7 ms·

> Leave Ukraine and pay for the war crimes committed there This is what eventually will happen, but over Putin's dead body most likely. "Live by the sword, die

> Leave Ukraine and pay for the war crimes committed there This is what eventually will happen, but over Putin's dead body most likely. "Live by the sword, die by the sword", that kinda thing, etc. Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner.

w_t_payne 5y ago
And a cornered rat may bite.
- gambiting 5y ago
  A cornered rat is still just a rat.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    I would be quite scared if I saw a rat holding thousands of nuclear warheads.
    - jamincan 5y ago
      If he has thousands of nuclear warheads, he's not just a rat and he's not cornered. ie. there are still diplomatic ways out of this open to Putin. If he is not open to considering them and feels cornered, it is his own shortsightedness and failing.
    - glogla 5y ago
      Who knows if they work. Russians aren't even able to maintain army supply trucks properly.
      - criddell 5y ago
        95% of them could be broken and it's still a scary thought.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        I wonder that too. It has been said that you should never draw your pistol unless you are going to shoot. I don't know if that's true; but I do think it's unwise to threaten violence unless you are quite sure you are prepared to carry through. I think Putin is prepared to carry through (he's made the threat more than once). Russia seems to be losing in Ukraine; but they can't be seen to be slinking away with their tail between their legs. So I think there's a good chance Russia will pop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. I haven't any idea how NATO might select their target, though; striking a city would be gross over-reaction, and striking Russians in Ukraine would be rather counterproductive.
        sterlind 5y ago
        > For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Ukraine is not in NATO. That makes it a first strike, not a retaliatory strike. Putin's propaganda has been that NATO is an aggressor threatening Russia. If NATO strikes Russia in retaliation for a strike on a non-member country that only vindicates him, and you know, leads directly to WWIII
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Hey, I didn't mean to sound like a cheerleader for global thermonuclear war! I'm just observing that the logic of nuclear deterrence calls for a response whoever Russia attacks. If it becomes clear that Russia can nuke anyone it likes as long as they're not in NATO, then it can march into e.g. Georgia or Armenia with a company of conscripts, and take over, declaring that any resistance will be met with nukes. Suppose Russia pops a small nuke in Ukraine? Really, that's not going to achieve any major military victory. They'd need a few to end the war in Russia's favour. That would result in clouds of fallout afflicting NATO countries. At some point you'd have to say "that's enough". But at what point? After two? A dozen? Only after the first megaton city-flattener? I was a member of CND for a year, back in the 80's. I still favour unilateral disarmament. I quit not because I didn't support the goals, but because I was shocked at the political infighting I observed at the Annual General Meeting.
hericium 5y ago
> Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner. Not everybody. The "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" theorem is still alive. In any way, cornered Putin is angry Putin and angry Putin is dangerous and may be unpredictable.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I've heard that claim as well, but I don't know enough to judge it. Do you of a good source that covers the topic?
  - gbuk2013 5y ago
    First 25 mins of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE is a good start
  - NonEUCitizen 5y ago
    A 2015 talk by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago discusses the "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" angle. Mearsheimer calls himself a "realist." https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
    - glogla 5y ago
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      Mearsheimer completely ignores the agency of small European countries and makes the classic IR mistake of assuming that what might be 'rational' behaviour for a state in a Realist sense is also correct behaviour. You can use Realism to predict that Russia would eventually try to regain the power it lost over Eastern Europe and the Baltics with the dissolution of the USSR. In fact that very understanding and fear is precisely why countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics pushed so hard to join NATO and the EU, because they predicted that would happen. But that doesn't make Russia's actions the right move, either legally or morally. They have agency too and could always have made the choice to not to try to act like an empire with violent hegemony over their neighbours.
notpachet 5y ago
Hopefully it ends up being more akin to "live by the sword, die by the word".
- neverminder 5y ago
  The West already tried to talk Putin to death. That didn't seem to work.

w_t_payne 5y ago

And a cornered rat may bite.

gambiting 5y ago
A cornered rat is still just a rat.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  I would be quite scared if I saw a rat holding thousands of nuclear warheads.
  - jamincan 5y ago
    If he has thousands of nuclear warheads, he's not just a rat and he's not cornered. ie. there are still diplomatic ways out of this open to Putin. If he is not open to considering them and feels cornered, it is his own shortsightedness and failing.
  - glogla 5y ago
    Who knows if they work. Russians aren't even able to maintain army supply trucks properly.
    - criddell 5y ago
      95% of them could be broken and it's still a scary thought.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      I wonder that too. It has been said that you should never draw your pistol unless you are going to shoot. I don't know if that's true; but I do think it's unwise to threaten violence unless you are quite sure you are prepared to carry through. I think Putin is prepared to carry through (he's made the threat more than once). Russia seems to be losing in Ukraine; but they can't be seen to be slinking away with their tail between their legs. So I think there's a good chance Russia will pop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. I haven't any idea how NATO might select their target, though; striking a city would be gross over-reaction, and striking Russians in Ukraine would be rather counterproductive.
      - sterlind 5y ago
        > For the same reasons, NATO can't be seen to tolerate the popping of tactical nukes in a regional conflict; they would have to retaliate, for fear that their nuclear deterrent be treated as a joke. NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Ukraine is not in NATO. That makes it a first strike, not a retaliatory strike. Putin's propaganda has been that NATO is an aggressor threatening Russia. If NATO strikes Russia in retaliation for a strike on a non-member country that only vindicates him, and you know, leads directly to WWIII
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > NATO should definitely not respond to nukes with nukes unless Putin drops one on a NATO country. Hey, I didn't mean to sound like a cheerleader for global thermonuclear war! I'm just observing that the logic of nuclear deterrence calls for a response whoever Russia attacks. If it becomes clear that Russia can nuke anyone it likes as long as they're not in NATO, then it can march into e.g. Georgia or Armenia with a company of conscripts, and take over, declaring that any resistance will be met with nukes. Suppose Russia pops a small nuke in Ukraine? Really, that's not going to achieve any major military victory. They'd need a few to end the war in Russia's favour. That would result in clouds of fallout afflicting NATO countries. At some point you'd have to say "that's enough". But at what point? After two? A dozen? Only after the first megaton city-flattener? I was a member of CND for a year, back in the 80's. I still favour unilateral disarmament. I quit not because I didn't support the goals, but because I was shocked at the political infighting I observed at the Annual General Meeting.

hericium 5y ago

> Everybody agrees that by starting this pointless war Putin has painted himself into a corner. Not everybody. The "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" theorem is still alive. In any way, cornered Putin is angry Putin and angry Putin is dangerous and may be unpredictable.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
I've heard that claim as well, but I don't know enough to judge it. Do you of a good source that covers the topic?
- gbuk2013 5y ago
  First 25 mins of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE is a good start
- NonEUCitizen 5y ago
  A 2015 talk by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago discusses the "NATO pushed Putin into corner by inviting Ukraine" angle. Mearsheimer calls himself a "realist." https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
  - glogla 5y ago
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    Mearsheimer completely ignores the agency of small European countries and makes the classic IR mistake of assuming that what might be 'rational' behaviour for a state in a Realist sense is also correct behaviour. You can use Realism to predict that Russia would eventually try to regain the power it lost over Eastern Europe and the Baltics with the dissolution of the USSR. In fact that very understanding and fear is precisely why countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics pushed so hard to join NATO and the EU, because they predicted that would happen. But that doesn't make Russia's actions the right move, either legally or morally. They have agency too and could always have made the choice to not to try to act like an empire with violent hegemony over their neighbours.

notpachet 5y ago

Hopefully it ends up being more akin to "live by the sword, die by the word".

neverminder 5y ago
The West already tried to talk Putin to death. That didn't seem to work.