7 ms·
We're playing chicken with a lunatic. He knows that. We know that. He knows we know that. His only play is to act (?) even crazier. 'War' means nuclear war, m
by mabbo 5y ago
We're playing chicken with a lunatic. He knows that. We know that. He knows we know that.
His only play is to act (?) even crazier.
'War' means nuclear war, means the death of probably a large portion of the world population. It's the thing we thought we could stop worrying about 30 years ago.
He doesn't like that he's clearly losing, so he's decided to threaten the end times if he can't get his way. And it might even work, if we truly believe he'll do it.
The problem is the best way he can prove that is to crack the atom over Kyiv.
- OmarIsmail 5y agoIf he drops a nuke on Kyiv I honestly don’t know how the world will or even “should” respond. It really goes to show that nukes just shouldn’t exist- there’s no “counter” to them if the other side is suicidal
- hutrdvnj 5y agoHonestly, if throwing nukes in Europe, including nuclear fallout over NATO states, is not the red line, then there isn't any. If you allow Putin to throw nukes and answer with more economic sanctions, then the West is a complete joke.
- jl6 5y agoOn the red line: https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4 https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4
- belter 5y agoNo worries, there is the hotline: https://youtu.be/1OitCT1KT4k https://youtu.be/1OitCT1KT4k
- HstryrsrBttn 5y ago
- chakhs 5y agoPutin put a red line on Ukraine joining NATO (regardless weather he has the right to) and the west didn't care about his line drawing. So I guess in international relations, there are no lines? There's nobody to set them
- seba_dos1 5y agoThere was no serious chance of Ukraine joining NATO anytime soon. This is just an excuse for propaganda.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Putin put a red line on Ukraine joining NATO Ukraine never joined NATO. Ukraine was never even given a membership action plan. > and the west didn't care about his line drawing. Neither did Putin; the moving red lines were about pretext, not reasoning.
- another_why 5y ago> It really goes to show that nukes just shouldn’t exist- there’s no “counter” to them if the other side is suicidal THat's the point of nukes. Even if your economy and army suck, you still can be sure that no one will try to go through your borders to get some
- chockchocschoir 5y agoIf the point of nukes is "And then everybody dies", then that sounds like a pretty good argument for that we need to disarm all the nukes everywhere, no one should be allowed to have them.
- dehrmann 5y agoJust look at North Korea.
- another_why 5y agoNorth Korea is a bit different in terms of resources and borders than Russia and still, no one wants to mess with Kim(though i'm pretty sure their rockets will be shot before entering the atmosphere)
- throwaway6734 5y agoI think that would be enough to unify China/India/everyone else against Russia followed by the cracking of Russia into separate countries
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- OmarIsmail 5y agoAre there natural “fault” lines for Russia to split into?
- number6 5y agoJust draw lines like in Africa. This will ensure decades of turmoil
- yorwba 5y agoEthnic Russians are in the minority in some places https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Russians_by_region.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Russia... so some people might try to secede and set up a new nation state. Well, it's been tried before in Chechnya and in the end Russian troops reconquered the territory. But if the Russian military appears sufficiently weak, separatists might try again.
- ed_balls 5y agonukes is the best things that happened and the reason why there is not world wars anymore. You can make an argument that Izrael should give 3 or 4 warheads to Iran. It would de-escalate the proxy wars.
- forum_ghost 5y agoWhy would nukes de-escalate proxy wars? There have been several proxy wars between USSR and USA during the Cold War.
- rurp 5y agoThere aren't world wars any more because the next one will likely be the last. Some decades of relative peace is a pretty poor return from something that will likely end humanity at some point. Nukes have been around for less than a century, a blink of an eye in historical terms, and have already come close to obliterating the world multiple times. It only takes a single war to undue millennia of progress.
- HstryrsrBttn 5y ago
- daenz 5y agoI am admittedly not even close to an expert to what's going on over there, but my understanding is that Ukraine and its people are very close to the heart of Russia. That makes me think that dropping a nuke people who you consider your brothers is out of the question.
- lawn 5y agoThis is true. Unfortunately, Putin doesn't seem to care.
- lamontcg 5y agoPutin isn't the only person in Russia. We need to stop thinking of nations as this one dimensional cult of personality of their leader. I think Putin would have a very difficult time getting his generals to agree to nuking Kyiv. That's the kind of order which leads to coups.
- vmception 5y agoEnough of his advisors and generals are already afraid of him They just don’t know how much support they have The default penalty for a slightly different perspective is 15 years in prison The expected penalty is falling out of a first floor window Everyone is surrounded by people vying for power that will double cross anyone to imprison their direct competitors Its a prisoners dilemma that allows Putin to use his consolidated power unabated
- hutrdvnj 5y ago> Its a prisoners dilemma that allows Putin to use his consolidated power unabated Except if you would assassinate Putin.
- Normille 5y ago>I am admittedly not even close to an expert to what's going on over there... Don't let that stop you from weighing in with your opinions. It doesn't deter the other eleventy billion people pontificating about this crisis in somewhere they hadn't heard of til a fortnight ago.
- slaymaker1907 5y agoSadly, I think even tactical nukes leads to runaway nuclear war. If Russia nukes Kyiv, NATO/the US respond with a conventional invasion of Russia that leads to larger nuclear escalation as Russia feels threatened. That gets the US to use nukes which destroys the world.
- jansen555 5y agoShort answer: Ukraine surrenders. Long answer: Millions dead. People here no idea what is Putin thinking. He is hell bent to get Ukraine. When Russia did that 70 years ago, they don't mind 20mils to reduce Hitler's men to women child or old. Ukraine is far weaker than Nazi Germany. Plus, Putin can sponsor Iran and NK with massive nukes upgrade. He can also arm your average plane hijackers with that too. Zelensky surrenders will save many of us who are non-Ukrainian. The war in Ukraine will also stop. A couple of decades later, Ukraine can regain independence when there is a regime change in Russia. Putin not going to live forever but Ukraine can. I see so many people cheering for Zelensky are just ensuring death sentences for more civilians in Ukraine and also future terrorism-on-steroid victims. You all have gratifying emotional response to cheer for Zelensky, but logically to surrender is better outcome here even though extremely hard to do. Just go read Russian warfare doctrine. Never they do a short war. It is always war on attrition unlike American "mission accomplished" short war doctrine. There is no point talling ahypothetical fantasy not existing. We all know Western countries are reluctant to use nukes while Russia always will (read their doctrine and military training). Russia has bigger land and more obscure than western counterparts. In EVERY multiverse of nukes warfare, Russia always come out ahead (yes pyrrhic victory but still wins).
- almost_usual 5y agoIf anything changed strategically he knows we’d know through intelligence. All of this talk is to scare the general population.
- forum_ghost 5y agoHow is he clearly losing? He keeps advancing and capture of Kiev is now only a matter of time.
- mabbo 5y agoHe might take Kyiv (not 'Kiev'). But he can't hold it. Not indefinitely. And all the while, the sanctions will destroy his economy. No economy = no money to build more war machine.
- alin23 5y agoKiev is the Romanian for Kyiv Edit: read about it some more and Kiev appears to be the old name from the Soviet era which is not well accepted by Ukraine people. It's odd that we in Romania still use this old form given that Kyiv was proposed and accepted in 1995.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
- BrandoElFollito 5y agoSame in France, it is Kiev. I did not even know there was an alternate name.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
- almost_usual 5y agoThere won’t be a city, they’ll have more Russian wasteland when it’s over.
- adventured 5y agoThere is one more move for Putin's regime in terms of economy if he wants to keep going. It's to shift into conquest mode and burn up your system. It's a non-sustainable move, and if you're going to do it, then typically they go for broader conquest (Moldova would be an example of expanding the conquest, as would formally taking Belarus). In normal times the economy is sustainable: you have $n GDP and $n tax revenue coming in, and you can do certain things with that stream. Sanctions crimp that heavily of course. So Putin can move to an unsustainable model, which means it'll collapse on him eventually, but people in his situation often do it anyway. You do it by forced labor, labor gulags, forced building of manufacturing, total war mobilization of the large Russian population like it's WW2 again. Over time this would break Russia, near-term it would be a potent spike in their potential to march and conquer territory. The Germans did this during WW2, shifting out of sustainable economy to burn-it-up mode. It can't last indefinitely and it involves killing large numbers of citizens in the process. You have to redirect your economy into a command funnel, which starts to destroy all sorts of structures as you shift your resource allocations to war efforts (so for example Putin shifts labor resources to manufacturing tanks, and as a consequence there's not enough labor to operate grocery stores or repair potholes in the streets or whatever).
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoHe'll set one off in Siberia first and see if the world flinches.
- tiahura 5y agoDon’t forget that he also has to send a message to those around him that he can be even more brutal and revengeful than they thought. There are just so many ways this goes very badly, I don’t see how one can be optimistic.
- adventured 5y agoIf the invasion goes very poorly and Russia is at risk of losing, Putin will detonate a nuclear weapon over a non-populated area (whether in Ukraine or Russia). It's one of the few ways he can escalate up another level, prior to war with NATO and or nuclear war. When he does it, he'll say it's a message to NATO forces to back off and stop supplying Ukraine (he'll need to blame external actors for his behavior). NATO should immediately begin a no fly zone over the Lviv region (with the possibility of widening it as necessary), in case Zelenskyy needs to leave Kyiv and or the Ukrainians generally need to establish a new base of government. They could shield that region / territory from Russia right now without prompting a Russia v NATO war, as it would require no attack on Russia to maintain near-term. If Russia tries to contest it, they're initiating the war, as they knew the area was protected by NATO forces. It would work as a maneuver. Putin could of course always claim that any move by NATO into Ukraine is an act of war, and or that Russia owns Ukrainian territory so any move by NATO into Ukraine is identical to invading Russia and other blatherings, but he can invent claims at any time to proclaim NATO started a war: the question is, can it be pulled off without sparking a war with Russia, and right now I believe it could be.
- armitron 5y agoYeah let's further escalate because "you believe" it won't spark a war with Russia. I've read a wide range of opinions in the last few days, with almost all belonging to the trash. What has become more than apparent is that serious game-theoretic analysis focused on realism and cold hard facts is sorely needed.
- forum_ghost 5y agoZelensky was in Lviv, last time his deputies saw him. He hasn't been in Kyiv for day, if not weeks. Rumors are they haven't seen him for days and he's out of the country now, setting up a government in exile, and continue waging a US-backed insurgency. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/russia-ukraine-insurgency/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...
- jayd16 5y ago>His only play is to act (?) even crazier. He could probably just withdraw, no? Russia isn't under existential threat. Is taking Ukraine really the only option for Putin?
- sidibe 5y agoFor his pride and image it is, which seems to be the most important thing. Taking Ukraine also appears to be impossible at this point though. The only major city he has taken has massive protests. Subduing 40 million hostile people in a country with that much territory would require huge number of soldiers and a lot more money than Russia can afford
- eli_gottlieb 5y agoPutin's clearly expressed belief is that lacking an imperial sphere of influence is an existential threat to Russia.
- thr0wawayf00 5y agoThere's absolutely no way he survives politically from a pullout in Ukraine. His entire image is built upon the authoritarian "tough guy" trope and pulling out of an engagement, particularly one that he initiated has frankly been embarrassed operationally up to this point, would 100% end his regime.
- whodunnit 5y agoPutin won’t withdraw unless he can do so while saving face. People are not rational actors, they are emotional actors.
- moltke 5y agoWe know, they know we know, we know they know we know.
- panarky 5y ago> playing chicken ... So many very serious people gravely explain that we must stand by and watch residential areas get shelled and rocketed to smithereens, creating a million refugees in the first week, as a democratic nation gets overrun by a mad dictator. Apparently we have to do this because otherwise the mad dictator will irradiate Europe and maybe North America too. But somehow the mad dictator won't split the atom if we only crater the mad dictator's economy and provide the weapons that kill his troops. > ... with a lunatic Do mad dictators have clearly demarcated red lines like that? Seems like a truly mad dictator would unleash doomsday if he's losing the war, regardless of which side of the red line we're on. It's well known that the secret to winning the game theoretical stalemate is to pretend you're irrational.
- vandreas2 5y ago> His only play is to act (?) even crazier. If only playing crazy could get you anything you wanted life would be so easy for good actors. He could pretend he won, pack and go home. If his propaganda machine is so strong people will eat it and even if they don't there's not much they can do about it anyway. He may just need a pyrrhic victory he can sell domestically.