27 ms·

I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers a

I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation and outcome, MAD, is not an acceptable trade for a tank crossing your border. Repeat until arrival at French coastline. The terrorist steps forward waving a trigger to a bomb and either you show him your bomb and threaten to blow yourselves both up, or you step back. At some point, the only option is to call the bluff and give him a good punch and hope that he values life as much as you and won't actually detonate. It has to be a solid one but not so hard as to make him think you might kill him, as that would make the detonation a certainty. I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose.

nojokes 5y ago
If you value the existence of your own civilization then the only winning strategy to answer to a nuclear threat is counter threat with MAD. You have to be willing to go to the end with this. You really have to be willing to destroy yourself to destroy the one that is threatening you. There is no way around this or you loose everything.
munk-a 5y ago
I think that's a good point but I also think it's important to remember that war suuucks. A citizen in Ukraine right now is not having a good day, there have been arbitrary arrests and some fighting in the streets... but if other military powers got involved they'd be having an even worse day with mass destruction of property and loss of life. Escalating a conflict to using deadly force can be a necessary step to prevent tyrannical dictators, but it often has very steep short term costs to everyone innocent stuck in the middle. I personally am in favor of intervention at this point, but it isn't something to be considered lightly.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  That happened in the Spanish civil war. Guernica famous painting depicts the bombing by Italian and German aviation of the city of Guernica. The United Kingdom didn't wanted to be part of it, thou. Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    > but it could have stopped World War II. The Spanish Civil War was definitely a component of WW2 but I don't see how it being resolved could possibly impact WW2 happening - if the Allies won the Spanish Civil war it's pretty unlikely they'd reinstate the democratically elected government anyways due to the red scare - you'd likely have a democratic-ish puppet government. Fascism was also present next-door in Portugal (Salazar) and it didn't really have much impact at all on WW2.
  - cracrecry 5y ago
    >That happened in the Spanish civil war.Guernica famous painting depicts the bombing by Italian and German aviation of the city of Guernica. In the Spanish civil war the other side was also bombing cities like Oviedo and killing civilians for a much longer time and killing way more people than Guernica. You are confusing things there, the revolt in Spain had nothing to do with Italians and Germans at first. It was a local war that unfortunately for Spain became the test for the new world war. The other side were not supported by Hitler, but they were supported by Stalin. And they established Chekas in Spain being way more terrible than Franco. With Paracuellos massacres, the neutral observers were intercepted in air, following Stalin orders. During the war the flow of people changing sides were unanimously from "republicans" side to "nationals" side, because of the red terror and incompetency, just like with the Iron Curtain, few people went the other way. >Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II. Absolutely non sense. Poland was invaded by BOTH Germany and Russia at the same time because they were allies. Lenin and later Stalin created such a miserable regime with communism that they planned to invade Europe to sustain Russia economy from the start. That was called "financing the economy through imperialistic practices, just like any other European country in the past".
pixl97 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 Yes Prime Minister: Salami Tactics.
- dudeinhawaii 5y ago
  That was brilliant and very nearly what I was saying. The threshold for actual nuclear war is so high that a belligerent actor could theoretically push quite far by exploiting the natural tendency of the adversary to not desire mutual destruction. I'm not sure our leaders know what the actual "line" is because there isn't one. Will America MAD to save Europe? I do think it's possible that full-on WW3 engagement with non-nuclear forces could be possible with MAD serving to deter mutual usage and perhaps deter invasion of Russian/American mainland. That's wild speculation though. I base it primarily on the assumption that neither side wants MAD and will act to avoid it. The line for nuclear engagement (as opposed to chest-beating) reduces all the way back to a line drawn around the vital cities/industry/nuclear force deployments of a given country. Everything else might possibly be given up to avoid MAD which is an end-state. Maybe a game theorist can chime in.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > I base it primarily on the assumption that neither side wants MAD and will act to avoid it The respective countries as a whole, yes. But individual actors in the war will still be driven to the brink, so you also need to count on countries not retaliating when a stray nuke detonates in their territory.
rob74 5y ago
Or, as Sting once sang, "I hope the Russians love their children too" - in this case, one particular Russian...
- interfixus 5y ago
  If that particular Russian is in fact an all-out psychopath, this concept may not apply.
  - ed_balls 5y ago
    but people around him are not.
    - cutemonster 5y ago
      His closest few men likely are, I think. Or most of them
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    If you're unsure, you might want to (or not) check out what he's done in Georgia and Syria
- valzam 5y ago
  Also this particular russians child lives anonymously somewhere in western europe...
- hef19898 5y ago
  Russians, like all people in all countries, do love their children and hope for a peaceful and safe life. The people at the top are the problem, again in every single country. Granted, some of those people at the top today are much bigger problem than others.
  - sterlind 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? If they area actually threatening you with assured destruction (mutual or unilateral), and they aren't bluffing, they cannot while you value the existence of your own civilization. That's what assured destruction means.
danso 5y ago
Sorry, your hypothetical is just too far detached from reality to debate — you really think Russia in 2022 is remotely strong enough to sweep across Europe, and the only thing stopping that ambition is fear of MAD? Huh? > I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actually attack NATO itself? The whole point of being in NATO is having the collective backing of its allied members.
- chewz 5y ago
  Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources. So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams... And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years of combat experience have collpased like a house of cards within 24 hours. Do you think Polish or German army will do any better? Or does Russia have better opinion of these armies? So, yes this is possible now... Thereotically... And history knows larger miscalculations...
  - frumper 5y ago
    Poland and Germany are full NATO members. NATO was clear they would not deploy to Ukraine and that they will deploy to protect any NATO member.
  - davorb 5y ago
    Ukraine has 200k soldiers. But most of them are grunts with rifles. Russia has all kinds of equipment and combined arms. You can't really compare the two.
    - thelittleone 5y ago
      certainly no comparison in a conventional war. Ukraine could be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the US.
hotpotamus 5y ago
Tanks are weak on top so you fire a couple javelins at them. They're man portable, they lock on and then fly up and dive down to hit the vulnerable part. Pretty expensive but much less than a tank. There's plenty of other clever ways to take out a tank too. No one's launching nukes over a few tanks.
rl3 5y ago
>I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians.[0][1] Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, there's much more care and hesitation involved when the consequences are full-scale war, but nonetheless you'd better believe NATO would respond strong, including taking MAD right up to the line. It was Nixon and Kissinger after all, that invented Madman theory. You bring up a good point, though: what if Putin suffers a conventional military defeat and has a break from reality, ordering launches? What then? I'm afraid the best we can hope for there is hesitation from their strategic rocket forces to carry out the order. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_Russian_sources_version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  > In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians. Mercenaries don’t really count.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    That's part of the thinking here, right? Mercenaries don't count, a jet that maybe violated airspace doesn't count, ... What's the line, then? It's clearly not "no military action at all" as we're told right now. Maybe drive a few SAM setups over the border from Poland and take shots? Like, this very moment, there are tons of NATO ISR assets in the air monitoring Russian movements and very likely relaying that information straight to Ukraine.
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      > What's the line, then? You missed my point a little bit. Of course mercenaries count when invading, but they don't count when you terminate them. Because you're shooting at mercenaries, not the Russian Army. It takes no political or diplomatic capital at all to brand Russian mercenaries "enemy combatants" and then to promptly terminate them. It would be a little bit different if it were actual Russian soldiers.
jskrablin 5y ago
MAD works both ways. And some European countries (like the above mentioned France) have nuclear weapons. So I don't think Putin would make it to the French coastline easily. Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an option. Facing an overwhelming military power you need to improvise. Certainly Putin thought of this option hence he took the control ot the Chernobyl.
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  This is likely the exact reason Putin took Chernobyl as one of the first targets. He knew that it would give Ukraine an improvised WMD and drastically change the balance of power. They could have rigged the entire thing with high explosives and wired it to a dead man’s switch.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Life isn't a comic book, nuclear power plants don't explode like bombs do. The only thing that would accomplish is poisoning Ukrainians. The reason Chernobyl was taken is obvious if you look at a map. It's on the border, and there's a massive offensive across the entirety of it. It's not a target, it's simply on the way to a target.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war. Unless you find some way to simultaneously take out all nuclear installations in the world, or prevent their misiles from impacting your territory, this seems extremely hard.
xuki 5y ago
Even if Russia nuke a Ukraine city tomorrow I don’t think the West would get involved directly. Do you really want to fight a mad man who already used a nuke once?
- XorNot 5y ago
  They absolutely would get involved. You can't just light off nukes in Europe, because it poisons the whole continent. Strategic or tactical nuclear weapons usage (or even threatened usage) to annex border states requires a response or else you're going to be skipping straight to "full scale launch" when the aggressor asks for something you're not willing to give up. Fortunately the bet in that regards is that Putin's own military and associates would depose him almost immediately - intentional nuclear weapons usage changes the calculus on a lot of things, since you're now into "you, your family and your country will definitely die if he stays in charge". The Russian people aren't behind this war.
  - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
    The russian people have no say in this, their country is ruled by the siloviki
lordnacho 5y ago
There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD. At some point this hypothesis needs to be tested. Yes, as a child of the cold war I am well aware of the stories about there being a warhead with my city's name in Cyrillic painted on it, and the same with every city in Russia, in English. We're conditioned to think that as soon as the missiles are launched, countermissiles will also launch, and then we're all doomed, planet is handed over to cockroaches. I'm not sure it's true. For one, it's actually happened that missiles looked like they were in the air, and a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back, and we're all still here. I also get the feeling, from introspecting, that a lot of people would not actually press the button if they saw that radar picture. Would you make the world unlivable for little Russian kids? I'm not sure I would, and though I don't know how many people are making these decisions, my guess is it would be really freaking hard. Which bring me to my next point, and this will cause some consternation. How bad is it if a nuke or two goes off? We care that the whole world isn't turned to dust, but if we get another Hiroshima somewhere, apart from the enormous shock it would cause, it might stand a reasonable chance of ending whatever conflict it happened in, just like the actual two nuclear attacks in Japan. Is that totally crazy, or is MAD literally coded into the machines now? Maybe someone can enlighten me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jbay808 5y ago
  Aren't there also second-strike weapons, like nuclear submarines? As hesitant as soldiers might be to press the launch button just in response to a radar signal, they might find the conviction when they learn their hometown is gone.
- trashtester 5y ago
  Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service are too small to erase humanity, but they are definitely big enough to cause hundreds of millions to a few billions of deaths. If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public perception, and I suppose it also depends on the circumstances. If for instance, they were used in an unprovoked terrorist attack, killing 2-4million in a city, the response could be like after 9/11, but x100. If they were used to stop a military aggressor, killing "only" 10k soldiers in the field, their may lose their mythical status, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, increasing the probability that they are used in later conflicts.
trashtester 5y ago
I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border. But NATO doesn't have those forces, primarily because most European countries have neglected their armed forces over the past 30 years. In reality, a conventional confrontation with Putin would be very difficult. Eventually NATO might win, but it would take years. Given the fact that the EU alone has around 10x the GDP of Russia, the EU could relatively easily have had an army that is 2x to 5x more powerful than Russia's, even without assistance from the Anglosphere (which would have left the Anglosphere able to focus on China). One may hope that the EU learns from this. Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. If NATO cannot even keep their neighbours safe, what confidence can more remote countries have that they will be protected if attacked by a nuclear power, such as Russia or China? And once virtually every country has nukes, they WILL see use.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I think the combined might of Europe is actually quite significant. The problem is getting them to actually DO something.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    It’s not quite the same but certainly reminds one of the ww2 moves hitler made as he took one strategic territory after another, and by the time the rest were ready to fight they had already ceded much important ground i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it. In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.
  - 5y ago
irthomasthomas 5y ago
I said this below but Putin may not be so MAD. That is, he may feel destruction is not so mutually assured now. MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy, over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.
baby 5y ago
MAD?
- ppg677 5y ago
  Mutually Assured Destruction
rvba 5y ago
There is a big chance that the generals will mutiny and murder the ones that want to trigger mutually assured destruction.
DubiousPusher 5y ago
It's a good question when that happens. And if we knew for sure that that was what was happening here the moral calculus would be clear. But we don't know for sure. I think because we live in the shadow of WWII and because states so disproportionately educate their children about WWII that we often overestimate how often that kind of moral imperative rears its head. For every time in history that a country invaded another with the intent of total domination there are a hundered times when countries invaded other countries in a limited way, to shore up their frontiers, to affect a balance of power, to acquire a spcific resource, or to satisfy some portion of their population. Limiting Russia's ambitions doesn't make this kind of thing less of a crime. Our commitment to self-determination and anti-colonialism that we inherited from those who fought WWII shouldn't waiver. However, we should be cautious to discuss everything in the existentialist terms of WWII. America's last 70 years of war making should teach us that if anything. There is no shortcut to moral clarity in foreign affairs. Unfortunately you can't achieve justification of violence without letting the belligerents show themselves prove its necessity.
ahthat 5y ago
Official NATO stance, as President Biden has repeatedly said, its to defend EVERY INCH of NATO territory - so if Russia parked one tank inside of the Polish border, all of NATO is at war with Russia. If NATO does not respond with force, or escalate and withdraws because of MAD, then it loses all credibility. The question is: Can belligerent nuclear armed nations really hold the rest of the world hostage? At some point, it's unacceptable, and we would all pay the consequences.
- rasz 5y ago
  Poland had same security warranties in 1939. France was supposed to attack Germany the moment Poland was invaded. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
husk7 5y ago
The right move is to leave such complexity to ppl who want to die and move elsewhere. I'd pick Israel or China. The west is a dysfunctional mess. The handling of Wall St/inequality/mindless consumption, FAANG, MIL complex debacles, a news media that drains much more energy than it generates, low quality obama/trump/musk celeb type leaders all show the solutions wont come from such a space.
RustyConsul 5y ago
the US military has been preparing for this eventuality since 2014. We have bases all over soviet block countries. We have bases in poland and recently sold them 30 M1 abrams. Wanna know when the escalation starts? When russia runs into proxy US bases in the eeastern blocks.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Before that happens I’m guessing the sword missiles would be aimed at the relevant leadership.
XorNot 5y ago
The missing side of this is that at some point, Russia is taking the bet that NATO blowing those tanks up is not worth escalating to the apocalypse over. There's a very reasonable argument that NATO could tomorrow announce they're intervening in Ukraine to protect it's sovereignty, operations will be limited to Ukranian territory, and that any attempt to strike out will be met "unescapable retaliation"...and maybe NATO and Russia then have a shooting conventional war in the Ukraine and it stays there. The reason everyone's trying to avoid that is because the tick-tock of escalation depends on the other side correctly reading the situation and the fog of war. NATO countries are activating units on their borders right now near Ukraine because there's a very real risk of a Russian platoon will get lost, invade a town which is actually in a NATO country, and then you've got to deal with that - and it's probably better the question not get asked because once the shooting starts it's very hard to get it to stop (i.e. suppose our out of position Russian unit calls in artillery, so NATO drops air strikes on the position inside Ukraine, so now the news going up the chain on both sides is "the other side is coming across the border!")
thelittleone 5y ago
This reminds me of the "fear" scene from Apocalypto [1]. Living in fear is not really living in my opinion, I'd rather die fighting for what I believe in than live in fear. Speaking of bloody nose reminds me of boxing. You get hit and you hit back or your opponent won't respect you. You will fear opponent, they will sense it and capitalize. 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3H_xsdr-Vs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3H_xsdr-Vs
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Then please, leave for Ukraine and help the people there. Even as a non-combatant, you can do a lot of good. Don't ask others to go to war, go yourself.
kidme5 5y ago
Strategic Defense Initiative 2.0 https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
c3534l 5y ago
It strangely incentivises nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine were nuclear, they would have been safe
hendler 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_... I found this thread on twitter helpful for explaining this issue with MAD https://twitter.com/ProfTalmadge/status/1496837475901362180 https://twitter.com/ProfTalmadge/status/1496837475901362180
throwawaylinux 5y ago
To start with the people being attacked have to fight back if they don't want to submit. This is not a guarantee of independence, but nothing ever is that's not a property of MAD. Every civilization including Ukraine is there because they conquered previous people or regimes. You have to at least fight though before you expect anybody else to fight for you. Afghanistan did it. Against Russia and against USA. With help of course from other interested parties like Pakistan and USA etc but for the most part it wasn't them doing the fighting and dying. If Poland, Germany, and France allowed Russian tanks to drive to the Atlantic without firing a shot then maybe they would.
bostonsre 5y ago
MAD would prevent escalation but there would still be a fight. The United States has troops in Poland, if Russia invades, I would envision some kind of tit for tat escalation but would guess it would stop way short of nukes. But I would highly doubt that Russia would pick a fight with nato directly. In this case with Ukraine, it was clear to all parties involved that Russia could invade without other countries committing troops to the fight. I don't think Putin believes he could successfully win a fight with the west and I doubt he would want his legacy to be the man that caused the downfall of Russia.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
I'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.? I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, you may want to stop him early. Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours. > you may want to stop him early. What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way? If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist. On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.
cute_boi 5y ago
This is what I call acting on emotion rather than by logic. War has its costs and Russia isn't that fool to go after NATO. And, it was pretty clear from the beginning, right? Invading Ukraine is already hard for them due to resistance and sanctions, do you think Russia would go beyond the line? If they cross the line ww3 is bound to happen, so the probability Russia would be destroying itself is very very low.
germinalphrase 5y ago
Or - Putin is contained, grows old and dies. The Russian people may have an opportunity to dismantle his legacy and become a new country. Perhaps, he simply needs to die without escalation the circumstances to near-MAD.
phs318u 5y ago
If NATO has a purpose besides mutual defence against existential threats to member states, then I don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s purpose is to encircle Russia. This is what Putin believes. If that’s true then surely the price of realising that purpose is to make good on the promise the mutual defence. Quid pro quo. If there is no purpose - which in the absence of action seems likely - then the only logical step is to disband NATO, giving Putin what he wants. In my view NATO has to absolutely step up and send forces en masse to Poland at the very least. Appeasing bullies never ends well.
bigcat123 5y ago
beloch 5y ago
Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way Ukraine now is. Belarus, Finland, or any of Russia's other non-NATO neighbours are probably pretty nervous right now, but Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. are much less likely to be attacked by Russia. Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. Russia probably had plans to absorb Ukraine eventually, but if Ukraine had joined NATO it would have required a war with NATO to absorb even a small part of Ukraine, such as Dunbas. So, when talk of joining NATO heated up, Putin had to invade quickly or lose the opportunity to take Ukraine without a much larger war. It now appears that any of Russia's neighbours who are not currently members of a military alliance with a nuclear power have three options: 1. Join NATO, ally with China, or find somebody else with nuclear weapons to ally with. 2. Develop nuclear weapons. 3. Do nothing in order to avoid an immediate invasion, but start brushing up on your Russian because you'll need it eventually. It is now abundantly clear that remaining on good terms with NATO countries is not sufficient in itself to ensure security from invasion by Russia. Economic sanctions and harsh language will not stop Putin. It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate.
- markdown 5y ago
  You seem to have missed the point. > If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).
  - gambiting 5y ago
lambdasquirrel 5y ago
The problem with this is that the Ukrainian border with Russia is rather far from NATO logistically, and very near Russia. Russland parking panzers in the border with Polen is a very different story. When you understand how the Russian air defense is structured (via overlapping dense ground to air missile batteries, and rapidly scrambled fighters that can operate from rough airfields), the difference is even more stark. When you get to the endgame it's even more problematic. The reason we weren't hopping to get Ukraine into the Eurozone, let along NATO, is because it's a terribly poor and corrupt country that we (i.e. the West) weren't ready to take on yet. The idea was always to let these countries grow and evolve into a more lawful-and-liberal model. Russia is trying to arrest that, for reasons that are understandable, messed-up, and simply outright terrible. It's an understatement that this is a human tragedy.
jollybean 5y ago
Because Putin is not insane and does not want to destroy Russia. He wants to take it, and he can threaten and get away with it because the West won't react. If the US 'gave' the Ukranians some drones and guided missiles and then 'fired' said missiles for the Ukrainians at Russian forces in Ukraine, at the bhest of Ukraine, what's he going to do? Start lobbing nukes? In fact, the Nuke/MAD part is what makes it maybe safer to react. As long as the US isn't invading anything it's hard to see what he could justify doing. If he did a nuclear test, as a 'scary demonstration' - he would then lose the world's support. Even China would balk. He would be firmly nuts. Russians out in the open, not in their own country with defences are easy targets. The US could do 'generational' damage to Russian forces in literally just a few days. The US/West should probably be doing everything the can do short of invading. NATO doesn't have the guts, it would have to be an American President. Trump has the 'gall' but he's not a military person and a loose cannon. Biden is far to effete. I think possibly GW Bush II surrounded by neocons, would have done something, and so would his father who ejected Saddam from Kuwait and then sat back.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Start lobbing nukes? That's exactly what he just threatened to do.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    If Putin lobbed a nuke at Russia, it would be the end of Russia. Putin is not stupid, he is stronger than Ukraine, but weaker than NATO. There would be an embargo, they'd be encircled, their economy would shut down, Putin would be brought to some kind of trial and Russia would be denuclaraized.
xwdv 5y ago
Perhaps then there was some logic behind the idea that the United States President should always be someone who is slightly unhinged, or at least appears to be. If enemies believe you are too straight laced to actually strike back then the MAD theory falls apart.
62951413 5y ago
"existence of your own civilization" is a strong statement. At face value they just want to conquer back half of Europe. Not to send millions across our souther border. Not to kill any Americans. Not to rape their women. Not to turn their sons into homosexuals. Not even compete for jobs with Americans or abuse their welfare system. So from our point of view it's a European problem. A quick reminder - they have 500M people and a GDP comparable to ours. With so many resources and 20+ peaceful years they should be able to field dozens of panzer divisions. Do you see any? The Ukrainians are fighting like their life depends on it. You can see it. The Snake Island martyrs alone is a tale for the ages. And Ukraine is a small and poor country. Do you see other Europeans even trying? And if not, is it really existential? And if not for them why should we care? The Russian despot increasingly looks like a statesman in touch with reality. It's a real puzzle how he managed to pull if off lacking diversity and not having enough girls in his spetsnaz units. America spent 20 years in the sandbox wasting precious resources for no particular reason. Having run from Afghanistan the way Americans did we'll be lucky the Chinese don't grab Taiwan next month. As a side note, the loss of DJT is a gift that just keeps giving. Elections have consequences. Going back to at least 2008.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > Not to.. At face value? like how they promised to not invade Ukraine in exchange for their nukes? > Not to turn their sons into homosexuals What?!? > Do you see other Europeans even trying? Putin has threatened retaliation against any intervention, including the threat of nukes - "even trying" isn't an option, once you're in you may be all in.
akira2501 5y ago
> What then? Strongly worded essays? When he did this 7 years ago, that is _precisely_ what we did. The UN got everyone together and issued a non-binding resolution on the matter then essentially did nothing else significant.
scaramanga 5y ago
Oh yes, we should definitely be trying to escalate this situation between two nuclear superpowers /s
w0de0 5y ago
> I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Your analysis seems rational in this moment. But: the policy and personality of a democracy is liable change rapidly and radically in a way no single actor ever would or could. Autocrats often do not understand this, and make the same assumptions you have. The scenario you describe would raise such apocalyptic outrage in America and Europe that war without thought of consequence would likely ensue. You simply cannot extrapolate future behavior of complex democracies from current behavior as you would an individual. The concern you laid out in your post is relevant: once enough citizens arrive at a similar opinion, policy can rapidly shift.
captainmuon 5y ago
Yes, I think we are seeing the breakdown of nuclear deterrence. Because it does nothing to stop Putin from attacking allied (non-NATO) states, but it deterrs the west from intervening. I think at some point people will realize that MAD is a huge bluff. Because when you see the nuclear bombs flying, there is nothing you can do anymore to win the war. The only thing that you can do is to prevent the loss of more lives by standing down and calling off the counter attack. The only logical move is to renege on your "credible" second strike promise, stand down, and start printing the enemy's flags. In practice, modern warfare is not about conquering the enemy country, it is about destroying the enemy military and state, which would be achived by airstrikes and/or a nuclear strike. For these reasons, I predict the boundary between conventional war and nuclear war to become more blurry (US and Russia have been trying this for decades with the development of smaller nukes, and missile defense systems), and conventional war to return to Europe. The way to stop this is not in strengthening the NATO and going black to block confrontation. The only way forward is to question block confrontation, the post-WWII-order, and souvereign nation states. Because the nation states are the entities that are fighting for influence and raising armies, and in some sense they have to, if they don't want to be left behind in geopolitics and the global economy. I know it's a tall order, but we need no less than a "revolution" of the world order (however that may look like) to secure peace.
- ajdegol 5y ago
  Mate, if some other country kills me and all my family and friends, then absolutely fuck them, I'll smash that launch button. Logic, and us all, be damned.
zahma 5y ago
Yes, you’re describing political science/ international relations theory of realism. In nature, there is chaos and organization of that chaos happens through real force. A country can’t trust others and must protect its interests. A hegemon imposes its desires on the world because it has hard power. Until relatively recently, the US was considered unipolar after the demise of the USSR. (I suspect Putin welcomes the challenge, along with China who both want to assert their world views.) Anyway, fast forward through the millennia, and the two principle hard powers within Waltzian realism is that military force can only be minimized through economic weaponry. By now, it feels like the US has sanctioned Russia so much and for so long that it should be destitute. Somehow Russia’s central bank amassed $600 billion USD in the run up to their foray into Ukraine.[1] I don’t see how further sanctions will change this, but detonating plans on Nord Stream 2 and cutting Russia out from other markets where it sends its oil would be effective, though probably not in the short term. The kicker there is which politician wants to explain why energy prices are increasing even more to a beleaguered country that just wants to put Covid behind it. France has elections in months, and Macron is not eager to see the Yellow Vests reinvigorated with real support to undo his bid to oversee the European Union during his second term. I agree that it feels unlikely for NATO to draw a red line and start mobilizing troops, matériel, and missiles to reflect a posture. Everything at this point in to the invasion is meant as deterrence. This simply isn’t enough to combat the playground bully. I’ll stop here and just say that in international relations, game theory can be employed to understand this dynamic of brinksmanship. In the worst case of asymmetrical information, lack of communication, and paranoia about the madman leading the opposing side, all out war can be conceived of — even if it’s ultimately called off. Think Cuban Missile Crisis. 1-https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/24/russian-central-bank-buys-up-roubles-to-avert-stock-market-collapse-invasion-ukraine-fiancial-meltdown https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/24/russian-cen...
ohthehugemanate 5y ago
It sounds bad to say it out loud, but MAD was the policy that kept the longest peace among great powers (ie nation states that can project power beyond their borders) in recorded history. The global rate of interstate conflict has been historically low since 1945. I don't like it, but there it is. It's also worth keeping this in some historical perspective. This war could break a long streak of zero great power wars (depending on definitions and reactions in the west), it's true. But the rate is still historically extremely low. The systems we have for peace, however imperfect, are definitely working.
foldr 5y ago
Classic 'salami tactics': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&t=73s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&t=73s
tim333 5y ago
You respond proportionately and appropriately. You'd ask them to move their tank, then failing that maybe fire on it with conventional arms etc. There isn't much response presently from NATO because Ukraine isn't part of it.

nojokes 5y ago

If you value the existence of your own civilization then the only winning strategy to answer to a nuclear threat is counter threat with MAD. You have to be willing to go to the end with this. You really have to be willing to destroy yourself to destroy the one that is threatening you. There is no way around this or you loose everything.

munk-a 5y ago

I think that's a good point but I also think it's important to remember that war suuucks. A citizen in Ukraine right now is not having a good day, there have been arbitrary arrests and some fighting in the streets... but if other military powers got involved they'd be having an even worse day with mass destruction of property and loss of life. Escalating a conflict to using deadly force can be a necessary step to prevent tyrannical dictators, but it often has very steep short term costs to everyone innocent stuck in the middle. I personally am in favor of intervention at this point, but it isn't something to be considered lightly.

Hokusai 5y ago
That happened in the Spanish civil war. Guernica famous painting depicts the bombing by Italian and German aviation of the city of Guernica. The United Kingdom didn't wanted to be part of it, thou. Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.
- munk-a 5y ago
  > but it could have stopped World War II. The Spanish Civil War was definitely a component of WW2 but I don't see how it being resolved could possibly impact WW2 happening - if the Allies won the Spanish Civil war it's pretty unlikely they'd reinstate the democratically elected government anyways due to the red scare - you'd likely have a democratic-ish puppet government. Fascism was also present next-door in Portugal (Salazar) and it didn't really have much impact at all on WW2.
- cracrecry 5y ago
  >That happened in the Spanish civil war.Guernica famous painting depicts the bombing by Italian and German aviation of the city of Guernica. In the Spanish civil war the other side was also bombing cities like Oviedo and killing civilians for a much longer time and killing way more people than Guernica. You are confusing things there, the revolt in Spain had nothing to do with Italians and Germans at first. It was a local war that unfortunately for Spain became the test for the new world war. The other side were not supported by Hitler, but they were supported by Stalin. And they established Chekas in Spain being way more terrible than Franco. With Paracuellos massacres, the neutral observers were intercepted in air, following Stalin orders. During the war the flow of people changing sides were unanimously from "republicans" side to "nationals" side, because of the red terror and incompetency, just like with the Iron Curtain, few people went the other way. >Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II. Absolutely non sense. Poland was invaded by BOTH Germany and Russia at the same time because they were allies. Lenin and later Stalin created such a miserable regime with communism that they planned to invade Europe to sustain Russia economy from the start. That was called "financing the economy through imperialistic practices, just like any other European country in the past".

pixl97 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 Yes Prime Minister: Salami Tactics.

dudeinhawaii 5y ago
That was brilliant and very nearly what I was saying. The threshold for actual nuclear war is so high that a belligerent actor could theoretically push quite far by exploiting the natural tendency of the adversary to not desire mutual destruction. I'm not sure our leaders know what the actual "line" is because there isn't one. Will America MAD to save Europe? I do think it's possible that full-on WW3 engagement with non-nuclear forces could be possible with MAD serving to deter mutual usage and perhaps deter invasion of Russian/American mainland. That's wild speculation though. I base it primarily on the assumption that neither side wants MAD and will act to avoid it. The line for nuclear engagement (as opposed to chest-beating) reduces all the way back to a line drawn around the vital cities/industry/nuclear force deployments of a given country. Everything else might possibly be given up to avoid MAD which is an end-state. Maybe a game theorist can chime in.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > I base it primarily on the assumption that neither side wants MAD and will act to avoid it The respective countries as a whole, yes. But individual actors in the war will still be driven to the brink, so you also need to count on countries not retaliating when a stray nuke detonates in their territory.

rob74 5y ago

Or, as Sting once sang, "I hope the Russians love their children too" - in this case, one particular Russian...

interfixus 5y ago
If that particular Russian is in fact an all-out psychopath, this concept may not apply.
- ed_balls 5y ago
  but people around him are not.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    His closest few men likely are, I think. Or most of them
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cutemonster 5y ago
  If you're unsure, you might want to (or not) check out what he's done in Georgia and Syria
valzam 5y ago
Also this particular russians child lives anonymously somewhere in western europe...
hef19898 5y ago
Russians, like all people in all countries, do love their children and hope for a peaceful and safe life. The people at the top are the problem, again in every single country. Granted, some of those people at the top today are much bigger problem than others.
- sterlind 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? If they area actually threatening you with assured destruction (mutual or unilateral), and they aren't bluffing, they cannot while you value the existence of your own civilization. That's what assured destruction means.

danso 5y ago

Sorry, your hypothetical is just too far detached from reality to debate — you really think Russia in 2022 is remotely strong enough to sweep across Europe, and the only thing stopping that ambition is fear of MAD? Huh? > I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actually attack NATO itself? The whole point of being in NATO is having the collective backing of its allied members.

chewz 5y ago
Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources. So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams... And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years of combat experience have collpased like a house of cards within 24 hours. Do you think Polish or German army will do any better? Or does Russia have better opinion of these armies? So, yes this is possible now... Thereotically... And history knows larger miscalculations...
- frumper 5y ago
  Poland and Germany are full NATO members. NATO was clear they would not deploy to Ukraine and that they will deploy to protect any NATO member.
- davorb 5y ago
  Ukraine has 200k soldiers. But most of them are grunts with rifles. Russia has all kinds of equipment and combined arms. You can't really compare the two.
  - thelittleone 5y ago
    certainly no comparison in a conventional war. Ukraine could be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the US.

hotpotamus 5y ago

Tanks are weak on top so you fire a couple javelins at them. They're man portable, they lock on and then fly up and dive down to hit the vulnerable part. Pretty expensive but much less than a tank. There's plenty of other clever ways to take out a tank too. No one's launching nukes over a few tanks.

rl3 5y ago

>I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians.[0][1] Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, there's much more care and hesitation involved when the consequences are full-scale war, but nonetheless you'd better believe NATO would respond strong, including taking MAD right up to the line. It was Nixon and Kissinger after all, that invented Madman theory. You bring up a good point, though: what if Putin suffers a conventional military defeat and has a break from reality, ordering launches? What then? I'm afraid the best we can hope for there is hesitation from their strategic rocket forces to carry out the order. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_Russian_sources_version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

sgjohnson 5y ago
> In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians. Mercenaries don’t really count.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  That's part of the thinking here, right? Mercenaries don't count, a jet that maybe violated airspace doesn't count, ... What's the line, then? It's clearly not "no military action at all" as we're told right now. Maybe drive a few SAM setups over the border from Poland and take shots? Like, this very moment, there are tons of NATO ISR assets in the air monitoring Russian movements and very likely relaying that information straight to Ukraine.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    > What's the line, then? You missed my point a little bit. Of course mercenaries count when invading, but they don't count when you terminate them. Because you're shooting at mercenaries, not the Russian Army. It takes no political or diplomatic capital at all to brand Russian mercenaries "enemy combatants" and then to promptly terminate them. It would be a little bit different if it were actual Russian soldiers.

jskrablin 5y ago

MAD works both ways. And some European countries (like the above mentioned France) have nuclear weapons. So I don't think Putin would make it to the French coastline easily. Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an option. Facing an overwhelming military power you need to improvise. Certainly Putin thought of this option hence he took the control ot the Chernobyl.

IAmGraydon 5y ago
This is likely the exact reason Putin took Chernobyl as one of the first targets. He knew that it would give Ukraine an improvised WMD and drastically change the balance of power. They could have rigged the entire thing with high explosives and wired it to a dead man’s switch.
- vkou 5y ago
  Life isn't a comic book, nuclear power plants don't explode like bombs do. The only thing that would accomplish is poisoning Ukrainians. The reason Chernobyl was taken is obvious if you look at a map. It's on the border, and there's a massive offensive across the entirety of it. It's not a target, it's simply on the way to a target.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war. Unless you find some way to simultaneously take out all nuclear installations in the world, or prevent their misiles from impacting your territory, this seems extremely hard.

xuki 5y ago

Even if Russia nuke a Ukraine city tomorrow I don’t think the West would get involved directly. Do you really want to fight a mad man who already used a nuke once?

XorNot 5y ago
They absolutely would get involved. You can't just light off nukes in Europe, because it poisons the whole continent. Strategic or tactical nuclear weapons usage (or even threatened usage) to annex border states requires a response or else you're going to be skipping straight to "full scale launch" when the aggressor asks for something you're not willing to give up. Fortunately the bet in that regards is that Putin's own military and associates would depose him almost immediately - intentional nuclear weapons usage changes the calculus on a lot of things, since you're now into "you, your family and your country will definitely die if he stays in charge". The Russian people aren't behind this war.
- Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
  The russian people have no say in this, their country is ruled by the siloviki

lordnacho 5y ago

There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD. At some point this hypothesis needs to be tested. Yes, as a child of the cold war I am well aware of the stories about there being a warhead with my city's name in Cyrillic painted on it, and the same with every city in Russia, in English. We're conditioned to think that as soon as the missiles are launched, countermissiles will also launch, and then we're all doomed, planet is handed over to cockroaches. I'm not sure it's true. For one, it's actually happened that missiles looked like they were in the air, and a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back, and we're all still here. I also get the feeling, from introspecting, that a lot of people would not actually press the button if they saw that radar picture. Would you make the world unlivable for little Russian kids? I'm not sure I would, and though I don't know how many people are making these decisions, my guess is it would be really freaking hard. Which bring me to my next point, and this will cause some consternation. How bad is it if a nuke or two goes off? We care that the whole world isn't turned to dust, but if we get another Hiroshima somewhere, apart from the enormous shock it would cause, it might stand a reasonable chance of ending whatever conflict it happened in, just like the actual two nuclear attacks in Japan. Is that totally crazy, or is MAD literally coded into the machines now? Maybe someone can enlighten me.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jbay808 5y ago
Aren't there also second-strike weapons, like nuclear submarines? As hesitant as soldiers might be to press the launch button just in response to a radar signal, they might find the conviction when they learn their hometown is gone.
trashtester 5y ago
Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service are too small to erase humanity, but they are definitely big enough to cause hundreds of millions to a few billions of deaths. If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public perception, and I suppose it also depends on the circumstances. If for instance, they were used in an unprovoked terrorist attack, killing 2-4million in a city, the response could be like after 9/11, but x100. If they were used to stop a military aggressor, killing "only" 10k soldiers in the field, their may lose their mythical status, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, increasing the probability that they are used in later conflicts.

trashtester 5y ago

I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border. But NATO doesn't have those forces, primarily because most European countries have neglected their armed forces over the past 30 years. In reality, a conventional confrontation with Putin would be very difficult. Eventually NATO might win, but it would take years. Given the fact that the EU alone has around 10x the GDP of Russia, the EU could relatively easily have had an army that is 2x to 5x more powerful than Russia's, even without assistance from the Anglosphere (which would have left the Anglosphere able to focus on China). One may hope that the EU learns from this. Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. If NATO cannot even keep their neighbours safe, what confidence can more remote countries have that they will be protected if attacked by a nuclear power, such as Russia or China? And once virtually every country has nukes, they WILL see use.

Aeolun 5y ago
I think the combined might of Europe is actually quite significant. The problem is getting them to actually DO something.
- cloverich 5y ago
  It’s not quite the same but certainly reminds one of the ww2 moves hitler made as he took one strategic territory after another, and by the time the rest were ready to fight they had already ceded much important ground i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it. In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.
- 5y ago

irthomasthomas 5y ago

I said this below but Putin may not be so MAD. That is, he may feel destruction is not so mutually assured now. MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy, over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.

baby 5y ago

MAD?

ppg677 5y ago
Mutually Assured Destruction

rvba 5y ago

There is a big chance that the generals will mutiny and murder the ones that want to trigger mutually assured destruction.

DubiousPusher 5y ago

It's a good question when that happens. And if we knew for sure that that was what was happening here the moral calculus would be clear. But we don't know for sure. I think because we live in the shadow of WWII and because states so disproportionately educate their children about WWII that we often overestimate how often that kind of moral imperative rears its head. For every time in history that a country invaded another with the intent of total domination there are a hundered times when countries invaded other countries in a limited way, to shore up their frontiers, to affect a balance of power, to acquire a spcific resource, or to satisfy some portion of their population. Limiting Russia's ambitions doesn't make this kind of thing less of a crime. Our commitment to self-determination and anti-colonialism that we inherited from those who fought WWII shouldn't waiver. However, we should be cautious to discuss everything in the existentialist terms of WWII. America's last 70 years of war making should teach us that if anything. There is no shortcut to moral clarity in foreign affairs. Unfortunately you can't achieve justification of violence without letting the belligerents show themselves prove its necessity.

ahthat 5y ago

Official NATO stance, as President Biden has repeatedly said, its to defend EVERY INCH of NATO territory - so if Russia parked one tank inside of the Polish border, all of NATO is at war with Russia. If NATO does not respond with force, or escalate and withdraws because of MAD, then it loses all credibility. The question is: Can belligerent nuclear armed nations really hold the rest of the world hostage? At some point, it's unacceptable, and we would all pay the consequences.

rasz 5y ago
Poland had same security warranties in 1939. France was supposed to attack Germany the moment Poland was invaded. You might want to read up on what actually happened.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

husk7 5y ago

The right move is to leave such complexity to ppl who want to die and move elsewhere. I'd pick Israel or China. The west is a dysfunctional mess. The handling of Wall St/inequality/mindless consumption, FAANG, MIL complex debacles, a news media that drains much more energy than it generates, low quality obama/trump/musk celeb type leaders all show the solutions wont come from such a space.

RustyConsul 5y ago

the US military has been preparing for this eventuality since 2014. We have bases all over soviet block countries. We have bases in poland and recently sold them 30 M1 abrams. Wanna know when the escalation starts? When russia runs into proxy US bases in the eeastern blocks.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Before that happens I’m guessing the sword missiles would be aimed at the relevant leadership.

XorNot 5y ago

The missing side of this is that at some point, Russia is taking the bet that NATO blowing those tanks up is not worth escalating to the apocalypse over. There's a very reasonable argument that NATO could tomorrow announce they're intervening in Ukraine to protect it's sovereignty, operations will be limited to Ukranian territory, and that any attempt to strike out will be met "unescapable retaliation"...and maybe NATO and Russia then have a shooting conventional war in the Ukraine and it stays there. The reason everyone's trying to avoid that is because the tick-tock of escalation depends on the other side correctly reading the situation and the fog of war. NATO countries are activating units on their borders right now near Ukraine because there's a very real risk of a Russian platoon will get lost, invade a town which is actually in a NATO country, and then you've got to deal with that - and it's probably better the question not get asked because once the shooting starts it's very hard to get it to stop (i.e. suppose our out of position Russian unit calls in artillery, so NATO drops air strikes on the position inside Ukraine, so now the news going up the chain on both sides is "the other side is coming across the border!")

thelittleone 5y ago

This reminds me of the "fear" scene from Apocalypto [1]. Living in fear is not really living in my opinion, I'd rather die fighting for what I believe in than live in fear. Speaking of bloody nose reminds me of boxing. You get hit and you hit back or your opponent won't respect you. You will fear opponent, they will sense it and capitalize. 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3H_xsdr-Vs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3H_xsdr-Vs

tsimionescu 5y ago
Then please, leave for Ukraine and help the people there. Even as a non-combatant, you can do a lot of good. Don't ask others to go to war, go yourself.

kidme5 5y ago

Strategic Defense Initiative 2.0 https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

c3534l 5y ago

It strangely incentivises nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine were nuclear, they would have been safe

hendler 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_... I found this thread on twitter helpful for explaining this issue with MAD https://twitter.com/ProfTalmadge/status/1496837475901362180 https://twitter.com/ProfTalmadge/status/1496837475901362180

throwawaylinux 5y ago

To start with the people being attacked have to fight back if they don't want to submit. This is not a guarantee of independence, but nothing ever is that's not a property of MAD. Every civilization including Ukraine is there because they conquered previous people or regimes. You have to at least fight though before you expect anybody else to fight for you. Afghanistan did it. Against Russia and against USA. With help of course from other interested parties like Pakistan and USA etc but for the most part it wasn't them doing the fighting and dying. If Poland, Germany, and France allowed Russian tanks to drive to the Atlantic without firing a shot then maybe they would.

bostonsre 5y ago

MAD would prevent escalation but there would still be a fight. The United States has troops in Poland, if Russia invades, I would envision some kind of tit for tat escalation but would guess it would stop way short of nukes. But I would highly doubt that Russia would pick a fight with nato directly. In this case with Ukraine, it was clear to all parties involved that Russia could invade without other countries committing troops to the fight. I don't think Putin believes he could successfully win a fight with the west and I doubt he would want his legacy to be the man that caused the downfall of Russia.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

I'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.? I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

HWR_14 5y ago
If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, you may want to stop him early. Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours. > you may want to stop him early. What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way? If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist. On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.

cute_boi 5y ago

This is what I call acting on emotion rather than by logic. War has its costs and Russia isn't that fool to go after NATO. And, it was pretty clear from the beginning, right? Invading Ukraine is already hard for them due to resistance and sanctions, do you think Russia would go beyond the line? If they cross the line ww3 is bound to happen, so the probability Russia would be destroying itself is very very low.

germinalphrase 5y ago

Or - Putin is contained, grows old and dies. The Russian people may have an opportunity to dismantle his legacy and become a new country. Perhaps, he simply needs to die without escalation the circumstances to near-MAD.

phs318u 5y ago

If NATO has a purpose besides mutual defence against existential threats to member states, then I don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s purpose is to encircle Russia. This is what Putin believes. If that’s true then surely the price of realising that purpose is to make good on the promise the mutual defence. Quid pro quo. If there is no purpose - which in the absence of action seems likely - then the only logical step is to disband NATO, giving Putin what he wants. In my view NATO has to absolutely step up and send forces en masse to Poland at the very least. Appeasing bullies never ends well.

bigcat123 5y ago

beloch 5y ago

Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way Ukraine now is. Belarus, Finland, or any of Russia's other non-NATO neighbours are probably pretty nervous right now, but Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. are much less likely to be attacked by Russia. Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. Russia probably had plans to absorb Ukraine eventually, but if Ukraine had joined NATO it would have required a war with NATO to absorb even a small part of Ukraine, such as Dunbas. So, when talk of joining NATO heated up, Putin had to invade quickly or lose the opportunity to take Ukraine without a much larger war. It now appears that any of Russia's neighbours who are not currently members of a military alliance with a nuclear power have three options: 1. Join NATO, ally with China, or find somebody else with nuclear weapons to ally with. 2. Develop nuclear weapons. 3. Do nothing in order to avoid an immediate invasion, but start brushing up on your Russian because you'll need it eventually. It is now abundantly clear that remaining on good terms with NATO countries is not sufficient in itself to ensure security from invasion by Russia. Economic sanctions and harsh language will not stop Putin. It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate.

markdown 5y ago
You seem to have missed the point. > If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).
- gambiting 5y ago

lambdasquirrel 5y ago

The problem with this is that the Ukrainian border with Russia is rather far from NATO logistically, and very near Russia. Russland parking panzers in the border with Polen is a very different story. When you understand how the Russian air defense is structured (via overlapping dense ground to air missile batteries, and rapidly scrambled fighters that can operate from rough airfields), the difference is even more stark. When you get to the endgame it's even more problematic. The reason we weren't hopping to get Ukraine into the Eurozone, let along NATO, is because it's a terribly poor and corrupt country that we (i.e. the West) weren't ready to take on yet. The idea was always to let these countries grow and evolve into a more lawful-and-liberal model. Russia is trying to arrest that, for reasons that are understandable, messed-up, and simply outright terrible. It's an understatement that this is a human tragedy.

jollybean 5y ago

Because Putin is not insane and does not want to destroy Russia. He wants to take it, and he can threaten and get away with it because the West won't react. If the US 'gave' the Ukranians some drones and guided missiles and then 'fired' said missiles for the Ukrainians at Russian forces in Ukraine, at the bhest of Ukraine, what's he going to do? Start lobbing nukes? In fact, the Nuke/MAD part is what makes it maybe safer to react. As long as the US isn't invading anything it's hard to see what he could justify doing. If he did a nuclear test, as a 'scary demonstration' - he would then lose the world's support. Even China would balk. He would be firmly nuts. Russians out in the open, not in their own country with defences are easy targets. The US could do 'generational' damage to Russian forces in literally just a few days. The US/West should probably be doing everything the can do short of invading. NATO doesn't have the guts, it would have to be an American President. Trump has the 'gall' but he's not a military person and a loose cannon. Biden is far to effete. I think possibly GW Bush II surrounded by neocons, would have done something, and so would his father who ejected Saddam from Kuwait and then sat back.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Start lobbing nukes? That's exactly what he just threatened to do.
- jollybean 5y ago
  If Putin lobbed a nuke at Russia, it would be the end of Russia. Putin is not stupid, he is stronger than Ukraine, but weaker than NATO. There would be an embargo, they'd be encircled, their economy would shut down, Putin would be brought to some kind of trial and Russia would be denuclaraized.

xwdv 5y ago

Perhaps then there was some logic behind the idea that the United States President should always be someone who is slightly unhinged, or at least appears to be. If enemies believe you are too straight laced to actually strike back then the MAD theory falls apart.

62951413 5y ago

"existence of your own civilization" is a strong statement. At face value they just want to conquer back half of Europe. Not to send millions across our souther border. Not to kill any Americans. Not to rape their women. Not to turn their sons into homosexuals. Not even compete for jobs with Americans or abuse their welfare system. So from our point of view it's a European problem. A quick reminder - they have 500M people and a GDP comparable to ours. With so many resources and 20+ peaceful years they should be able to field dozens of panzer divisions. Do you see any? The Ukrainians are fighting like their life depends on it. You can see it. The Snake Island martyrs alone is a tale for the ages. And Ukraine is a small and poor country. Do you see other Europeans even trying? And if not, is it really existential? And if not for them why should we care? The Russian despot increasingly looks like a statesman in touch with reality. It's a real puzzle how he managed to pull if off lacking diversity and not having enough girls in his spetsnaz units. America spent 20 years in the sandbox wasting precious resources for no particular reason. Having run from Afghanistan the way Americans did we'll be lucky the Chinese don't grab Taiwan next month. As a side note, the loss of DJT is a gift that just keeps giving. Elections have consequences. Going back to at least 2008.

Chris2048 5y ago
> Not to.. At face value? like how they promised to not invade Ukraine in exchange for their nukes? > Not to turn their sons into homosexuals What?!? > Do you see other Europeans even trying? Putin has threatened retaliation against any intervention, including the threat of nukes - "even trying" isn't an option, once you're in you may be all in.

akira2501 5y ago

> What then? Strongly worded essays? When he did this 7 years ago, that is _precisely_ what we did. The UN got everyone together and issued a non-binding resolution on the matter then essentially did nothing else significant.

scaramanga 5y ago

Oh yes, we should definitely be trying to escalate this situation between two nuclear superpowers /s

w0de0 5y ago

> I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Your analysis seems rational in this moment. But: the policy and personality of a democracy is liable change rapidly and radically in a way no single actor ever would or could. Autocrats often do not understand this, and make the same assumptions you have. The scenario you describe would raise such apocalyptic outrage in America and Europe that war without thought of consequence would likely ensue. You simply cannot extrapolate future behavior of complex democracies from current behavior as you would an individual. The concern you laid out in your post is relevant: once enough citizens arrive at a similar opinion, policy can rapidly shift.

captainmuon 5y ago

Yes, I think we are seeing the breakdown of nuclear deterrence. Because it does nothing to stop Putin from attacking allied (non-NATO) states, but it deterrs the west from intervening. I think at some point people will realize that MAD is a huge bluff. Because when you see the nuclear bombs flying, there is nothing you can do anymore to win the war. The only thing that you can do is to prevent the loss of more lives by standing down and calling off the counter attack. The only logical move is to renege on your "credible" second strike promise, stand down, and start printing the enemy's flags. In practice, modern warfare is not about conquering the enemy country, it is about destroying the enemy military and state, which would be achived by airstrikes and/or a nuclear strike. For these reasons, I predict the boundary between conventional war and nuclear war to become more blurry (US and Russia have been trying this for decades with the development of smaller nukes, and missile defense systems), and conventional war to return to Europe. The way to stop this is not in strengthening the NATO and going black to block confrontation. The only way forward is to question block confrontation, the post-WWII-order, and souvereign nation states. Because the nation states are the entities that are fighting for influence and raising armies, and in some sense they have to, if they don't want to be left behind in geopolitics and the global economy. I know it's a tall order, but we need no less than a "revolution" of the world order (however that may look like) to secure peace.

ajdegol 5y ago
Mate, if some other country kills me and all my family and friends, then absolutely fuck them, I'll smash that launch button. Logic, and us all, be damned.

zahma 5y ago

Yes, you’re describing political science/ international relations theory of realism. In nature, there is chaos and organization of that chaos happens through real force. A country can’t trust others and must protect its interests. A hegemon imposes its desires on the world because it has hard power. Until relatively recently, the US was considered unipolar after the demise of the USSR. (I suspect Putin welcomes the challenge, along with China who both want to assert their world views.) Anyway, fast forward through the millennia, and the two principle hard powers within Waltzian realism is that military force can only be minimized through economic weaponry. By now, it feels like the US has sanctioned Russia so much and for so long that it should be destitute. Somehow Russia’s central bank amassed $600 billion USD in the run up to their foray into Ukraine.[1] I don’t see how further sanctions will change this, but detonating plans on Nord Stream 2 and cutting Russia out from other markets where it sends its oil would be effective, though probably not in the short term. The kicker there is which politician wants to explain why energy prices are increasing even more to a beleaguered country that just wants to put Covid behind it. France has elections in months, and Macron is not eager to see the Yellow Vests reinvigorated with real support to undo his bid to oversee the European Union during his second term. I agree that it feels unlikely for NATO to draw a red line and start mobilizing troops, matériel, and missiles to reflect a posture. Everything at this point in to the invasion is meant as deterrence. This simply isn’t enough to combat the playground bully. I’ll stop here and just say that in international relations, game theory can be employed to understand this dynamic of brinksmanship. In the worst case of asymmetrical information, lack of communication, and paranoia about the madman leading the opposing side, all out war can be conceived of — even if it’s ultimately called off. Think Cuban Missile Crisis. 1-https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/24/russian-central-bank-buys-up-roubles-to-avert-stock-market-collapse-invasion-ukraine-fiancial-meltdown https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/24/russian-cen...

ohthehugemanate 5y ago

It sounds bad to say it out loud, but MAD was the policy that kept the longest peace among great powers (ie nation states that can project power beyond their borders) in recorded history. The global rate of interstate conflict has been historically low since 1945. I don't like it, but there it is. It's also worth keeping this in some historical perspective. This war could break a long streak of zero great power wars (depending on definitions and reactions in the west), it's true. But the rate is still historically extremely low. The systems we have for peace, however imperfect, are definitely working.

foldr 5y ago

Classic 'salami tactics': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&t=73s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&t=73s

tim333 5y ago

You respond proportionately and appropriately. You'd ask them to move their tank, then failing that maybe fire on it with conventional arms etc. There isn't much response presently from NATO because Ukraine isn't part of it.