How Does This End?
carnegieendowment.org
carnegieendowment.org
> ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
Considering some of the calls from those who should know better for no-fly zones over Ukraine, Option (2) is indeed going to be the harder path. All it would take is a humanitarian incident such as the extended siege of a city. The calls for military action would be ferocious. The accusations of weakness would cripple many leaders trying to hold back a military response. The lack of any sense of what nuclear escalation actually means throws yet more fuel on the fire. And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s, if not earlier. Confidence in the US military to solve all problems, foreign and domestic, is alarmingly high.
The easy path is, unfortunately, the one that ends with the unthinkable.
Wait so Russia is struggling to even take Kyiv and you’re implying that they are an equal foe to the highest spend armed forces in the world? Allied with the countries that constitute 75%+ of global wealth?
Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective.
If it goes nuclear both sides will defeat each other. Neither is known to have any viable defense against nuclear missiles. It seems really odd to have to make that point. It seems even more odd that putin is threatening it.
In conventional warfare, the US 1000% has the resources to make an invasion of an unwilling nation impossible.
In nuclear warfare you and I are both dead so this debate is pointless.
I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuance of war.
Russia did exactly that in Grozny. They seem to be trying to do the same thing here in the same way :(
At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state a la Ukraine?
Sure there was a period of time when Chechnya was a semi-recognized failing state [0], but to say that it was in anyway comparable to Ukraine is disingenuous at best.
[0] news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/135716.stm
Since when does “an unwilling people” require “an internationally recognized free state”, or are those goalposts jet propelled?
When they briefly broke away from Russia, they were dominated by warlords. Not exactly a clear indication that there was a popularly supported free government (unlike Ukrainian which has formal elections with broad turnout).
Maybe apply a critical thinking lens?
The other issues are that Russians view Ukraine as their ancestral homeland[1], every major invasion of Russia has gone through it, and they view Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat.
On the other hand if Russia wins the only real consequence for the USA and EU is basically the status quo.
There is no way Russia backs down here and anyone with even a modicum of historical education knows it.
This is over-simplifying it: Crimea has a big divide between the 60% ethnic Russian population and everyone else (e.g. the Tatars know they’re much better off in Ukraine as an ethnic and religious minority), and while the other occupied territories definitely have some supporters of rejoining Russia it’s not clear that this approaches even a plurality — and especially after the invasion, a lot of people will have reconsidered their positions as they see an illegal war featuring indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
The number of IED used against the US says Iraq wasn't willingly occupied.
Propaganda: Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. - from Wikipedia
Question: How can you determine when an individual is under the influence of propaganda?
Answer: When they stop looking for the truths that either or both sides of a conflict use as the foundation of their propaganda.
>Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective.
I'd argue so is the United States, much more so than Putin's. If you compare the evils committed by the US to Putin's, Putin cannot hold a candle to the US. The difference is that Putin bears that burden across multiple decades, while the US changes figure heads every 4-8 years, and with that washes away the stains of the country into the haze of time.
With all that being said, I am not pro-Putin nor pro-US regarding this conflict, and I agree with the article that the best course is for the United States to admit defeat, (and additionally, not in the article) stop expanding eastward (through NATO), and to keep their promise to Russia (which was to stop expanding NATO).
Edit: I'd like to add, the seed of Putin's "fascist/nazi" claim is that in 2014, Ukraine's new government eliminated minority rights (i.e. the Russian minority, which represents less than half of the population). And, the US started funding the neo-Nazi faction (Azov battalion) of the Ukrainian army. A quick duckduckgo search will pull up articles for both of these claims.
>There’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors.
Which is much more dangerous than being able to place responsibly on a non-amorphous, single person. The US has an extensively long history of interfering in the matters of other countries. You can overthrow and point fingers at one figure head, but you can't overthrow a system, systemic, and systematically unaccountable foreign policy that changes face every 4-8 years.
I wasn't aware that the US was a party to this conflict where Russia invaded a neighbor without cause. Weird thing to hear from an enlightened centrist.
Laughable
I’d say it hasn’t happened since the revolutionary war
There might come a point where a cautious, politically-acceptable, consensus-driven approach actually increases the risk that the big game starts.
When the stakes are this high, if there is a realistic path to de-escalation that has to be the goal.
But there may or may not be a realistic path to de-escalating the situation.
Money may be a lever: 2T+ stimulus packages are becoming the norm in the US. That’s significantly more than the GDP of the RF. If a ton of aid gets the world to a better place, that’s most likely way EV+. Russian sovereign debt it yielding 20%+, maybe money can help.
But if the internal dynamics of Putin’s situation make it impossible for him to back down? It’s probably better to do something decisive than to wait for the wrong sanction or just ambient pressure to kick off the big one anyways.
- Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host nukes just to stop further carnage. Russia throws in some funds to rebuild
Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.
This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve.
In this case, Russia deserves none.
And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time.
> And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen.
Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
And economic sanctions can be just a slow version of carpet bombing. The figures are disputed, but some claim hundreds of thousands of children alone died under the Iraq sanctions. I haven't read enough to judge the issue, but the official position was that even if true, it "is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." I wouldn't support that kind of logic in trying to inflict a limp either.
So my main point is that it's hard to come up with any "harder the better" approach that isn't suicidal or pure cruelty for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, and bad for NATO member citizens too. I think the invasion is evil too, but the punishment talk is just empty talk -- everyone's getting punished pretty hard right now as it is.
There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts.
Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity.
And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.
Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?
- no NATO membership for Ukraine (it has already been invaded, there is no loss in taking this position now, and much to gain even if it leads to Russian withdrawal)
- some wider security agreement for the region -- if this means no more events like the NATO bombing of Serbia without UN authorization, that is perfectly acceptable
- repeal of discriminatory language laws, etc., and implement some meaningful degree regional autonomy for eastern parts of Ukraine (and western if they want it), basically Minsk 2 clause 4; or some internationally observed (so not like Crimea) referenda in those regions
- relax and withdraw most/all sanctions, but absolutely those on the central bank and SWIFT (though Russia will obviously and rationally accelerate economic links outside of Western control, as will many other countries)
I think a crucial condition should be no imposed change of government in Ukraine (so like what Russia wants in its military intervention in Syria, and not what the US wanted in military interventions in Libya, Iraq, and wants in Syria, etc.)
As for supporting Russians, I totally agree. One of the problems with the sanctions is that they are going to hurt ordinary Russian people, and are just as likely to strengthen the authorities as much as "encourage" ordinary Russians to change their government ("encourage" through collective punishment). The long legacy of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc., shows that this tactic far more often just hurts and even kills ordinary people rather than anything else.
There are many news pundits and analysts with prominent positions and exposure in print and television news in the US, who say things like, "There are no neutral Russian citizens now, they are all responsible for the invasion now" (this is paraphrasing, but not an exaggeration), at least on their personal twitter feeds. Unfortunately, I think most of the focus on "internal changes" is focused on severe collective punishment of ordinary people, rather than anything else, and so I find most of it counter-productive and cruel.
So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.
I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.
> So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.
I'd quibble with the negation of causation for NATO's actions and the use of "simply", but, if I understand the final clause correctly, then yes I ultimately agree, there was absolutely a reasonable chain of events under our control that would have lead to there being no invasion, but also, there absolutely exists a plausible Russian government that would not have invaded. But we don't live in a world with such a government, and we have no control over that fact.
My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"?
I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.
The faults for the failure of Minsk 2 lie with both Russia and Ukraine, and NATO for effectively incentivizing the Ukrainian government to fail to implement key clauses, and for publicly signaling and pushing for continued talk of NATO membership, which effectively shuts down meaningful action on clause 13.
And note that I am in no way a pacifist. I have no problem with NATO article 5 (up to a point -- I don't want any conflict to go to nuclear war, of course).
Final note: this type of conversion comes up very frequently when anti-war arguments are made. Someone asks "is there nothing you would go to war to defend?", when, regarding the issue under discussion, there are usually relatively clear and reasonable terms already on the table that are totally absent from the public discussion. It's nobody's fault but that of our politicians and media that the discussion is so hollow and bombastic at the same time, but it is frustrating.
To me, that ship sailed a while ago.
Yes, Putin’s desire for territorial aggrandizement for both image and resources reasons.
> Just being practical, doing more of the thing that has led to two invasions
Having land that the national mythology Putin appeals to views as Russian and/or has economically and strategically useful resources and features is all anyone else has done which has led to the invasions (and it's more than two; as Georgia bears witness to.)
Can't really insist people stop doing that.
> this has been the official Russian government stance for about 15 years
You are confusing pretext with causation (and also ignoring much of the public pretext, like the claims of WMD programs.)
Given there's a clear historical parallel (not identical, but appropriate enough) with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Monroe doctrine, I don't think it's rational to ignore the NATO "encirclement" argument as pretext. Look through the Wikileaks cables for all the talk of particular "neuralgia" over Ukraine entering NATO, and even talk of Crimea, all the way back in 2008.
One reason I'm so unconvinced this is pure pretext, is that I think it's highly unlikely that the same few people (Lavrov, Putin, etc.) would be making these specific claims and complaints in advance, just to be used a decade and a half later as pretext.
Another is that there are numerous high ranking people in the US foreign policy establishment, both in actual positions of power and attached to semi-official think-tanks, etc., that have agreed with their argument or at the very least identified it as sincere on the part of the Russian government.
As for me saying two wars, I was speaking about Ukraine only (depends on how you count, but I was counting Crimea, and the current invasion, though you could add another for the "breakaway" regions where Russian forces have been involved for years now). I'm aware of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I think you and I might have already discussed those regions on HN in the past.
Given that there is much more recent precedent (e.g., Iraq 2003, including the preceding advocacy by groups like PNAC from which key Bush policy officials were selected) that actually fits the chain of events much better, I don't think it's rational to ignore “false and exaggerated claims of geopolitical threat, ideological terrorism, and WMD as a pretext for a war for economic gain and imperialism from people who don't even bother to not keep saying the imperialist parts out loud”, either.
But this war was a serious possibility even without those pretexts. Russia was incredibly weak, militarily and economically (both are closely linked) at the time of previous NATO expansions that mattered to Russia (1999, 2004). It's not strong now. Ukraine may be a worse quagmire than the SU in Afghanistan. But it does now seem to be able to stretch itself and probably win the immediate war against the Ukrainian military proper. They have complained about NATO expansion for 15 years, and finally have the capability to do what all great powers do: force their will through unjust means, and call it just.
The sooner there is some agreement to resolve the real causes, the less impact the pretextual bullshit will have in preventing that peace. And as I said before, if I'm wrong, possibly WW3 will just be delayed slightly, but Russia is still not strong enough to do what everyone is implying with their WW2 references, so I don't see it happening.
Unless one accepts the argument that because there were different historical borders in the past Russia is now entitled to demand Ukraine either remain a buffer state (with no guarantee except Russia's boyscout promise) or join the Russian federation--by force if necessary.
Please don't take what I've said as a claim that this is a perfect analogy for the Ukraine war -- it fails to be a good analogy on so many levels. It's a suitable analogy only on the question of responsibility for predictable consequences, regardless of the just/unjust behavior of the thing/being that directly causes the harm. I can easily be the case that you are not the proximate cause, but are still meaningfully responsible.
Haven't you heard the news? This isn't Russia's war. This is Putin's war. Putin is in a corner. A resource endowed democracy with Russian roots next to his border with oil, gas and coal is the worst thing that can happen to an oligarch.
Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels makes Putin untouchable. Anything that competes with him erodes his shield against the EU.
Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best.
Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border.
Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it.
Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated.
This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials.
So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership.
Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war.
Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?
Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?
This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks.
These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.
Where were you while we oppresed and slaughtered millions of innocent civilians across the world?
It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.
NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia.
I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them.
For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.
The only force that can stop him is army now and I reeeally don’t think this is what any of the sides (except them) would want because it’s them who pushed him or at least helped him to start the war, obviously. We don’t want another Myanmar, but 100x in size and with a bunch of nuclear warheads.
Discussions around the Magnitsky_Act* went into detail about this, and it came up again during the Trump Impeachments.
I guess my point is that every NATO government has been respectful of Russia, while at the same time economically dissociating from it.
Big assumption that the first will lead to the second. Putin's invasion of Crimea led to his highest approval rating, even with the sanction response.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/173597/russian-approval-putin-s...
I know many USSR immigrants here in the states who once despised anything to do with Putin and his ilk, are now buying into Putin’s rhetoric. It’s really weird to see.
I do think Putin’s days are numbered. With the way the war is going, combined with the global support for Ukraine and the sanctions. I don’t see how the oligarchs, the people around him, and the Russian public will take much more of this. Though, of course, I could be wrong and we could be witnessing a new North Korea type situation.
Russia's economy will decline and Putin will be replaced, but it won't happen fast enough (and that disruptive) for it to make impacts on this war.
Countries with smaller economies like Cuba and Vietnam survived sanctions for years and there was no coup.
So, plenty of counterexamples as well.
Castro died of old age, sanctions still in place for his entire decades-long tenure. While I do believe that sanctions can weaken a regime, I do not believe history shows that they lead to regime change.
I'm not commenting on the broader topic; just that this strategy has worked before.
All of that will increase resources wasted for militarization, lower the efficiencies of the economies and delays action on climate change.
And all of that is the best case scenario.
Europe is now (possibly) united, but only in suffering.
And no, of course we don't have any guarantees either way. But just like Putin puts his troops in Ukraine and says "what are you going to do about it", I believe we should do the same thing back - impose a no fly zone above Ukraine and call his idiotic bluff, he knows what attacking NATO would mean for him too.
for my entire life, the media has portrayed him as either an evil genius or a mad-man (sometimes, both). in any case, it's painted a picture of a man perfectly capable of taking everyone down with him. why should i think otherwise?
note: i am being completely earnest in this response. in the last week, i have thrown up several times post doom-scrolling on twitter. i had to delete the app. i am convinced this will end up with everyone in dust. my mind has reverted to the following quote from The Wasteland several times:
<< "And I will show you something different from either
<< Your shadow at morning striding behind you
<< Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
<< I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
He might use nukes just because he's loosing in Ukraine.
He might use them at any point because he already feels threatened.
He might use them because he had a bad dream.
How can we take any of this into account?
The only thing we can do is to choose the fiction we believe in.
And I think correct fiction to believe in is the one that Putin won't use too many nukes if NATO won't cross Russia borders and clearly advertises that intent.
And if Putin really uses some nukes (probably against military targets in Ukraine) and NATO won't respond with their nukes, just with conventional means, nuclear restraint won't be broken, by anyone except a clear madman
The problem with this approach is that in every future conflict this argument will be in play and so in every future conflict there is no plausible way to finish the conflict other than let the aggressor roll with it.
This might be the first time when a nuclear weapon is used offensively without being fired.
Heck, even browsing reddit comments and hacker news comments I've seen no view encouraging nuclear war. Even 4chan doesn't seem to have any posts proclaiming this view.
People are talking about the Russians being brainwashed, but read most of the comments in this thread and you'll realize they're far from being the only ones.
Here's a sovereign nation that tries to save its independence, pleading with the West / EU / NATO for protection. Then you have a ruler who has been saying for years that that nation should not exist and should be part of his empire, then proceeds to invade.
The framing of this as a NATO vs Russia issue, where NATO should "back down" to prevent further escalation, making Ukraine merely a pawn in some greater game, is absolutely disgusting.
What I have seen is large groups of people taking the position that the West should not let Russia use threats of a potential Nuclear war to bully the west around too much. That the West should not back down just because Russia has Nukes and is threatening to use them.
Some of them may offer views that Putin might be bluffing, or that his command structure might not follow the order to launch a large scale strike. Or that Russian Nuclear weapons are probably so poorly maintained that they won't even get off the ground anyway.
But these people seem to generally accept that their position might lead to a full-scale nuclear conflict, and that's a risk that is worth taking.
I personally don't think these views should be descried as "cheering on the idea of a nuclear conflict", but there probably people taking on the position that anything other than avoiding further escalation counts as "pro nuclear conflict". I have absolutely seen Russian diplomats taking this position.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?
But before that, given the apparent weakness of Russian conventional army NATO should show no restraint and pay no attention to a single word out of Putins mouth.
Basically demand from Russian system of power to deliver war criminal mr. Vladimir Putin to Hague before talks can be resumed and Russia may have any hope of loosening economic sanctions.
MAD has protected the peace for 70 years. Going around saying that it’s best to take the morale high ground is a nice sound bite, but it is not reality. Your freedoms and lifestyle is paid for by the mutual unwillingness of a handful of governments to not destroy the Earth. This balance has been in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 70 years.
When you’re out at movies, playing soccer with your kids, or protesting some injustice, the only reason you’re able to do those things are because there are another group of far more serious people ready to glass the Russians and the Chinese if they try anything.
This article clearly states that Putin won't start with all the nukes, just one, on military target or just for show.
Then NATO should condemn but not reapond likewise.
Because lack of nuclear response to such limited action does not affect MAD in any way.
And nuclear response just normalizes use of nukes.
MAD is only about the fact that if country is at existential threat it will respond by launching all nukes.
But neither US nor Russia is at existential threat when they lauch just a few at proxy targets.
Don't get me wrong, it's still an atrocity, but it isn't existential threat to those countries and probably won't trigger MAD.
All leaders must know that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with the complete annihilation of their country. This is the ONLY sane policy.
Tit for tat is for bullets.
Sure. That's why I'm saying that even if Putin uses one or few nuclear warheads, NATO should restrain itself and not use any, just beat Russian army in Ukraine purely with conventional and economic means.
It's a matter of policy that the US will launch all its nukes if even one nuke is launched by the other side. It only makes sense that the other side would do the same.
There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If someone launches a nuke, all nukes are launched.
And that's why nukes work, they take war to its logical conclusion: everyone dies.
The US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the entire world many times over. It doesn't matter where you are, you'll either die quickly or slowly, but you'll die none the less.
It's more flexible then that and this article specifically talks about that.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked.
It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.
I live in a comparatively rural area, having moved out of Boston just over two years ago. Maybe longer-term residents have a better network here, but I'm personally pretty reliant on food from afar.
Setting aside any concerns about radiation sickness, a massive refugee crisis and literally every other short-term effect, I think it's safe to assume that there will be no fuels available to transport food, or anything else for that matter.
In the event of nuclear winter, there will be few options to grow food, at least not what we're accustomed to growing in our current climate. Wild sources of food may fail, or quickly become exhausted.
And I live in an area with fairly reliable perennial streams (for now. Let's set aside questions of how nuclear war might impact the water cycle). Imagine if you live in the desert Southwest, where your access to water is wholly dependent on electricity unless you have the excellent fortune to live near one of the few large rivers.
No, my biggest fear of nuclear war is that I might survive it.
because death is for all we know very permanent. I would rather be alive and miserable than be dead. I know i will die one day but i would rather put that off as long as possible.
And then there are all these batshit crazy rumours about them destroying nuclear power plants or holding it hostage. Why the fuck would Putin do that?
That's not how people make threats. They are ambiguous for their own reasons. The media is supposed to report what's said, then people who know these things will tell what Putin actually means. The media jump the gun and put words in people's mounth is highly unethical, given the stake.
Deterrence isn't synonymous to nuclear why do I have to explain this. If you aim normal missiles to someone that's deterrence too.
Again, that is NOT the point here. The point is, the media's job is to report exactly what he said. "National Security", or whoever can then interpret it as "nuclear", and make a statement about it, then the media can report on that too. The media dubbing "nuclear" over what Putin said, is wrong. If we can't trust them on doing the basic job, then we can't trust them on anything.
“Deterrence” is not generally limited to nuclear deterrence, though there are contexts where that is implied.
One of the functions of the conventional forces being deployed to NATO’s eastern flank in the present crisis is deterrence, of the non-nuclear variety.
(Putin’s reference to “deterrent forces” given the context of recent highly publicized nuclear high alert and other circumstances pretty clearly implies strategic nuclear forces, but you are way overgeneralizing.)
Abused my whole life, but promised my college tuition would be paid for by parents. That was a lie so I have no family and 110k in debt. 15 years out of college and I still can't get a development job.
Been working as a Baker most of my life. I saw an ex girlfiend become big time designer at Microsoft with a portfolio of stick figures. An old friend with no high school diploma get a job at Facebook. Meanwhile, fuck me. I have designed and developed my own apps, started my own businesses, learned to fly a plane, and earned a black belt. Meanwhile, I can't convince an HR person with a sociology degree to notice anything (which why am I even talking to someone that isn't in the same field as me?).
Everyone who claimed to love me has back stabbed me emotionally and financially.I am half Mexican and white and fit in with absolutely no one. I have experienced extreme racism my whole life, but I look white so no one gives a fuck. Individualism makes absolutely no sense to me. Humanity doesn't really seem to be working together towards anything so I don't see a future worth living for. People seem to hate space exploration, so why bother continuing.
Ultimately, I was probably going to kill myself when the government starts garnishing my wages since I am not paying back my college loans and don't intend to. I would rather die that be an indentured servant for something I never would have done if it wasn't promised to be paid for. So a nuclear strike sounds way more fun than sleeping pills.
It's incredibly selfish, but most of you are spoiled and privileged that you think the majority of people have time to think about pronouns, which I find far more selfish of an act.
So yeah, I would love to see humanity perish.
There are a bunch of moderation issues raised by posts like this, but none of them have to do with not caring about the people who are writing them, and that certainly includes you.
World peace is trivial and inevitable, yet we mess up all the time. Every single person subconsciously votes against world peace. Some votes may count more than others but ultimately it's not a tiny minority that wants to see conflict. It's absolutely everyone.
I've stopped believing all conspiracy theories that involve small groups of elites running the show. Sure, there is always going to be a handful of people at the top but this is true for everything. The elites may benefit disproportionately, however, they benefit precisely because the vast majority support them directly or indirectly. Sure, you can make some people a head shorter but the people that granted them power aren't gone.
For Russia the trail is pretty obvious. We buy Russian oil and directly support Putin. Even if you get rid of Putin, someone else will take his place because we still want to buy the oil after the war.
But, mjfl, are we to reduce every article that espouses an opinion or conducts an analysis (as this article does) to simply a "manufacture of consent" against us unthinking sheeples?
I didn't say it did (in fact, no one here did). If you want to make a point it will probably be listened to more without the ridiculous straw man.
For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready.
The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
This is the mentality that's dangerous.
It's strange to see the population shift pro-war so suddenly, and for nuclear warfare nonetheless...
Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States.
At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.
Does it? Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Russia is doing this because they don't want Ukraine to be a NATO ally (and other reasons).
Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement. We shouldn't go to war beforehand because "maybe our allies might be attacked in the future" that doesn't make any sense.
None of this is in support of Russia, but in support of relative world peace.
But yes you should be prepared for anything as an individual. The US is always in constant readiness to fight wars (2 to be specific) as a policy..
I've always prepped, but I don't want WW3 nor do I think we should escalate due to the Ukraine invasion.
Will you want WW3 in that case?
I don't support annexing problematic countries into NATO, especially those that border on adversaries or expand to them.
I support defending the status quo of NATO, not world policing.
I don't think anyone supports NATO annexing countries, problematic or otherwise.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex
I was expecting a retort of more substance after I answered your question.
[Your use may be acceptable. But Google finds no matches for "annexing into NATO" and only a few for "annexation into NATO".]
1) In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you think that action A should be prefered to action B if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a of a declaration of war by Russia.
2) If Russia was to invade Sweden - for example - I imagine that you'll find that action A2 should be prefered to action B2 if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a declaration of war by Russia.
3) If there is Russian attack on a NATO country you see war as a consequence.
Some people think that taking action B now may actually decrease the probability of finding ourselves in scenarios 2 or 3 later. Maybe you don't, or you think that it increase the total risk.
But at least we may all agree that to minimize the probablility of war you have to consider the whole sequence of potential events.
We had an agreement with Ukraine as well.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Second, I never said America didn't back off from deals, just that the NATO alliance is strong and I support it.
It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging those who would seek nuclear weapons, by letting Russia throw its weight around because it has them.
And it is not possible to avoid nuclear war by discouraging those who, like Ukraine, would disarm, by letting Ukraine be overrun.
The situation in Ukraine is an operational challenge. We cannot let its resolution undermine strategic goals.
I wonder how much stock is put into these scenario models by policy makers and leaders and how much is “gut instinct”?
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...
Should we be rushing to build a nuclear fallout shelter or is it already too late?
The real question is whether you'd want to survive anything that would require that bunker to live through.
... That this turns into something like one of the cold-war proxy wars. The West does not cross the line by sending NATO troops or planes into Ukraine to fight Russian forces. The West does send in arms, but Russia limits its attempts to stop that to actions within the borders of Ukraine (not, for example, bombing Polish rail lines used to ship arms to Ukraine). The conflict in Ukraine goes on for more or less time as a hot war. An unlikely possibility is that Ukraine wins the hot war, humiliating Putin, and probably leading to his downfall (hopefully without any disastrous last gasp of aggression), or possibly the overflow of Putin comes first, with the new regime negotiating a way out that's at least somewhat tolerable for Ukraine. The more likely possibility is that Russia wins the hot war, imposes a puppet government, and the West opposes this outcome only by economic sanctions and covert arms shipments to insurgents (who will quite likely exist). This doesn't lead directly to escalation, though the stage might well be set for further crises. If further crises don't cause drastic change, Russia (current or future regime) may eventually tire of fighting an insurgency in Ukraine, and perhaps settles for absorbing the eastern part, while letting the western part become independent again (but probably "Finlandized").
A lot of people die. Once the immediate crisis is over it would be worth thinking about why people in power, on all sides, let it get to this point. I think it's unlikely that the situation was just that there were good guys, and bad guys, and all that one can say is that the bad guys were bad... Treating this as a simple morality play is likely to lead to a repeat performance.
And sealing Russia economically completely while developing bordering states. And gradually allowing Russia to rejoin global economy on the condition of demilitarization of Russia. At first it might be that the only thing west should be allowed to buy from Russia is their war machines no matter how old or crappy.
In a fashion akin to buyback of guns in Australia.
NATO needs to win this and needs to win this with conventional methods and economy. Nothing else.
Eventually we might offer them more money for ore than for tanks so making tanks to sell them is uneconomical for them.
I just wish we were less hawkish, because it seems like we're playing with fire by supplying arms to Ukraine.
That assumes that Putin will prefer to surrender and keep avoiding by all means falling into an end of the world scenario. At least while the push keeps being gentle.
Anyway, the situation is pretty fragile. There are more players in the game, from big economic players and tech companies to individuals that may, by a direct or a false flag operation, do something (like a hack attempt or destruction of system/information) that could trigger a big reaction from one of the sides.
if Putin dies slowly? he could become irrational, convinced the West has poisoned him even if it's natural, and seek thermonuclear revenge.
it'd be easy for Russian media to spin it as assassination and rile up the hardliners either way.
We should really not underestimate how much support there is for Putin in Russia.
Note that the byline of that article is 'world service disinformation team.'
Can someone TLDR how it ends?
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-businessman-puts-1-m...
A status quo is usually tolerable, but the man is acting unpredictably and really rocking the boat right now, that's rarely beneficial for a leader's longevity, not even among despots.
By year end, Putin will be out of office, perhaps dead.
I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.
What about all the opportunity to forgoe scorched Earth policies and work through compromise. You would think ending up with more supporters would be more self serving than making glass and gambling you can intimidate the left overs into ideological submission.
As for the Christians, in the Gospel Jesus very clearly commands to "ignore" wars and rumors of wars.
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." [Matt 24:6]
> I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.
What "terrifies" me are people who form strong opinions and speak from ignorance, and, try to pin great power politics, and geopolitical adjustments on people who believe in God.
If you want to “not all Christians,” that’s fine - but Armageddon fetishists absolutely do exist in fundamentalist Christianity. Start with the “Left Behind” book series if you want an introduction to the way that group thinks.
I wouldn't put it past them, and that thinking is of course not mutually exclusive from those who are seeking Armageddon as you note. That both kinds of minds are in charge of each side is downright terrifying, indeed.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...
Is this guy for real? Since when does the US hold a strong principle for the right of a foreign nation to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule? It's actively supporting perhaps the worst ongoing subjugation over several decades. Half decent writeup, but tarnished by the overt deification of the US.