Wait. What? People are cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict? I missed that. Links?
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.
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.