17 ms·

How Does This End?

137 points by homarp 5y ago

paulryanrogers 5y ago
I'm not convinced this appeal to authority proves there are only two ways out. Beyond escalation or occupation plenty of scenarios look just as plausible. And there's a risk that fixating on only these two suggested outcomes may reinforce them, like a self fulfilling prophecy.
- redisman 5y ago
  To me the likeliest scenario is still: - Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host nukes just to stop further carnage. Russia throws in some funds to rebuild
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Didn't Ukraine already give up nukes for security assurances in 1994? And here they are being invaded by one of the signatories?! Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.
    - hbrav 5y ago
      It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee. This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
      - the_snooze 5y ago
        In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place. As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
      - SinParadise 5y ago
        Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?
        psyc 5y ago
        Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
        SinParadise 5y ago
        But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
      > Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor. Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best. Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border. Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it. Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials. So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership. Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war. Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
      - nec4b 5y ago
        The biggest country in the world trying to subjugate its smaller neighbors is not imperialist?
      - rosndo 5y ago
        > Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?
      - thoradam 5y ago
        > Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?
      - blaser-waffle 5y ago
        How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO? This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks. These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.
  - bloaf 5y ago
    I also wonder about the "Putin loses power in Russia" scenario that the author brushes aside. It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.
    - sverhagen 5y ago
      I find that also an appealing scenario. But Putin does not, hence the propaganda and the censoring. So it may for that reason alone be a complete pipe dream of the West.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    It would be insane to agree to any Russians promises given that they don't respect their current agreements. The only solution is for Russians to retreat from the occupied territories or have endless guerrilla war.
    - redisman 5y ago
      Their choice might be Ukraine leveled and tens/hundreds of thousands more dead or take the deal
    - it_does_follow 5y ago
      Putin/The Russians aren't insane, they're looking after oil/NG interests. That's the entire reason they captured Crimea in the first place. The Ukrainian government then stopped the flow of water to Crimea to make it basically unusable. NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia. I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them. For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
      - kavalg 5y ago
        I wouldn't underestimate the value of the Ukrainian NPPs and fertile land too, as well as access to the Black Sea. Maybe even the human capital shall not be underestimated.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    Russia could have likely gotten Donbas with minimal hassle if the incursion had stopped there.
    - redisman 5y ago
      I don’t think that was their only goal but they can certainly fall back on it now.
  - phire 5y ago
    The problem with that scenario is I have a hard time seeing Putin agreeing to anything that doesn't also include a major change of government in Ukraine. And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.
- mda 5y ago
  There is another likely scenario, Putin dies for some reason. Replacement gives up on the invasion.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That is getting more likely the more time passes. Obviously for biological reasons but also because more and more people are incentivized to make it happen.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Except that, like Trump during his Presidency, there is no shortage of true believers in his propaganda so the question is how much more likely it is. Are we talking about an infinitesimal technically true increment, or will Putin be out within the decade?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        The people next to Trump did not see everything they had built up in their lives torn down, they saw the opposite. Contrary to Trumps entourage Russian oligarchs in general are not stupid. They can clearly see the writing on the wall and they know that if this goes on for too much longer they can kiss their and their children's futures goodbye. Ditto for the various other functionaries.
        vernon99 5y ago
        Except it’s just totally incorrect to think that oligarchs have any degree of control over the situation and any meaningful access to Putin. The relation is reversed, he was the kingmaker and have been controling them fully for quite a while now. The only force that can stop him is army now and I reeeally don’t think this is what any of the sides (except them) would want because it’s them who pushed him or at least helped him to start the war, obviously. We don’t want another Myanmar, but 100x in size and with a bunch of nuclear warheads.
      - vandreas2 5y ago
- poof131 5y ago
  I don’t get the “appeal to authority”? His analysis is some of the best I’ve read and seems to layout the two options the west has: nuclear war or cold war. I hope your outcome is correct, but that choice is really up to Putin. As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and former fighter pilot, I’m amazed at the naive warmongering on social media. People who ignored twenty years of war in the middle east are now all in for WW3. A no-fly zone means US jets shooting down Russian jets (and possibly Ukrainian jets or we aren’t neutral). And when US jets are shot down what do we do? People want to use NATO ground forces. When a tactical nuke is used against them, what do we do? People want regime change in Russia, when they counter and assassinate our politicians, what do we do? If we want to stand up for our values and Putin doesn’t change course, the best we can hope for is cold war 2. Cut off economically from Russia and any other country (China) that supports them. This will bring economic hardship across the world but it is better than armageddon. Maybe Putin changes course, I hope to god so, but we only have two options to really escalate if he doesn’t: cold war or hot.
  - philistine 5y ago
    And this time, a cold war started not by Russia completely steamrolling Nazi Europe, but completely showing its ass.
  - kavalg 5y ago
    You assume that the US can simply tell China what to do, which is not the case. China always keeps a balanced position and seeks to extract value from each relationship - US or Russia.
  - des1nderlase 5y ago
    Well said. Also do you think that Russia military is capable of achieving air superiority? And how this the status changes in case they manage to do so? Ie would NATO be "forced" to respond?
- philistine 5y ago
  This article assumes so much of the worst in The West when so far, everything has been done cleanly and adequately. For example, the article mentions calls for no negotiated peace. No such thing has happened from anyone so far. I guess my point is that every NATO government has been respectful of Russia, while at the same time economically dissociating from it.
raldi 5y ago
> scores of war games point to two likely paths. Can someone TLDR how it ends?
- danielodievich 5y ago
  Badly either way
- PretzelPirate 5y ago
  > there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
  - jaxn 5y ago
    I was hoping for an oligarch uprising that enlists the help of some other former-kgb taxi driver resulting in Putin being suicided.
    - jimmygrapes 5y ago
      Consider the potential for civil war in that scenario, and the opportunism of other nations. Consider the consequences of that, and more. Glib ideas are fine, we all have them, but please do yourself a favor and extrapolate a little before it becomes an "obvious solution" to you or anyone else. Never know who you might influence.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jaxn 5y ago
        Hey, no need to be Sour Grapes, Jimmy. It seems likely to me that Putin eventually meets the same fate he has given so many others. Does that solve all of the world's problems? Nope, but it solves one of the world's problems.
thatguy0900 5y ago
There's a shocking amount of people that seem to want a nuclear war in politics. Maybe it's because they are the ones with the good bunkers.
- hughrr 5y ago
  I have known a few people who have that same mentality and it's either they are fatalists or believe they will have some sort of tactical superiority if it did happen. The former is sad and the latter is stupid.
- liuliu 5y ago
  It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortable for Russia's (almost) inevitable escalation to nukes. For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready. The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Avoiding nuclear war and WW3 is not giving Russia a free pass. This is the mentality that's dangerous. It's strange to see the population shift pro-war so suddenly, and for nuclear warfare nonetheless...
    - liuliu 5y ago
      There are stances and desires. Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States. At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.
giords 5y ago
I have faith in the third way: somebody takes down Putin, Russia goes into chaos, Ukraine Gottes back free and Russia breaks into even more sub states.
- mechagodzilla 5y ago
  Even more nuclear-armed substates with more precarious leadership?
  - bitL 5y ago
    Chechens with nukes. What could go wrong?
- liuliu 5y ago
  We all hope this to happen, as it is the best outcome. However, from what I can find, the support for this invasion, and Putin, is strong within Russia.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    That's more likely because anyone opposed to it gets silenced.
  - pc86 5y ago
    What have you found showing strong support for the invasion inside of Russia that isn't from state media?
    - ShellfishMeme 5y ago
      A lot of people with family in Russia will be able to tell you that their Russian side of the family supports Putin so much that they will not even believe their Ukrainian family members when they're telling them that they are getting bombed. I've seen it in my own extended family, heard it from others and there's also an article about it from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487 We should really not underestimate how much support there is for Putin in Russia.
yosito 5y ago
What happens if Putin has a terminal illness and drops dead from natural causes?
- willis936 5y ago
  Like his dissenters over the past two decades? Unfortunately he is too careful for that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sterlind 5y ago
  if Putin drops dead suddenly? power struggle for succession, the generals either withdraw and place the blame on Putin (like de-Stalinization) or dig their heels in. probably largely to do with how military leadership fares in the shakeup. if Putin dies slowly? he could become irrational, convinced the West has poisoned him even if it's natural, and seek thermonuclear revenge. it'd be easy for Russian media to spin it as assassination and rile up the hardliners either way.
Barrera 5y ago
Answer: > ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow. Considering some of the calls from those who should know better for no-fly zones over Ukraine, Option (2) is indeed going to be the harder path. All it would take is a humanitarian incident such as the extended siege of a city. The calls for military action would be ferocious. The accusations of weakness would cripple many leaders trying to hold back a military response. The lack of any sense of what nuclear escalation actually means throws yet more fuel on the fire. And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s, if not earlier. Confidence in the US military to solve all problems, foreign and domestic, is alarmingly high. The easy path is, unfortunately, the one that ends with the unthinkable.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  > the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s Wait so Russia is struggling to even take Kyiv and you’re implying that they are an equal foe to the highest spend armed forces in the world? Allied with the countries that constitute 75%+ of global wealth? Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective.
  - Barrera 5y ago
    You're proving my point.
    - pc86 5y ago
      I don't think you've made it as convincingly as you think you have. I might go a step farther and say you haven't made a point at all. You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How? In what circumstance[s]? Based on what evidence?
      - phkahler 5y ago
        >> You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How? If it goes nuclear both sides will defeat each other. Neither is known to have any viable defense against nuclear missiles. It seems really odd to have to make that point. It seems even more odd that putin is threatening it.
mjfl 5y ago
There seems to be a signficant amount of consent being manufactured for a major operation to enact regime change in Russia.
- khazhoux 5y ago
  For those that don't know, this is a reference to "Manufacturing Consent", a book by Chomsky and Herman, and the term is code for media manipulation. But, mjfl, are we to reduce every article that espouses an opinion or conducts an analysis (as this article does) to simply a "manufacture of consent" against us unthinking sheeples?
  - pc86 5y ago
    This is root of all hyper-partisanship in my opinion. You feel your opinions are the sensible majority, even though it stands to reason we all have quite a few minority opinions. Any media, especially from well funded, well educated, more-or-less well respected sources, that goes against your sensible majority opinion is clearly part of a vast conspiracy from a cabal of one or more of: [financiers, corporate elite, Hollywood, environmentalists, socialists, conservative, liberals, globalists, lizards, whatever]. The unthinkable alternative is that you just happen to be on the fringe of society for one or more issues you find important.
    - hnuser847 5y ago
      Does not wanting to not die in a nuclear hellstorm put me on the fringe? Because it seems obvious to me that the most powerful people and institutions in the West are all gearing up for a direct war with Russia. Frankly I’m totally indifferent as to whether or not Ukraine ends up being annexed by Russia. I don’t want to die for some country that’s thousands of miles away from where I live.
      - pc86 5y ago
        > Does not wanting to not die in a nuclear hellstorm put me on the fringe? I didn't say it did (in fact, no one here did). If you want to make a point it will probably be listened to more without the ridiculous straw man.
hughrr 5y ago
I think it'll end when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government. Forces will be withdrawn from Ukraine to deal with civil issues. A bloody military coup will occur, supported by sympathetic members. New government will be appointed. This government will eventually end up a NATO member and piss off China and then we'll have to do the same thing again.
- mjfl 5y ago
  > when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government. Big assumption that the first will lead to the second. Putin's invasion of Crimea led to his highest approval rating, even with the sanction response. https://news.gallup.com/poll/173597/russian-approval-putin-soars-highest-level-years.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/173597/russian-approval-putin-s...
  - hughrr 5y ago
    People could still buy medicine and food after that.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    IIRC sanctions were small and invisible at the time. Unlike 2022.
    - dntrkv 5y ago
      Don’t underestimate Putin’s ability to convince the Russian public that this is all the West’s fault. It’s kind of been their (my former) country’s greatest trick. I know many USSR immigrants here in the states who once despised anything to do with Putin and his ilk, are now buying into Putin’s rhetoric. It’s really weird to see.
      - agumonkey 5y ago
        Oh I believe you. I just expected that it had a limit. Also I believe the amount of streamed videos could be a factor too. Unless Russia is now equal to North Korea in terms of brainwashing.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
So many people cheering on the "inevitable" nuclear escalation. I wonder why. For those of you cheering it on, are you personally suicidal? An accelerationist? Do you wish others to die (maybe you're one of those "humanity is a plague" types)? Do you live far away from any cities and thus feel safe? I don't understand.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  I think there is a latent apathy in the United States; or a fervor to "shake things up" (not unlike people voting in Trump to see what would happen). I have a feeling that things aren't really that stable at all.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    USA is just a nation that invents their enemies and imbues them narratively with demonic power which they are later really too scared of to efficiently act upon in any manner.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Europe had no common enemy a few months ago. European countries wanted to subconsciously tear each other apart. Now Putin has created a common scapegoat. As long as nukes don't fly, the west is actually better off than before.
      - scotty79 5y ago
        Actually there's no scenario where Europe or the planet ends up better of as a result of this. All of that will increase resources wasted for militarization, lower the efficiencies of the economies and delays action on climate change. And all of that is the best case scenario. Europe is now (possibly) united, but only in suffering.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I think this is true across the entire political spectrum in the US. Our social media reads as a mix of apathy, nihilism, signaling and historical ignorance. In other words, many of the people who by all rights should be happy with their comfortable lives in the wealthiest country on earth have somehow decided the world is a terrible place, everything is terrible, it's all going to hell, so let's just pull whatever thread seems likely to piss someone off who's got it slightly better than me and see what unravels. Americans are ingrates.
shawn-butler 5y ago
Chilling. War gaming and probabilities surrounding the utility of nuclear weapon use no longer “taboo” is fascinating but morbid. I wonder how much stock is put into these scenario models by policy makers and leaders and how much is “gut instinct”?
nelsonic 5y ago
“In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed.“ Should we be rushing to build a nuclear fallout shelter or is it already too late?
- pc86 5y ago
  For people who a) have this as a serious option, and b) are seriously considering it, there's almost certainly still time to do something unless escalate extremely quickly. The real question is whether you'd want to survive anything that would require that bunker to live through.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    As someone else commented - "I'm not worried about nuclear war - I'm worried I won't be caught in the blast radius"
    - spsful 5y ago
      I agree. If we get to that point I feel like the world won't be worth living inside of.
  - lelandbatey 5y ago
    This is a real thought I've shared with friends. Though it's incredibly morbid, I am thankful I live close enough to a city center that I will be mercifully unmade in an instant should the bombs drop.
pjdemers 5y ago
I don't think that the scenario where Putin detonates a nuclear weapon as a demonstration, or within the border of Ukraine would cause the US/UK/France to detonate one of their nuclear weapons to prove they are serious. Only an attack on a Nato country, with casualties, would bring a nuclear response.
- sterlind 5y ago
  I really, really hope so. if NATO used a nuke of its own in response to one in Ukraine, this just confirms Putin's rhetoric that NATO isn't just a defense alliance, that we would launch outside of Article 5. that's the "existential threat." I just wish we were less hawkish, because it seems like we're playing with fire by supplying arms to Ukraine.
LiquidPolymer 5y ago
There is a dark strand in many fundamentalist Christian and Islamic beliefs that portend a judgement day brought on by world destroying calamity. There are evangelical Christian’s who cheer on for a nuclear conflict between Israel and their Muslim neighbors because it will bring about this prophesy. I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.
- chezzwizz 5y ago
  Sure, pure eugenics by genocide might be a quick fix. But how long does that last? You think radiation only affects those who fit your stereotyped profile? What about all the opportunity to forgoe scorched Earth policies and work through compromise. You would think ending up with more supporters would be more self serving than making glass and gambling you can intimidate the left overs into ideological submission.
- eternalban 5y ago
  There is no 'destruction of the world' in Muslim eschatology related to the return of Jesus and Mahdi. That has to wait for "the Hour" which is an entirely a different matter and related to 'Resurrection' and the actual Judgement Day (you know, in 'here-after' when the entire material universe is "folded"). As for the Christians, in the Gospel Jesus very clearly commands to "ignore" wars and rumors of wars. "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." [Matt 24:6] > I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives. What "terrifies" me are people who form strong opinions and speak from ignorance, and, try to pin great power politics, and geopolitical adjustments on people who believe in God.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    I grew up in and around Christian fundamentalists who believe precisely what the parent was referring to. If you want to “not all Christians,” that’s fine - but Armageddon fetishists absolutely do exist in fundamentalist Christianity. Start with the “Left Behind” book series if you want an introduction to the way that group thinks.
scotty79 5y ago
For me the only good solution is beating Russian army to the borders of Russia and no step further, using only conventional methods (regardless of what Putin decides to do about the nukes). Then all bordering nations joining NATO and some EU. And sealing Russia economically completely while developing bordering states. And gradually allowing Russia to rejoin global economy on the condition of demilitarization of Russia. At first it might be that the only thing west should be allowed to buy from Russia is their war machines no matter how old or crappy. In a fashion akin to buyback of guns in Australia. NATO needs to win this and needs to win this with conventional methods and economy. Nothing else.
- smegger001 5y ago
  the problem with that is it would end up like the cobra bounty in india, which resulted people breeding cobras to turn it for the bounty. when their only allowed export is weapons they will make more weapons to export
  - scotty79 5y ago
    If Russia economy would be still locked out of advanced components we'd be buying their newly manufactured crap tanks at prices we dictate, which would be the price of recycled steel and smelt them back to raw material once they leave Russia. Since customer always buys those new tanks would be crappier and crappier. Eventually we might offer them more money for ore than for tanks so making tanks to sell them is uneconomical for them.
tejohnso 5y ago
> This would put the United States in the near-impossible position of having to choose between further escalation and compromising on the very principles that drove it toward the war in the first place—the right of a nation like Ukraine to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule. Is this guy for real? Since when does the US hold a strong principle for the right of a foreign nation to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule? It's actively supporting perhaps the worst ongoing subjugation over several decades. Half decent writeup, but tarnished by the overt deification of the US.
gmuslera 5y ago
(gentle) Escalation till the point where Russia will have to give up or concede, something far bigger than Ukraine, from an region with an strategic resource to something digital, like encryption keys or forcing West backdoors in their systems. That assumes that Putin will prefer to surrender and keep avoiding by all means falling into an end of the world scenario. At least while the push keeps being gentle. Anyway, the situation is pretty fragile. There are more players in the game, from big economic players and tech companies to individuals that may, by a direct or a false flag operation, do something (like a hack attempt or destruction of system/information) that could trigger a big reaction from one of the sides.
whatsakandr 5y ago
There is one path not diaxuesssd: Putin topples. And that is what I'm hoping for.
jacknews 5y ago
IMHO the most likely outcome is that Putin will be out (perhaps dead), before the year is.
- jacknews 5y ago
  Whoever downvoted this, I'm open to a small wager. By year end, Putin will be out of office, perhaps dead.
dehrmann 5y ago
I'm curious how these war games are actually run. I'm genuinely curious, but I'm also somewhat skeptical having seeing how people play poker when no money's on the line.
- alasano 5y ago
  The wiki entry is pretty short and sweet on purpose and potential flaws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_wargaming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_wargaming
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mjfl 5y ago
situation 3: we invite Putin to Nato and compensate the families of Ukrainians who have died and rebuild Ukraine together.
radford-neal 5y ago
We'd better hope that a third possibility is more likely... ... That this turns into something like one of the cold-war proxy wars. The West does not cross the line by sending NATO troops or planes into Ukraine to fight Russian forces. The West does send in arms, but Russia limits its attempts to stop that to actions within the borders of Ukraine (not, for example, bombing Polish rail lines used to ship arms to Ukraine). The conflict in Ukraine goes on for more or less time as a hot war. An unlikely possibility is that Ukraine wins the hot war, humiliating Putin, and probably leading to his downfall (hopefully without any disastrous last gasp of aggression), or possibly the overflow of Putin comes first, with the new regime negotiating a way out that's at least somewhat tolerable for Ukraine. The more likely possibility is that Russia wins the hot war, imposes a puppet government, and the West opposes this outcome only by economic sanctions and covert arms shipments to insurgents (who will quite likely exist). This doesn't lead directly to escalation, though the stage might well be set for further crises. If further crises don't cause drastic change, Russia (current or future regime) may eventually tire of fighting an insurgency in Ukraine, and perhaps settles for absorbing the eastern part, while letting the western part become independent again (but probably "Finlandized"). A lot of people die. Once the immediate crisis is over it would be worth thinking about why people in power, on all sides, let it get to this point. I think it's unlikely that the situation was just that there were good guys, and bad guys, and all that one can say is that the bad guys were bad... Treating this as a simple morality play is likely to lead to a repeat performance.
another_why 5y ago
It ends with an insurgency war in which people from different countries will come to Ukraine and kill other people, including civilians, for money given by "US and allies", indefinitely. But you know, not the first time "US and allies" grow terrorists in someone else's country, for the greater good and all [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/russia-ukraine-insurgency/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...
jaybrendansmith 5y ago
Diplomacy is the ONLY way this can end relatively safely without nukes. At some point, Russia will be exhausted, and cannot continue the invasion except by mass destruction. At this point, Ukraine should enter peace talks and formally hand over Crimea to Russia (something they already lost) in exchange for a cease fire, the dropping of sanctions, and Ukraine EU/NATO membership. That will protect them going forward, and allow Putin to skulk away with 'victory'. In reality, he will have been defeated and his economy crushed.

137 points by homarp 5y ago

I'm not convinced this appeal to authority proves there are only two ways out. Beyond escalation or occupation plenty of scenarios look just as plausible. And there's a risk that fixating on only these two suggested outcomes may reinforce them, like a self fulfilling prophecy.

redisman 5y ago
To me the likeliest scenario is still: - Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host nukes just to stop further carnage. Russia throws in some funds to rebuild
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Didn't Ukraine already give up nukes for security assurances in 1994? And here they are being invaded by one of the signatories?! Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.
  - hbrav 5y ago
    It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee. This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
    - the_snooze 5y ago
      In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place. As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
    - SinParadise 5y ago
      Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?
      - psyc 5y ago
        Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
        SinParadise 5y ago
        But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    > Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor. Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best. Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border. Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it. Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials. So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership. Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war. Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      The biggest country in the world trying to subjugate its smaller neighbors is not imperialist?
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?
    - thoradam 5y ago
      > Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?
    - blaser-waffle 5y ago
      How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO? This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks. These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.
- bloaf 5y ago
  I also wonder about the "Putin loses power in Russia" scenario that the author brushes aside. It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.
  - sverhagen 5y ago
    I find that also an appealing scenario. But Putin does not, hence the propaganda and the censoring. So it may for that reason alone be a complete pipe dream of the West.
- xdennis 5y ago
  It would be insane to agree to any Russians promises given that they don't respect their current agreements. The only solution is for Russians to retreat from the occupied territories or have endless guerrilla war.
  - redisman 5y ago
    Their choice might be Ukraine leveled and tens/hundreds of thousands more dead or take the deal
  - it_does_follow 5y ago
    Putin/The Russians aren't insane, they're looking after oil/NG interests. That's the entire reason they captured Crimea in the first place. The Ukrainian government then stopped the flow of water to Crimea to make it basically unusable. NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia. I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them. For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
    - kavalg 5y ago
      I wouldn't underestimate the value of the Ukrainian NPPs and fertile land too, as well as access to the Black Sea. Maybe even the human capital shall not be underestimated.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Russia could have likely gotten Donbas with minimal hassle if the incursion had stopped there.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I don’t think that was their only goal but they can certainly fall back on it now.
- phire 5y ago
  The problem with that scenario is I have a hard time seeing Putin agreeing to anything that doesn't also include a major change of government in Ukraine. And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.
mda 5y ago
There is another likely scenario, Putin dies for some reason. Replacement gives up on the invasion.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That is getting more likely the more time passes. Obviously for biological reasons but also because more and more people are incentivized to make it happen.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Except that, like Trump during his Presidency, there is no shortage of true believers in his propaganda so the question is how much more likely it is. Are we talking about an infinitesimal technically true increment, or will Putin be out within the decade?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      The people next to Trump did not see everything they had built up in their lives torn down, they saw the opposite. Contrary to Trumps entourage Russian oligarchs in general are not stupid. They can clearly see the writing on the wall and they know that if this goes on for too much longer they can kiss their and their children's futures goodbye. Ditto for the various other functionaries.
      - vernon99 5y ago
        Except it’s just totally incorrect to think that oligarchs have any degree of control over the situation and any meaningful access to Putin. The relation is reversed, he was the kingmaker and have been controling them fully for quite a while now. The only force that can stop him is army now and I reeeally don’t think this is what any of the sides (except them) would want because it’s them who pushed him or at least helped him to start the war, obviously. We don’t want another Myanmar, but 100x in size and with a bunch of nuclear warheads.
    - vandreas2 5y ago
poof131 5y ago
I don’t get the “appeal to authority”? His analysis is some of the best I’ve read and seems to layout the two options the west has: nuclear war or cold war. I hope your outcome is correct, but that choice is really up to Putin. As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and former fighter pilot, I’m amazed at the naive warmongering on social media. People who ignored twenty years of war in the middle east are now all in for WW3. A no-fly zone means US jets shooting down Russian jets (and possibly Ukrainian jets or we aren’t neutral). And when US jets are shot down what do we do? People want to use NATO ground forces. When a tactical nuke is used against them, what do we do? People want regime change in Russia, when they counter and assassinate our politicians, what do we do? If we want to stand up for our values and Putin doesn’t change course, the best we can hope for is cold war 2. Cut off economically from Russia and any other country (China) that supports them. This will bring economic hardship across the world but it is better than armageddon. Maybe Putin changes course, I hope to god so, but we only have two options to really escalate if he doesn’t: cold war or hot.
- philistine 5y ago
  And this time, a cold war started not by Russia completely steamrolling Nazi Europe, but completely showing its ass.
- kavalg 5y ago
  You assume that the US can simply tell China what to do, which is not the case. China always keeps a balanced position and seeks to extract value from each relationship - US or Russia.
- des1nderlase 5y ago
  Well said. Also do you think that Russia military is capable of achieving air superiority? And how this the status changes in case they manage to do so? Ie would NATO be "forced" to respond?
philistine 5y ago
This article assumes so much of the worst in The West when so far, everything has been done cleanly and adequately. For example, the article mentions calls for no negotiated peace. No such thing has happened from anyone so far. I guess my point is that every NATO government has been respectful of Russia, while at the same time economically dissociating from it.

raldi 5y ago

> scores of war games point to two likely paths. Can someone TLDR how it ends?

danielodievich 5y ago
Badly either way
PretzelPirate 5y ago
> there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
- jaxn 5y ago
  I was hoping for an oligarch uprising that enlists the help of some other former-kgb taxi driver resulting in Putin being suicided.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    Consider the potential for civil war in that scenario, and the opportunism of other nations. Consider the consequences of that, and more. Glib ideas are fine, we all have them, but please do yourself a favor and extrapolate a little before it becomes an "obvious solution" to you or anyone else. Never know who you might influence.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jaxn 5y ago
      Hey, no need to be Sour Grapes, Jimmy. It seems likely to me that Putin eventually meets the same fate he has given so many others. Does that solve all of the world's problems? Nope, but it solves one of the world's problems.

thatguy0900 5y ago

There's a shocking amount of people that seem to want a nuclear war in politics. Maybe it's because they are the ones with the good bunkers.

hughrr 5y ago
I have known a few people who have that same mentality and it's either they are fatalists or believe they will have some sort of tactical superiority if it did happen. The former is sad and the latter is stupid.
liuliu 5y ago
It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortable for Russia's (almost) inevitable escalation to nukes. For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready. The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Avoiding nuclear war and WW3 is not giving Russia a free pass. This is the mentality that's dangerous. It's strange to see the population shift pro-war so suddenly, and for nuclear warfare nonetheless...
  - liuliu 5y ago
    There are stances and desires. Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States. At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.

giords 5y ago

I have faith in the third way: somebody takes down Putin, Russia goes into chaos, Ukraine Gottes back free and Russia breaks into even more sub states.

mechagodzilla 5y ago
Even more nuclear-armed substates with more precarious leadership?
- bitL 5y ago
  Chechens with nukes. What could go wrong?
liuliu 5y ago
We all hope this to happen, as it is the best outcome. However, from what I can find, the support for this invasion, and Putin, is strong within Russia.
- userbinator 5y ago
  That's more likely because anyone opposed to it gets silenced.
- pc86 5y ago
  What have you found showing strong support for the invasion inside of Russia that isn't from state media?
  - ShellfishMeme 5y ago
    A lot of people with family in Russia will be able to tell you that their Russian side of the family supports Putin so much that they will not even believe their Ukrainian family members when they're telling them that they are getting bombed. I've seen it in my own extended family, heard it from others and there's also an article about it from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487 We should really not underestimate how much support there is for Putin in Russia.

yosito 5y ago

What happens if Putin has a terminal illness and drops dead from natural causes?

willis936 5y ago
Like his dissenters over the past two decades? Unfortunately he is too careful for that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sterlind 5y ago
if Putin drops dead suddenly? power struggle for succession, the generals either withdraw and place the blame on Putin (like de-Stalinization) or dig their heels in. probably largely to do with how military leadership fares in the shakeup. if Putin dies slowly? he could become irrational, convinced the West has poisoned him even if it's natural, and seek thermonuclear revenge. it'd be easy for Russian media to spin it as assassination and rile up the hardliners either way.

Barrera 5y ago

Answer: > ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow. Considering some of the calls from those who should know better for no-fly zones over Ukraine, Option (2) is indeed going to be the harder path. All it would take is a humanitarian incident such as the extended siege of a city. The calls for military action would be ferocious. The accusations of weakness would cripple many leaders trying to hold back a military response. The lack of any sense of what nuclear escalation actually means throws yet more fuel on the fire. And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s, if not earlier. Confidence in the US military to solve all problems, foreign and domestic, is alarmingly high. The easy path is, unfortunately, the one that ends with the unthinkable.

RC_ITR 5y ago
> the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s Wait so Russia is struggling to even take Kyiv and you’re implying that they are an equal foe to the highest spend armed forces in the world? Allied with the countries that constitute 75%+ of global wealth? Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective.
- Barrera 5y ago
  You're proving my point.
  - pc86 5y ago
    I don't think you've made it as convincingly as you think you have. I might go a step farther and say you haven't made a point at all. You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How? In what circumstance[s]? Based on what evidence?
    - phkahler 5y ago
      >> You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How? If it goes nuclear both sides will defeat each other. Neither is known to have any viable defense against nuclear missiles. It seems really odd to have to make that point. It seems even more odd that putin is threatening it.

mjfl 5y ago

There seems to be a signficant amount of consent being manufactured for a major operation to enact regime change in Russia.

khazhoux 5y ago
For those that don't know, this is a reference to "Manufacturing Consent", a book by Chomsky and Herman, and the term is code for media manipulation. But, mjfl, are we to reduce every article that espouses an opinion or conducts an analysis (as this article does) to simply a "manufacture of consent" against us unthinking sheeples?
- pc86 5y ago
  This is root of all hyper-partisanship in my opinion. You feel your opinions are the sensible majority, even though it stands to reason we all have quite a few minority opinions. Any media, especially from well funded, well educated, more-or-less well respected sources, that goes against your sensible majority opinion is clearly part of a vast conspiracy from a cabal of one or more of: [financiers, corporate elite, Hollywood, environmentalists, socialists, conservative, liberals, globalists, lizards, whatever]. The unthinkable alternative is that you just happen to be on the fringe of society for one or more issues you find important.
  - hnuser847 5y ago
    Does not wanting to not die in a nuclear hellstorm put me on the fringe? Because it seems obvious to me that the most powerful people and institutions in the West are all gearing up for a direct war with Russia. Frankly I’m totally indifferent as to whether or not Ukraine ends up being annexed by Russia. I don’t want to die for some country that’s thousands of miles away from where I live.
    - pc86 5y ago
      > Does not wanting to not die in a nuclear hellstorm put me on the fringe? I didn't say it did (in fact, no one here did). If you want to make a point it will probably be listened to more without the ridiculous straw man.

hughrr 5y ago

I think it'll end when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government. Forces will be withdrawn from Ukraine to deal with civil issues. A bloody military coup will occur, supported by sympathetic members. New government will be appointed. This government will eventually end up a NATO member and piss off China and then we'll have to do the same thing again.

mjfl 5y ago
> when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government. Big assumption that the first will lead to the second. Putin's invasion of Crimea led to his highest approval rating, even with the sanction response. https://news.gallup.com/poll/173597/russian-approval-putin-soars-highest-level-years.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/173597/russian-approval-putin-s...
- hughrr 5y ago
  People could still buy medicine and food after that.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  IIRC sanctions were small and invisible at the time. Unlike 2022.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    Don’t underestimate Putin’s ability to convince the Russian public that this is all the West’s fault. It’s kind of been their (my former) country’s greatest trick. I know many USSR immigrants here in the states who once despised anything to do with Putin and his ilk, are now buying into Putin’s rhetoric. It’s really weird to see.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      Oh I believe you. I just expected that it had a limit. Also I believe the amount of streamed videos could be a factor too. Unless Russia is now equal to North Korea in terms of brainwashing.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

So many people cheering on the "inevitable" nuclear escalation. I wonder why. For those of you cheering it on, are you personally suicidal? An accelerationist? Do you wish others to die (maybe you're one of those "humanity is a plague" types)? Do you live far away from any cities and thus feel safe? I don't understand.

nemothekid 5y ago
I think there is a latent apathy in the United States; or a fervor to "shake things up" (not unlike people voting in Trump to see what would happen). I have a feeling that things aren't really that stable at all.
- scotty79 5y ago
  USA is just a nation that invents their enemies and imbues them narratively with demonic power which they are later really too scared of to efficiently act upon in any manner.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Europe had no common enemy a few months ago. European countries wanted to subconsciously tear each other apart. Now Putin has created a common scapegoat. As long as nukes don't fly, the west is actually better off than before.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Actually there's no scenario where Europe or the planet ends up better of as a result of this. All of that will increase resources wasted for militarization, lower the efficiencies of the economies and delays action on climate change. And all of that is the best case scenario. Europe is now (possibly) united, but only in suffering.
- noduerme 5y ago
  I think this is true across the entire political spectrum in the US. Our social media reads as a mix of apathy, nihilism, signaling and historical ignorance. In other words, many of the people who by all rights should be happy with their comfortable lives in the wealthiest country on earth have somehow decided the world is a terrible place, everything is terrible, it's all going to hell, so let's just pull whatever thread seems likely to piss someone off who's got it slightly better than me and see what unravels. Americans are ingrates.

shawn-butler 5y ago

Chilling. War gaming and probabilities surrounding the utility of nuclear weapon use no longer “taboo” is fascinating but morbid. I wonder how much stock is put into these scenario models by policy makers and leaders and how much is “gut instinct”?

nelsonic 5y ago

“In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed.“ Should we be rushing to build a nuclear fallout shelter or is it already too late?

pc86 5y ago
For people who a) have this as a serious option, and b) are seriously considering it, there's almost certainly still time to do something unless escalate extremely quickly. The real question is whether you'd want to survive anything that would require that bunker to live through.
- gambiting 5y ago
  As someone else commented - "I'm not worried about nuclear war - I'm worried I won't be caught in the blast radius"
  - spsful 5y ago
    I agree. If we get to that point I feel like the world won't be worth living inside of.
- lelandbatey 5y ago
  This is a real thought I've shared with friends. Though it's incredibly morbid, I am thankful I live close enough to a city center that I will be mercifully unmade in an instant should the bombs drop.

pjdemers 5y ago

I don't think that the scenario where Putin detonates a nuclear weapon as a demonstration, or within the border of Ukraine would cause the US/UK/France to detonate one of their nuclear weapons to prove they are serious. Only an attack on a Nato country, with casualties, would bring a nuclear response.

sterlind 5y ago
I really, really hope so. if NATO used a nuke of its own in response to one in Ukraine, this just confirms Putin's rhetoric that NATO isn't just a defense alliance, that we would launch outside of Article 5. that's the "existential threat." I just wish we were less hawkish, because it seems like we're playing with fire by supplying arms to Ukraine.

LiquidPolymer 5y ago

There is a dark strand in many fundamentalist Christian and Islamic beliefs that portend a judgement day brought on by world destroying calamity. There are evangelical Christian’s who cheer on for a nuclear conflict between Israel and their Muslim neighbors because it will bring about this prophesy. I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.

chezzwizz 5y ago
Sure, pure eugenics by genocide might be a quick fix. But how long does that last? You think radiation only affects those who fit your stereotyped profile? What about all the opportunity to forgoe scorched Earth policies and work through compromise. You would think ending up with more supporters would be more self serving than making glass and gambling you can intimidate the left overs into ideological submission.
eternalban 5y ago
There is no 'destruction of the world' in Muslim eschatology related to the return of Jesus and Mahdi. That has to wait for "the Hour" which is an entirely a different matter and related to 'Resurrection' and the actual Judgement Day (you know, in 'here-after' when the entire material universe is "folded"). As for the Christians, in the Gospel Jesus very clearly commands to "ignore" wars and rumors of wars. "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." [Matt 24:6] > I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives. What "terrifies" me are people who form strong opinions and speak from ignorance, and, try to pin great power politics, and geopolitical adjustments on people who believe in God.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  I grew up in and around Christian fundamentalists who believe precisely what the parent was referring to. If you want to “not all Christians,” that’s fine - but Armageddon fetishists absolutely do exist in fundamentalist Christianity. Start with the “Left Behind” book series if you want an introduction to the way that group thinks.

scotty79 5y ago

For me the only good solution is beating Russian army to the borders of Russia and no step further, using only conventional methods (regardless of what Putin decides to do about the nukes). Then all bordering nations joining NATO and some EU. And sealing Russia economically completely while developing bordering states. And gradually allowing Russia to rejoin global economy on the condition of demilitarization of Russia. At first it might be that the only thing west should be allowed to buy from Russia is their war machines no matter how old or crappy. In a fashion akin to buyback of guns in Australia. NATO needs to win this and needs to win this with conventional methods and economy. Nothing else.

smegger001 5y ago
the problem with that is it would end up like the cobra bounty in india, which resulted people breeding cobras to turn it for the bounty. when their only allowed export is weapons they will make more weapons to export
- scotty79 5y ago
  If Russia economy would be still locked out of advanced components we'd be buying their newly manufactured crap tanks at prices we dictate, which would be the price of recycled steel and smelt them back to raw material once they leave Russia. Since customer always buys those new tanks would be crappier and crappier. Eventually we might offer them more money for ore than for tanks so making tanks to sell them is uneconomical for them.

tejohnso 5y ago

> This would put the United States in the near-impossible position of having to choose between further escalation and compromising on the very principles that drove it toward the war in the first place—the right of a nation like Ukraine to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule. Is this guy for real? Since when does the US hold a strong principle for the right of a foreign nation to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule? It's actively supporting perhaps the worst ongoing subjugation over several decades. Half decent writeup, but tarnished by the overt deification of the US.

gmuslera 5y ago

(gentle) Escalation till the point where Russia will have to give up or concede, something far bigger than Ukraine, from an region with an strategic resource to something digital, like encryption keys or forcing West backdoors in their systems. That assumes that Putin will prefer to surrender and keep avoiding by all means falling into an end of the world scenario. At least while the push keeps being gentle. Anyway, the situation is pretty fragile. There are more players in the game, from big economic players and tech companies to individuals that may, by a direct or a false flag operation, do something (like a hack attempt or destruction of system/information) that could trigger a big reaction from one of the sides.

whatsakandr 5y ago

There is one path not diaxuesssd: Putin topples. And that is what I'm hoping for.

jacknews 5y ago

IMHO the most likely outcome is that Putin will be out (perhaps dead), before the year is.

jacknews 5y ago
Whoever downvoted this, I'm open to a small wager. By year end, Putin will be out of office, perhaps dead.

dehrmann 5y ago

I'm curious how these war games are actually run. I'm genuinely curious, but I'm also somewhat skeptical having seeing how people play poker when no money's on the line.

alasano 5y ago
The wiki entry is pretty short and sweet on purpose and potential flaws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_wargaming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_wargaming

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mjfl 5y ago

situation 3: we invite Putin to Nato and compensate the families of Ukrainians who have died and rebuild Ukraine together.

radford-neal 5y ago

We'd better hope that a third possibility is more likely... ... That this turns into something like one of the cold-war proxy wars. The West does not cross the line by sending NATO troops or planes into Ukraine to fight Russian forces. The West does send in arms, but Russia limits its attempts to stop that to actions within the borders of Ukraine (not, for example, bombing Polish rail lines used to ship arms to Ukraine). The conflict in Ukraine goes on for more or less time as a hot war. An unlikely possibility is that Ukraine wins the hot war, humiliating Putin, and probably leading to his downfall (hopefully without any disastrous last gasp of aggression), or possibly the overflow of Putin comes first, with the new regime negotiating a way out that's at least somewhat tolerable for Ukraine. The more likely possibility is that Russia wins the hot war, imposes a puppet government, and the West opposes this outcome only by economic sanctions and covert arms shipments to insurgents (who will quite likely exist). This doesn't lead directly to escalation, though the stage might well be set for further crises. If further crises don't cause drastic change, Russia (current or future regime) may eventually tire of fighting an insurgency in Ukraine, and perhaps settles for absorbing the eastern part, while letting the western part become independent again (but probably "Finlandized"). A lot of people die. Once the immediate crisis is over it would be worth thinking about why people in power, on all sides, let it get to this point. I think it's unlikely that the situation was just that there were good guys, and bad guys, and all that one can say is that the bad guys were bad... Treating this as a simple morality play is likely to lead to a repeat performance.

another_why 5y ago

It ends with an insurgency war in which people from different countries will come to Ukraine and kill other people, including civilians, for money given by "US and allies", indefinitely. But you know, not the first time "US and allies" grow terrorists in someone else's country, for the greater good and all [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/russia-ukraine-insurgency/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...

jaybrendansmith 5y ago

Diplomacy is the ONLY way this can end relatively safely without nukes. At some point, Russia will be exhausted, and cannot continue the invasion except by mass destruction. At this point, Ukraine should enter peace talks and formally hand over Crimea to Russia (something they already lost) in exchange for a cease fire, the dropping of sanctions, and Ukraine EU/NATO membership. That will protect them going forward, and allow Putin to skulk away with 'victory'. In reality, he will have been defeated and his economy crushed.