the Ukranians can hold off the main thrust of the attack, and especially if Russians start to come back in body bags - he will lose the momentum and have to make serious adjustments.
This is 'extremely expensive' for him in every way: political, populist, economic to conduct such operations and he can't do it for very long.
Or if they do actually 'win' and but then Urkanians can mount material insurgent attacks, it won't work.
Russian Oligarchs just had their wealth cut in half (they are pissed), a lot of Russians will be facing financial pressures, they were never really behind this war in the first place - this will take it's toll at home.
Russia lost 6 fixed wing and 3 or 4 rotary wing just this morning - that's not a good start and if those loses continue at that rate he won't be able to keep it up - he can't risk his Air Force for Ukraine.
Ukranians have 1K+ Javelin and hundreds of Stinger missiles. Those weapons do not require central coordination and can nullify air support and amour advantages, which makes it an ugly ground fight which will be bloody, and it's possible Russians don't have the veracity to fight. Russians soldiers are doing it 'because it's a job' - not because their homeland is under threat.
Russian paratroopers have taken Kyiv Airport this morning, but they are alone without armour or real support, Ukranians shot down 3 of their transport craft. It's entirely feasible that Ukranians take back that airport .
Although it would be risky, the West, particularly could cause serious damage to Russian forces in Ukraine.
I don't really think Ukraine will hold out, but they definitely could and Russia will have to eventually withdraw in some way.
My guess is that he would mostly withdraw to the Donbas region and then make some kind of 'declaration of objectives met' and then sue for a truce, making permanent claims to Donbas recognized by the West (which won't happen, but his claims will make him appear strong).
To believe that his future acts will be rational is missing what has already happened, clearly this wasn't rational to begin with.
If you're really clever, get all Sun Tzu on him and feed his fears until he chokes on them.
Most bullies are cowards. Threats and ultimatums like that come from a place of weakness. Did you hear America saying anything like that when they invaded Iraq? No, because they weren't scared.
Having a rogue state with nukes is a serious problem.
I wrote about such tactics in a blog post https://dandanua.github.io/posts/counterfactual-communicatio...
So, it was an impressive threat. I doubt he actually would follow through... but he might. That's his leverage - that we wonder if he might. Rationally, though, it's a crummy threat, because rationally his own downside is far too big.
Compared to those things, the power of nukes is trivial; all they can do is destroy. You can't surrender to a nuke, and the point of warfare is to convince the enemy to submit, not to damage the ecosystem. Damaging the ecosystem is just a side effect, so it's the wrong way to measure the strength of offensive resources.
"Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere And build them a home, a little place of their own. The Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings. ... Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead."
--- The Fletcher Memorial Home - Pink Floyd
Putin is at the top of the pyramid but he is not the sole ruler of the Russia. Its not like if he dies Russia will magically become exemplary democracy.
There were and still are people lining up and aiming to take his seat, but as long as Putin appears to be strong and gives his underlings enough he will remain on the throne.
Sure there are other perspectives and possible motivations for his actions. But it's the idea that he may not care any more and might do anything that I find scary. If he's willing to risk full scale invasion across all of Ukraine after the international focus that preceded it, would he also be willing to launch supersonic nuclear weapons? In his televised statement he said Russia is ready for all outcomes.
For the USA what probably worries me most is cyberattacks. The USA is such a soft target. Our government can't even secure it's systems after a decade of laws, warnings, bad reports, and actual attacks.
I do hope I'm wrong and Putin is actually sane and has a strategic plan that makes sense for his country.
Putin's pre invasion speech has a striking amount of blood and soil rhetoric. And in addition just like Hitler he denies the right of existence of East European states between Germany and Russia.
He all but said that controlling these countries was Russia's "Manifest Destiny".