5 ms·

Is this good or bad? Does it mean that Russia is not the threat that was once thought? Putin still holds nukes, and we don't want him to feel threatened enough

by azth 5y ago

Is this good or bad? Does it mean that Russia is not the threat that was once thought? Putin still holds nukes, and we don't want him to feel threatened enough to use them.

nl 5y ago
Who is he going to nuke? No one is threatening Russia. Tactical nukes seem pointless in the Ukrainian campaign, and strategic nuking Kiev when he wants it intact seems an odd thing to do.
- kmlx 5y ago
  Ah, but Putin claimed Russia is under threat from Ukraine trying to join NATO, that neonazis have taken over Ukraine, that Ukraine is waging genocide on Russians… Of course all of this is theatre, just to keep in mind the current narrative.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Obviously he doesn't believe that, so his nuclear first strike threat is not very credible.
adventured 5y ago
What will he do as he realizes he can't hold Kyiv. When he realizes his plan of quick conquest failed, that the Russian military has been revealed to be an embarrassing mess on the global stage. I worry that he'll use increasingly vicious attacks on population centers, bombings, as an offset to cover up the ineptitude. He can't afford the loss of face, the show of weakness, that the present circumstances represent. His military is weak, poorly organized, incapable of pinpoint strategy, and he'll make up for it by brute force (which will get a lot of civilians killed). The US and Europe so far are pulling together (with Germany finally coming around more), so Ukraine appears that they'll have a supply of weapons to fight an occupation. The Ukrainians will hate any pro-Russian regime that gets installed and will topple it; the Ukrainian army will not align with Russia. It's hard to see a glorious winning outcome for Putin from here.
- s5300 5y ago
  Trying to be short with words: I had zero doubts this invasion was going to happen for at least like, 2 months, possibly more. It’s been reported that a surprisingly large amount of people & even governments truly thought it wasn’t going to happen. I am now truly worried that Putin is going to completely fucking raze Kyiv to the ground after being made to look like a complete & utter fool with his military’s lackluster performance. I really, really hope I’m wrong.
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    Gambler’s fallacy. You guessed whether he would invade and you were right. That doesn’t mean your next guess is any more likely to be correct. FWIW, I have had the same concern as you. I don’t really know enough about Putin’s mental state to know whether the concern is valid. I think he would be much more likely to use chemical weapons rather than nuclear.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      > Gambler’s fallacy. You guessed whether he would invade and you were right. That doesn’t mean your next guess is any more likely to be correct. What??? This assumes every opinion comes down to a coin flip. This is clearly not the case. Some people are better predictors for things that don't have guaranteed probability of outcomes.
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        Meh. I also predicted this invasion would happen, yet I don't see Putin razing Kyiv or using nuclear weapons. There's plenty of opportunity for everyone to be wrong.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  > I worry that he'll use increasingly vicious attacks on population centers, bombings, as an offset to cover up the ineptitude. He can't afford the loss of face, the show of weakness, that the present circumstances represent. Yeah, I fear this is precisely the danger when dealing with narcissists like Putin. Sadly the idea of deploying effective political strategies to neutralize these dangers appears to be anathema in the west as we begin to mirror Putin with nonsensical, hypocritical and sanctimonious high-horsing. Politicians who wanted to keep BLM politics out of sport are now proposing full-scale ping-pong boycotts. Anti-BDS people are now refusing to drink vodka. Israelis in occupied Palestine are protesting against military occupations. British politicians who are in an alliance with the DUP are now against military interventions to "defend" separatists. Hawks have become doves and spread their beautiful wings to take flight. It's like part of the world has turned it's principles upside down overnight as soon as they see a chance to kick Russia in the shins. From the Russian perspective, this must look comical, and I'm sure it all plays handily in to their propaganda: "They are liars and hypocrites and everything they say is stupid, cynical and part of a power-play to disadvantage the legitimate aspirations of Russian people". Retch.
scaramanga 5y ago
The mere existence of nuclear weapons is a threat for the simple fact that if they exist, at some point, they are bound to get used. It is pure luck that they haven't been accidentally or intentionally used in a disastrous way. If you care about the threat of nuclear weapons, you need to realise that you aren't going to disarm foreign powers who have them through force without unacceptable risk that you cause the scenario you claim to want to avoid. So the obvious solution is something like if the NPT were to actually be implemented as a good-faith vehicle of global nuclear disarmament. But in order to do that, you are then committed to dealing peacefully with everyone and resolving conflict within the framework of a trustworthy rules-based system. ie. A prerequisite would be acting in a way that leads to building trust in international law and order. Currently no nuclear state is doing that. And it's hard to imagine any leader or party coming to office running on a platform that proposes it. We have all observed the absolute glee we feel when we act out our own aggressive fantasies (too numerous to mention), and the mirroring (and equally corrosive) sanctimonious pleasure we gain from condemning the aggressions of others and responding in unproductive ways which almost guarantee escalations, if not in the actual conflicts, then in the feelings which engender those conflicts (ie. "they are all against me", "this is unfair", "they never act in good-faith", "they are hypocrites", "there are no rules, only power relations", because "to the extent that there are rules, why should they apply to me, when they don't apply to them", etc). The best we have been able to achieve, so far, in deterring the aggression of opposing powers is either to: 1. Destroy them so thoroughly that they never reconstitute (eg. Carthage) 2. Destroy them so thoroughly that it takes decades for them to reconstitute (eg. Germany after WW1) 3. Delay/frustrate them with limited conflict or sabre-rattling alone (eg. USA/Taiwan 1996, Ukraine/Russia 2014, etc.) Nuclear weapons just means that the extermination strategy is off the table. But it doesn't look like the avoidance/posturing/bullshit strategy is going to suddenly start working.
jahewson 5y ago
Thankfully, that’s not on the cards. His whole argument around Ukraine is to “liberate” ethnic Russians, not kill them all, and at this point, his own army. Even Russian propaganda would have a hard time with that.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  If he doesn't cut russians off from the internet there is no way he can control the narrative to Russian citizens. I am completely surprised he hasn't ordered that yet.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  There were plenty of ethnic Russians in Groznyy in 1999 - didn't stop the fuel-air bombs.

by azth 5y ago

Is this good or bad? Does it mean that Russia is not the threat that was once thought? Putin still holds nukes, and we don't want him to feel threatened enough to use them.

nl 5y ago

Who is he going to nuke? No one is threatening Russia. Tactical nukes seem pointless in the Ukrainian campaign, and strategic nuking Kiev when he wants it intact seems an odd thing to do.

kmlx 5y ago
Ah, but Putin claimed Russia is under threat from Ukraine trying to join NATO, that neonazis have taken over Ukraine, that Ukraine is waging genocide on Russians… Of course all of this is theatre, just to keep in mind the current narrative.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Obviously he doesn't believe that, so his nuclear first strike threat is not very credible.

adventured 5y ago

What will he do as he realizes he can't hold Kyiv. When he realizes his plan of quick conquest failed, that the Russian military has been revealed to be an embarrassing mess on the global stage. I worry that he'll use increasingly vicious attacks on population centers, bombings, as an offset to cover up the ineptitude. He can't afford the loss of face, the show of weakness, that the present circumstances represent. His military is weak, poorly organized, incapable of pinpoint strategy, and he'll make up for it by brute force (which will get a lot of civilians killed). The US and Europe so far are pulling together (with Germany finally coming around more), so Ukraine appears that they'll have a supply of weapons to fight an occupation. The Ukrainians will hate any pro-Russian regime that gets installed and will topple it; the Ukrainian army will not align with Russia. It's hard to see a glorious winning outcome for Putin from here.

s5300 5y ago
Trying to be short with words: I had zero doubts this invasion was going to happen for at least like, 2 months, possibly more. It’s been reported that a surprisingly large amount of people & even governments truly thought it wasn’t going to happen. I am now truly worried that Putin is going to completely fucking raze Kyiv to the ground after being made to look like a complete & utter fool with his military’s lackluster performance. I really, really hope I’m wrong.
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  Gambler’s fallacy. You guessed whether he would invade and you were right. That doesn’t mean your next guess is any more likely to be correct. FWIW, I have had the same concern as you. I don’t really know enough about Putin’s mental state to know whether the concern is valid. I think he would be much more likely to use chemical weapons rather than nuclear.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    > Gambler’s fallacy. You guessed whether he would invade and you were right. That doesn’t mean your next guess is any more likely to be correct. What??? This assumes every opinion comes down to a coin flip. This is clearly not the case. Some people are better predictors for things that don't have guaranteed probability of outcomes.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      Meh. I also predicted this invasion would happen, yet I don't see Putin razing Kyiv or using nuclear weapons. There's plenty of opportunity for everyone to be wrong.
scaramanga 5y ago
> I worry that he'll use increasingly vicious attacks on population centers, bombings, as an offset to cover up the ineptitude. He can't afford the loss of face, the show of weakness, that the present circumstances represent. Yeah, I fear this is precisely the danger when dealing with narcissists like Putin. Sadly the idea of deploying effective political strategies to neutralize these dangers appears to be anathema in the west as we begin to mirror Putin with nonsensical, hypocritical and sanctimonious high-horsing. Politicians who wanted to keep BLM politics out of sport are now proposing full-scale ping-pong boycotts. Anti-BDS people are now refusing to drink vodka. Israelis in occupied Palestine are protesting against military occupations. British politicians who are in an alliance with the DUP are now against military interventions to "defend" separatists. Hawks have become doves and spread their beautiful wings to take flight. It's like part of the world has turned it's principles upside down overnight as soon as they see a chance to kick Russia in the shins. From the Russian perspective, this must look comical, and I'm sure it all plays handily in to their propaganda: "They are liars and hypocrites and everything they say is stupid, cynical and part of a power-play to disadvantage the legitimate aspirations of Russian people". Retch.

scaramanga 5y ago

The mere existence of nuclear weapons is a threat for the simple fact that if they exist, at some point, they are bound to get used. It is pure luck that they haven't been accidentally or intentionally used in a disastrous way. If you care about the threat of nuclear weapons, you need to realise that you aren't going to disarm foreign powers who have them through force without unacceptable risk that you cause the scenario you claim to want to avoid. So the obvious solution is something like if the NPT were to actually be implemented as a good-faith vehicle of global nuclear disarmament. But in order to do that, you are then committed to dealing peacefully with everyone and resolving conflict within the framework of a trustworthy rules-based system. ie. A prerequisite would be acting in a way that leads to building trust in international law and order. Currently no nuclear state is doing that. And it's hard to imagine any leader or party coming to office running on a platform that proposes it. We have all observed the absolute glee we feel when we act out our own aggressive fantasies (too numerous to mention), and the mirroring (and equally corrosive) sanctimonious pleasure we gain from condemning the aggressions of others and responding in unproductive ways which almost guarantee escalations, if not in the actual conflicts, then in the feelings which engender those conflicts (ie. "they are all against me", "this is unfair", "they never act in good-faith", "they are hypocrites", "there are no rules, only power relations", because "to the extent that there are rules, why should they apply to me, when they don't apply to them", etc). The best we have been able to achieve, so far, in deterring the aggression of opposing powers is either to: 1. Destroy them so thoroughly that they never reconstitute (eg. Carthage) 2. Destroy them so thoroughly that it takes decades for them to reconstitute (eg. Germany after WW1) 3. Delay/frustrate them with limited conflict or sabre-rattling alone (eg. USA/Taiwan 1996, Ukraine/Russia 2014, etc.) Nuclear weapons just means that the extermination strategy is off the table. But it doesn't look like the avoidance/posturing/bullshit strategy is going to suddenly start working.

jahewson 5y ago

Thankfully, that’s not on the cards. His whole argument around Ukraine is to “liberate” ethnic Russians, not kill them all, and at this point, his own army. Even Russian propaganda would have a hard time with that.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
If he doesn't cut russians off from the internet there is no way he can control the narrative to Russian citizens. I am completely surprised he hasn't ordered that yet.
selimthegrim 5y ago
There were plenty of ethnic Russians in Groznyy in 1999 - didn't stop the fuel-air bombs.