Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[stevoc]

I think that close to the majority in non European-North American countries would see it negatively.

The majority of the world would see former Soviet bloc countries wanting protection from aggressive neighbours negatively?

Well I wouldn't know for sure if that would actually be the case but it would surprise me to be honest if it were.

The issue is that you add for protection or in the previous post you labelled NATO as a defensive alliance, while I agree with you, it's not actually that easily accepted.

Perhaps not but then that is the goal of propaganda.

 

[JPRouve]

The majority of the world would see former Soviet bloc countries wanting protection from aggressive neighbours negatively?

Well I wouldn't know for sure if that would actually be the case but it would surprise me to be honest if it were.



Perhaps not but then that is the goal of propaganda.

Maybe I'm not clear because you keep reframing what is said to match with NATO's POV. To be clear, Nato's expension is often seen as an expension of historic colonialist and the number one world police aka the US. And beyond that, you just have to look at the study shared above, my experience tells me that the figures for Greece or Malaysia are not unique outside of Europe.

 

[Zehner]

While Putin is obviously is the driving force behind it, it's also important to remember that it's not like he's surrounded by democratic doves who would immediately deescalate if they were to take over.


I disagree with and think it's cheap to somehow blame NATO for all this, which is obviously untrue. But I also think it's easy to underestimate just how confused and traumatized the Russian nation has been since the early 90s. We simply don't see eye to eye on modern geopolitical history. I genuinely don't think the kind of politician we in the West would like can succeed in Russia today. The only demographic who might be symathetic to this are the youngest milennials/oldest generation Z, while the rest of society to some extent share Putin's view of how Russia is basically threatened from all sides.

Obviously this doesn't mean that we can't confront and contain Russias expansionism, but I really don't think it's adviseable to enter a game of chicken with a country we (the 'west', or whatever we want to call it) barely seem to understand, like @frostbite seems keen on. That's not to pick on you or anyone else who feels the same, but Russia really is a very strange place...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strategic empathy with the Russians and all that. I also believe that below the surface there is much complexity to the situation. But the notion that Russia started this war because of NATO expansion simply can't be upheld at this point. This theory in particular was put out there to divide opinions in the West. Putin started the war because he saw the EU and the US as weak, egotistical and capitalistic (he contributed to that himself by his bot networks etc). That's almost the rxact opposite tonfeeling threatened.

I mean, the number of different explanations alone makes this such a silly idea to begin with. The Kremlin essentially just went with "you are from the West but want to support us? Here's a list of reasons for our special operation, just pick the one you like the most." I mean, was it the NATO expansion, the Ukrainian nazis or the secret bio labs?

That's of course obly referring to the political leadership that made this decision. The public is a different matter but considering that they, too, were completely surprised by this attack (and the scale of it) I have a hard time imagining that they were that afraid of their neighboring countries and NATO.

 

[stevoc]

Maybe I'm not clear because you keep reframing what is said to match with NATO's POV. To be clear, Nato's expension is often seen as an expension of historic colonialist and the number one world police aka the US. And beyond that, you just have to look at the study shared above, my experience tells me that the figures for Greece or Malaysia are not unique outside of Europe.

All I'm doing is continuing on from the point I was originally making in the first post you replied to mate.

 

[Carolina Red]

Also both the US, UK and well Russia made a pledge to come to Ukraines aid if they were attacked as part of the nuclear disarment treaty.

And they’ve kept that pledge.

 

[MTF]

A couple of recent stories from guys who are or were in Ukraine:

Andy Milburn is originally a Brit, but had an entire career as a USMC infantry officer, retired as a Lt Colonel. He went over to Ukraine initially to write a few articles, but decided to instead start a group (Mozart Group) to help the Ukranians with training and now evacuations it seems. He writes here about the attrition to Ukrainian forces and some of it's (negative) effects. https://mwi.usma.edu/time-is-not-on-kyivs-side-training-weapons-and-attrition-in-ukraine/

This is a longer piece by a journalist that was in Ukraine it seems like a few months ago towards the end of the siege of Kyiv, where he mainly went looking for the so-called "Ukrainian Foreign Legion". https://harpers.org/archive/2022/07/searching-from-the-ukrainian-foreign-legion/

 

[Gehrman]

And they’ve kept that pledge.

Yeah true

 

[pierrethesnack]

The only reason those people share that view is due to the consistent and aggressive propaganda for more than two decades now since early days of Putin regime. You ask people in 90s this question and nobody felt threatened then.

I'm sure that's partly true, but propaganda needs to hit a nerve, perceived or not, to be effective. I don't think it's as if the Russian public were just passively awaiting government propaganda in order to know what to think. I'm quite confident that a vast number of Russians don't agree with this simply because they're benched in front of their TVs listening to propaganda every evening, but rather that of all the information available and directed at them, these paranoid narratives are what fits their reality. Obviously this has gotten increasingly worse as Putin has consolidated more and more power and restricted civic liberties. But as you say, it wasn't like this in the 90s.

If you are from Russia or have special knowledge of it I apologize in advance if this is totally incorrect. I'm basing this mostly on conversations with Russians abroad and a few trips to St. Petersburg, so it isn't exactly hard data

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strategic empathy with the Russians and all that. I also believe that below the surface there is much complexity to the situation. But the notion that Russia started this war because of NATO expansion simply can't be upheld at this point. This theory in particular was put out there to divide opinions in the West. Putin started the war because he saw the EU and the US as weak, egotistical and capitalistic (he contributed to that himself by his bot networks etc). That's almost the rxact opposite tonfeeling threatened.

I mean, the number of different explanations alone makes this such a silly idea to begin with. The Kremlin essentially just went with "you are from the West but want to support us? Here's a list of reasons for our special operation, just pick the one you like the most." I mean, was it the NATO expansion, the Ukrainian nazis or the secret bio labs?

That's of course obly referring to the political leadership that made this decision. The public is a different matter but considering that they, too, were completely surprised by this attack (and the scale of it) I have a hard time imagining that they were that afraid of their neighboring countries and NATO.

Yeah, I agree. There is much complexity and basis for some legitimate grievances, but it has become impossible and pointless to discuss it because it's just drowned out by all the nonsense coming out of the Kremlin.

 

[Water Melon]

Russian citizens never ever felt any threat from Ukraine or Ukranians. Never ever. Unfortunately, to vast majority of Russians living in Russia, Ukranians are not a real nation, neither is Ukraine as a state. They still live in the old days of USSR where other soviet socialistic republics were united by the Great Russia (великая Русь). They still believe that they are superior when it comes to cultural heritage, linguistics, education etc. Russian chauvinism is well known to non-Russian people who were born in USSR. Giving derisory nicknames to people from Central Asia, Caucasus, Ukraine etc is still, unfortunately really commonplace in Russia. Putin is a real monster who has combined in himself the worst from USSR and the rough '90s. He is probably the most corrupt and cruel person in the world right now. The lowest of the lows who had a brilliant chance to build a modern, powerful, rich and truly prosperous Russian Federation, but instead has turned into a pariah state full of brain-washed people. What a shame.

 

[frostbite]

Ukraine: Missile strikes busy shopping centre in Kremenchuk

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-61957596


What is the point of sending missiles to a busy shopping mall? Obviously, Putin does not care about war crimes, or ethics, or civilian casualties. He is not afraid of any "escalation". He only cares about destroying Ukrainians, one way or another.

And of course he doesn't care about NATO escalation, because he is pretty confident there will be none. Okay, the West will send some more weapons, some more Russian soldiers will die, Putin doesn't care about Russian soldiers, either.

Yes, it is really hard for the Western leaders to make wise decisions in this situation, because such a total disregard of human life is completely foreign for Western societies in 2020s.

 

[frostbite]

In retrospect, last February both Russians and Western leaders made huge miscalculations. Russians believed they will capture the whole Ukraine in a few days. Western leaders thought that Ukrainians will hold a little longer and then capitulate. That's why Germany only sent ... helmets.

It is weird that both sides made such huge miscalculations. Obviously, Russians were more inept than what everyone thought, Ukrainians were more capable than what everyone thought.

Since then, Russians changed their strategy, they went back to a simple strategy of bombardment and leveling of cities. Killing as many Ukrainians as possible. Total war, scorched earth.

Usually, to counter this strategy you need to use a capable air force that can decimate any artillery, plus bombard Russian cities as retaliation. But NATO is not going to get involved, and Ukraine does not have a capable air force. The second possibility is for Ukrainians to use long range artillery to hit Russian artillery. I have no idea if this will work because: 1. Russians have air force that can destroy the Ukrainian artillery, 2) Russians have long range missiles that can destroy the Ukrainian artillery, 3) I have no idea if the Western long range artillery is accurate enough to hit the Russian artillery because Ukraine is lacking the rest of the Western integrated targeting infrastructure (satellites, F-35, Airborne battle management aircraft etc). The Western artillery usually does not operate isolated from the Air Force (for both protection and targeting).

 

[Rajma]

How the towns and villages in Luhansk/Donbass look like after Russian “liberation”.

 

[TheLiverBird]

With Russia’s new tactic of just…well…outright levelling Country

we will now see the complete demise of Ukraine

Total destruction

I don’t believe the Ukrainian figures of Russian losses but I do believe they’ll have been high

Not that Russian losses will be a concern too Putin, he won’t give a single feck, but to speed the process up, it’ll be submission time which we seem to be moving into now.

and that means flattening the place, wether military or civilian, no cares given from Putin

the west have failed miserably in keeping such a war off of European soil. You can’t reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth, and Ukraine’s head was in Russia’s mouth way before the west acted

Nuclear states can do what they want too other states not apart of gangs

 

[frostbite]

In retrospect, last February both Russians and Western leaders made huge miscalculations. Russians believed they will capture the whole Ukraine in a few days. Western leaders thought that Ukrainians will hold a little longer and then capitulate. That's why Germany only sent ... helmets.

It is weird that both sides made such huge miscalculations. Obviously, Russians were more inept than what everyone thought, Ukrainians were more capable than what everyone thought.

Since then, Russians changed their strategy, they went back to a simple strategy of bombardment and leveling of cities. Killing as many Ukrainians as possible. Total war, scorched earth.

Usually, to counter this strategy you need to use a capable air force that can decimate any artillery, plus bombard Russian cities as retaliation. But NATO is not going to get involved, and Ukraine does not have a capable air force. The second possibility is for Ukrainians to use long range artillery to hit Russian artillery. I have no idea if this will work because: 1. Russians have air force that can destroy the Ukrainian artillery, 2) Russians have long range missiles that can destroy the Ukrainian artillery, 3) I have no idea if the Western long range artillery is accurate enough to hit the Russian artillery because Ukraine is lacking the rest of the Western integrated targeting infrastructure (satellites, F-35, Airborne battle management aircraft etc). The Western artillery usually does not operate isolated from the Air Force (for both protection and targeting).

Part 2:

What is the Western strategy today? I have no idea, but let me make a guess. West will let East Ukraine to be destroyed completely, with huge human and material loss. There are two/three possible endgames:

1. Ukraine starts winning at some point, taking back some destroyed cities. Putin declares mission accomplished, all the nazis are dead, and gets out of Ukraine.

2. Ukrainians lose. The West will give Putin all Eastern Ukraine and Southern Ukraine, the war will end.

(3. Nope, impossible.) Putin keeps taking more and more destroyed cities, slowly and painfully, killing more and more Ukrainians, and Russians slowly move to the West. The Western leaders' "calculation" is that this will not happen. But if it does happen... too bad.

 

[tomaldinho1]

A couple of recent stories from guys who are or were in Ukraine:

Andy Milburn is originally a Brit, but had an entire career as a USMC infantry officer, retired as a Lt Colonel. He went over to Ukraine initially to write a few articles, but decided to instead start a group (Mozart Group) to help the Ukranians with training and now evacuations it seems. He writes here about the attrition to Ukrainian forces and some of it's (negative) effects. https://mwi.usma.edu/time-is-not-on-kyivs-side-training-weapons-and-attrition-in-ukraine/

This is a longer piece by a journalist that was in Ukraine it seems like a few months ago towards the end of the siege of Kyiv, where he mainly went looking for the so-called "Ukrainian Foreign Legion". https://harpers.org/archive/2022/07/searching-from-the-ukrainian-foreign-legion/

Nicely written article on the international legion although it does seem like there is a sizeable group at the front now (looking at recent Severodonetsk videos and social media from the Eastern fight). Completely understand why the reporter might not have gone there after this article was written though!

 

[shamans]

I feel like blaming the likes of Biden for not reading the situation exactly correctly at every turn is a bit unfair. It's not like there is a manual for nuclear war, you have to make your judgements as you go along and you can argue they've been too cautious but then...can you be too cautious about starting the end of the world? Much better to be overly cautious than overly hawkish in such a situation, not that it's perhaps much comfort to the people of Ukraine right now.

How did Biden or U.S not read the situation correctly? They had been warning the world and Ukraine of an invasion for a long, long time before anyone took it seriously. Zelensky was telling his own people not to pack their bags and leave because Biden is just being dramatic.

 

[Carolina Red]

How did Biden or U.S not read the situation correctly? They had been warning the world and Ukraine of an invasion for a long, long time before anyone took it seriously. Zelensky was telling his own people not to pack their bags and leave because Biden is just being dramatic.

I think you're missing his point there.

the west have failed miserably in keeping such a war off of European soil. You can’t reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth, and Ukraine’s head was in Russia’s mouth way before the west acted

It's easy to say that, but what exactly would your solution have been?

That's why Germany only sent ... helmets.

To be fair, I've been surprised that they've been able to send anything else. Their military has been a neglected shambles since the early 2010s.

 

[frostbite]

I feel like blaming the likes of Biden for not reading the situation exactly correctly at every turn is a bit unfair. It's not like there is a manual for nuclear war, you have to make your judgements as you go along and you can argue they've been too cautious but then...can you be too cautious about starting the end of the world? Much better to be overly cautious than overly hawkish in such a situation, not that it's perhaps much comfort to the people of Ukraine right now.

Yes, I agree that this seems to be the policy vs Russia for a long time now. Be cautious and be optimistic that everything will work out with diplomacy.

Does this really work in real life? I don't know. Plato said "If you want peace, prepare for war".

For example, I dislike Reagan for his social policies. He was destructive for the US middle class. However, his hawkish behaviour against USSR liberated a lot of Eastern European countries.

 

[nimic]

Yes, I agree that this seems to be the policy vs Russia for a long time now. Be cautious and be optimistic that everything will work out with diplomacy.

Does this really work in real life? I don't know. Plato said "If you want peace, prepare for war".

For example, I dislike Reagan for his social policies. He was destructive for the US middle class. However, his hawkish behaviour against USSR liberated a lot of Eastern European countries.

That doesn't remotely describe Europe and the West's response to this war. There's an unprecedented level of external support and internal increase in spending. Now you might say it's not enough, but it's very clearly not just business as usual.

As for Reagan, it's not clear that he had anything to do with the fall of the USSR. There's certainly no historical consensus.

 

[frostbite]

That doesn't remotely describe Europe and the West's response to this war. There's an unprecedented level of external support and internal increase in spending. Now you might say it's not enough, but it's very clearly not just business as usual.

As for Reagan, it's not clear that he had anything to do with the fall of the USSR. There's certainly no historical consensus.

The West helped a lot after the invasion. But before the invasion the policy was "Be cautious and be optimistic that everything will work out with diplomacy." In January 2022 Scholtz was 100% behind Nord Stream 2.

About Reagan, of course there is no consensus. What current event has a consensus? Even for the invasion of Ukraine you can find Western historians that blame equally Russia and NATO.

 

[Cheimoon]

All I'm doing is continuing on from the point I was originally making in the first post you replied to mate.

But the issue is that you keep arguing from a NATO/European point of view. The arguments you are providing don't live in the minds of the people you are questioning. Now, if NATO started a huge propaganda campaign in Africa and made sure that every person everywhere is fully aware of the argument you're providing, then sure, you could argue that they're not weighing the arguments correctly by preferring Russia. But that's not happening, and so people will base opinions on the general information and stereotypes they have (just as many of us will do regarding situations anywhere in Africa). And then NATO is a neo-colonialist power encroaching on Russia, which people living in the post/neo-colonialist reality of virtually all of Africa won't consider positively.

As for Reagan, it's not clear that he had anything to do with the fall of the USSR. There's certainly no historical consensus.

Reagan probably had the best postmortem press anybody's ever had.

 

[stevoc]

But the issue is that you keep arguing from a NATO/European point of view. The arguments you are providing don't live in the minds of the people you are questioning. Now, if NATO started a huge propaganda campaign in Africa and made sure that every person everywhere is fully aware of the argument you're providing, then sure, you could argue that they're not weighing the arguments correctly by preferring Russia. But that's not happening, and so people will base opinions on the general information and stereotypes they have (just as many of us will do regarding situations anywhere in Africa). And then NATO is a neo-colonialist power encroaching on Russia, which people living in the post/neo-colonialist reality of virtually all of Africa won't consider positively.

Reagan probably had the best postmortem press anybody's ever had.

What arguments?

I just said in my 2nd last post in this thread that I wouldn't know for sure that worldwide most people would be against countries joining Nato.

 

[nimic]

About Reagan, of course there is no consensus. What current event has a consensus? Even for the invasion of Ukraine you can find Western historians that blame equally Russia and NATO.

Okay, I see I was being too cautious, opening myself up to that kind of response. What I meant to say was that Reagan did not cause the fall of the USSR.

 

[Cheimoon]

What arguments?

I just said in my 2nd last post in this thread that I wouldn't know for sure that worldwide most people would be against countries joining Nato.

But in the highlighted bits below, you did each time make a point about opinions you think people may/may not have.

Yeah the majority of people in South America, Africa and Asia care deeply about NATO 'expanding'.

This is a problem created solely by Putin and Russia, the best thing for the people of Ukraine, the world and even Russia would be if they ended this unjustified attack tomorrow. Which they could but they won't.

Here you're implying that these people won't care. But they might, actually.

I'm aware that some countries especially in Africa are on the face of it pro Russian because of their history with the Soviet Union in the past and the prevalence of Russian propaganda in those countries media. But some countries leaning more towards Russia than the West isn't the same as the majority of the world being against eastern European countries joining a defensive alliance that will prevent them form being invaded and annexed.

Here you are basically putting words into people's mouths/minds, specifying what they oppose/support exactly.

First off I interpreted the post I first replied to be referring to people in general not governments or supranational organizations, which is why I said people as that's who I was talking about.

In your opinion are the majority of the World's population against former Soviet block countries joining NATO for protection?

The majority of the world would see former Soviet bloc countries wanting protection from aggressive neighbours negatively?

Well I wouldn't know for sure if that would actually be the case but it would surprise me to be honest if it were.

Perhaps not but then that is the goal of propaganda.

Same here both times.

I don't see how you can say you're not providing arguments for these people's opinions.

 

[frostbite]

Okay, I see I was being too cautious, opening myself up to that kind of response. What I meant to say was that Reagan did not cause the fall of the USSR.

So you believe that was mostly a coincidence that the hawks Reagan/Bush leaded the West during the 10 years before the fall of USSR. You may be right, who knows?

 

[stevoc]

Here you're implying that these people won't care. But they might, actually.

Yeah they might or they might not I wouldn't know for a sure as I've said. Do you know for sure?

Here you are basically putting words into people's mouths/minds, specifying what they oppose/support exactly.

Sorry what?

Is some countries being pro Russian the same as the majority of the world being against countries joining NATO?

Same here both times.

I don't see how you can say you're not providing arguments for these people's opinions.

Those were questions were they not?

 

[Spark]

No appeasement never works. But it was not appeasement before the invasion. Are forgetting the Cuban missile crisis?
The majority of the people in this world don't think they should suffer for the fight between two super powers to show whose got the bigger dick.

Without going into why the current crisis is no where near comparable with the Cuban Missile Crisis, what do you think the West/NATO/EU/US etc should have done in the face of Putin's aggression (do you actually think this was Russian aggression in the first place)?

Genuinely curious.

 

[Ødegaard]

Yes, I agree that this seems to be the policy vs Russia for a long time now. Be cautious and be optimistic that everything will work out with diplomacy.

Does this really work in real life? I don't know. Plato said "If you want peace, prepare for war".

For example, I dislike Reagan for his social policies. He was destructive for the US middle class. However, his hawkish behaviour against USSR liberated a lot of Eastern European countries.

But in Plato's time nuclear wasn't an option.

 

[JPRouve]

But in Plato's time nuclear wasn't an option.

Gunpowder wasn't an option.

 

[frostbite]

But in Plato's time nuclear wasn't an option.

Do you think that Russians are afraid of the Western nuclear arsenal? If not, why not?

 

[TwoSheds]

Yes, I agree that this seems to be the policy vs Russia for a long time now. Be cautious and be optimistic that everything will work out with diplomacy.

Does this really work in real life? I don't know. Plato said "If you want peace, prepare for war".

For example, I dislike Reagan for his social policies. He was destructive for the US middle class. However, his hawkish behaviour against USSR liberated a lot of Eastern European countries.

Look I'm not the one saying Biden's policies are broadly wrong, you are. All I'm saying is that in any war nobody gets every decision right. You're always going to say the wrong thing at some point, send the weapons to the wrong place, hesitate a bit too long to start training on something etc etc. That is what it is to be a human in the universe - to do your best and to occasionally fall short.

What I'm saying is it's very unfair to judge Biden about your perception of what he's done wrong up to now. End of the day it's an incredibly difficult situation and the simple facts are we're not at nuclear war, we're not even really on the brink of nuclear war, the Ukrainians haven't lost (and probably won't), and Russia isn't in a stronger position than they were before the war, quite the opposite in fact. Maybe we could save some more lives by acting in a different way, but that's a hypothetical and broadly speaking we could all be doing a lot worse by now given the gravity of the situation.

 

[JPRouve]

Do you think that Russians are afraid of the Western nuclear arsenal? If not, why not?

Yes, they are. Unless you think russians are generally demented.

 

[frostbite]

Yes, they are. Unless you think russians are generally demented.

Exactly!

The MAD doctrine still holds, there will be no nuclear war. Even Putin is not demented.

 

[JPRouve]

Exactly!

The MAD doctrine still holds, there will be no nuclear war. Even Putin is not demented.

As long as NATO doesn't go on the offense. Because if you put Putin in a corner the situation is totally different and no one can tell what will happen.

 

[frostbite]

Response to Russia’s war in Ukraine dominates G7 summit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/28/g7-summit-talks-russia-war-ukraine

Analysis: Talks close with pledge to support Kyiv for ‘as long as it takes’ but price caps on Kremlin oil and gas remain sticking point

 

[frostbite]

As long as NATO doesn't go on the offense. Because if you put Putin in a corner the situation is totally different and no one can tell what will happen.

What is different? Putin will be demented "if you put him in a corner"?

 

[JPRouve]

What is different? Putin will be demented "if you put him in a corner"?

Desperation, that's the difference. Most people won't jump through their window... unless there is a fire in the building.

 

[frostbite]

Desperation, that's the difference. Most people won't jump through their window... unless there is a fire in the building.

Desperation? So Putin will jump out of the building? Or perhaps he will use a bullet? Yes, this is possible I agree. Still not demented.

 

[JPRouve]

Desperation? So Putin will jump out of the building? Or perhaps he will use a bullet? Yes, this is possible I agree. Still not demented.

What are you talking about? Demented related to the absence of fear, you can do frightening things in spite of fear.

 

[frostbite]

Interesting analysis. Recommended!

Putin needs a drawn-out war – the west’s timidity gives him one

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/28/putin-ar-the-west-zelenskiy-ukraine-russia

President Zelenskiy and Ukraine want it finished by winter, but Russia still holds the balance of power

Russia’s latest attack on civilian targets in Ukraine, causing at least 18 deaths in a shopping centre in Kremenchuk, far from the frontline, could be interpreted as a message to the G7 and Nato meetings under way in Germany. The message is one of Russia’s indifference to condemnation of its crimes. Moscow will not back down. And that in turn may be based on confidence – whether sound or misguided – that over the long term the war is going Russia’s way.

Russia has been making gains. Its eastern Ukraine offensive slowly grinds forward by destroying everything in its path, and there is a growing realisation in the west that there will be no early end to the conflict. But the war is dragged out even further by Russia successfully deterring Ukraine’s western backers from providing it with the weapons systems it needs – including more ammunition, drones, jammers, radars, and means of intercepting Russia’s long-range missile strikes like the ones seen over recent days.

[...]

Successfully dissuading the west from providing Ukraine all the support it needs to turn the tide of the war confirms once again for Vladimir Putin that Russia’s military inferiority to the west can be overcome through leveraging western fear.

In fact, the west’s clearly stated fear of escalation proves to Russia that threats work, regardless of how implausible they may be or how often they have been shown to be empty.

By now it’s a tediously repetitive cycle of promises of nuclear annihilation for whoever has most recently upset Russia’s propagandists – for example Russian state TV recently discussed attacking the Netherlands. Russia’s nuclear threats will continue for as long as they are effective in preventing Ukraine being provided with war-winning military support.

[...]