6 ms·

Answer: > ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; t

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.
      - vandreas2 5y ago
        He has to threaten it, it doesn't cost him anything.
        phkahler 5y ago
        It costs him karma.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Bro, no I’m not. In conventional warfare, the US 1000% has the resources to make an invasion of an unwilling nation impossible. In nuclear warfare you and I are both dead so this debate is pointless.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  You don't seem to have a good understanding of the difference between the kind of war Russia is waging on Ukraine right now and an all-out war with all options on the table. The two are not comparable.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Yeah the kind of war Russia is fighting right now is already a snipe hunt because no modern nation has occupied an unwilling people since the fall of the Raj. The US’s involvement is more a function of time to Russian failure. I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuance of war.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >no modern nation has occupied an unwilling people Russia did exactly that in Grozny. They seem to be trying to do the same thing here in the same way :(
      - RC_ITR 5y ago
        Wait wait wait. At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state a la Ukraine? Sure there was a period of time when Chechnya was a semi-recognized failing state [0], but to say that it was in anyway comparable to Ukraine is disingenuous at best. [0] news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/135716.stm
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state Since when does “an unwilling people” require “an internationally recognized free state”, or are those goalposts jet propelled?
        RC_ITR 5y ago
        Because what evidence do you You have that the majority of Chechnyans supported the non-Russian government? When they briefly broke away from Russia, they were dominated by warlords. Not exactly a clear indication that there was a popularly supported free government (unlike Ukrainian which has formal elections with broad turnout). Maybe apply a critical thinking lens?
- eezurr 5y ago
  I've been seeing the word "propaganda" thrown around a lot lately. It's been bothering me how quickly people stop seeking the full picture when they start using that word. That is a really vulnerable position to place your intelligence and curiosity. Propaganda: Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. - from Wikipedia Question: How can you determine when an individual is under the influence of propaganda? Answer: When they stop looking for the truths that either or both sides of a conflict use as the foundation of their propaganda. >Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective. I'd argue so is the United States, much more so than Putin's. If you compare the evils committed by the US to Putin's, Putin cannot hold a candle to the US. The difference is that Putin bears that burden across multiple decades, while the US changes figure heads every 4-8 years, and with that washes away the stains of the country into the haze of time. With all that being said, I am not pro-Putin nor pro-US regarding this conflict, and I agree with the article that the best course is for the United States to admit defeat, (and additionally, not in the article) stop expanding eastward (through NATO), and to keep their promise to Russia (which was to stop expanding NATO). Edit: I'd like to add, the seed of Putin's "fascist/nazi" claim is that in 2014, Ukraine's new government eliminated minority rights (i.e. the Russian minority, which represents less than half of the population). And, the US started funding the neo-Nazi faction (Azov battalion) of the Ukrainian army. A quick duckduckgo search will pull up articles for both of these claims.
  - aklemm 5y ago
    Putin is a particular kind of evil; the autocratic, personally liable kind. He murders and jails opposition, which I find more abhorrent than the bureaucratic and societal evils of American power. While American atrocities have equaled autocratic ones, there’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors.
    - eezurr 5y ago
      Yet the United States have tortured POWs, arguably worse than murder for the immense suffering that causes both physically and psychologically. >There’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors. Which is much more dangerous than being able to place responsibly on a non-amorphous, single person. The US has an extensively long history of interfering in the matters of other countries. You can overthrow and point fingers at one figure head, but you can't overthrow a system, systemic, and systematically unaccountable foreign policy that changes face every 4-8 years.
foogazi 5y ago
> And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s Laughable I’d say it hasn’t happened since the revolutionary war
- pc86 5y ago
  I don't know as much about the European theater but had a few major battles gone differently in the Pacific the war would have, at the very least, ended much differently.
  - philistine 5y ago
    yeah but could have Japan defeated the US? It's clear they could have won their objectives, but Japan could not have rolled tanks all the way to New York to defeat the US.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      Once Japan was at war with the US it had already lost. They’d have been better off invading the British and Dutch colonies and hoping the US wouldn’t get involved.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Indeed, if the US had just blockaded and mined the seas around the Japanese home islands and ignored the rest of the Pacific Theater the war would have been over in a year, possibly two. Surrender or starve to death. Those are the joys of not being self-sufficient in food and going to war with an economy more than four times the size of yours.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  1812 the US achieved none of its war goals and had its capital burned to the ground. If the British hadn’t had higher priorities in Europe things could have gone much worse. Not like they won in Korea either.
  - 5y ago
vandreas2 5y ago
Russia has not taken on any power it can defeat nor does it have the economy, allies or even approval of it's populace. The neighbours that has been invading lately don't really count for "powers" and it's already struggling as it is.
benreesman 5y ago
So fortunately these kind of life-and-death decisions are far above my pay grade. My personal skin in the game is roughly: live in San Diego. So my opinion and five bucks gets you a latte. There might come a point where a cautious, politically-acceptable, consensus-driven approach actually increases the risk that the big game starts. When the stakes are this high, if there is a realistic path to de-escalation that has to be the goal. But there may or may not be a realistic path to de-escalating the situation. Money may be a lever: 2T+ stimulus packages are becoming the norm in the US. That’s significantly more than the GDP of the RF. If a ton of aid gets the world to a better place, that’s most likely way EV+. Russian sovereign debt it yielding 20%+, maybe money can help. But if the internal dynamics of Putin’s situation make it impossible for him to back down? It’s probably better to do something decisive than to wait for the wrong sanction or just ambient pressure to kick off the big one anyways.

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.
    - vandreas2 5y ago
      He has to threaten it, it doesn't cost him anything.
      - phkahler 5y ago
        It costs him karma.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Bro, no I’m not. In conventional warfare, the US 1000% has the resources to make an invasion of an unwilling nation impossible. In nuclear warfare you and I are both dead so this debate is pointless.
mdorazio 5y ago
You don't seem to have a good understanding of the difference between the kind of war Russia is waging on Ukraine right now and an all-out war with all options on the table. The two are not comparable.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Yeah the kind of war Russia is fighting right now is already a snipe hunt because no modern nation has occupied an unwilling people since the fall of the Raj. The US’s involvement is more a function of time to Russian failure. I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuance of war.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >no modern nation has occupied an unwilling people Russia did exactly that in Grozny. They seem to be trying to do the same thing here in the same way :(
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      Wait wait wait. At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state a la Ukraine? Sure there was a period of time when Chechnya was a semi-recognized failing state [0], but to say that it was in anyway comparable to Ukraine is disingenuous at best. [0] news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/135716.stm
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state Since when does “an unwilling people” require “an internationally recognized free state”, or are those goalposts jet propelled?
        RC_ITR 5y ago
        Because what evidence do you You have that the majority of Chechnyans supported the non-Russian government? When they briefly broke away from Russia, they were dominated by warlords. Not exactly a clear indication that there was a popularly supported free government (unlike Ukrainian which has formal elections with broad turnout). Maybe apply a critical thinking lens?
eezurr 5y ago
I've been seeing the word "propaganda" thrown around a lot lately. It's been bothering me how quickly people stop seeking the full picture when they start using that word. That is a really vulnerable position to place your intelligence and curiosity. Propaganda: Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. - from Wikipedia Question: How can you determine when an individual is under the influence of propaganda? Answer: When they stop looking for the truths that either or both sides of a conflict use as the foundation of their propaganda. >Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective. I'd argue so is the United States, much more so than Putin's. If you compare the evils committed by the US to Putin's, Putin cannot hold a candle to the US. The difference is that Putin bears that burden across multiple decades, while the US changes figure heads every 4-8 years, and with that washes away the stains of the country into the haze of time. With all that being said, I am not pro-Putin nor pro-US regarding this conflict, and I agree with the article that the best course is for the United States to admit defeat, (and additionally, not in the article) stop expanding eastward (through NATO), and to keep their promise to Russia (which was to stop expanding NATO). Edit: I'd like to add, the seed of Putin's "fascist/nazi" claim is that in 2014, Ukraine's new government eliminated minority rights (i.e. the Russian minority, which represents less than half of the population). And, the US started funding the neo-Nazi faction (Azov battalion) of the Ukrainian army. A quick duckduckgo search will pull up articles for both of these claims.
- aklemm 5y ago
  Putin is a particular kind of evil; the autocratic, personally liable kind. He murders and jails opposition, which I find more abhorrent than the bureaucratic and societal evils of American power. While American atrocities have equaled autocratic ones, there’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors.
  - eezurr 5y ago
    Yet the United States have tortured POWs, arguably worse than murder for the immense suffering that causes both physically and psychologically. >There’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors. Which is much more dangerous than being able to place responsibly on a non-amorphous, single person. The US has an extensively long history of interfering in the matters of other countries. You can overthrow and point fingers at one figure head, but you can't overthrow a system, systemic, and systematically unaccountable foreign policy that changes face every 4-8 years.

foogazi 5y ago

> And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s Laughable I’d say it hasn’t happened since the revolutionary war

pc86 5y ago
I don't know as much about the European theater but had a few major battles gone differently in the Pacific the war would have, at the very least, ended much differently.
- philistine 5y ago
  yeah but could have Japan defeated the US? It's clear they could have won their objectives, but Japan could not have rolled tanks all the way to New York to defeat the US.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Once Japan was at war with the US it had already lost. They’d have been better off invading the British and Dutch colonies and hoping the US wouldn’t get involved.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Indeed, if the US had just blockaded and mined the seas around the Japanese home islands and ignored the rest of the Pacific Theater the war would have been over in a year, possibly two. Surrender or starve to death. Those are the joys of not being self-sufficient in food and going to war with an economy more than four times the size of yours.
barry-cotter 5y ago
1812 the US achieved none of its war goals and had its capital burned to the ground. If the British hadn’t had higher priorities in Europe things could have gone much worse. Not like they won in Korea either.
- 5y ago

vandreas2 5y ago

Russia has not taken on any power it can defeat nor does it have the economy, allies or even approval of it's populace. The neighbours that has been invading lately don't really count for "powers" and it's already struggling as it is.

benreesman 5y ago

So fortunately these kind of life-and-death decisions are far above my pay grade. My personal skin in the game is roughly: live in San Diego. So my opinion and five bucks gets you a latte. There might come a point where a cautious, politically-acceptable, consensus-driven approach actually increases the risk that the big game starts. When the stakes are this high, if there is a realistic path to de-escalation that has to be the goal. But there may or may not be a realistic path to de-escalating the situation. Money may be a lever: 2T+ stimulus packages are becoming the norm in the US. That’s significantly more than the GDP of the RF. If a ton of aid gets the world to a better place, that’s most likely way EV+. Russian sovereign debt it yielding 20%+, maybe money can help. But if the internal dynamics of Putin’s situation make it impossible for him to back down? It’s probably better to do something decisive than to wait for the wrong sanction or just ambient pressure to kick off the big one anyways.