5 ms·

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 diplomati

by 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?
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"Two weeks ago it was (at least for civilians around here) unthinkable that Putin would invade Ukraine" Yup I was that idiot. Still I think it is even more stupid to start WW3 right now rather than act in response should that abomination of human decide to attack Europe. If we do not attack there is still a chance and a good one for that I think. If we do the chance might still exist but I think it would be pretty slim and do we really want to test it.
- lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  The EU/NATO is already over-extended as a polity. This is not how you win in the long run. Sweden/Finland have a complicated status with NATO. It's long been understood that extending NATO up to Russia's borders would trigger a response, which is why those countries have always partnered with NATO but never been technically a member. Indeed, through this whole debacle, the folks with brass balls have been the Swedes and the Finns. Ironically, that is part of Putin's public justification – that Ukraine may gain Finnish status. But the reality is that Sweden and Finland are very much socioeconomically Western, whereas Ukraine is not, which is partly what makes Ukraine much harder to defend. In order to defend them, they need to be part of the polity. The EU has already had a hard enough time with Poland and Romania.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >It's long been understood that extending NATO up to Russia's borders would trigger a response There's already a bunch of NATO countries bordering Russia in Europe. Maybe not to such a large extent that Finland would be, but there definitely is.
    - lambdasquirrel 5y ago
      Which is partly why Russia has been belligerent. The Swedes and Finns have an arrangement dating back to the Cold War. Estonia, et. al were admitted after it seemed the order had changed. But given how things turned out after the end of the Cold War, it makes it look all the more complicated in hindsight.
lnxg33k1 5y ago
I mean europeans I think have a background of waiting until it's too late, like Britain and France didn't look the other side while Hitler was annexing countries in central europe? Just to wake up when the nazis were in Paris? I think he has a point, Putin destroying Ukraine and taking on Baltic states is not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN
- c0l0 5y ago
  I think it is foolish to try to predict what Russia/Putin is up to once Ukraine has been dealt with (which, I assume, it/he will have achieved at some point in time). There are numerous reports of fact as well as opinion pieces published over the decades since the fall of the SU by esteemed and respected strategists which or who pointed at/predicted Russian military intervention, if NATO did not call off its eastward expansion plans. We have arrived at that point in 2008 already, and then again in 2014, and now finally also in 2022. For those wanting to involve NATO and set off WW3 along with the nuclear apocalypse, I wonder - why the rush? We can still nuke this planet's civilization to scraps after Russia's/Putin's plans for re-establishing the "Great Russian Empire" have materialzied - or rather, if they actually do. Please excuse my cynical undertone, but this reckless calling for intervention that may very well lead to a kind of catastrophic escalation that human history would never ever recover from REALLY scares the shit out of me :(
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    > For those wanting to involve NATO and set off WW3 along with the nuclear apocalypse, I wonder - why the rush? 1) Atrocities are being committed and innocent civilians are being killed right as you type this tone-deaf question. 2) Appeasing dictators only leads to escalation, and early intervention minimizes damage. This is not theoretical, just look at Putin's belligerent last decades. 3) The risk of Russia unleashing nuclear Armageddon over Ukraine is very small. For all intents and purposes the West is already involved militarily - doing so overtly would not fundamentally change the equation.
temp8964 5y ago
I thought German started WW2. Maybe I learned history wrong.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
> The people who want the USA/NATO to start World War 3... What would be the plan here, though. If Russia continues expanding towards, say, Moldavia, is NATO expected to contemplate the development? How big of a "buffer" does Russia need? Or better yet, what would be the next excuse?
- lnxg33k1 5y ago
  Just consider that until last week people in Europe were wondering if whether or not we needed NATO, while Putin had months of drills our politicians/intelligence were sleeping the best dreams
- q1w2 5y ago
  NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. I want those countries to join NATO. NATO members get military protection - non-NATO members do not. We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    But the world isn't divided into Russia, NATO, and countries no one cares if they're invaded. Just because a country is part of NATO, doesn't mean that that country can't respond to an invasion of a non-NATO country. And just because a country isn't part of NATO, doesn't mean they wouldn't help NATO either.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound: 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. 2. IIRC, Ukraine also sent troops to Afghanistan, which I believe was technically a defend-the-US NATO mission. > We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability. IIRC, that's mainly about the use of nuclear forces themselves. It's also possible to be too predictable, which lets someone rules-lawyer you into submission, or to be callously bureaucratic and legalistic.
tablespoon 5y ago
> If NATO enters this war it will make Iraq look like an overly rough game of laser tag in comparison. In the long run, NATO might not have a choice, and then it becomes a question about who picks the time to their advantage. Right now it looks like the Russian Army miscalculated and is quite vulnerable in Ukraine. However if they're allowed to grind away to a victory, they may very learn from their mistakes, fix their issues, and be emboldened to take on a NATO country (say, one of the Baltics), from a stronger position. If opposing the Russian Army (while they're invading an ally) unacceptably risks nuclear war, then there's really no option except cede to them whatever they want and hope that someday they'll be satisfied with less than all of it.

by themgt 5y ago

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?
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"Two weeks ago it was (at least for civilians around here) unthinkable that Putin would invade Ukraine" Yup I was that idiot. Still I think it is even more stupid to start WW3 right now rather than act in response should that abomination of human decide to attack Europe. If we do not attack there is still a chance and a good one for that I think. If we do the chance might still exist but I think it would be pretty slim and do we really want to test it.
lambdasquirrel 5y ago
The EU/NATO is already over-extended as a polity. This is not how you win in the long run. Sweden/Finland have a complicated status with NATO. It's long been understood that extending NATO up to Russia's borders would trigger a response, which is why those countries have always partnered with NATO but never been technically a member. Indeed, through this whole debacle, the folks with brass balls have been the Swedes and the Finns. Ironically, that is part of Putin's public justification – that Ukraine may gain Finnish status. But the reality is that Sweden and Finland are very much socioeconomically Western, whereas Ukraine is not, which is partly what makes Ukraine much harder to defend. In order to defend them, they need to be part of the polity. The EU has already had a hard enough time with Poland and Romania.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >It's long been understood that extending NATO up to Russia's borders would trigger a response There's already a bunch of NATO countries bordering Russia in Europe. Maybe not to such a large extent that Finland would be, but there definitely is.
  - lambdasquirrel 5y ago
    Which is partly why Russia has been belligerent. The Swedes and Finns have an arrangement dating back to the Cold War. Estonia, et. al were admitted after it seemed the order had changed. But given how things turned out after the end of the Cold War, it makes it look all the more complicated in hindsight.

lnxg33k1 5y ago

I mean europeans I think have a background of waiting until it's too late, like Britain and France didn't look the other side while Hitler was annexing countries in central europe? Just to wake up when the nazis were in Paris? I think he has a point, Putin destroying Ukraine and taking on Baltic states is not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN

c0l0 5y ago
I think it is foolish to try to predict what Russia/Putin is up to once Ukraine has been dealt with (which, I assume, it/he will have achieved at some point in time). There are numerous reports of fact as well as opinion pieces published over the decades since the fall of the SU by esteemed and respected strategists which or who pointed at/predicted Russian military intervention, if NATO did not call off its eastward expansion plans. We have arrived at that point in 2008 already, and then again in 2014, and now finally also in 2022. For those wanting to involve NATO and set off WW3 along with the nuclear apocalypse, I wonder - why the rush? We can still nuke this planet's civilization to scraps after Russia's/Putin's plans for re-establishing the "Great Russian Empire" have materialzied - or rather, if they actually do. Please excuse my cynical undertone, but this reckless calling for intervention that may very well lead to a kind of catastrophic escalation that human history would never ever recover from REALLY scares the shit out of me :(
- dazilcher 5y ago
  > For those wanting to involve NATO and set off WW3 along with the nuclear apocalypse, I wonder - why the rush? 1) Atrocities are being committed and innocent civilians are being killed right as you type this tone-deaf question. 2) Appeasing dictators only leads to escalation, and early intervention minimizes damage. This is not theoretical, just look at Putin's belligerent last decades. 3) The risk of Russia unleashing nuclear Armageddon over Ukraine is very small. For all intents and purposes the West is already involved militarily - doing so overtly would not fundamentally change the equation.

temp8964 5y ago

I thought German started WW2. Maybe I learned history wrong.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

> The people who want the USA/NATO to start World War 3... What would be the plan here, though. If Russia continues expanding towards, say, Moldavia, is NATO expected to contemplate the development? How big of a "buffer" does Russia need? Or better yet, what would be the next excuse?

lnxg33k1 5y ago
Just consider that until last week people in Europe were wondering if whether or not we needed NATO, while Putin had months of drills our politicians/intelligence were sleeping the best dreams
q1w2 5y ago
NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. I want those countries to join NATO. NATO members get military protection - non-NATO members do not. We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  But the world isn't divided into Russia, NATO, and countries no one cares if they're invaded. Just because a country is part of NATO, doesn't mean that that country can't respond to an invasion of a non-NATO country. And just because a country isn't part of NATO, doesn't mean they wouldn't help NATO either.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound: 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. 2. IIRC, Ukraine also sent troops to Afghanistan, which I believe was technically a defend-the-US NATO mission. > We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability. IIRC, that's mainly about the use of nuclear forces themselves. It's also possible to be too predictable, which lets someone rules-lawyer you into submission, or to be callously bureaucratic and legalistic.

tablespoon 5y ago

> If NATO enters this war it will make Iraq look like an overly rough game of laser tag in comparison. In the long run, NATO might not have a choice, and then it becomes a question about who picks the time to their advantage. Right now it looks like the Russian Army miscalculated and is quite vulnerable in Ukraine. However if they're allowed to grind away to a victory, they may very learn from their mistakes, fix their issues, and be emboldened to take on a NATO country (say, one of the Baltics), from a stronger position. If opposing the Russian Army (while they're invading an ally) unacceptably risks nuclear war, then there's really no option except cede to them whatever they want and hope that someday they'll be satisfied with less than all of it.