5 ms·
> Putin has a doomsday device that he doesn't actually want to use. I'm not so sure about that. I feel it depends on whether Putin still has at least some marb
by ipsi 5y ago
> Putin has a doomsday device that he doesn't actually want to use.
I'm not so sure about that. I feel it depends on whether Putin still has at least some marbles left. If he does? Yes, he realises that leaving a legacy of "war criminal who nuked Ukraine" isn't actually what he wants so the threat of nukes is making a point to NATO to stay out of it. If he's lost all his marbles, though, or if he's so far out of touch with reality as makes no difference? I could see him nuking Ukraine out of spite if it's clear he won't get what he wants, in a sort of "If I can't have you, no one can!" move. Assuming that there isn't a coup before that, or that him giving that order doesn't trigger a coup, etc, etc.
- colordrops 5y agoDo you have any reason to believes that he's out of touch with reality and lost his marbles?
- dragontamer 5y agoHe attacked a neutral neighbor for piss poor reasons, despite having a strong cultural bond with them.
- __blockcipher__ 5y agoCalling them “neutral” is a mistake. At least from Putin’s perspective.
- jacquesm 5y agoYes, clear, they were occupied already, just not officially.
- phs318u 5y agoClearly they are more "neutral", than say Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all former Soviet client states that are now NATO members. I do honestly suspect this is about delusions of historical grandeur. Ukraine is after all the historical home of Kievan' Rus (with whom most peoples in the region claim historical antecedence). In its "golden age" Vladimir the Great (Volodymir I, Prince of Novgorod) united the Rus peoples under his reign.
- ncann 5y agoWhen thinking about neutrality, it's worth comparing the Ukraine-Russia relationship to that of Vietnam-China, another case of dealing with an aggressive big neighbor. Despite having many disputes with China on the sea, as well as the shadow of the 1979 invasion still looming, Vietnam has a clear "four-nos" policy, which means no military alliance, no affiliation with one country to counteract the other, no foreign military base in the Vietnamese territory to act against other countries, and no force or threatening to use force in international relations.
- dragontamer 5y agoAnd that perspective is clearly insane. Not "medically insane", I'm talking like "Hitler insane" (who IIRC, was never actually proven to be crazy or with an actual medical disability). Attacking peaceful nations for no reason is warmongering and clearly evil... but doubly so when they're effectively brother countries.
- mise_en_place 5y agoIt’s not insane, it’s completely rational. That’s why the US invaded Cuba during the Spanish American War. They felt that Spain had lost control on the ground entirely and that was the reason McKinley authorized invasion.
- dragontamer 5y agoThe weapons invented in WW1 proved to the world that wars like this weren't worth it anymore for anyone. Weapons were too good in the early 1900s, and the wear-and-tear on soldiers would scar them for the rest of their lives. The Axis powers didn't get the message in the 1930s/1940s, so one more ass-kicking was needed, but its overall not a good idea to initiate wars of conquest in today's society.
- mise_en_place 5y agoIt is worth it to invade a country that has no nuclear deterrent. The reason Russia will not invade a NATO country is that it would cause mutually assured destruction, or more specifically the Nash equilibrium in the case where both countries are nuclear powers. It’s why China doesn’t invade Pakistan or India, aside from small skirmishes that are in borderlands that are effectively proxy wars.
- caeril 5y agoThere is nothing "neutral" about Ukraine. The CIA deposed the legitimately elected government in 2014, and the actions of today have been inevitable since then. You'd have to be an idiot to accept a CIA puppet regime sharing hundreds of miles of border with you, particularly one that commits systematic terrorism against its Russian-speaking population. It's pretty shocking how well FVEY IC have run their propaganda campaigns for everyone to believe Ukraine is in any way "neutral". Very impressed.
- truetraveller 5y ago> systematic terrorism against its Russian-speaking population. Interested in knowing about this. Any proof?
- cutemonster 5y agoIt's Putin's propaganda that tries to make people believe these things. Any "proof" would be made up. People in southern and eastern Ukraine, eg Odessa, and Kharkiv I think, speak Russian primarily more often than Ukrainian
- orestarod 5y agoThere have been various incidents of terrorizing Russian speakers, perhaps the most famous being the burning at Odessa, and in this war the Nazi sympathizers shooting any Ukrainian soldier wanting to surrender, in some contested areas such as Mariopol they may shoot citizens who attend to flee too - aside from Putin's propaganda, I recently saw a first hand account of that by a Greek speaking resident there. As much as it is not widely mentioned in Western media for obvious reasons, Nazis having a real presence in Ukraine is not in Putin's fantasy, and with a few searches you will find both many expressions of that in Ukraine and endorsement/tolerance by Ukrainian authorities. I am not standing by Putin's invasion, and in general stating and inquiring for the truth should never be seen as an expression of opinion. Peace.
- yks 5y agoHave you followed the events at all? He is high on his own propaganda and surrounded by incompetent yes-men, their tactics and logistics are a joke, long-term strategy is 100% bad news for Russia. At this point it's even questionable that their nukes work.
- chrononaut 5y agoYou may not agree with his moral choices (clearly, few do, including me), but his actions have been at least rational: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 I don't think that disputes anything you wrote though. Just being additive.
- yks 5y agoThey are "rational" only if operating inside of a certain set of axioms, e.g. "NATO is a threat to Russia". I don't think that's a given, NATO was a threat to the communist regime but they didn't care much about modern Russia, that is, until Putin decided to make "being an enemy of NATO" a raison d'être of his regime and, through massive propaganda campaigns, the Russian Federation as a whole.
- colordrops 5y agoRussia wanted to be part of NATO and the US didn't allow it.
- nycdatasci 5y agoSupporting the idea, while suggesting he can't provide proof, Marco Rubio (Vice President of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) has this to say: "I wish I could share more,but for now I can say it’s pretty obvious to many that something is off with #Putin He has always been a killer,but his problem now is different & significant It would be a mistake to assume this Putin would react the same way he would have 5 years ago" Source: https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497393912821915648 https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497393912821915648 Later, Rubio says: "Let me stress again that we are NOT dealing with 2008 #Putin It is a grave error to assume he will make the same calculations & decisions today that he would have made in the past The old Putin was a cold blooded but calculating killer This new Putin is even more dangerous" https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497968757091807234 https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497968757091807234 Obviously, he's not going so far as to say that Putin has "lost his marbles" and Rubio definitely has his own agenda. My impression is that either Putin's cognitive state has changed over the last five years or Russia's doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate" has changed the playbook.
- ttyprintk 5y agoThe thing is, this has been completely predictable to US intelligence. So, he’s “off” but predictably-phased?
- colordrops 5y agoSorry but Marco Rubio is nothing but a stooge that says what ever is politically expedient.
- Arubis 5y agoI keep wondering this also. I’ve seen this line trotted out on social media _constantly_, and it’s utterly absent from more reputable publications. Are there real sources here? Not hypothetical—I’d be interested if you have them-but in their absence, this smells like the sort of thing you want your adversary to believe: “He’s a madman! He could do anything!” (As a related aside, it’s bizarre and uncomfortable knowing there’s certainly amped-up information wars going on right now, that we’re all likely exposed, and not necessarily being able to differentiate.)
- colordrops 5y agoJust watch this and it all makes sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=408 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE&t=408
- dukeofdoom 5y agoOr watch this ... more melodramatic version: https://www.tiktok.com/@melisa_stewart_2.0/video/7069416446807248134?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1 https://www.tiktok.com/@melisa_stewart_2.0/video/70694164468...
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y agoKind of reminds me about the enemies during the GWOT and how they were portrayed. They were always being portrayed as bloodthirsty maniacs who were beyond the cusp of reason and ABSOLUTELY had to be attacked.
- lumost 5y agoThis could be a play to force a mediated settlement. Playing on the fear of a nuclear escalation to force mediation by the NATO/China. A similar occurrence happened in the 1980s with South Africa's nuclear weapons. Unfortunately as the second largest nuclear power acting as a belligerent, such a threat could plausibly draw NATO directly into the conflict. I don't see a world where a country uses nukes in Europe without triggering a full NATO response. I also don't see a world where NATO negotiates under nuclear threat, to do so would present a long-term risk that Russia believes NATO will cave to nuclear threats and pushes the issue again.
- Mirioron 5y agoOne of the scenarios I keep thinking about is what if either side uses just one nuke. They let the other side know that they're going to use just one and do it. Do you respond to that with your full arsenal? Do you go tit-for-tat? Do you just let them get away with it?
- tacon 5y agoEchoes of the plot of Fail Safe[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film)
- lumost 5y agoThis was a common war game scenario in the Cold War. NATO semi-intentionally adopted the strategy that they would have enough troops in western Europe to fight an invasion, but that they would need tactical nukes to block the invasion. NATO war games were then focused on how the conflict escalates, with the general conclusion that both sides would engage in tit for tat strikes until some threshold was triggered and a full nuclear war broke out (Use it or lose it scenario). A close example to your scenario was South Africa's nuclear arsenal as well as (potentially) Israel's. The game theory somewhat works out if the belligerent party only has a few nukes and would be unable to escalate to full nuclear war due to lack of weapons. It's considered a dangerous and unstable scenario as such parties could actually use nukes without fear of MAD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_credibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_cre...