8 ms·

I would argue that you're getting sucked into the news cycle a bit more than is probably healthy, if you're feeling real anxiety. Maybe turn off the news for a

I would argue that you're getting sucked into the news cycle a bit more than is probably healthy, if you're feeling real anxiety. Maybe turn off the news for a few days to relax? It may seem like Very Important Things are happening right now, but honestly, as someone who does watch the news pretty obsessively, you can construe basically anything into being Very Important. All of the most likely outcomes for what's happening in Ukraine are not impactful to you in any real way. The very unlikely outcomes are more impactful, but specifically the odds of a nuclear war is vanishingly small. Not zero, and meaningfully larger than a week ago, but still infinitesimally small. Take a walk outside, pet your dog/cat, hug a loved one, watch a funny movie. That's what I do when I get really wrapped up in the news cycle. :) We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, hardly any of this matters.

benknight87 5y ago
Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are?
- jowday 5y ago
  This post was at the top of HN a few days ago and does a great job explaining, IMO. https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-...
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Previously, much larger armies of tanks, rotorcraft, and tactical nuclear missiles faced each other across the Iron Curtain for 40 years without anyone blinking. If anything, this is a return to historical tension levels between the West and Russia. If poster feels tension, do something to prepare. Whatever that means to them, and whatever gives them comfort.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are? There is only one outcome here: Ukraine becomes a Russian client state. Russia then decouples from the West. Other African and Asian countries start thinking in similar terms. You cannot have the US and Europe determine your national security interests by using the threat of sanctions as a Damocles sword all the time. Russia controls the second most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Ukraine is wishful thinking.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking.
    - sinyug 5y ago
      > The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking. The US is not Russia and Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden is not Putin. While no one can predict what he is thinking, the Second Chechen War could be a template if the Ukrainian leadership does not yield.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Putin is not Yeltsin, Ukraine is not Chechnya, Zelanskyy is not Yandarbiyev, and 1999 is not 2021, so no, the Second Chechen War would not be a valid template. I, too, can needlessly zoom in to try and refute any comparisons to other situations. If anything, not being applicable to Afghanistan is even worse for Russia, considering how little international support Afghanistan received, and how much worse at urban warfare the Russian military is compared to the US military.
        sinyug 5y ago
        > comparisons to other situations. It is not about random comparisons but the will to follow through on what must be done. The US had no real stake in Afghanistan. Russia did in Chechnya and it does in Ukraine. We will know in a few weeks what his plan is as it is executed on the ground.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Russia has a lot less to gain (hardly anything real) than Ukranians have to lose, which is why the Afghanistan comparison is apt. And no, we won't have any clue about what "his" plan was, because it's already failed. Now we will see how Russia's military reacts to initial failure.
- swat535 5y ago
  I think the results will be far less exciting that people envision: it will end with a diplomatic solution after some "peace talk" negotiations. There are never any true "winners" of a war, it will costs millions, the Russian people have greatly suffered (and will continue to for years as a result of this), many Ukrainians have equally suffered and lost their lives. It will also have an impact on the worlds economy (to what extent, I don't know, I'm not an expert). What a waste. My prayers goes out to all those suffering.
greesil 5y ago
I mean, when you think about the eventual heat death of the universe, nothing really matters in the end. Embrace nihilism.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  The problem with nihilism is, despite being logically coherent, it isn't useful. No society is built on meaninglessness. You have to have faith in something that isn't logically provable to provide base assumptions for whatever your value system is. If Cavemen were nihilists, we'd never have figured out fire.
  - xyzzy123 5y ago
    I think nihilism provides value in the same way that "rock bottom" does for an alcoholic. On a practical basis my life is mostly habit, obligation and pre-framed viewpoints that I accept unreflectively for entirely pragmatic reasons. Which is fine, otherwise you spend a lot of time wondering what a table is, why do anything, etc, but stripping back your beliefs to as close to nothing as you can is an experience worth going through at least once in your life - there's no way to viscerally understand axioms except to think about why they are there, and why they can't be different. Yes, nihilism can prompt personal crisis or even suicide. But the experience is fundamental even if we don't name it, so the idea provides utility to society because it gives us a vocabulary and a framework for processing the experience of rejecting and understanding meaning itself. You can't have true agency without understanding that meaning itself is a construct. A culture which recognises crisis of meaning is a deeper culture than one which perhaps recognises that some situations are "sad" or that sometimes things are tactically difficult ,or that some people might have conflicting interests (looking at you Disney). Personally I think nihilism is a key stage in moral development "for people who think real hard about stuff". Yes, everyone doing this at the same time would have bad outcomes. The (shared) social utility of nihilism is a kind of "looking in the eyes" of people who are experiencing the absurdity of life, seeing through the words and looking at what is there. The currency of the idea promotes an acceptance of that and therefore I believe that a vigorous society should embrace the experience of nihilism for those people that are ready for it.
- 5y ago
aspyct 5y ago
Uh, yes it matters if we die now vs later. I enjoy my life and intend on keeping it.
- dageshi 5y ago
  If you spend your time anxiety ridden in anticipation of nuclear war... are you enjoying it?
  - aspyct 5y ago
    I literally just said "I enjoy my life". Does it sound like I'm too worried to enjoy it?
  - throwaway6532 5y ago
    I'm at present not enjoying it. I have decided to buy a spa pool this weekend so I can be both anxiety ridden and at least somewhat enjoying it.
- lazide 5y ago
  Are you in Eastern Europe? Are you a presidential advisor, or advising a large multi-national of some sort? If not, then there is not only just about zero you can do about the current situation, but worrying about it is actively interfering with the now in that life - and obsessively following the news will likely destroy every now while you do.
saroui 5y ago
I was thinking about my career and what I should be doing in the next few months, and then reading your comment, I stopped for a minute at "We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, almost none of this matters. ". Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It always was like that.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  > living fully in the present But that’s what (other) animals do, humans are different, in that they live in the past (memories), in the future (dreaming, planning, preparing, learning), and consuming fiction and playing games (which, honestly, I wouldn’t call “living in the moment,” either). So, what’s left in the moment is eating, having sex, fighting, talking, being afraid, being sick, feeling cold…
- pawelmurias 5y ago
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present. Yeah, your future self is going to hate you for this. I mean you (hopefully) don't smoke and drink everyday, because it feels great at the time, but it will shorten and/or reduce your life in a number of significant ways. A bit of both is probably the best strategy.
davedx 5y ago
Normally I would agree with this take. I'm also in Europe and feel similar to the OP though. I recognise that I'm doomscrolling but this feels different to other "bad things in the world that have happened in my lifetime" (I'm in my 40's). I live 12h drive from the border of Ukraine. In addition my outrage at the Russian invasion and what's happening to the Ukrainians, it also feels uncomfortably close.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It is close. Less than a good days driving. But don't let that proximity get to you too much, the dangers are just the same if you live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, to believe otherwise is an illusion. If it remains a conventional war then there is no way that the Russians will manage to do much without being beaten savagely, but at the same time that is exactly why if they decide to press on things could well get out of hand.
  - 2b3a51 5y ago
    I live near the centre of a large city in the UK. I suspect that we here are more likely to be a target if there is a nuclear exchange than people close to Ukraine or Russia. However, I also think that a nuclear exchange is still very unlikely. Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border. I'm hoping for/dreading one of those cold war fudges we had back in the bad old days. Some horse trading, perhaps a partition of the Ukraine with attendant population sorting and so on. Negotiations about force reductions and all of that. It took the US/Alliance army of 180 000 plus air cover a month to render the conscript Iraq army non-operational and to gain some tenuous control of Iraq (or at least the major cities) in 2003. Putin must have had a time-scale of weeks in mind for this operation. I shall be disconnecting from wall to wall news coverage next week as I do have anxiety issues sometimes. At the end of the day none of us here can do much.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border. The word is that the Russians will suggest that they unconditionally surrender or Kyiv will get the 'Grozny' treatment. I'm pretty sure of the outcome there, but of course anything could happen.
shaky-carrousel 5y ago
I had an argument some time ago with another person about this. People seem obsessed with the news. My view is, news are intentionally made stressing. If you being informed of something doesn't change its outcome in any meaningful way then why bother reading about it? I try to limit what I read about because of that. If I wouldn't do so, I would fall into an endless tunnel of worrying news around the world.
ayngg 5y ago
I sort of view it this way too, news media is having a collective orgasm over the bonanza of fear porn they have been hyping up for over a month now. Social media has also taken and ran with it, the front page of reddit is plastered with anecdotes, speculation and armchair geopolitical discussions of people trying to rationalize something they don't quite understand. At the end of the day, Russia isn't this big bad world power that is capable of starting a war on a global scale, they are a declining power that also happens to have a lot of nukes. So realistically the most they can do is limited to what they are doing now, which won't start a world war and will most likely conclude in a way that causes no change to the lives of most people outside of the affected region. On the extremely small chance that they do go nuclear, worrying about it is pointless since it will change society so dramatically that there simply would be no way to prepare for it. Its like how you don't worry about getting hit by a car and becoming a paraplegic in your day to day life.
- Mo3 5y ago
  This man is correct and the last sentences the conclusion to live by please enjoy this picture of a much more likely outcome https://i.ibb.co/NCxyWqx/image.png https://i.ibb.co/NCxyWqx/image.png
- 2-718-281-828 5y ago
  > over a month now I'd argue this started with Corona - regardless of how dangerous you consider that virus to be that's where people's fear tolerance was raised to new heights and needs to be matched now or clicks go down.
  - timr 5y ago
    Absolutely. As someone with a fair level of subject matter expertise in the area, I've spent much of the last two years disgusted with the distortions/exaggerations of the news media, to the point where I basically don't read or listen to the news anymore. Certainly nothing from the ad-driven media, which is almost universally garbage. It's the same pattern the GP describes for Russia: exaggeration of obscure, tail risks and uncertainty. If you speculate, speculate to the negative outcome and ignore the positive or neutral possibilities. Emphasize scary anecdotes and ignore or downplay any facts that would lead a reasonable person away from panic. I was regular consumer of NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, and many others. Now I just don't read or listen to them. I skim a few international providers, I have some subscriptions (i.e. paid subscriptions to news providers that don't depend on ads) and podcasts, and that's it. Covid eliminated nearly all of my "news" consumption habits.
toto444 5y ago
Paradoxically the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen. When it comes to predicting the future, the 'media news cycle' clearly overfits the latest data points. (Please don't make this comment say what it doesn't. What's going on is terrible.)
- altdataseller 5y ago
  >> the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen What relationship do the 2 have? The news talking about WW3 or not talking about it doesn't affect whether Russia will use a nuclear weapon.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
I would normally agree about the news thing; like Taleb recently said [1], the news is 99.9% noise, 0.1% signal. But these past few days it's been all signal. This is the kind of stuff you should be paying attention to. [1] https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1497943606962839552 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1497943606962839552
- throwaway6532 5y ago
  Exactly. I was flabbergasted at the sheer number of Ukranians I've seen interviewed by the media that said they didn't believe it would actually happen etc. I followed every development since it started at the end of last year and by the time it was announced that blood supplies had been moved in around a month before the invasion actually happened that led me to believe actually there really is likely to be an invasion as you wouldn't need blood otherwise. Then the next big, big clue was the soldiers sticking around in Belarus after the Olympics ended. That was your first major warning to get out. I can't quite remember the order in which the next few things happened exactly, but certainly when Putin announced he was recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk you could tell his plan was actively underway. The next big tip-off that the invasion was close was when China told its diplomats to leave. My assumption is that Russia would have given China a heads up to avoid surprising China and creating tensions. That would have been my signal to exit the country and my bags would have already been packed and plans firmly made. The next critical signal was that Russia itself told its diplomats to leave. There's only one reason Russia itself would tell its diplomats to leave. After I saw that news I thought to myself... hmm there isn't anything more Putin needs to do to actually be ready to invade, so next comes Z-day. Then they invaded. If you were paying close attention and could connect the dots you absolutely had ample warning to get the hell out of dodge. I agree, this is the type of news you should be paying attention to.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Taleb is the kind of person who tries very hard to have something insightful to say about every situation. Sometimes he nails it, sometimes he's off the mark. I don't read this and think, "He's right!" I just read this and think, "Looks like he fell into the media well and is trying to post-hoc justify it." Admittedly it's a safe bet on my part, because if I'm wrong, we'll all be dead!
nly 5y ago
> We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, hardly any of this matters. On the bright side, Putin will be dead in 10-20 This too shall pass
panarky 5y ago
Two weeks ago Ukraine accused the US of being unnecessarily pessimistic, that US analysis of satellite imagery was no match for Ukraine's deeper understanding of Russia's true motivations, that movements of troops and matériel were merely the adversary's negotiating style, that there was little likelihood of an actual invasion. There's a tendency for smart people to downplay and underestimate legitimate existential threats. Most of us recognize the clear signs of war, of fascism, of catastrophe only in hindsight. Perhaps the optimists can sketch out how they think this plays out if Ukraine puts up a more effective and tenacious defense than expected. If supply lines are cut, if fuel, food and ammunition can't reach the front lines, if Russia is globally isolated, if the ruble collapses, if the wealth of oligarchs held abroad is frozen and seized. Do the optimists believe Russia will just back down and go home in humiliation, tail between their legs?
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
  Ukrainian President said that not because he didn't believe in Russia's invasion, but because he didn't want to provoke panic in his population, which would made war preparations more difficult. Even today he is trying to project calm and optimistic image, because it helps the war effort.
  - panarky 5y ago
    > didn't want to provoke panic in his population Now he's calling for the West to shoot down Russian planes, and his government is handing out tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles to untrained bakers and school teachers. If he always believed Russia would invade, surely it would have been better to start a bit earlier with the no-fly zone and training school teachers with weapons and sabotage.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
      1) Putin was looking for any pretext to attack. He told his people that this war is just a response to Ukraine's aggression (and most of Russian citizens believe that Russian army is protecting innocent children from being killed by Ukrainian Nazis). So Ukraine tried to avoid any aggressive step. 2) They are handling rifles out because they just now arrived from the multiple countries that are helping Ukraine. Before that, they trained with wooden rifles.
jayski 5y ago
full disclosure im 100% sucked into the news cycle. That said I think the new development of belarus passing a referendum, updating its constitution to allow Russian nukes, and also join the war against Ukraine is serious. Im not saying this is WW3, but I would feel better it Putin had just overtaken Ukraine quickly. Who knows what the reality is, but if youre following western media it seems like Russia is losing. This leaves Putin few options, 1. Continue conventional warfare and hope things get better, while sanctions bleed Russia out economically, and Ukraine receives more weapons and overall support. 2. Back out with his tail between his legs. This was supposed to be a show of force and military might, so it's going to be a tough pill to swallow for his ego. 3. make something up, like nato is supporting Ukraine too much and he has no choice but to use the nukes...
- kypro 5y ago
  What worries me is that there is a situation here where Russia benefits from launching nukes beyond just having no option / nothing to lose. If Russia nukes the West and China remains neutral avoiding an attack, then they would almost certainly take the US's place as the global superpower. Russia would obviously be nuked in retaliation, but Putin himself likely wouldn't die in the attack and could probably strike a deal with Xi to rebuild Russia and Russia's empire with China's aid. Obviously it wouldn't be good news for China if all their main trading partners suddenly got wiped of the face of the Earth, but they'd get through it after several years and would no longer need to worry about the West. My concern is what if nuclear war actually benefits Xi & Putin at this moment in time? During the cold war the USSR was a super power -- they had everything to lose. Now they have very little and we have a lot... The calculation is completely different today. The cost of nuclear war for Russia is dramatically lower than it ever was for the USSR.

benknight87 5y ago

Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are?

jowday 5y ago
This post was at the top of HN a few days ago and does a great job explaining, IMO. https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-...
ethbr0 5y ago
Previously, much larger armies of tanks, rotorcraft, and tactical nuclear missiles faced each other across the Iron Curtain for 40 years without anyone blinking. If anything, this is a return to historical tension levels between the West and Russia. If poster feels tension, do something to prepare. Whatever that means to them, and whatever gives them comfort.
sinyug 5y ago
> Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are? There is only one outcome here: Ukraine becomes a Russian client state. Russia then decouples from the West. Other African and Asian countries start thinking in similar terms. You cannot have the US and Europe determine your national security interests by using the threat of sanctions as a Damocles sword all the time. Russia controls the second most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Ukraine is wishful thinking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking. The US is not Russia and Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden is not Putin. While no one can predict what he is thinking, the Second Chechen War could be a template if the Ukrainian leadership does not yield.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Putin is not Yeltsin, Ukraine is not Chechnya, Zelanskyy is not Yandarbiyev, and 1999 is not 2021, so no, the Second Chechen War would not be a valid template. I, too, can needlessly zoom in to try and refute any comparisons to other situations. If anything, not being applicable to Afghanistan is even worse for Russia, considering how little international support Afghanistan received, and how much worse at urban warfare the Russian military is compared to the US military.
      - sinyug 5y ago
        > comparisons to other situations. It is not about random comparisons but the will to follow through on what must be done. The US had no real stake in Afghanistan. Russia did in Chechnya and it does in Ukraine. We will know in a few weeks what his plan is as it is executed on the ground.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Russia has a lot less to gain (hardly anything real) than Ukranians have to lose, which is why the Afghanistan comparison is apt. And no, we won't have any clue about what "his" plan was, because it's already failed. Now we will see how Russia's military reacts to initial failure.
swat535 5y ago
I think the results will be far less exciting that people envision: it will end with a diplomatic solution after some "peace talk" negotiations. There are never any true "winners" of a war, it will costs millions, the Russian people have greatly suffered (and will continue to for years as a result of this), many Ukrainians have equally suffered and lost their lives. It will also have an impact on the worlds economy (to what extent, I don't know, I'm not an expert). What a waste. My prayers goes out to all those suffering.

greesil 5y ago

I mean, when you think about the eventual heat death of the universe, nothing really matters in the end. Embrace nihilism.

scottLobster 5y ago
The problem with nihilism is, despite being logically coherent, it isn't useful. No society is built on meaninglessness. You have to have faith in something that isn't logically provable to provide base assumptions for whatever your value system is. If Cavemen were nihilists, we'd never have figured out fire.
- xyzzy123 5y ago
  I think nihilism provides value in the same way that "rock bottom" does for an alcoholic. On a practical basis my life is mostly habit, obligation and pre-framed viewpoints that I accept unreflectively for entirely pragmatic reasons. Which is fine, otherwise you spend a lot of time wondering what a table is, why do anything, etc, but stripping back your beliefs to as close to nothing as you can is an experience worth going through at least once in your life - there's no way to viscerally understand axioms except to think about why they are there, and why they can't be different. Yes, nihilism can prompt personal crisis or even suicide. But the experience is fundamental even if we don't name it, so the idea provides utility to society because it gives us a vocabulary and a framework for processing the experience of rejecting and understanding meaning itself. You can't have true agency without understanding that meaning itself is a construct. A culture which recognises crisis of meaning is a deeper culture than one which perhaps recognises that some situations are "sad" or that sometimes things are tactically difficult ,or that some people might have conflicting interests (looking at you Disney). Personally I think nihilism is a key stage in moral development "for people who think real hard about stuff". Yes, everyone doing this at the same time would have bad outcomes. The (shared) social utility of nihilism is a kind of "looking in the eyes" of people who are experiencing the absurdity of life, seeing through the words and looking at what is there. The currency of the idea promotes an acceptance of that and therefore I believe that a vigorous society should embrace the experience of nihilism for those people that are ready for it.
5y ago

aspyct 5y ago

Uh, yes it matters if we die now vs later. I enjoy my life and intend on keeping it.

dageshi 5y ago
If you spend your time anxiety ridden in anticipation of nuclear war... are you enjoying it?
- aspyct 5y ago
  I literally just said "I enjoy my life". Does it sound like I'm too worried to enjoy it?
- throwaway6532 5y ago
  I'm at present not enjoying it. I have decided to buy a spa pool this weekend so I can be both anxiety ridden and at least somewhat enjoying it.
lazide 5y ago
Are you in Eastern Europe? Are you a presidential advisor, or advising a large multi-national of some sort? If not, then there is not only just about zero you can do about the current situation, but worrying about it is actively interfering with the now in that life - and obsessively following the news will likely destroy every now while you do.

saroui 5y ago

I was thinking about my career and what I should be doing in the next few months, and then reading your comment, I stopped for a minute at "We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, almost none of this matters. ". Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present.

jacquesm 5y ago
It always was like that.
Koshkin 5y ago
> living fully in the present But that’s what (other) animals do, humans are different, in that they live in the past (memories), in the future (dreaming, planning, preparing, learning), and consuming fiction and playing games (which, honestly, I wouldn’t call “living in the moment,” either). So, what’s left in the moment is eating, having sex, fighting, talking, being afraid, being sick, feeling cold…
pawelmurias 5y ago
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present. Yeah, your future self is going to hate you for this. I mean you (hopefully) don't smoke and drink everyday, because it feels great at the time, but it will shorten and/or reduce your life in a number of significant ways. A bit of both is probably the best strategy.

davedx 5y ago

Normally I would agree with this take. I'm also in Europe and feel similar to the OP though. I recognise that I'm doomscrolling but this feels different to other "bad things in the world that have happened in my lifetime" (I'm in my 40's). I live 12h drive from the border of Ukraine. In addition my outrage at the Russian invasion and what's happening to the Ukrainians, it also feels uncomfortably close.

jacquesm 5y ago
It is close. Less than a good days driving. But don't let that proximity get to you too much, the dangers are just the same if you live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, to believe otherwise is an illusion. If it remains a conventional war then there is no way that the Russians will manage to do much without being beaten savagely, but at the same time that is exactly why if they decide to press on things could well get out of hand.
- 2b3a51 5y ago
  I live near the centre of a large city in the UK. I suspect that we here are more likely to be a target if there is a nuclear exchange than people close to Ukraine or Russia. However, I also think that a nuclear exchange is still very unlikely. Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border. I'm hoping for/dreading one of those cold war fudges we had back in the bad old days. Some horse trading, perhaps a partition of the Ukraine with attendant population sorting and so on. Negotiations about force reductions and all of that. It took the US/Alliance army of 180 000 plus air cover a month to render the conscript Iraq army non-operational and to gain some tenuous control of Iraq (or at least the major cities) in 2003. Putin must have had a time-scale of weeks in mind for this operation. I shall be disconnecting from wall to wall news coverage next week as I do have anxiety issues sometimes. At the end of the day none of us here can do much.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border. The word is that the Russians will suggest that they unconditionally surrender or Kyiv will get the 'Grozny' treatment. I'm pretty sure of the outcome there, but of course anything could happen.

shaky-carrousel 5y ago

I had an argument some time ago with another person about this. People seem obsessed with the news. My view is, news are intentionally made stressing. If you being informed of something doesn't change its outcome in any meaningful way then why bother reading about it? I try to limit what I read about because of that. If I wouldn't do so, I would fall into an endless tunnel of worrying news around the world.

ayngg 5y ago

I sort of view it this way too, news media is having a collective orgasm over the bonanza of fear porn they have been hyping up for over a month now. Social media has also taken and ran with it, the front page of reddit is plastered with anecdotes, speculation and armchair geopolitical discussions of people trying to rationalize something they don't quite understand. At the end of the day, Russia isn't this big bad world power that is capable of starting a war on a global scale, they are a declining power that also happens to have a lot of nukes. So realistically the most they can do is limited to what they are doing now, which won't start a world war and will most likely conclude in a way that causes no change to the lives of most people outside of the affected region. On the extremely small chance that they do go nuclear, worrying about it is pointless since it will change society so dramatically that there simply would be no way to prepare for it. Its like how you don't worry about getting hit by a car and becoming a paraplegic in your day to day life.

Mo3 5y ago
This man is correct and the last sentences the conclusion to live by please enjoy this picture of a much more likely outcome https://i.ibb.co/NCxyWqx/image.png https://i.ibb.co/NCxyWqx/image.png
2-718-281-828 5y ago
> over a month now I'd argue this started with Corona - regardless of how dangerous you consider that virus to be that's where people's fear tolerance was raised to new heights and needs to be matched now or clicks go down.
- timr 5y ago
  Absolutely. As someone with a fair level of subject matter expertise in the area, I've spent much of the last two years disgusted with the distortions/exaggerations of the news media, to the point where I basically don't read or listen to the news anymore. Certainly nothing from the ad-driven media, which is almost universally garbage. It's the same pattern the GP describes for Russia: exaggeration of obscure, tail risks and uncertainty. If you speculate, speculate to the negative outcome and ignore the positive or neutral possibilities. Emphasize scary anecdotes and ignore or downplay any facts that would lead a reasonable person away from panic. I was regular consumer of NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, and many others. Now I just don't read or listen to them. I skim a few international providers, I have some subscriptions (i.e. paid subscriptions to news providers that don't depend on ads) and podcasts, and that's it. Covid eliminated nearly all of my "news" consumption habits.

toto444 5y ago

Paradoxically the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen. When it comes to predicting the future, the 'media news cycle' clearly overfits the latest data points. (Please don't make this comment say what it doesn't. What's going on is terrible.)

altdataseller 5y ago
>> the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen What relationship do the 2 have? The news talking about WW3 or not talking about it doesn't affect whether Russia will use a nuclear weapon.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

I would normally agree about the news thing; like Taleb recently said [1], the news is 99.9% noise, 0.1% signal. But these past few days it's been all signal. This is the kind of stuff you should be paying attention to. [1] https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1497943606962839552 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1497943606962839552

throwaway6532 5y ago
Exactly. I was flabbergasted at the sheer number of Ukranians I've seen interviewed by the media that said they didn't believe it would actually happen etc. I followed every development since it started at the end of last year and by the time it was announced that blood supplies had been moved in around a month before the invasion actually happened that led me to believe actually there really is likely to be an invasion as you wouldn't need blood otherwise. Then the next big, big clue was the soldiers sticking around in Belarus after the Olympics ended. That was your first major warning to get out. I can't quite remember the order in which the next few things happened exactly, but certainly when Putin announced he was recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk you could tell his plan was actively underway. The next big tip-off that the invasion was close was when China told its diplomats to leave. My assumption is that Russia would have given China a heads up to avoid surprising China and creating tensions. That would have been my signal to exit the country and my bags would have already been packed and plans firmly made. The next critical signal was that Russia itself told its diplomats to leave. There's only one reason Russia itself would tell its diplomats to leave. After I saw that news I thought to myself... hmm there isn't anything more Putin needs to do to actually be ready to invade, so next comes Z-day. Then they invaded. If you were paying close attention and could connect the dots you absolutely had ample warning to get the hell out of dodge. I agree, this is the type of news you should be paying attention to.
TameAntelope 5y ago
Taleb is the kind of person who tries very hard to have something insightful to say about every situation. Sometimes he nails it, sometimes he's off the mark. I don't read this and think, "He's right!" I just read this and think, "Looks like he fell into the media well and is trying to post-hoc justify it." Admittedly it's a safe bet on my part, because if I'm wrong, we'll all be dead!

nly 5y ago

> We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, hardly any of this matters. On the bright side, Putin will be dead in 10-20 This too shall pass

panarky 5y ago

Two weeks ago Ukraine accused the US of being unnecessarily pessimistic, that US analysis of satellite imagery was no match for Ukraine's deeper understanding of Russia's true motivations, that movements of troops and matériel were merely the adversary's negotiating style, that there was little likelihood of an actual invasion. There's a tendency for smart people to downplay and underestimate legitimate existential threats. Most of us recognize the clear signs of war, of fascism, of catastrophe only in hindsight. Perhaps the optimists can sketch out how they think this plays out if Ukraine puts up a more effective and tenacious defense than expected. If supply lines are cut, if fuel, food and ammunition can't reach the front lines, if Russia is globally isolated, if the ruble collapses, if the wealth of oligarchs held abroad is frozen and seized. Do the optimists believe Russia will just back down and go home in humiliation, tail between their legs?

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
Ukrainian President said that not because he didn't believe in Russia's invasion, but because he didn't want to provoke panic in his population, which would made war preparations more difficult. Even today he is trying to project calm and optimistic image, because it helps the war effort.
- panarky 5y ago
  > didn't want to provoke panic in his population Now he's calling for the West to shoot down Russian planes, and his government is handing out tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles to untrained bakers and school teachers. If he always believed Russia would invade, surely it would have been better to start a bit earlier with the no-fly zone and training school teachers with weapons and sabotage.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
    1) Putin was looking for any pretext to attack. He told his people that this war is just a response to Ukraine's aggression (and most of Russian citizens believe that Russian army is protecting innocent children from being killed by Ukrainian Nazis). So Ukraine tried to avoid any aggressive step. 2) They are handling rifles out because they just now arrived from the multiple countries that are helping Ukraine. Before that, they trained with wooden rifles.

jayski 5y ago

full disclosure im 100% sucked into the news cycle. That said I think the new development of belarus passing a referendum, updating its constitution to allow Russian nukes, and also join the war against Ukraine is serious. Im not saying this is WW3, but I would feel better it Putin had just overtaken Ukraine quickly. Who knows what the reality is, but if youre following western media it seems like Russia is losing. This leaves Putin few options, 1. Continue conventional warfare and hope things get better, while sanctions bleed Russia out economically, and Ukraine receives more weapons and overall support. 2. Back out with his tail between his legs. This was supposed to be a show of force and military might, so it's going to be a tough pill to swallow for his ego. 3. make something up, like nato is supporting Ukraine too much and he has no choice but to use the nukes...

kypro 5y ago
What worries me is that there is a situation here where Russia benefits from launching nukes beyond just having no option / nothing to lose. If Russia nukes the West and China remains neutral avoiding an attack, then they would almost certainly take the US's place as the global superpower. Russia would obviously be nuked in retaliation, but Putin himself likely wouldn't die in the attack and could probably strike a deal with Xi to rebuild Russia and Russia's empire with China's aid. Obviously it wouldn't be good news for China if all their main trading partners suddenly got wiped of the face of the Earth, but they'd get through it after several years and would no longer need to worry about the West. My concern is what if nuclear war actually benefits Xi & Putin at this moment in time? During the cold war the USSR was a super power -- they had everything to lose. Now they have very little and we have a lot... The calculation is completely different today. The cost of nuclear war for Russia is dramatically lower than it ever was for the USSR.