12 ms·

> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant

by Gatsky 5y ago

> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."

nickpp 5y ago
The speech of a bully, of an aggressor. The only correct reply is a direct retaliatory attack on his offensive positions.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  The reason Putin is invading is because he knows the U.S. is weak, its leadership is politically weak, and there's very little it will do, and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support. It's the effect of clear incentives. If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Then, wait until midterms when the president loses the house and senate and doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan. This is one of those happening slowly and then all at once events in history I suspect.
  - awb 5y ago
    I don’t think this is the full picture. Post-Vietnam the US hasn’t engaged in large scale active combat against communism or Russian-backed forces. It has instead favored selling weapons to Eastern European states and building the NATO alliance. Putin has been clear about the breakup of the USSR being a mistake in his eyes. He’s been annexing territories (or in his eyes, re-annexing) since 1999. He looks for countries with strong Russian cultural and linguistic backgrounds and props up allies that will take over. If that doesn’t work he ratchets up the pressure until he feels comfortable using military force. See: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine. The US is far stronger militarily than Russia, but with nuclear weapons in the equation, no one wins. It’s easy to be an arm chair hawk and say we should go fight, but it’s another thing to look you kids in the eye and explain they’re going to die from radiation fallout. Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
    - chii 5y ago
      > Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan. a band-aid solution at best. The fact that putin has desires to resurrect the soviet superpower, is the problem, and i doubt there would be any possible diplomatic solution to that. Nobody likes war (least of all nuclear war), but if the threat of such weapons is shown to be a bluff, the peace brought about from it's use in WW2 would all but be in vain. Somebody must back down, and i would say putin and his ambitions must be the one to back down, or the US & allies must escalate. Otherwise, the next authoritarian country is going to want in.
      - awb 5y ago
        The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons. France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph. There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons. Though, now that the invasion has started (again),
        raxxorrax 5y ago
        Doesn't even make sense for Putin strategically because the alliance will get consolidated by this. On the other hand there are just few diplomatic tools. They were all used up more or less.
        chii 5y ago
        > the alliance will get consolidated by this. the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic. The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow. And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.
  - brundolf 5y ago
    > and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support Anecdotally, I've never seen so many people in my (wildly different) social circles agree on something political.
  - Bouncingsoul1 5y ago
    I don't think Putin has a single reason, the reason you stated is one in particalur an US one. From a Western European view, my best guess is, he also wants to destabilize EU (with a lot of NATO memebers). Remember Syria an the refugee crisis? This gave TailWind to a lot of right wing parties, which are mostly ProRussia (AFD, FPÖ etc). Incidentally left wing parties, "Die Linke" comes to mind, are also Putin fans. So any polarization within EU will help Russia to sell its resources and don't get sanctioned to much. IMO Putin is playing the divisor.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help. That said, one should not make stupid decision how to connect and control such infrastructure and you should prepare with working backups instead of another security product.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Have family that are vp cybersecurity in infrastructure; I wish you were correct, but the free market went for quick and cheap implementations, not secure. Basically, no one wanted to bear all the costs of having secure infrastructure components, this is the tragedy of the commons that government is supposed to solve, but when all the leaders are over 70, it’s hard for them to grok the new reality.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Sure, it could happen. There were hospitals that got knocked out for weeks with as simple ransomware attack. If you have a dedicated hacker with means to acquire exploits, security is probably almost impossible. This is why effective mitigation is very likely the safer approach. Manual overrides or air gapped systems would help too. But it is wrong to panic about it. The best mitigation is boring, but yes, some investment in IT could really help.
      - oauea 5y ago
        Got a link to a news article about such an event?
        motohagiography 5y ago
        https://www.controleng.com/articles/throwback-attack-lessons-from-the-aurora-vulnerability/ https://www.controleng.com/articles/throwback-attack-lessons...
        5y ago
  - tasha0663 5y ago
    > doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan And rightly so. I don't care enough about Taiwan to instate a draft. I don't care enough about much of anything for that.
    - coffeeisyummy 5y ago
      Amen. The rank hypocrisy of the generation that fought their draft starting WW3 and a draft would be incredible.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"? Sure, that would make hypocrites of those who were draft dodgers back then, and advocate the draft now. But how many of those are there? I'd guess the vast majority of baby boomers who now advocate the draft weren't draft dodgers. And AFAIK, compared to those who went, draft dodgers were a small minority.
        coffeeisyummy 5y ago
        >You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"? No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go." Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda! If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you. I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot. I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside. I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.
  - joncrane 5y ago
    This would be true if we were still on the previous administration, but I think we're back to our regularly scheduled programming now.
- shmerl 5y ago
  And it's the only reply that could stop him. He is basically Hitler 2.0.
  - awb 5y ago
    There’s no sure thing in geopolitics.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      There is sure thing in racketeer's psychology though. They'll take as long as they can. Giving them anything surely won't stop them from taking more.
      - awb 5y ago
        Yeah, I think the idea is instead of fighting, to make the annexation as painful as possible like we did in Afghanistan.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jimbob45 5y ago
  How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war. This is bait and bad bait at that. The longer Russia continues to provide us with video evidence of their bullying only makes it easier for us to convince undecided countries to sanction Russia to submission.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war. Forever? Look at North Korea: Kim Jong-un is doing fine. It's a fantasy that the "entire world" would sanction them: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia-ukraine-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia...: > China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing. Putin doesn't care about Russia economy the way you think he does: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-russia-diplomacy-ukraine/622075/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-rus...: > Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies. [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0417-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0417-4
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Take a big dose of Realpolitik and leave the "ought to"s behind. There's no nanny to tattle to. Nuclear war is a losing move for us all. Don't encourage it's happening out of some sense of moral justice that will kill billions.
  - eigart 5y ago
    Then where does he stop?
    - glogla 5y ago
      He does not. Everyone saying "but we should let Putin do whatever he wants with lives of innocents because otherwise nuclear war" is Putin supporter, whether they know it or not.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        This is very unfortunate, but true. The reality is this: the window to deal with Putin in a non-confrontational manner has already closed, there are no 'good' options that do not carry a very hefty price tag in front of us right now, but people are - understandably - still having trouble adjusting to that reality.
        Cthulhu_ 5y ago
        But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. That's a big source of attrition. Russia is self-sufficient to a point and may still have (financial etc) ties with China, but it will hurt them badly. But that's as far as it will go at this point. Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
        jacquesm 5y ago
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  That is a fairly simplistic view and this certainly wouldn't have helped anyone.
- op00to 5y ago
  Haven’t you seen “war games”? Listen to Joshua.
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    The flaw with Wargames is that you don't always have a choice to play.
    - speed_spread 5y ago
      The game is always being played whether you're actively participating or not.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Wow, not really. Putin lies all of the time and he is a bully, but he's not kidding when he says there will be retaliations. Anything the West does directly they have to expect a response. That said, I think the west should be using 'distance power'. There are US Global Hawk drones over Ukraine right now doing surveillance, I think it would be reasonable for the US to launch cruise missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine. The Russians could make things very difficult for ships in the Black Sea however as one opportunity for retaliation. We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, but it's impossible to tell, it's just as likely Russia may be able to just smash through Ukranian defences and leave them to some insurgency skirmishes.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, Putin won't step back. This is his endgame and he has very little - if not actually nothing - to lose. Going back as a loser is not on the table as a viable option.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      He has a lot to lose. Putin is not all powerful, no leader ever is. He has to face realities of the situation, and also populism at home. And he has a lot to lose, this is a risky manoeuvre. If Russia fails in it's publicly stated objective it will look really bad on him and Russia. Russia could feasibly fail entirely and lose some occupied territory. Unlikely, but it could happen. And then there's the 'overhead' cost of economic disruption. If the Ukranians can hold off the main thrust of the attack, and especially if Russians start to come back in body bags - he will lose the momentum and have to make serious adjustments. This is 'extremely expensive' for him in every way: political, populist, economic to conduct such operations and he can't do it for very long. Or if they do actually 'win' and but then Urkanians can mount material insurgent attacks, it won't work. Russian Oligarchs just had their wealth cut in half (they are pissed), a lot of Russians will be facing financial pressures, they were never really behind this war in the first place - this will take it's toll at home. Russia lost 6 fixed wing and 3 or 4 rotary wing just this morning - that's not a good start and if those loses continue at that rate he won't be able to keep it up - he can't risk his Air Force for Ukraine. Ukranians have 1K+ Javelin and hundreds of Stinger missiles. Those weapons do not require central coordination and can nullify air support and amour advantages, which makes it an ugly ground fight which will be bloody, and it's possible Russians don't have the veracity to fight. Russians soldiers are doing it 'because it's a job' - not because their homeland is under threat. Russian paratroopers have taken Kyiv Airport this morning, but they are alone without armour or real support, Ukranians shot down 3 of their transport craft. It's entirely feasible that Ukranians take back that airport . Although it would be risky, the West, particularly could cause serious damage to Russian forces in Ukraine. I don't really think Ukraine will hold out, but they definitely could and Russia will have to eventually withdraw in some way. My guess is that he would mostly withdraw to the Donbas region and then make some kind of 'declaration of objectives met' and then sue for a truce, making permanent claims to Donbas recognized by the West (which won't happen, but his claims will make him appear strong).
- achenet 5y ago
  or just assassinate him. If you're really clever, get all Sun Tzu on him and feed his fears until he chokes on them. Most bullies are cowards. Threats and ultimatums like that come from a place of weakness. Did you hear America saying anything like that when they invaded Iraq? No, because they weren't scared.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Putin is a symptom of a much deeper problem, and I'm fairly sure that even if you did manage to do that he would be replaced by something similar, possibly even worse. Having a rogue state with nukes is a serious problem.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  That is big talk. You can always hop on a plane and go join the Ukrainian Army
markwkw 5y ago
So he aims to be scarier than Hitler? Quite an ambition. Tragic for everyone involved.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  His pre invasion speech has striking similarity to Hitler's speeches
  - freemint 5y ago
    I find this take very reductive. I would rather see something more concrete like: Putin's pre invasion speech has a striking amount of blood and soil rhetoric. And in addition just like Hitler he denies the right of existence of East European states between Germany and Russia.
    - hajile 5y ago
      Well he did all of that too. He brought up "grievances" going back almost to the 1800s. He denied that Ukraine and other Eastern European countries were real countries. He said that Lenin and Stalin were too soft. He all but said that controlling these countries was Russia's "Manifest Destiny".
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      And he had a lot of yap about history, like Hitler's "historical necessity" and "world-historical" rhetoric.
dandanua 5y ago
He is hinting that he can nuke everyone who will stand against. This is a typical tactic of bullies – to hint death threats, without directly stating them. Also they want to assure you that they can definitely do it, even though they know about the consequences. I wrote about such tactics in a blog post https://dandanua.github.io/posts/counterfactual-communication-and-intimidation/ https://dandanua.github.io/posts/counterfactual-communicatio...
- kragen 5y ago
  Nukes are probably not Russia's strongest offensive resource, and certainly will not be the first resource to be drawn upon.
  - Frost1x 5y ago
    Strongest practical resource you mean? What else would be a stronger offense than a barrage of nukes crippling a country for hundreds of years to come and effecting the entire global environment with radiation, fallout, complete civil destabilization, etc.
    - eyko 5y ago
      Nuclear contamination doesn't tend to stay put and respect borders. Russia knows that, so I don't think Russia would drop a nuke anywhere in their own vicinity.
      - Frost1x 5y ago
        Correct, hence the entire reason I suggested the qualifier of practical. Nuclear attacks are clearly impractical by any sane individual, but in terms of strength and damage, aside from some sort of biological weapon, I'm not sure what could have similar impact.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Forget nuclear contamination. If Russia nukes a NATO country, nukes are coming back to land on Russia. And Putin, personally, will die, and so will Russia as a nation. So, it was an impressive threat. I doubt he actually would follow through... but he might. That's his leverage - that we wonder if he might. Rationally, though, it's a crummy threat, because rationally his own downside is far too big.
jareklupinski 5y ago
"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."
cambaceres 5y ago
Basically, he threatens anyone interfering with nukes. It's a new world, or actually it's the old world reappering.
rapjr9 5y ago
Putin is a 69 year old dictator who is realizing his life is over. He's decided to go out with a bang. He obviously does not care about his country since this war will only hurt Russia, it's already had multiple consequences that are directly opposed to his stated goals. He wants to play with his army and tanks. "Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere And build them a home, a little place of their own. The Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings. ... Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead." --- The Fletcher Memorial Home - Pink Floyd
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Putin (and his kgb clique) is loosing grip on the power, the war started to be the only way to rally local support and remain in the power. Small scale, local conflicts are growing in size to appease common people to give them taste of USSR former glory, taste of world power, not decay of corruption riddled aristocracy ruled former empire. Putin is at the top of the pyramid but he is not the sole ruler of the Russia. Its not like if he dies Russia will magically become exemplary democracy. There were and still are people lining up and aiming to take his seat, but as long as Putin appears to be strong and gives his underlings enough he will remain on the throne.
- zuminator 5y ago
  Why would Putin think his life is over? He's 10 years younger than Biden. And, have you ever heard the expressions, "better dead than Red" and "give me liberty or give me death"? People often believe that deeply held principles are more important than mere survival. Similarly Putin might believe that establishing Russia's strength and border security is more important than any short term pain Russia endures. In other words, there's other ways to look at this than as just a pure boss move for his own ego and pleasure.
  - rapjr9 5y ago
    He might think his life is over because there are very obvious physiological effects that occur when you are 69 years old. As a person who does not have problems and gives problems to other people it may frighten him to realize he is going to die. Sure there are other perspectives and possible motivations for his actions. But it's the idea that he may not care any more and might do anything that I find scary. If he's willing to risk full scale invasion across all of Ukraine after the international focus that preceded it, would he also be willing to launch supersonic nuclear weapons? In his televised statement he said Russia is ready for all outcomes. For the USA what probably worries me most is cyberattacks. The USA is such a soft target. Our government can't even secure it's systems after a decade of laws, warnings, bad reports, and actual attacks. I do hope I'm wrong and Putin is actually sane and has a strategic plan that makes sense for his country.
wyiske 5y ago
It’s tantamount to appeasement to let threats like this influence any decisions
- troyvit 5y ago
  I agree, though what's the alternative to appeasing a nuclear power? Sanctions I guess?

by Gatsky 5y ago

nickpp 5y ago

The speech of a bully, of an aggressor. The only correct reply is a direct retaliatory attack on his offensive positions.

motohagiography 5y ago
The reason Putin is invading is because he knows the U.S. is weak, its leadership is politically weak, and there's very little it will do, and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support. It's the effect of clear incentives. If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Then, wait until midterms when the president loses the house and senate and doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan. This is one of those happening slowly and then all at once events in history I suspect.
- awb 5y ago
  I don’t think this is the full picture. Post-Vietnam the US hasn’t engaged in large scale active combat against communism or Russian-backed forces. It has instead favored selling weapons to Eastern European states and building the NATO alliance. Putin has been clear about the breakup of the USSR being a mistake in his eyes. He’s been annexing territories (or in his eyes, re-annexing) since 1999. He looks for countries with strong Russian cultural and linguistic backgrounds and props up allies that will take over. If that doesn’t work he ratchets up the pressure until he feels comfortable using military force. See: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine. The US is far stronger militarily than Russia, but with nuclear weapons in the equation, no one wins. It’s easy to be an arm chair hawk and say we should go fight, but it’s another thing to look you kids in the eye and explain they’re going to die from radiation fallout. Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
  - chii 5y ago
    > Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan. a band-aid solution at best. The fact that putin has desires to resurrect the soviet superpower, is the problem, and i doubt there would be any possible diplomatic solution to that. Nobody likes war (least of all nuclear war), but if the threat of such weapons is shown to be a bluff, the peace brought about from it's use in WW2 would all but be in vain. Somebody must back down, and i would say putin and his ambitions must be the one to back down, or the US & allies must escalate. Otherwise, the next authoritarian country is going to want in.
    - awb 5y ago
      The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons. France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph. There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons. Though, now that the invasion has started (again),
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Doesn't even make sense for Putin strategically because the alliance will get consolidated by this. On the other hand there are just few diplomatic tools. They were all used up more or less.
        chii 5y ago
        > the alliance will get consolidated by this. the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic. The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow. And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.
- brundolf 5y ago
  > and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support Anecdotally, I've never seen so many people in my (wildly different) social circles agree on something political.
- Bouncingsoul1 5y ago
  I don't think Putin has a single reason, the reason you stated is one in particalur an US one. From a Western European view, my best guess is, he also wants to destabilize EU (with a lot of NATO memebers). Remember Syria an the refugee crisis? This gave TailWind to a lot of right wing parties, which are mostly ProRussia (AFD, FPÖ etc). Incidentally left wing parties, "Die Linke" comes to mind, are also Putin fans. So any polarization within EU will help Russia to sell its resources and don't get sanctioned to much. IMO Putin is playing the divisor.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help. That said, one should not make stupid decision how to connect and control such infrastructure and you should prepare with working backups instead of another security product.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Have family that are vp cybersecurity in infrastructure; I wish you were correct, but the free market went for quick and cheap implementations, not secure. Basically, no one wanted to bear all the costs of having secure infrastructure components, this is the tragedy of the commons that government is supposed to solve, but when all the leaders are over 70, it’s hard for them to grok the new reality.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Sure, it could happen. There were hospitals that got knocked out for weeks with as simple ransomware attack. If you have a dedicated hacker with means to acquire exploits, security is probably almost impossible. This is why effective mitigation is very likely the safer approach. Manual overrides or air gapped systems would help too. But it is wrong to panic about it. The best mitigation is boring, but yes, some investment in IT could really help.
    - oauea 5y ago
      Got a link to a news article about such an event?
      - motohagiography 5y ago
        https://www.controleng.com/articles/throwback-attack-lessons-from-the-aurora-vulnerability/ https://www.controleng.com/articles/throwback-attack-lessons...
        5y ago
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan And rightly so. I don't care enough about Taiwan to instate a draft. I don't care enough about much of anything for that.
  - coffeeisyummy 5y ago
    Amen. The rank hypocrisy of the generation that fought their draft starting WW3 and a draft would be incredible.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"? Sure, that would make hypocrites of those who were draft dodgers back then, and advocate the draft now. But how many of those are there? I'd guess the vast majority of baby boomers who now advocate the draft weren't draft dodgers. And AFAIK, compared to those who went, draft dodgers were a small minority.
      - coffeeisyummy 5y ago
        >You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"? No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go." Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda! If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you. I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot. I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside. I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.
- joncrane 5y ago
  This would be true if we were still on the previous administration, but I think we're back to our regularly scheduled programming now.
shmerl 5y ago
And it's the only reply that could stop him. He is basically Hitler 2.0.
- awb 5y ago
  There’s no sure thing in geopolitics.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    There is sure thing in racketeer's psychology though. They'll take as long as they can. Giving them anything surely won't stop them from taking more.
    - awb 5y ago
      Yeah, I think the idea is instead of fighting, to make the annexation as painful as possible like we did in Afghanistan.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jimbob45 5y ago
How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war. This is bait and bad bait at that. The longer Russia continues to provide us with video evidence of their bullying only makes it easier for us to convince undecided countries to sanction Russia to submission.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war. Forever? Look at North Korea: Kim Jong-un is doing fine. It's a fantasy that the "entire world" would sanction them: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia-ukraine-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/world/europe/china-russia...: > China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing. Putin doesn't care about Russia economy the way you think he does: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-russia-diplomacy-ukraine/622075/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-rus...: > Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies. [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0417-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0417-4
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Take a big dose of Realpolitik and leave the "ought to"s behind. There's no nanny to tattle to. Nuclear war is a losing move for us all. Don't encourage it's happening out of some sense of moral justice that will kill billions.
- eigart 5y ago
  Then where does he stop?
  - glogla 5y ago
    He does not. Everyone saying "but we should let Putin do whatever he wants with lives of innocents because otherwise nuclear war" is Putin supporter, whether they know it or not.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This is very unfortunate, but true. The reality is this: the window to deal with Putin in a non-confrontational manner has already closed, there are no 'good' options that do not carry a very hefty price tag in front of us right now, but people are - understandably - still having trouble adjusting to that reality.
      - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
        But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. That's a big source of attrition. Russia is self-sufficient to a point and may still have (financial etc) ties with China, but it will hurt them badly. But that's as far as it will go at this point. Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
        jacquesm 5y ago
raxxorrax 5y ago
That is a fairly simplistic view and this certainly wouldn't have helped anyone.
op00to 5y ago
Haven’t you seen “war games”? Listen to Joshua.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  The flaw with Wargames is that you don't always have a choice to play.
  - speed_spread 5y ago
    The game is always being played whether you're actively participating or not.
jollybean 5y ago
Wow, not really. Putin lies all of the time and he is a bully, but he's not kidding when he says there will be retaliations. Anything the West does directly they have to expect a response. That said, I think the west should be using 'distance power'. There are US Global Hawk drones over Ukraine right now doing surveillance, I think it would be reasonable for the US to launch cruise missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine. The Russians could make things very difficult for ships in the Black Sea however as one opportunity for retaliation. We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, but it's impossible to tell, it's just as likely Russia may be able to just smash through Ukranian defences and leave them to some insurgency skirmishes.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, Putin won't step back. This is his endgame and he has very little - if not actually nothing - to lose. Going back as a loser is not on the table as a viable option.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    He has a lot to lose. Putin is not all powerful, no leader ever is. He has to face realities of the situation, and also populism at home. And he has a lot to lose, this is a risky manoeuvre. If Russia fails in it's publicly stated objective it will look really bad on him and Russia. Russia could feasibly fail entirely and lose some occupied territory. Unlikely, but it could happen. And then there's the 'overhead' cost of economic disruption. If the Ukranians can hold off the main thrust of the attack, and especially if Russians start to come back in body bags - he will lose the momentum and have to make serious adjustments. This is 'extremely expensive' for him in every way: political, populist, economic to conduct such operations and he can't do it for very long. Or if they do actually 'win' and but then Urkanians can mount material insurgent attacks, it won't work. Russian Oligarchs just had their wealth cut in half (they are pissed), a lot of Russians will be facing financial pressures, they were never really behind this war in the first place - this will take it's toll at home. Russia lost 6 fixed wing and 3 or 4 rotary wing just this morning - that's not a good start and if those loses continue at that rate he won't be able to keep it up - he can't risk his Air Force for Ukraine. Ukranians have 1K+ Javelin and hundreds of Stinger missiles. Those weapons do not require central coordination and can nullify air support and amour advantages, which makes it an ugly ground fight which will be bloody, and it's possible Russians don't have the veracity to fight. Russians soldiers are doing it 'because it's a job' - not because their homeland is under threat. Russian paratroopers have taken Kyiv Airport this morning, but they are alone without armour or real support, Ukranians shot down 3 of their transport craft. It's entirely feasible that Ukranians take back that airport . Although it would be risky, the West, particularly could cause serious damage to Russian forces in Ukraine. I don't really think Ukraine will hold out, but they definitely could and Russia will have to eventually withdraw in some way. My guess is that he would mostly withdraw to the Donbas region and then make some kind of 'declaration of objectives met' and then sue for a truce, making permanent claims to Donbas recognized by the West (which won't happen, but his claims will make him appear strong).
achenet 5y ago
or just assassinate him. If you're really clever, get all Sun Tzu on him and feed his fears until he chokes on them. Most bullies are cowards. Threats and ultimatums like that come from a place of weakness. Did you hear America saying anything like that when they invaded Iraq? No, because they weren't scared.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Putin is a symptom of a much deeper problem, and I'm fairly sure that even if you did manage to do that he would be replaced by something similar, possibly even worse. Having a rogue state with nukes is a serious problem.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
That is big talk. You can always hop on a plane and go join the Ukrainian Army

markwkw 5y ago

So he aims to be scarier than Hitler? Quite an ambition. Tragic for everyone involved.

cuteboy19 5y ago
His pre invasion speech has striking similarity to Hitler's speeches
- freemint 5y ago
  I find this take very reductive. I would rather see something more concrete like: Putin's pre invasion speech has a striking amount of blood and soil rhetoric. And in addition just like Hitler he denies the right of existence of East European states between Germany and Russia.
  - hajile 5y ago
    Well he did all of that too. He brought up "grievances" going back almost to the 1800s. He denied that Ukraine and other Eastern European countries were real countries. He said that Lenin and Stalin were too soft. He all but said that controlling these countries was Russia's "Manifest Destiny".
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    And he had a lot of yap about history, like Hitler's "historical necessity" and "world-historical" rhetoric.

dandanua 5y ago

He is hinting that he can nuke everyone who will stand against. This is a typical tactic of bullies – to hint death threats, without directly stating them. Also they want to assure you that they can definitely do it, even though they know about the consequences. I wrote about such tactics in a blog post https://dandanua.github.io/posts/counterfactual-communication-and-intimidation/ https://dandanua.github.io/posts/counterfactual-communicatio...

kragen 5y ago
Nukes are probably not Russia's strongest offensive resource, and certainly will not be the first resource to be drawn upon.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  Strongest practical resource you mean? What else would be a stronger offense than a barrage of nukes crippling a country for hundreds of years to come and effecting the entire global environment with radiation, fallout, complete civil destabilization, etc.
  - eyko 5y ago
    Nuclear contamination doesn't tend to stay put and respect borders. Russia knows that, so I don't think Russia would drop a nuke anywhere in their own vicinity.
    - Frost1x 5y ago
      Correct, hence the entire reason I suggested the qualifier of practical. Nuclear attacks are clearly impractical by any sane individual, but in terms of strength and damage, aside from some sort of biological weapon, I'm not sure what could have similar impact.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Forget nuclear contamination. If Russia nukes a NATO country, nukes are coming back to land on Russia. And Putin, personally, will die, and so will Russia as a nation. So, it was an impressive threat. I doubt he actually would follow through... but he might. That's his leverage - that we wonder if he might. Rationally, though, it's a crummy threat, because rationally his own downside is far too big.

jareklupinski 5y ago

"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."

cambaceres 5y ago

Basically, he threatens anyone interfering with nukes. It's a new world, or actually it's the old world reappering.

rapjr9 5y ago

Putin is a 69 year old dictator who is realizing his life is over. He's decided to go out with a bang. He obviously does not care about his country since this war will only hurt Russia, it's already had multiple consequences that are directly opposed to his stated goals. He wants to play with his army and tanks. "Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere And build them a home, a little place of their own. The Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings. ... Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead." --- The Fletcher Memorial Home - Pink Floyd

me_me_me 5y ago
Putin (and his kgb clique) is loosing grip on the power, the war started to be the only way to rally local support and remain in the power. Small scale, local conflicts are growing in size to appease common people to give them taste of USSR former glory, taste of world power, not decay of corruption riddled aristocracy ruled former empire. Putin is at the top of the pyramid but he is not the sole ruler of the Russia. Its not like if he dies Russia will magically become exemplary democracy. There were and still are people lining up and aiming to take his seat, but as long as Putin appears to be strong and gives his underlings enough he will remain on the throne.
zuminator 5y ago
Why would Putin think his life is over? He's 10 years younger than Biden. And, have you ever heard the expressions, "better dead than Red" and "give me liberty or give me death"? People often believe that deeply held principles are more important than mere survival. Similarly Putin might believe that establishing Russia's strength and border security is more important than any short term pain Russia endures. In other words, there's other ways to look at this than as just a pure boss move for his own ego and pleasure.
- rapjr9 5y ago
  He might think his life is over because there are very obvious physiological effects that occur when you are 69 years old. As a person who does not have problems and gives problems to other people it may frighten him to realize he is going to die. Sure there are other perspectives and possible motivations for his actions. But it's the idea that he may not care any more and might do anything that I find scary. If he's willing to risk full scale invasion across all of Ukraine after the international focus that preceded it, would he also be willing to launch supersonic nuclear weapons? In his televised statement he said Russia is ready for all outcomes. For the USA what probably worries me most is cyberattacks. The USA is such a soft target. Our government can't even secure it's systems after a decade of laws, warnings, bad reports, and actual attacks. I do hope I'm wrong and Putin is actually sane and has a strategic plan that makes sense for his country.

wyiske 5y ago

It’s tantamount to appeasement to let threats like this influence any decisions

troyvit 5y ago
I agree, though what's the alternative to appeasing a nuclear power? Sanctions I guess?