Except in this case, a lot was done. The only thing that wasn’t was to incentive a NATO shooting war with Russia given the next step would be the use of WMDs (including nukes). Thus in retrospect, the collective policy of arming Ukrainians with NATO caliber weapons was entirely appropriate given that each country had to bear in mind its own domestic political considerations in how it responded (which included assuring their publics, they wouldn’t be risking a nuclear war).
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Except in this case, a lot was done. The only thing that wasn’t was to incentive a NATO shooting war with Russia given the next step would be the use of WMDs (including nukes). Thus in retrospect, the collective policy of arming Ukrainians with NATO caliber weapons was entirely appropriate given that each country had to bear in mind its own domestic political considerations in how it responded (which included assuring their publics, they wouldn’t be risking a nuclear war).
And if Russia still invaded?
Effective at hurting people the Russians owe money to ?
@frostbite I think the right things are being done. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But I think it's clear that Putin is stupid enough to pull the trigger on one. Our leaders should tread as carefully as they can while offering the amount of support Ukraine needs to win a defensive engagement, and never threaten Russia existentially.
We can't set a limit for ourselves on thermonuclear war. EVERYTHING possible should be done to avoid that as a possible outcome. And that means NATO only gets involved once the Russians start shooting at NATO. Never before. But there's a lot we can do and are doing to make sure that life in Ukraine is difficult as possible for Russia both now and in the future and hopefully that is never seen as a reason for that dictator to just end everything in some vengeful nihilistic epilogue to the Western World.
We can't set a limit for ourselves on thermonuclear war. EVERYTHING possible should be done to avoid that as a possible outcome. And that means NATO only gets involved once the Russians start shooting at NATO. Never before. But there's a lot we can do and are doing to make sure that life in Ukraine is difficult as possible for Russia both now and in the future and hopefully that is never seen as a reason for that dictator to just end everything in some vengeful nihilistic epilogue to the Western World.
I don't like that. People always bring up the appeasement politics towards Hitler as an argument but in truth, maintaining a cool head and deescalating has worked over the last decades. Russia on the other hand is marginializing itself.
I can get this line of thinking and the wish to show Russia a clear line it can't cross. But I for one am happy that the Western leaders deal with this war less emotionally. Time isn't on Russia's side so this is a marathon. Russia has maneuvered itself into a blind alley and as long as the pressure is kept high (sanctions and fierce Urkainian resistence), it will eventually crumble under the weight - and if this is a continuous process, it minimizes the risk of escalation and Putin trying to take the world with him on his way down.
The West didn't prove that nuclear threats work. The entire world has known they work since the minute the Cold War began. What you're proposing would force a direct confrontation between nuclear powers, which was avoided for the entirety of the Cold War. There's a reason it was avoided, and it's not because Eisenhower or Reagan were too soft on dictators.
I think you're way off when you're suggesting he's more likely to use tactical nukes. The thing about a nuclear deterrent is that it only works if you don't use your nukes. If you start using them anyway the game is up.
But if Russia used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, they still wouldn't be attacking a nuclear armed enemy. I can remember Obama talking about a red line in Syria and it amounted to nothing. Also didn't Biden say just recently that he wouldn't use nukes if Russia attacked Ukraine with nukes?
That's true, but neither did the US use nukes against China during the Korean War, despite MacArthur's requests. The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan either, nor India against Pakistan (though I suppose they may have if a full-scale war broke out). People can talk about red lines all they want (and break their promise later), but at the end of the day the one that still hasn't been crossed is the nuclear attack.
I can't find anything about Biden saying that. I found some stuff from May about the US which seemed to say the opposite, but no direct quote from Biden.
I can't remember the source on the Biden comment but I believe it was posted in this thread. Can't really be arsed to go looking for it but it was along the lines of "We will respond forcefully and with all our might but not with nukes".
Yes, I understand, but the problem is that Biden clearly said before the invasion that NATO will not defend Ukraine, there there are zero chances NATO will use its superior air force. This gave the green light to Putin, which resulted to a lot of death and destruction. These lives are lost forever. I believe that a show of force would actually had saved these lives.
Of course I might be wrong, but still it is hard to understand why the West acts like it is the weaker side. Russians have repeated many times that they are already in a war against NATO, and NATO keeps saying that sorry we cant be directly involved. It is pathetic.
Kasparov had predicted all that in his 2015 book. He also predicted that the longer the West will be trying to avoid direct involvement, the higher the cost it is going to pay (eventually). So far he is right.
Last edited:
I generally agree with people like Kasparov on most of his views about Putin, but then again he has the luxury of being a pundit and advocating much more aggressive tactics. Politicians are still responsible for policies that protect the lives of their constituents, which means advocating for a more measured approach that doesn’t incentivize an actual Russia-NATO shooting war that could result in the annihilation of millions. Slowly choking the life out of the Putin regime, both expand politically, is therefore the more prudent policy. The Russian system will eventually crack and implode without the economic means of sustaining itself.
This looks like one of the most disgusting acts of the war so far:
feck this country, feck it:
How many Ukrainians will die till the Russian system implodes?
And if their system implodes, is there a higher or a lower probability of a nuclear war?
(Compared to a clear cut USAF air show in December 2021. )
Terrorists do what they do best.
If the Russians knew that USAF is serious about it they wouldn't dare invade. Why would they? It would be a certain defeat for them.
But even if they did invade, USAF would destroy the first few tanks in their columns and the whole thing would probably end there.
Do you think that Putin would go full nuclear holocaust in this case? Just because he lost a few tanks? Then, if he loses the war a few months from now, why wouldn't he do the same? After all, the Russians are certain that without American help, Ukraine would not be able to fight for long (and they are not wrong).
That’s just not a risk that we should be cavalier about. Ultimately, no one wants war to expand beyond Ukrainian borders for obvious reasons.
I think it's funny that you think that.
Probably more like "... and the world would begin to end there".
300,000... alrighty then.
I'm assuming that's rapid deployment forces spanning the entire army/navy/air force spectrum.
How do you think Putin would be able to sell that 'the whole thing would probably end there' scenario to the Russian population and to his inner circle? If the US would strike and Putin would then immediately cancel things, he'd probably lose his position right there and then. He'd never let that happen.
Of course, you could argue that Putin would therefore never have invaded under those circumstances. But that's a game of chicken - what if he does? Who would want to risk that?
Looks like the Ukrainians have been able to destroy a major ammunition depot today.
Putin would say that he is the wise leader who does not want to destroy the world, unlike warmongering NATO, or something to that effect. He will say that at this moment, Russia cannot win against all the NATO countries. Russian TV often admits that NATO is much stronger, that's not a secret inside Russia. It is not a shame to back down faced by an overwhelming force.
Having said that, Putin is not stupid. He does not want to die, either. He is a bully, and bullies only attack when they are certain that the bigger bully (USAF) will not directly hit them. Yes, he miscalculated the Western response, he expected even less. But he waited for 2 months to make sure that USAF is not going to defend Ukraine. So, he liked his odds. Biden practically assured him that USAF will not do anything.
Putin can end the world any time he wants, he has the nukes to do it. Why should he want to do it in this scenario if not now? He lacks now everything he would lack in that scenario, so why end the world? No one is invading Russia even if the Russian and forces goes into NATO countries and gets destroyed, because of those same nukes, so there's no threat, then or now. If there was, NATO would have attacked in defense of Ukraine.
I can see that, but ultimately, it's risk calculation. What are the chances Putin will react in this way or that, and would be the consequences? I suppose most leaders will conclude that we should not go on a path that might lead to nuclear war, even if the risk percentage is fairly low.
First, Biden said that USAF will do nothing if Russia invades, but Russia "will pay" (what? when? how? ). Why did he say that? Keep all options open. Make your own threats. Try to scare the Russians. Then Russia does invade and Biden says that US will give Ukraine weapons, but only defensive short range weapons. Then he said that US will give Ukraine long range weapons, but Ukraine cannot hit inside Russia, while its own cities are completely destroyed, one after the other.
We can try to sell all that as smart policy that minimizes risk, but for Putin is simply cowardice. Always a step behind because the West is scared that Putin might get too angry. It is the Russians that should be scared that NATO will get angry, given the disparity of the two forces. But Biden, Scholz etc do not scare anyone. And Ukrainians are paying with their blood. In this hour of difficult decisions we got leaders who are scared to take the initiative. (And yet, thanks god it is not Trump!... the poor Ukrainians would be completely fecked... )
We can try to sell all that as smart policy that minimizes risk, but for Putin is simply cowardice. Always a step behind because the West is scared that Putin might get too angry. It is the Russians that should be scared that NATO will get angry, given the disparity of the two forces. But Biden, Scholz etc do not scare anyone. And Ukrainians are paying with their blood. In this hour of difficult decisions we got leaders who are scared to take the initiative. (And yet, thanks god it is not Trump!... the poor Ukrainians would be completely fecked... )
But you should remember who is doing the "risk calculation". Do you really have any confidence on the "risk calculations" of Biden, Scholtz, Macron, etc? I don't. Afghanistan is fresh. In January, Scholtz was still enthusiastic about Nord Stream 2, etc ...
(And I am sure they receive a lot of reports, many of them conflicting, but the buck stops with the person who makes the final decision. )
And guys (and gals), I am for peace. I am 100% for peace. I hate war. I am a dove. I am really sad that so many people are dying. They are dying for nothing. This is a stupid war. All wars are stupid, but this one is perhaps one of the most stupid wars ever.
The question is how could we have avoided this war completely, given that Putin is a dictator with nukes and fascist ideas about a new Russian Empire? (This was known, it was not hidden from us. )
After reading various things these past few months, I agree with Kasparov. If Putin thought that the bigger bully (NATO) will hit him directly, he would do nothing. We wouldn't have war now. Putin would wait for his buddy Trump to become president again, and work on the next US elections. But after seeing the Afghanistan debacle, after seeing what kind of "leader" Scholtz is, he decided that his odds are good enough right now. In 2 years Ukraine might be stronger and Trump might lose anyway, US politics are unpredictable now.
The question is how could we have avoided this war completely, given that Putin is a dictator with nukes and fascist ideas about a new Russian Empire? (This was known, it was not hidden from us. )
After reading various things these past few months, I agree with Kasparov. If Putin thought that the bigger bully (NATO) will hit him directly, he would do nothing. We wouldn't have war now. Putin would wait for his buddy Trump to become president again, and work on the next US elections. But after seeing the Afghanistan debacle, after seeing what kind of "leader" Scholtz is, he decided that his odds are good enough right now. In 2 years Ukraine might be stronger and Trump might lose anyway, US politics are unpredictable now.
An direct attack by NATO on Russian forces would more than likely fall into their scenario of existential threat to Russia. The chances of things getting out of control would escalate enormously.
Orcs hiding in the school.
Putin is using the Nuke threat to keep NATO from helping Ukraine. The chances of him using them is very slim since we know NATO won't want to become involved in a conflict with Russia.
It's unfortunate for Ukraine because without this threat I'm sure NATO would already have helped militarily. Even if there is a less than 1 percent chance of Putin following through with the threat, NATO still can't take the risk and Putin knows it.
It's unfortunate for Ukraine because without this threat I'm sure NATO would already have helped militarily. Even if there is a less than 1 percent chance of Putin following through with the threat, NATO still can't take the risk and Putin knows it.
Fecking animals.
A stock of Tomahawk missiles will be at Ukraine's disposal sooner than later.
You were saying that if Russia invaded a Ukraine that was defended by the US, and got destroyed, that it would be the beginning of the end of the world, that Russia would launch either a full nuclear volley at NATO countries or launch smaller nukes that would lead to escalation and then Armageddon.
I’m not sure why you’re now responding about how Russia would respond to an invasion. I said that no one would do that because of nukes, so I agree that’s a bad way go. Russia doesn’t have to worry about their army being destroyed because no one will invade.
But that’s not at all the same as helping a country destroy an invading Russian army.
Not really. A direct hit by NATO on Russian forces INSIDE UKRAINE, is no existential threat for Russia. They can just retreat back into Russia.
But what I am saying is that in December 2021, just a (serious) threat of NATO doing that, would have prevented the invasion altogether.
Of course they can take the risk, US Presidents took far greater risks standing up to the USSR.
And as insane ideologues as the leaders of the USSR were, none of them wanted to use nukes. Sacrificing Ukraine because of that threat…doesn’t sit will with me.
I mean look at all the destruction already caused. Surely much, much greater than the destruction that would be caused by one “normal” nuke (perhaps their biggest bomb on Kyiv would have been worse, but then Russia aren’t done).
Not if the "normal" nukes were fired all over Europe