Hacker News Reader

You should read a bit of Dostoevsky for his analysis how 'rational' people are. Not to mention what decades of absolute power do to your ability to reason. I am also not sure what the end game is here and what 'defeating' a country with nuclear arsenal looks like. And why there is no more calls for negotiation (like there is in the case of Gaza).

I am also not sure what the end game is here and what 'defeating' a country with a nuclear arsenal looks like.

The decisive US defeats in the aforementioned countries, and the equally compelling Russian/Soviet defeat in Afghanistan provide hopeful models.

> On the contrary, the intent it is to help the regime come to its senses

It's funny how 'realist' viewpoints, when applied equally from both sides, lead to inevitable nuclear annihilation.

>> Russia [...] currently has foreign troops on its land that are attacking it.

> Ukraine is the defender in this conflict. Every reasonable action it takes to encourage a Russian withdrawal is, by definition, defensive.

War is peace etc etc.

I'd like to point out that an attack is the opposite of defense and the scale of the attack does not make it not so. Your argument does not negate the GP statement which btw is true.

Both statements you quoted can be true at the same time. Russia is the aggressor in this war, and Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil have the goal of repelling the aggressor, and not conquer or subjugate Russia.

If Russia wants to stop these attacks, it can do so at any point. Their government simply has to stop their attacks on Ukraine and retract its troops. Surely, even to a madman like Putin, this humiliation would be preferable to global nuclear armageddon.

> Surely, even to a madman like Putin, this humiliation would be preferable to global nuclear armageddon.

I can think of numerous reasons why it wouldn't be preferable, even to a non-madman.

Feeling humiliated and driven to a point where one’s subjective feeling is that there is nothing left to lose, one does not need to be a madman to launch everything one has. Vengefulness is sufficient.

Note that subjective assessment of the situation is sufficient. Putin is dependent on nobody to come to such a conclusion, especially not the west, and why should he care anyway? Western war escalation enthusiasts apparently are willing to take the risk anyway or do not seem to understand this.

Where do you draw the line? Since you say this is purely dependent on Putin's subjective perception, and since you can't read his thoughts, would the logical consequence be that we need to just let him do unopposed whatever he wants to, out of fear that the smallest grievance could result in nuclear armageddon? This, to me, seems what imperialism apologists are arguing for. Ignore the war of aggression, ignore the genocide, rape and murder of civilians, sacrifice Ukraine to protect Putin's ego, and just pray that his greed stops at that and that he won't continue given another opportunity.

There is probably a point where things go from happening gradually to happening suddenly. Very few can relate to the horrors of nuclear war or have the consequences of nuclear bombs in living memory.