Hacker News Reader

Comment by k__ | Hacker News Reader

I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff.

I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.

View on HN

Given what's already happened, and provided (I'm hoping) Ukraine continues to hold out as it has, both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic and likely to occur in relatively quick order. I think settling for less would be illogical at this point.

EU membership is only possible if certain economic metrics are met, IIRC, and that is impossible to achieve while under attack or even soon after in the rebuilding phase. So to me EU membership is looking pretty far out. Why does it look realistic to you?

Treaties aren't set in stone, and novel ones can be invented. If I had to crystal-ball predict what a plausible Ukrainian victory looks like here—that is, the best likely outcome I think they might achieve on a relatively short timetable—it's a negotiated peace that gives some territorial concessions and, for face-saving for Putin/Russia, rejects Ukrainian NATO ambitions... but puts them in a quick-n-dirty EU status that grants them a security agreement of some kind, as they progress on the slower track to full EU membership.

I think if Russia backs them into fully rejecting all security agreements with the West as part of a settlement, they're just in for a takeover by other means, once Russia has its near-term concerns addressed by the peace settlement and can afford to sit back and wait. I think the most likely way out of that (assuming Ukraine achieves one) is a novel arrangement of some kind, more likely with with the EU than NATO, or (waaaay less likely) a new bloc & mutual defense agreement with Sweden and Finland.

Yes, I understand the requirements for EU/NATO membership and that Ukraine is a long way from there. I thought it was realistic given the circumstances: Ukraine is quite literally fighting for eastern Europe - including those countries that have already acceded to the EU. I can't see any other way to look at it given the facts that have already surfaced. While the EU and NATO waffle over the extent it is willing to risk engaging in this war, Ukraine is getting destroyed, but may yet do enough to set back Putin's designs by 30 or more years, if not permanently. I believe such an outcome should confer the deserved right to special treatment for Ukraine by both the EU and NATO. However, perhaps I am too romantic in this regard as even at this time I'm sensing stodginess on the part of the EU and NATO.

>both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic

Neither is possible. Ukraine does not control its borders so can't join NATO and is not economically viable enough to enter EU. And under that scenario trying to take Crimea starts a world war between Russia and NATO.

Ukraine joining NATO is just not ever going to be allowed to happen.

I believe a lot will depend on the outcome of this war as well as its ramifications for Putin's grip on power. Ukraine has so far defied all the odds and I wouldn't bet against them at this point. If given a bloody enough nose Russia may not be in a position to never allow NATO membership to happen.

In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.

> hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa).

As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.

By access I meant civilian access, People doing people things. Commercial entities doing commercial things. Defense? Well, yah. It's complicated for Finland.

>call Putin's nuclear bluff.

And what do you think would be the outcome?

Someone in power in Russia would see the issue and "remove" him.

The replacement could then spin it as being a good replacement and play by the rules of the west.

When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?

Yeltsin to Putin.

>When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?

Kruschev --> Brezhnev

Brezhnev --> Andropov

Andropov --> Chernenko

Chernenko --> Gorbachev

Gorbachev --> Yeltsin

Yeltsin --> Putin

Putin --> Medvedev

Medvedev --> Putin

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia

This list is missing Stalin wiping out most of his opposition and things like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691

Right. Which is why I didn't include him on the list.

What's your point?

Point taken. Though Putin to Medvedev and back wasn't really a transfer of power :)

Also, if you haven't seen "Death of Stalin", it's an excellent dark comedy, if a bit historically inaccurate.

As a general rule, over the decades (centuries?), every change of leadership in Russia has been at least a bit less bloody than the previous one. Some dare call it "progress" :-P

Nothing. A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for. No one is going to have anything to do with him or Russia on any level after that.

No one is going to have anything to do with Putin after launching a nuclear first strike because he'll be dead. Along with most of the population of Russia and a big chunk of the rest of the world too. And Putin knows this. Thus, it's a bluff.

Unless he's got terminal cancer and decides he's going out with a bang. He does seem to have some jowls. I mean the guy is blatantly lying to everyone and acting irrationally as is. The problem with poker is sometimes people go all in even with shit hands.

Not necessarily. There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side.

Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons.

Will he decide to end life in America and most of the world over a carrier group? There's a non zero percent chance he would flinch at that.

Your argument is that nobody would have anything to do with Putin, but we already pretty close to that point. Backing Putin in a corner makes him MORE dangerous, not less.

Putin could do all kind of things to completely undermine as well. What happens if he decides that the world uniting against Russian means Russia no longer need to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treat and offers "free" nukes to whoever aligns with his new order? It's already understood geo politically that "no nukes" means the West and China get to bully you whenever they want. So why not take the offer? There's all kinds of ways this could get worse without all life ending.

> There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side.

I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday.

Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once the nukes start flying there's really only one option - immediately take out as many of your enemy's weapons as possible. Sink all submarines, nuke all silos, hope for "no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."

Would it? Would you order a nuclear strike on a target that would guarantee a retaliation that would destroy your country and maybe the world and likely yourself?

Especially if a purely military target was hit like a carrier group and it was all soldiers that died?

Its not so obvious to me that every leader could do that.

Now look at the opposite. You are a leader who is about to be killed/ousted/lose everything if current course continues. No matter what you are probably dead in 10 years anyways due to old age. Why not? Especially if you think Putin is how he is portrayed by Western media?

By that same logic, Putin could nuke NYC and there should be no response. And then Washington. And then San Francisco. The calculus is the same.

Not sure what culture you grew up in, but I grew up in the "progressive" side of the US and I'm quite certain that even the folks out here would demand immediate retaliation. The folks that grew up in red states are even more bloodthirsty. At minimum we'll be using nukes against Russian military targets, and I just don't see that de-escalating.

I would , sadly, say he could a-bomb kiev and this would not result in total nuclear war. Why would someone bomb moscow because of that? Killing more civilians because civilians where killed?

In any case, get used to brinksmanship like this now that the Pax Americana is coming to an end.

Putin most certainly can win a nuclear war. He has literally thousands of nukes.

"A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for."

We don't know what he would do. A desperate dictator might just use nukes.

There's also the greatly increased risk of accidentally starting a nuclear war -- something we've come close to multiple times, even in peace time. In war time that's just short of WW3, the risk is increased exponentially.

No sane person wants to gamble with the literal fate of the world. Yet both sides are doing this by getting this close to WW3... that doesn't lend confidence to the possibility of staying out of a nuclear war if NATO "calls Putin's nuclear bluff".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com