15 ms·

World War III has already started – Gary Kasparov

91 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

dr-detroit 5y ago
CrzyLngPwd 5y ago
Gary doesn't know any more than anyone else, and all we know is the propaganda we consume :-(
- sweetheart 5y ago
  I don't think it's a case of knowing more. What more is there to know, anyway? Unless we believe that there are extremely relevant moral or logistical justifications to what Russia is doing, we should have enough information to act. And the presence of propaganda (however that's being defined now), while super unfortunate, doesn't relieve us of our duty to act when there is injustice in the world. It can make it hard to know things, but we can still rely on what we can be confident is true: innocent people are being massacred. And if that moral argument alone doesn't seem to matter, the logistical one should; that we are the frog in the pot while the water slowly heats to a boil. It becomes a matter of confidence that the violence won't end here, regardless of how Ukraine shakes out.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  well I mean I would expect him to know more than me because I'm not Russian and I haven't as yet ever been an important asset for the Russian intelligence services to track.
  - CrzyLngPwd 5y ago
    You are important to me :-)
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. Mr Kasparov has been covering Russian politics for many years. e.g. from 2013 > "In chess the rules are fixed and the result is unknown, while too often in politics the results are fixed and the rules unknown, esp in Russia." https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896
  - CrzyLngPwd 5y ago
    Covering politics can range from "feverishly refreshing hackernews" to "Chatting to Mr Putin every week over a game of chess" (and letting him win, obvs). The one thing I do know, is that I do not know.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      >Covering politics can range from "feverishly refreshing hackernews" to "Chatting to Mr Putin every week over a game of chess" Indeed. > The one thing I do know, is that I do not know. Any you made zero effort to find out anything at all about the matter before asserting that "Gary doesn't know any more than anyone else" (about Russian politics) It's "Garry" not "Gary" BTW. He has written a book on the subject too BTW. Written in 2015, and seems to have been proved accurate by recent events. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945308-winter-is-coming https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945308-winter-is-comin...
baal80spam 5y ago
I'm currently reading his book - "Winter is Coming - Why Vladimir Putin and the enemies of the free world must be stopped". He warns against exactly what is happening right now.
amichail 5y ago
Maybe Gary Kasparov still wants to become president of Russia?
injb 5y ago
He makes a good point here though: if the threat of nuclear war stops NATO from intervening now, why wouldn't it stop them from responding to a relatively minor transgression? Do we expect Putin to believe that we won't risk nuclear war to save Ukranians, but we will risk it over the technical violation of a treaty? If the west does nothing now, they will likely be willing to tolerate more and still do nothing. He knows that.
- suction 5y ago
  Article 5 doesn't say "any threat will be met with a nuclear response", it will always have to be a symmetric response.
- lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  On the contrary, it's pretty clear what the red lines of NATO are – the territorial and sovereign integrity of its members (with some complicated bits, like the status of Sweden and Finland). The NATO response has very very much been calibrated for three things: 1. Do not send NATO troops to defend non-NATO members (with caveats, see Sweden/Finland). 2. Damage Putin as much as possible, within the constraints of the previous point, and 3. Try to give Putin a way out (again, complicated because different members have been less confrontational than others, but this has essentially been the theme). I'm sorry, Gary Kasparov might be good at chess, but he does not understand geopolitics.
  - macintux 5y ago
    > but he does not understand geopolitics. I believe he’s demonstrated for years that he does understand Putin, however, and predicted this scenario long in advance. So you may feel his advice is bad, but it’s also possible, even likely, that we have no good options and his is the most likely route to something resembling peace.
  - mortehu 5y ago
    You need to expand your model a bit to account for the 1999 NATO bombings of Yugoslavia.
spamizbad 5y ago
I admire his chess skills and standing up against Russia but it should be understood he is extremely pro-intervention. He wanted nuclear weapons employed by the west during the War On Terror. So on the topic of war I don’t consider him a careful or critical thinker
- noasaservice 5y ago
  Indeed. Its the same trope as artists, songwriters, and other popular people engage in. Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y. Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.
  - efdee 5y ago
    Kasparov has been involved in politics since the 1990s. Even more so since he retired as chess player in 2005. That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything? https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013) https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015) He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov" https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610 https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610
    - yucky 5y ago
      Not OP, but I believe their point was there is a difference between being known for something and being good at it. He was known for being good at chess. Now that he is already known, he spends his time focusing on politics. That doesn't mean he is as good at that as he was at chess. At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.
suction 5y ago
He's very good at stirring the pot, but I wonder if he has our best interest in mind making these claims. I still don't think any country in the world is keen on nuclear warfare, at least not yet, because not even Putin is that much of a fanatic. Xi definitely isn't.
- dathinab 5y ago
  But exactly this is also why the NATO can intervene. As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory). NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. Then it wouldn't be the NATOs choice weather or not to start a nuclear war, but Russias like it already is. Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. At the same time while thinks are not looking good, they also make it increasingly harder for China to take action against Taiwan... China might already be quite annoyed with Russia by now tbh. (If the war would have been over in a day it would have been a complete different matter.)
  - macintux 5y ago
    > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. Not true.
  - throwaway4aday 5y ago
    > As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory) You think Putin will just roll over and allow NATO to kill Russian soldiers? We've almost gone to war for a lot less than that, doing so would be an egregious act of war. > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. This means absolutely nothing, they also promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards and look what happened. > I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII > Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. I'm sorry, this is just so incredibly foolish. Do you honestly think nuclear war is not a big deal? All sides lose in a nuclear exchange, not just from the cities that will burn but from all of the ensuing fallout and climate effects. If you think CO2 is bad for the atmosphere just take a peek at what ash and dust clouds can do.
londons_explore 5y ago
Chess master's opinion on world politics...
- regnull 5y ago
  Perhaps you are not aware, but Kasparov was a major figure in Russian politics since 1990s.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Kasparov is better known for politics than for chess, for a long time now https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win...
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
meisel 5y ago
Kasparov also said “ there is real chess and women’s chess” and then lost to Judit Polgar
- javajosh 5y ago
  A great way to weaken a position is to make weak arguments in support of it. Externally, such a move opens an otherwise strong position up to new criticism. Internally, it invites internal dissension between those who agree on the main point. Ad hominem attacks are always weak.
  - meisel 5y ago
    On the other hand, I think people listen to his views on politics largely because he's well-known as a chess player. In a sense, people do the opposite of an ad hominem attack, by putting more stock in his arguments because of how respected he is in chess. We have to remember that he's as fallible as anyone else.
  - pupppet 5y ago
    We are only discussing this because of who he is, not because of his argument. I think it’s fair game.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  This is beside the point somewhat, but he never lost to her in classical chess. But what he did was worse than lose. He once played a losing move against her but realized it was losing...and changed the move to one that didn't lose. i.e. cheated. He did a similar thing with Nakamura a few years ago, which was ridiculous to watch. His opponents didn't protest, for whatever reasons. I don't know if it registers in his mind that he cheats. Sadly, that's the character of the greatest chess player of all time. Hopefully Magnus keeps playing a while longer and takes that title. The Polgar vs Kasparov incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_touch-move_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_tou... The Nakamura incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE p.s. His name is spelt Garry not Gary.
mgamache 5y ago
A smart man who has despised Putin for years is leveraging this crisis to push the west into full scale war. There are many people dying as a result of an unjust war, but I have yet to see evidence of "industrial scale genocide". Putin is an unstable man with enough nukes to render the planet uninhabitable. This is not WWIII yet. It sucks, but thousands of deaths is probably not worth risking the future of billions of humans.
- javajosh 5y ago
  Agree, with the addition that Kasparov is operating something like an attorney, zealously advocating for his client, or in this case, against his opponent. We shouldn't do what he says, but his voice is the purest anti-Putin sentiment in the world, and has been for a long time. Regarding nuclear brinkmanship, I suspect that a purely rational actor will lose: the nuclear thug will take some, then take some more, and each time the rational actor will acquiesce to avoid nuclear war. This will result in the nuclear thug taking over the world, piece by piece. Ergo, it makes sense to risk nuclear war, or at least convey that you're willing to risk it, because if you don't you lose.
  - throwaway4aday 5y ago
    That's the point of MAD. It's a Mexican Standoff, if anyone pulls the nuclear trigger then everyone does and everyone dies. That doesn't mean you can win by other means, any action that threatens the other party will be met with the nuclear option. The only players allowed to move or be moved upon are those outside of the game. Treaties like NATO can bring non-nuclear powers into the fold which serves to "protect" them but also signs them up for the suicide pact.
    - mgamache 5y ago
      MAD assumes rational actors. As soon as you introduce crazy people (AKA Putin) that no longer functions. Even if Putin is rational it's plausible that he is not, so he is an asymmetrical threat.
Ozzie_osman 5y ago
It's interesting to see this framed as "Putin is starting a war in Ukraine because he wants to expand Westward", vs Russia's own narrative that it is merely stopping NATO's expanse eastward. Ie each side thinks it is defending itself from the other. All while Ukrainians die. Anyway, I think Putin's aggression is a very bad thing, but I worry about hawkish posts like this that frame it as "we have no choice but to engage in armed conflict". THAT is how you get WWIII.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  I wish it didn't need to be said, but it bears mentioning that Russians are dying, too.
- david422 5y ago
  > we have no choice but to engage in armed conflict On which side though? That's exactly what Putin said.
tasha0663 5y ago
You know... That seems like just about the most click-bait title possible. I'm leaving that one alone. Dismissive? Maybe, but some things really are better left dismissed. Tell the mods I'm sorry, I'll review the guidelines again, and I'll try to be more substantive in the future - just not for this on a Friday.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
NoGravitas 5y ago
It's amazing to see how thirsty some people are for nuclear Armageddon. I suppose they think it won't affect them?
- q1w2 5y ago
  They are just letting their emotions cloud their thinking.
  - NoGravitas 5y ago
    Posadists are having a good week.
    - throwanem 5y ago
      This isn't the good week I want them to have. Can we just skip straight to the gay space dolphins? I bet they're super chill.
lucasyvas 5y ago
This does end in one of a few ways. Here's some: 1. Putin overwhelms Ukraine, via dirtier and dirtier tactics and we lose the leader of a generation (Putin Wins completely) 2. Ukraine resists for an unusual period of time, creating an even more irrational Putin (Conflict gets worse and wider spread, guaranteeing a world war) 3. Putin is knowingly targeted by his own ranks (Putin becomes cornered animal / nightmare scenario) 4. Put is taken out by his own people swiftly, and soon (We win) There are even more scenarios. I'm mostly trying to point out (via speculation), that the only bullet point that exists on this infinite list where we win is number 4. The rest are all bad and we are in the world's worst casino odds. Sanctions do not do nothing. But if Putin has complete control and everyone is too scared to touch him, then sanctions will do nothing and we have a much larger problem on our hands. We are kind of assuming he cares even a little bit about his own people. If he doesn't at all, we're fucked.
- le-mark 5y ago
  > is taken out by his own people swiftly, and soon (We win) The only way that’s a win is if someone better steps in, could very easily be someone worse.
  - lucasyvas 5y ago
    Well then I have no bullet points where we win :(
  - lnsru 5y ago
    How can you imagine someone worse? EDIT: very specific KGB education, weird imperialistic ambitions. Country with unimaginable resources and majority still living in XVIII century. Probably declining health combined with substance abuse. New imaginary friends from complete isolation every day.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    It's very unlikely that someone worse would step in. Even someone equally nuts would still likely prefer to stop fighting putin's farce of a war because it just makes them look weak.
terracatta 5y ago
Mr. Kasparov is using what seems to be a very fatalist viewpoint (WWIII has already started) to demand we accelerate the timeline. Is there a version of WWIII where nukes are not lobbed around the world? I don't think so. If that's right, then Gary is asking us to accelerate a timeline toward the end-game, mutually assured destruction and our modern world ending as we know it. Mr. Kasparov implies that cratering the Russian economy with sanctions, isolating the country, ruining the lives of the Russian Oligarchs, are the actions of weakness. In my very western view, they are not. If there is even a slim chance Mr. Kasparov is wrong and the non direct military pressures being exerted upon Russia will ultimately erode Putin's ability to exert authority on his slowly starving, battle weary, and drained military, then we have to do everything we can to increase that chance. We need to take as many bullets out of the gun as we can before Putin pulls the trigger. There isn't going to be a World War IV.
- panarky 5y ago
  Either Putin is a madman willing to trigger mutually assured destruction, or he's not. From your post, it appears you believe he's not a madman in the face of economic strangulation, and he's also not a madman when the West supplies weapons that kill his forces. If the sanctions and the weapons work to lose him the war, does he retain his sanity? Or does he only remain sane if the sanctions and weapons fail, and he prevails in Ukraine?
sudden_dystopia 5y ago
Jesus Gary, chill out. I would prefer for my children not to die in thermo nuclear war, thank you.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  Why do you think our current (weak) stance will avoid it? A lot of people are really not convinced of that, including Gary but also many military experts.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Of course they're not convinced. They are paid to promote war.
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      Not civilisation ending war; what's the use of being paid for that?
      - waffleiron 5y ago
        Not intended as a serious answer, but your questions reminded me of this comic. https://twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656?lang=gl https://twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656?lang=g...
      - smorgusofborg 5y ago
        What's the use of being a shill for civilisation ending environmental policy? I think Dr. Strangelove himself demonstrates the character profile.. If the world is going to stick to a sanctions plan it needs to destroy all those pipelines now and sanction Russian Oil, shutting down only the parts of Russia's economy that don't reinforce Putin's power is only going to work if it has been done early enough and it has been over 2 decades, so probably it is not.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        It's not like the care what happens after the sale...
stewx 5y ago
*Garry
themgt 5y ago
The people who want the USA/NATO to start World War 3 (some of whom like Fiona "we're already in WW3"[1] Hill played key roles in preventing a pre-war diplomatic off-ramp) are doing their damndest to propagandize the public into supporting WW3. "World War 3 has already started, don't you see it would be more dangerous not to shoot down Russian planes? The nuke plant is melting down and a Russian talk column is headed to Berlin next. The Ghost of Kyiv just needs a wingman to complete his mission in memory of the Snake Island 13!" If NATO enters this war it will make Iraq look like an overly rough game of laser tag in comparison. Don't immanentize the eschaton! [1] https://twitter.com/KaminskiMK/status/1498377775350267906 https://twitter.com/KaminskiMK/status/1498377775350267906
- lnsru 5y ago
  Do you think, Putin will stop at Ukraine’s border? I already see Moldova in the queue. And Finland (as non NATO member) as next targets.
  - firstSpeaker 5y ago
    How do you see that? Could you elaborate a bit (factually)?
    - lnsru 5y ago
      Moldova: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria Very similar operation to the other separatists states near former Soviet Union border.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Finland is not in the NATO but it is an EU member, which has a similar mutual defense clause. So at that point Russia is already attacking a state with nuclear weapons. Obviously, "unthinkable" is now struck out. Two weeks ago it was (at least for civilians around here) unthinkable that Putin would invade Ukraine (and many Ukrainians seem to have been of a similar opinion). Last week it was unthinkable that Russia would start to level Ukrainian cities. What's unthinkable this week?
slibhb 5y ago
If NATO, through private channels, said to the Russians "start to leave Ukraine in 36 hours or we will enter Ukraine through Poland and force you out. We will not enter Russia," do you think Putin would use nuclear weapons?
- joss82 5y ago
  This is the most important question right now.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  They should say it through public channels then.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    Saying it privately gives the Russians a chance to negotiate something with Ukraine and/or act like this operation was a short incursion and save face.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I think odds are good he would nuclear strike kyiv. But not the west.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
  They've already called that bluff, it's no use attempting to bluff again. The current bet is that NATO will not get involved militarily because doing so is armageddon. They knew there would be sanctions and they knew there would be material aid so whatever they have planned will play out on a short enough timeline that the sanctions won't starve it and with some number of predicted losses. I don't think they've fully played their hand yet, it seems like they're setting something up.
potato 5y ago
Direct military confrontation between the two largest nuclear powers in the world is when World War III starts.
regnull 5y ago
For those of you who say "we can't provoke Russia" and "we can't risk a nuclear war", I'd like to ask, how far are you willing to go to prevent a nuclear war? I assume you are OK with losing Ukraine. How about Poland? Baltics? Finland? Western Europe? Alaska? And yes, there was calls in Russia to "get Alaska back". What's that? You say "it can't happen"? The same thing was said about Ukraine before, and yet here we are. Imagine this situation: Putin overruns one of the Baltic countries, a NATO member. Then he says, if anyone intervenes, there will be a nuclear war. What then? Avoid the war at all costs? It didn't work that great in history, it wouldn't work now.
FpUser 5y ago
>"Biden & others insist NATO would retaliate should Putin attack Baltic members. Watching Ukraine, I am not sure of that at all, and Putin won't be either. " Of course Gary. We'll just start WW3 right now so that you can be sure. I did not know playing chess melts one's brain to such degree. If you are so brave what are you doing sitting in NY? Go buy a ticket to Kyiv and join the fight. You can still post from there.
- noxer 5y ago
  In chess the end justifies all means. You can win with only the king left doesn't matter if the others died form radiation and it also doesn't matter if the chess board is still usable after the game.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
He's exactly right — Putin and Lukashenko don't care about the fineprint. They don't care about following the rules. They are breaking all the rules, and continuing to lie about it while doing it. The pacifism of the Western powers is directly fuelling Putin's brutality. And when Russia comes to the West? What does the West do? Oh, we take photos, apparently. https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-officials-after-fighter-jets-fly-near-gotland-island https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-o... NATO: No Action; Talk Only.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  Sweden is not a NATO member, and is not a "Western power" (implying some substantial/unusually high military potency). If Sweden were invaded by Russia the West (meaning NATO) might intervene on its behalf, but there is no treaty or law requiring it to do so.
lhnz 5y ago
Unfortunately, I agree. We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nuclear power. But what signal does it send Moscow and the world and where will it end? That we won't fight even when a country that is our friend is razed? Does he even believe that we'll defend ourselves if he decides to conquer Europe? Perhaps we will lay down our arms in order to avoid nuclear war.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The West is definitely not standing by, they have issued unprecedented sanctions. Of course we're clearly not facing a rational actor, so there's no telling when intervention will be "enough". But sanctions are not necessarily worse or less impactful than the alternative being proposed here.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them. I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable. Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ianleeclark 5y ago
      > Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
      - lhnz 5y ago
another_why 5y ago
[flagged]
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Are you blind? - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60567162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60567162 - https://t.me/odessa_info01/19201 https://t.me/odessa_info01/19201
  - another_why 5y ago
    Any info on why did they do this?
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      Because the Russian military have chosen to target and kill civilians, sometimes with weapons that the use of which constitute war crimes. The aim is to force Ukraine into capitulation so that Putin can overthrow the current government and ensure Russia's sphere of influence.
      - another_why 5y ago
        Sounds reasonable. Seems like the government doesn't care much
fellellor 5y ago
This is idiotic. I don’t want to die in a nuclear blast, or because of the following radiation, or get beaten to death in the mad max world that follows all this idiocy. I empathise with Ukraine and understand anything they do or say to make sure their country and freedom survives. But i sure as fuck don’t care enough about them to invite the apocalypse. Screw Gary K. Screw Putin. Screw NATO. And most of all screw Twitter and may god damn it to hell.
- another_why 5y ago
  Amen, bro
ukraineally 5y ago
The best way to end the war is diplomacy and sanctions. Not making the war much deadlier and larger. Ukraine didn't join military alliances. This isn't our war. Russia has done lots of things before this, but they weren't invasion of a sovereign nation. We don't approve of this war ethically or morally. Russia is no longer invited to be involved with us in any way.
- candiodari 5y ago
  I kind of agree, but there must be a red line. Otherwise ... well the diplomacy and sanctions approach proved rather problematic historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War (or "Sitzkrieg") And, most ridiculous of all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_World_War_II,_1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_... There is a point where war is unavoidable, and the problem with fights between 2 parties is simple: if one party believes it is in a fight ... you're in a fight. It does not matter what the other party thinks. If Putin believes we're at war with Russia, we are at war with Russia and we will need to fight. Fight a little or a lot? Today we could fight a little. Tomorrow we will have to fight a lot.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    Our red line is NATO, same as it always was. And will Russia have greater or lesser capability to wage war in a year or two, with their economy ruined by sanctions? Dependence on international trade today is far greater than anyone could have dreamed in the 1930s, and it's dangerous to try to force historical analogies that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      I agree with Gary Kasparov on that. Would you be willing to deal with a nuke close by for Estonia? For Finland? I think not. If Putin agrees, we may well find out.
Havoc 5y ago
All good and well saying respond with strength etc…but does open the possibility of that approach failing and suddenly you’re in a full blown ww3 Definitely not ideal but I can understand the reluctance to go that route. Very much all or nothing
easywood 5y ago
”Putin is not afraid to use nukes so just attack him already, what are you waiting for?” To me this proves that a grandmaster in chess is not by default a grandmaster in strategy.
lamontcg 5y ago
WWIII started back in Korea and Vietnam then. The soviets were sending SAMs and soviet operators into Vietnam which shot down American planes. That was more directly WWIII than where we're at now. And we are sending a massive amount of Swedish AT4 antitank weapons, along with stingers, javelins, planes and the surprisingly effective turkish drones. There is this line that we can't cross which is sending NATO troops directly into Ukraine, which is just insane logic driven by nuclear weapons. If you do that you risk response directly on sites in NATO countries and can tit-for-tat into a "strategic missile exchange" that risks the entire planet. There is a reasonably agreed upon policy for keeping conflicts between superpowers contained so that they don't boil over into nuking the planet and we're following that policy. That means Ukrainians have to do all the dying. The alternative is everyone dies.
kisstheblade 5y ago
Why is it considered "all or nothing" when discussing NATO involvement? NATO has been known to defend (or "defend", take your pick) multiple non-NATO countries in the past, no total war started. So if NATO put troops in ukraine to just defend it (not attacking pro-actively russian forces or territories), what would happen? Is the scare now that Putin is so mad that he would immediately start nuking random NATO cities around the world if that happened?

91 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

dr-detroit 5y ago

CrzyLngPwd 5y ago

Gary doesn't know any more than anyone else, and all we know is the propaganda we consume :-(

sweetheart 5y ago
I don't think it's a case of knowing more. What more is there to know, anyway? Unless we believe that there are extremely relevant moral or logistical justifications to what Russia is doing, we should have enough information to act. And the presence of propaganda (however that's being defined now), while super unfortunate, doesn't relieve us of our duty to act when there is injustice in the world. It can make it hard to know things, but we can still rely on what we can be confident is true: innocent people are being massacred. And if that moral argument alone doesn't seem to matter, the logistical one should; that we are the frog in the pot while the water slowly heats to a boil. It becomes a matter of confidence that the violence won't end here, regardless of how Ukraine shakes out.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
well I mean I would expect him to know more than me because I'm not Russian and I haven't as yet ever been an important asset for the Russian intelligence services to track.
- CrzyLngPwd 5y ago
  You are important to me :-)
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
I don't think that's accurate. Mr Kasparov has been covering Russian politics for many years. e.g. from 2013 > "In chess the rules are fixed and the result is unknown, while too often in politics the results are fixed and the rules unknown, esp in Russia." https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896
- CrzyLngPwd 5y ago
  Covering politics can range from "feverishly refreshing hackernews" to "Chatting to Mr Putin every week over a game of chess" (and letting him win, obvs). The one thing I do know, is that I do not know.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    >Covering politics can range from "feverishly refreshing hackernews" to "Chatting to Mr Putin every week over a game of chess" Indeed. > The one thing I do know, is that I do not know. Any you made zero effort to find out anything at all about the matter before asserting that "Gary doesn't know any more than anyone else" (about Russian politics) It's "Garry" not "Gary" BTW. He has written a book on the subject too BTW. Written in 2015, and seems to have been proved accurate by recent events. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945308-winter-is-coming https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945308-winter-is-comin...

baal80spam 5y ago

I'm currently reading his book - "Winter is Coming - Why Vladimir Putin and the enemies of the free world must be stopped". He warns against exactly what is happening right now.

amichail 5y ago

Maybe Gary Kasparov still wants to become president of Russia?

injb 5y ago

He makes a good point here though: if the threat of nuclear war stops NATO from intervening now, why wouldn't it stop them from responding to a relatively minor transgression? Do we expect Putin to believe that we won't risk nuclear war to save Ukranians, but we will risk it over the technical violation of a treaty? If the west does nothing now, they will likely be willing to tolerate more and still do nothing. He knows that.

suction 5y ago
Article 5 doesn't say "any threat will be met with a nuclear response", it will always have to be a symmetric response.
lambdasquirrel 5y ago
On the contrary, it's pretty clear what the red lines of NATO are – the territorial and sovereign integrity of its members (with some complicated bits, like the status of Sweden and Finland). The NATO response has very very much been calibrated for three things: 1. Do not send NATO troops to defend non-NATO members (with caveats, see Sweden/Finland). 2. Damage Putin as much as possible, within the constraints of the previous point, and 3. Try to give Putin a way out (again, complicated because different members have been less confrontational than others, but this has essentially been the theme). I'm sorry, Gary Kasparov might be good at chess, but he does not understand geopolitics.
- macintux 5y ago
  > but he does not understand geopolitics. I believe he’s demonstrated for years that he does understand Putin, however, and predicted this scenario long in advance. So you may feel his advice is bad, but it’s also possible, even likely, that we have no good options and his is the most likely route to something resembling peace.
- mortehu 5y ago
  You need to expand your model a bit to account for the 1999 NATO bombings of Yugoslavia.

spamizbad 5y ago

I admire his chess skills and standing up against Russia but it should be understood he is extremely pro-intervention. He wanted nuclear weapons employed by the west during the War On Terror. So on the topic of war I don’t consider him a careful or critical thinker

noasaservice 5y ago
Indeed. Its the same trope as artists, songwriters, and other popular people engage in. Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y. Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.
- efdee 5y ago
  Kasparov has been involved in politics since the 1990s. Even more so since he retired as chess player in 2005. That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything? https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013) https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015) He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov" https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610 https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610
  - yucky 5y ago
    Not OP, but I believe their point was there is a difference between being known for something and being good at it. He was known for being good at chess. Now that he is already known, he spends his time focusing on politics. That doesn't mean he is as good at that as he was at chess. At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.

suction 5y ago

He's very good at stirring the pot, but I wonder if he has our best interest in mind making these claims. I still don't think any country in the world is keen on nuclear warfare, at least not yet, because not even Putin is that much of a fanatic. Xi definitely isn't.

dathinab 5y ago
But exactly this is also why the NATO can intervene. As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory). NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. Then it wouldn't be the NATOs choice weather or not to start a nuclear war, but Russias like it already is. Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. At the same time while thinks are not looking good, they also make it increasingly harder for China to take action against Taiwan... China might already be quite annoyed with Russia by now tbh. (If the war would have been over in a day it would have been a complete different matter.)
- macintux 5y ago
  > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. Not true.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
  > As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory) You think Putin will just roll over and allow NATO to kill Russian soldiers? We've almost gone to war for a lot less than that, doing so would be an egregious act of war. > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. This means absolutely nothing, they also promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards and look what happened. > I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII > Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. I'm sorry, this is just so incredibly foolish. Do you honestly think nuclear war is not a big deal? All sides lose in a nuclear exchange, not just from the cities that will burn but from all of the ensuing fallout and climate effects. If you think CO2 is bad for the atmosphere just take a peek at what ash and dust clouds can do.

londons_explore 5y ago

Chess master's opinion on world politics...

regnull 5y ago
Perhaps you are not aware, but Kasparov was a major figure in Russian politics since 1990s.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Kasparov is better known for politics than for chess, for a long time now https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win...
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

meisel 5y ago

Kasparov also said “ there is real chess and women’s chess” and then lost to Judit Polgar

javajosh 5y ago
A great way to weaken a position is to make weak arguments in support of it. Externally, such a move opens an otherwise strong position up to new criticism. Internally, it invites internal dissension between those who agree on the main point. Ad hominem attacks are always weak.
- meisel 5y ago
  On the other hand, I think people listen to his views on politics largely because he's well-known as a chess player. In a sense, people do the opposite of an ad hominem attack, by putting more stock in his arguments because of how respected he is in chess. We have to remember that he's as fallible as anyone else.
- pupppet 5y ago
  We are only discussing this because of who he is, not because of his argument. I think it’s fair game.
yesenadam 5y ago
This is beside the point somewhat, but he never lost to her in classical chess. But what he did was worse than lose. He once played a losing move against her but realized it was losing...and changed the move to one that didn't lose. i.e. cheated. He did a similar thing with Nakamura a few years ago, which was ridiculous to watch. His opponents didn't protest, for whatever reasons. I don't know if it registers in his mind that he cheats. Sadly, that's the character of the greatest chess player of all time. Hopefully Magnus keeps playing a while longer and takes that title. The Polgar vs Kasparov incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_touch-move_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_tou... The Nakamura incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE p.s. His name is spelt Garry not Gary.

mgamache 5y ago

A smart man who has despised Putin for years is leveraging this crisis to push the west into full scale war. There are many people dying as a result of an unjust war, but I have yet to see evidence of "industrial scale genocide". Putin is an unstable man with enough nukes to render the planet uninhabitable. This is not WWIII yet. It sucks, but thousands of deaths is probably not worth risking the future of billions of humans.

javajosh 5y ago
Agree, with the addition that Kasparov is operating something like an attorney, zealously advocating for his client, or in this case, against his opponent. We shouldn't do what he says, but his voice is the purest anti-Putin sentiment in the world, and has been for a long time. Regarding nuclear brinkmanship, I suspect that a purely rational actor will lose: the nuclear thug will take some, then take some more, and each time the rational actor will acquiesce to avoid nuclear war. This will result in the nuclear thug taking over the world, piece by piece. Ergo, it makes sense to risk nuclear war, or at least convey that you're willing to risk it, because if you don't you lose.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
  That's the point of MAD. It's a Mexican Standoff, if anyone pulls the nuclear trigger then everyone does and everyone dies. That doesn't mean you can win by other means, any action that threatens the other party will be met with the nuclear option. The only players allowed to move or be moved upon are those outside of the game. Treaties like NATO can bring non-nuclear powers into the fold which serves to "protect" them but also signs them up for the suicide pact.
  - mgamache 5y ago
    MAD assumes rational actors. As soon as you introduce crazy people (AKA Putin) that no longer functions. Even if Putin is rational it's plausible that he is not, so he is an asymmetrical threat.

Ozzie_osman 5y ago

It's interesting to see this framed as "Putin is starting a war in Ukraine because he wants to expand Westward", vs Russia's own narrative that it is merely stopping NATO's expanse eastward. Ie each side thinks it is defending itself from the other. All while Ukrainians die. Anyway, I think Putin's aggression is a very bad thing, but I worry about hawkish posts like this that frame it as "we have no choice but to engage in armed conflict". THAT is how you get WWIII.

jimmygrapes 5y ago
I wish it didn't need to be said, but it bears mentioning that Russians are dying, too.
david422 5y ago
> we have no choice but to engage in armed conflict On which side though? That's exactly what Putin said.

tasha0663 5y ago

You know... That seems like just about the most click-bait title possible. I'm leaving that one alone. Dismissive? Maybe, but some things really are better left dismissed. Tell the mods I'm sorry, I'll review the guidelines again, and I'll try to be more substantive in the future - just not for this on a Friday.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

NoGravitas 5y ago

It's amazing to see how thirsty some people are for nuclear Armageddon. I suppose they think it won't affect them?

q1w2 5y ago
They are just letting their emotions cloud their thinking.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  Posadists are having a good week.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    This isn't the good week I want them to have. Can we just skip straight to the gay space dolphins? I bet they're super chill.

lucasyvas 5y ago

This does end in one of a few ways. Here's some: 1. Putin overwhelms Ukraine, via dirtier and dirtier tactics and we lose the leader of a generation (Putin Wins completely) 2. Ukraine resists for an unusual period of time, creating an even more irrational Putin (Conflict gets worse and wider spread, guaranteeing a world war) 3. Putin is knowingly targeted by his own ranks (Putin becomes cornered animal / nightmare scenario) 4. Put is taken out by his own people swiftly, and soon (We win) There are even more scenarios. I'm mostly trying to point out (via speculation), that the only bullet point that exists on this infinite list where we win is number 4. The rest are all bad and we are in the world's worst casino odds. Sanctions do not do nothing. But if Putin has complete control and everyone is too scared to touch him, then sanctions will do nothing and we have a much larger problem on our hands. We are kind of assuming he cares even a little bit about his own people. If he doesn't at all, we're fucked.

le-mark 5y ago
> is taken out by his own people swiftly, and soon (We win) The only way that’s a win is if someone better steps in, could very easily be someone worse.
- lucasyvas 5y ago
  Well then I have no bullet points where we win :(
- lnsru 5y ago
  How can you imagine someone worse? EDIT: very specific KGB education, weird imperialistic ambitions. Country with unimaginable resources and majority still living in XVIII century. Probably declining health combined with substance abuse. New imaginary friends from complete isolation every day.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  It's very unlikely that someone worse would step in. Even someone equally nuts would still likely prefer to stop fighting putin's farce of a war because it just makes them look weak.

terracatta 5y ago

Mr. Kasparov is using what seems to be a very fatalist viewpoint (WWIII has already started) to demand we accelerate the timeline. Is there a version of WWIII where nukes are not lobbed around the world? I don't think so. If that's right, then Gary is asking us to accelerate a timeline toward the end-game, mutually assured destruction and our modern world ending as we know it. Mr. Kasparov implies that cratering the Russian economy with sanctions, isolating the country, ruining the lives of the Russian Oligarchs, are the actions of weakness. In my very western view, they are not. If there is even a slim chance Mr. Kasparov is wrong and the non direct military pressures being exerted upon Russia will ultimately erode Putin's ability to exert authority on his slowly starving, battle weary, and drained military, then we have to do everything we can to increase that chance. We need to take as many bullets out of the gun as we can before Putin pulls the trigger. There isn't going to be a World War IV.

panarky 5y ago
Either Putin is a madman willing to trigger mutually assured destruction, or he's not. From your post, it appears you believe he's not a madman in the face of economic strangulation, and he's also not a madman when the West supplies weapons that kill his forces. If the sanctions and the weapons work to lose him the war, does he retain his sanity? Or does he only remain sane if the sanctions and weapons fail, and he prevails in Ukraine?

sudden_dystopia 5y ago

Jesus Gary, chill out. I would prefer for my children not to die in thermo nuclear war, thank you.

tluyben2 5y ago
Why do you think our current (weak) stance will avoid it? A lot of people are really not convinced of that, including Gary but also many military experts.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Of course they're not convinced. They are paid to promote war.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Not civilisation ending war; what's the use of being paid for that?
    - waffleiron 5y ago
      Not intended as a serious answer, but your questions reminded me of this comic. https://twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656?lang=gl https://twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656?lang=g...
    - smorgusofborg 5y ago
      What's the use of being a shill for civilisation ending environmental policy? I think Dr. Strangelove himself demonstrates the character profile.. If the world is going to stick to a sanctions plan it needs to destroy all those pipelines now and sanction Russian Oil, shutting down only the parts of Russia's economy that don't reinforce Putin's power is only going to work if it has been done early enough and it has been over 2 decades, so probably it is not.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      It's not like the care what happens after the sale...

stewx 5y ago

*Garry

themgt 5y ago

The people who want the USA/NATO to start World War 3 (some of whom like Fiona "we're already in WW3"[1] Hill played key roles in preventing a pre-war diplomatic off-ramp) are doing their damndest to propagandize the public into supporting WW3. "World War 3 has already started, don't you see it would be more dangerous not to shoot down Russian planes? The nuke plant is melting down and a Russian talk column is headed to Berlin next. The Ghost of Kyiv just needs a wingman to complete his mission in memory of the Snake Island 13!" If NATO enters this war it will make Iraq look like an overly rough game of laser tag in comparison. Don't immanentize the eschaton! [1] https://twitter.com/KaminskiMK/status/1498377775350267906 https://twitter.com/KaminskiMK/status/1498377775350267906

lnsru 5y ago
Do you think, Putin will stop at Ukraine’s border? I already see Moldova in the queue. And Finland (as non NATO member) as next targets.
- firstSpeaker 5y ago
  How do you see that? Could you elaborate a bit (factually)?
  - lnsru 5y ago
    Moldova: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria Very similar operation to the other separatists states near former Soviet Union border.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Finland is not in the NATO but it is an EU member, which has a similar mutual defense clause. So at that point Russia is already attacking a state with nuclear weapons. Obviously, "unthinkable" is now struck out. Two weeks ago it was (at least for civilians around here) unthinkable that Putin would invade Ukraine (and many Ukrainians seem to have been of a similar opinion). Last week it was unthinkable that Russia would start to level Ukrainian cities. What's unthinkable this week?

slibhb 5y ago

If NATO, through private channels, said to the Russians "start to leave Ukraine in 36 hours or we will enter Ukraine through Poland and force you out. We will not enter Russia," do you think Putin would use nuclear weapons?

joss82 5y ago
This is the most important question right now.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
They should say it through public channels then.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Saying it privately gives the Russians a chance to negotiate something with Ukraine and/or act like this operation was a short incursion and save face.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
I think odds are good he would nuclear strike kyiv. But not the west.
throwaway4aday 5y ago
They've already called that bluff, it's no use attempting to bluff again. The current bet is that NATO will not get involved militarily because doing so is armageddon. They knew there would be sanctions and they knew there would be material aid so whatever they have planned will play out on a short enough timeline that the sanctions won't starve it and with some number of predicted losses. I don't think they've fully played their hand yet, it seems like they're setting something up.

potato 5y ago

Direct military confrontation between the two largest nuclear powers in the world is when World War III starts.

regnull 5y ago

For those of you who say "we can't provoke Russia" and "we can't risk a nuclear war", I'd like to ask, how far are you willing to go to prevent a nuclear war? I assume you are OK with losing Ukraine. How about Poland? Baltics? Finland? Western Europe? Alaska? And yes, there was calls in Russia to "get Alaska back". What's that? You say "it can't happen"? The same thing was said about Ukraine before, and yet here we are. Imagine this situation: Putin overruns one of the Baltic countries, a NATO member. Then he says, if anyone intervenes, there will be a nuclear war. What then? Avoid the war at all costs? It didn't work that great in history, it wouldn't work now.

FpUser 5y ago

>"Biden & others insist NATO would retaliate should Putin attack Baltic members. Watching Ukraine, I am not sure of that at all, and Putin won't be either. " Of course Gary. We'll just start WW3 right now so that you can be sure. I did not know playing chess melts one's brain to such degree. If you are so brave what are you doing sitting in NY? Go buy a ticket to Kyiv and join the fight. You can still post from there.

noxer 5y ago
In chess the end justifies all means. You can win with only the king left doesn't matter if the others died form radiation and it also doesn't matter if the chess board is still usable after the game.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

He's exactly right — Putin and Lukashenko don't care about the fineprint. They don't care about following the rules. They are breaking all the rules, and continuing to lie about it while doing it. The pacifism of the Western powers is directly fuelling Putin's brutality. And when Russia comes to the West? What does the West do? Oh, we take photos, apparently. https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-officials-after-fighter-jets-fly-near-gotland-island https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-o... NATO: No Action; Talk Only.

TMWNN 5y ago
Sweden is not a NATO member, and is not a "Western power" (implying some substantial/unusually high military potency). If Sweden were invaded by Russia the West (meaning NATO) might intervene on its behalf, but there is no treaty or law requiring it to do so.

lhnz 5y ago

Unfortunately, I agree. We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nuclear power. But what signal does it send Moscow and the world and where will it end? That we won't fight even when a country that is our friend is razed? Does he even believe that we'll defend ourselves if he decides to conquer Europe? Perhaps we will lay down our arms in order to avoid nuclear war.

zozbot234 5y ago
The West is definitely not standing by, they have issued unprecedented sanctions. Of course we're clearly not facing a rational actor, so there's no telling when intervention will be "enough". But sanctions are not necessarily worse or less impactful than the alternative being proposed here.
- lhnz 5y ago
  The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them. I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable. Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ianleeclark 5y ago
    > Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
    - lhnz 5y ago

another_why 5y ago

[flagged]

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Are you blind? - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60567162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60567162 - https://t.me/odessa_info01/19201 https://t.me/odessa_info01/19201
- another_why 5y ago
  Any info on why did they do this?
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    Because the Russian military have chosen to target and kill civilians, sometimes with weapons that the use of which constitute war crimes. The aim is to force Ukraine into capitulation so that Putin can overthrow the current government and ensure Russia's sphere of influence.
    - another_why 5y ago
      Sounds reasonable. Seems like the government doesn't care much

fellellor 5y ago

This is idiotic. I don’t want to die in a nuclear blast, or because of the following radiation, or get beaten to death in the mad max world that follows all this idiocy. I empathise with Ukraine and understand anything they do or say to make sure their country and freedom survives. But i sure as fuck don’t care enough about them to invite the apocalypse. Screw Gary K. Screw Putin. Screw NATO. And most of all screw Twitter and may god damn it to hell.

another_why 5y ago
Amen, bro

ukraineally 5y ago

The best way to end the war is diplomacy and sanctions. Not making the war much deadlier and larger. Ukraine didn't join military alliances. This isn't our war. Russia has done lots of things before this, but they weren't invasion of a sovereign nation. We don't approve of this war ethically or morally. Russia is no longer invited to be involved with us in any way.

candiodari 5y ago
I kind of agree, but there must be a red line. Otherwise ... well the diplomacy and sanctions approach proved rather problematic historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War (or "Sitzkrieg") And, most ridiculous of all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_World_War_II,_1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_... There is a point where war is unavoidable, and the problem with fights between 2 parties is simple: if one party believes it is in a fight ... you're in a fight. It does not matter what the other party thinks. If Putin believes we're at war with Russia, we are at war with Russia and we will need to fight. Fight a little or a lot? Today we could fight a little. Tomorrow we will have to fight a lot.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  Our red line is NATO, same as it always was. And will Russia have greater or lesser capability to wage war in a year or two, with their economy ruined by sanctions? Dependence on international trade today is far greater than anyone could have dreamed in the 1930s, and it's dangerous to try to force historical analogies that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    I agree with Gary Kasparov on that. Would you be willing to deal with a nuke close by for Estonia? For Finland? I think not. If Putin agrees, we may well find out.

Havoc 5y ago

All good and well saying respond with strength etc…but does open the possibility of that approach failing and suddenly you’re in a full blown ww3 Definitely not ideal but I can understand the reluctance to go that route. Very much all or nothing

easywood 5y ago

”Putin is not afraid to use nukes so just attack him already, what are you waiting for?” To me this proves that a grandmaster in chess is not by default a grandmaster in strategy.

lamontcg 5y ago

WWIII started back in Korea and Vietnam then. The soviets were sending SAMs and soviet operators into Vietnam which shot down American planes. That was more directly WWIII than where we're at now. And we are sending a massive amount of Swedish AT4 antitank weapons, along with stingers, javelins, planes and the surprisingly effective turkish drones. There is this line that we can't cross which is sending NATO troops directly into Ukraine, which is just insane logic driven by nuclear weapons. If you do that you risk response directly on sites in NATO countries and can tit-for-tat into a "strategic missile exchange" that risks the entire planet. There is a reasonably agreed upon policy for keeping conflicts between superpowers contained so that they don't boil over into nuking the planet and we're following that policy. That means Ukrainians have to do all the dying. The alternative is everyone dies.

kisstheblade 5y ago

Why is it considered "all or nothing" when discussing NATO involvement? NATO has been known to defend (or "defend", take your pick) multiple non-NATO countries in the past, no total war started. So if NATO put troops in ukraine to just defend it (not attacking pro-actively russian forces or territories), what would happen? Is the scare now that Putin is so mad that he would immediately start nuking random NATO cities around the world if that happened?