7 ms·

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 ha

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
        > But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. Putin can be faulted for many things but not looking ahead isn't one of them and you can bet that he has priced this in already. If anything he is probably amazed at the lack of response. > 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. Yes, there will be all kinds of justification for letting Ukraine burn, this one will be near top of the list for sure.
      - glogla 5y ago
        If sanctions worked the first few times, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why think it will work this time? EDIT: of course, my opinions are shaped by being in non-nuke-equipped country in Europe, so depending on West's response this time, we're next. I'm sure it looks differently for someone sitting in New Jersey or Australia.
    - wahnfrieden 5y ago
      there's a notable difference in confrontational options between war and popular uprising and your logic is frequently used to support the former
  - lm28469 5y ago
    No one is saying that, if he touches a NATO country NATO would be forced to intervene. What people are saying is that no one wants to get nuked to save Ukraine and I'd be hard pressed to blame them. This isn't Call of Duty
- vixen99 5y ago
  When there's a coup.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Things will have to get really bad for that to happen. I mean it didn't happen / isn't happening in the US despite the people getting royally fucked left and right. Oh wait there was an attempt, people didn't accept a democratic vote and decided to go and find politicians to lynch. I'm still pretty shocked that there hasn't been a more severe reaction to that one.
    - coolso 5y ago
      What I’m shocked about is, it’s only been a little over a year without the former guy and the world is already falling apart.
nickpp 5y ago
The only way to stop a monster from destroying you is make him afraid you'll crush him back. If you let him know you are willing to let him do anything to save your skin, he will do it. Including destroying you, in the end.
- _blu 5y ago
  where do you have that from? you can obviously predict human behaviour very accurately, so you must base that on something. this is a serious situation after all. are you a psychologist?
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Met plenty of bullies in my time, it’s their basic psychology.
- chinathrow 5y ago
  Putin is turning 70 soon. He knows he's not immortal and his latest moves look to me that he really wants his position in the history books. He's shown time and time again that from within Russia, he's untouchable and everyone who tries will either be killed or deported to gulag. No sources needed, just look it up quickly on your own. I do not see an easy solution for dealing with him - left alone the assassination route.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    A popular uprising would do the job but Putin has very carefully neutered anything could be a catalyst on that front.
- w0de0 5y ago
  Your moral certainty is laudable and impossible to dispute without sullying one’s own ethics with hypocrisy, and inviting charges of moral and literal cowardice. But. Nuclear weapons are far beyond the ken and capability of humans’ intuitive game theory, the hueristics we apply in escalatory conflicts of all scales. Applying such intuition risks thoughtless apocalypse; MAD is a novel idea because such weapons required either an entirely new paradigm in power politics, or humanity’s rapid suicide. Nuclear weapons are a deus, or devil, sprung from the machine of human civilization. The possibility of their use, even by a bully who wields them especially to intimidate us, must inspire some cowardice in any soul who cherishes humanity’s potential. The west must find its moral courage within the contraints of antiquarian post-Congress of Vienna style Realpolitik, as others have stated. Partition of Ukraine and many decades applying a new strategy of containment is the most realistic ‘victory’ that can be sought. We might hope that Russia’s once promising liberal civil society will revolt and save this decade for peace - in vain, I expect.
notch656a 5y ago
If we don't initiate nuclear war, a nuclear war would be on Putin. He can do that with or without us defending Ukraine, I don't see how you could blame nuclear war on anyone but the aggressor. Put this pathetic dog down.
- archagon 5y ago
  This is literally insane.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    If you are talking about Putin, then yes. He is literally insane.
    - chinathrow 5y ago
      He might be insane but his background is FSB so he's still very much in control of his moves as shown within the last decade.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        That makes him that much more dangerous and stopping him that much more essential and urgent.
        hackinthebochs 5y ago
        Are you typing this out from a stocked nuclear bunker? Because you have an incredibly blase attitude regarding nuclear war.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Hell no I hate every kind of war but I am sure that I need to be ready to fight if I want to be left alone. Putin took control of Chernobyl tonight, you know. How do you think he thinks about this stuff?
esyir 5y ago
I've always been of the opinion that the only way out is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up their nukes. See where that got them.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  We gave them assurances; their translation said guarantees. They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest. It is up to Biden now to live up to his tough talk of Putin fearing him (from during the election, if you have forgotten) and other western leaders to find an end that doesn't involve bending over.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest. Why are you singling out "the west"?!? AIUI, Russia also signed that agreement.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Yup, Russia did, and Putin's excuses for the invasion are weak at best. The peace is broken. Does that excuse the West's inaction?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The US gave assurances not to invade, not to offend them. Big difference
mantas 5y ago
What's your proposal? Let Putin eat Ukraine? Baltic states next? Sit tight, run for the west and hope Putin stops at sooner than we run out of places to run to?
- chinathrow 5y ago
  Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know. Then the NATO charter is useless.
    - chinathrow 5y ago
      I agree 100% but the only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11, never to defend against a nuclear armed dictator.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.
  - treis 5y ago
    There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".

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
      > But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. Putin can be faulted for many things but not looking ahead isn't one of them and you can bet that he has priced this in already. If anything he is probably amazed at the lack of response. > 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. Yes, there will be all kinds of justification for letting Ukraine burn, this one will be near top of the list for sure.
    - glogla 5y ago
      If sanctions worked the first few times, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why think it will work this time? EDIT: of course, my opinions are shaped by being in non-nuke-equipped country in Europe, so depending on West's response this time, we're next. I'm sure it looks differently for someone sitting in New Jersey or Australia.
  - wahnfrieden 5y ago
    there's a notable difference in confrontational options between war and popular uprising and your logic is frequently used to support the former
- lm28469 5y ago
  No one is saying that, if he touches a NATO country NATO would be forced to intervene. What people are saying is that no one wants to get nuked to save Ukraine and I'd be hard pressed to blame them. This isn't Call of Duty
vixen99 5y ago
When there's a coup.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Things will have to get really bad for that to happen. I mean it didn't happen / isn't happening in the US despite the people getting royally fucked left and right. Oh wait there was an attempt, people didn't accept a democratic vote and decided to go and find politicians to lynch. I'm still pretty shocked that there hasn't been a more severe reaction to that one.
  - coolso 5y ago
    What I’m shocked about is, it’s only been a little over a year without the former guy and the world is already falling apart.

nickpp 5y ago

The only way to stop a monster from destroying you is make him afraid you'll crush him back. If you let him know you are willing to let him do anything to save your skin, he will do it. Including destroying you, in the end.

_blu 5y ago
where do you have that from? you can obviously predict human behaviour very accurately, so you must base that on something. this is a serious situation after all. are you a psychologist?
- nickpp 5y ago
  Met plenty of bullies in my time, it’s their basic psychology.
chinathrow 5y ago
Putin is turning 70 soon. He knows he's not immortal and his latest moves look to me that he really wants his position in the history books. He's shown time and time again that from within Russia, he's untouchable and everyone who tries will either be killed or deported to gulag. No sources needed, just look it up quickly on your own. I do not see an easy solution for dealing with him - left alone the assassination route.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  A popular uprising would do the job but Putin has very carefully neutered anything could be a catalyst on that front.
w0de0 5y ago
Your moral certainty is laudable and impossible to dispute without sullying one’s own ethics with hypocrisy, and inviting charges of moral and literal cowardice. But. Nuclear weapons are far beyond the ken and capability of humans’ intuitive game theory, the hueristics we apply in escalatory conflicts of all scales. Applying such intuition risks thoughtless apocalypse; MAD is a novel idea because such weapons required either an entirely new paradigm in power politics, or humanity’s rapid suicide. Nuclear weapons are a deus, or devil, sprung from the machine of human civilization. The possibility of their use, even by a bully who wields them especially to intimidate us, must inspire some cowardice in any soul who cherishes humanity’s potential. The west must find its moral courage within the contraints of antiquarian post-Congress of Vienna style Realpolitik, as others have stated. Partition of Ukraine and many decades applying a new strategy of containment is the most realistic ‘victory’ that can be sought. We might hope that Russia’s once promising liberal civil society will revolt and save this decade for peace - in vain, I expect.

notch656a 5y ago

If we don't initiate nuclear war, a nuclear war would be on Putin. He can do that with or without us defending Ukraine, I don't see how you could blame nuclear war on anyone but the aggressor. Put this pathetic dog down.

archagon 5y ago
This is literally insane.
- nickpp 5y ago
  If you are talking about Putin, then yes. He is literally insane.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    He might be insane but his background is FSB so he's still very much in control of his moves as shown within the last decade.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      That makes him that much more dangerous and stopping him that much more essential and urgent.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        Are you typing this out from a stocked nuclear bunker? Because you have an incredibly blase attitude regarding nuclear war.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Hell no I hate every kind of war but I am sure that I need to be ready to fight if I want to be left alone. Putin took control of Chernobyl tonight, you know. How do you think he thinks about this stuff?

esyir 5y ago

I've always been of the opinion that the only way out is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up their nukes. See where that got them.

zdragnar 5y ago
We gave them assurances; their translation said guarantees. They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest. It is up to Biden now to live up to his tough talk of Putin fearing him (from during the election, if you have forgotten) and other western leaders to find an end that doesn't involve bending over.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest. Why are you singling out "the west"?!? AIUI, Russia also signed that agreement.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Yup, Russia did, and Putin's excuses for the invasion are weak at best. The peace is broken. Does that excuse the West's inaction?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The US gave assurances not to invade, not to offend them. Big difference

mantas 5y ago

What's your proposal? Let Putin eat Ukraine? Baltic states next? Sit tight, run for the west and hope Putin stops at sooner than we run out of places to run to?

chinathrow 5y ago
Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know. Then the NATO charter is useless.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    I agree 100% but the only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11, never to defend against a nuclear armed dictator.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.
- treis 5y ago
  There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".