6 ms·

I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff. I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymo

by k__ 5y ago

I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff. I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.

wackro 5y ago
>call Putin's nuclear bluff. And what do you think would be the outcome?
- k__ 5y ago
  Someone in power in Russia would see the issue and "remove" him. The replacement could then spin it as being a good replacement and play by the rules of the west.
  - jcadam 5y ago
    When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?
    - g8oz 5y ago
      Yeltsin to Putin.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force? Kruschev --> Brezhnev Brezhnev --> Andropov Andropov --> Chernenko Chernenko --> Gorbachev Gorbachev --> Yeltsin Yeltsin --> Putin Putin --> Medvedev Medvedev --> Putin Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia
      - MrVitaliy 5y ago
        This list is missing Stalin wiping out most of his opposition and things like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691
        nobody9999 5y ago
        Right. Which is why I didn't include him on the list. What's your point?
      - jcadam 5y ago
        Point taken. Though Putin to Medvedev and back wasn't really a transfer of power :) Also, if you haven't seen "Death of Stalin", it's an excellent dark comedy, if a bit historically inaccurate.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - euroderf 5y ago
      As a general rule, over the decades (centuries?), every change of leadership in Russia has been at least a bit less bloody than the previous one. Some dare call it "progress" :-P
- mullen 5y ago
  Nothing. A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for. No one is going to have anything to do with him or Russia on any level after that.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    No one is going to have anything to do with Putin after launching a nuclear first strike because he'll be dead. Along with most of the population of Russia and a big chunk of the rest of the world too. And Putin knows this. Thus, it's a bluff.
    - david422 5y ago
      Unless he's got terminal cancer and decides he's going out with a bang. He does seem to have some jowls. I mean the guy is blatantly lying to everyone and acting irrationally as is. The problem with poker is sometimes people go all in even with shit hands.
    - namelessoracle 5y ago
      Not necessarily. There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side. Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons. Will he decide to end life in America and most of the world over a carrier group? There's a non zero percent chance he would flinch at that. Your argument is that nobody would have anything to do with Putin, but we already pretty close to that point. Backing Putin in a corner makes him MORE dangerous, not less. Putin could do all kind of things to completely undermine as well. What happens if he decides that the world uniting against Russian means Russia no longer need to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treat and offers "free" nukes to whoever aligns with his new order? It's already understood geo politically that "no nukes" means the West and China get to bully you whenever they want. So why not take the offer? There's all kinds of ways this could get worse without all life ending.
kinleyd 5y ago
Given what's already happened, and provided (I'm hoping) Ukraine continues to hold out as it has, both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic and likely to occur in relatively quick order. I think settling for less would be illogical at this point.
- bdamm 5y ago
  EU membership is only possible if certain economic metrics are met, IIRC, and that is impossible to achieve while under attack or even soon after in the rebuilding phase. So to me EU membership is looking pretty far out. Why does it look realistic to you?
  - brimble 5y ago
    Treaties aren't set in stone, and novel ones can be invented. If I had to crystal-ball predict what a plausible Ukrainian victory looks like here—that is, the best likely outcome I think they might achieve on a relatively short timetable—it's a negotiated peace that gives some territorial concessions and, for face-saving for Putin/Russia, rejects Ukrainian NATO ambitions... but puts them in a quick-n-dirty EU status that grants them a security agreement of some kind, as they progress on the slower track to full EU membership. I think if Russia backs them into fully rejecting all security agreements with the West as part of a settlement, they're just in for a takeover by other means, once Russia has its near-term concerns addressed by the peace settlement and can afford to sit back and wait. I think the most likely way out of that (assuming Ukraine achieves one) is a novel arrangement of some kind, more likely with with the EU than NATO, or (waaaay less likely) a new bloc & mutual defense agreement with Sweden and Finland.
  - kinleyd 5y ago
    Yes, I understand the requirements for EU/NATO membership and that Ukraine is a long way from there. I thought it was realistic given the circumstances: Ukraine is quite literally fighting for eastern Europe - including those countries that have already acceded to the EU. I can't see any other way to look at it given the facts that have already surfaced. While the EU and NATO waffle over the extent it is willing to risk engaging in this war, Ukraine is getting destroyed, but may yet do enough to set back Putin's designs by 30 or more years, if not permanently. I believe such an outcome should confer the deserved right to special treatment for Ukraine by both the EU and NATO. However, perhaps I am too romantic in this regard as even at this time I'm sensing stodginess on the part of the EU and NATO.
euroderf 5y ago
In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.
  - euroderf 5y ago
    By access I meant civilian access, People doing people things. Commercial entities doing commercial things. Defense? Well, yah. It's complicated for Finland.

by k__ 5y ago

wackro 5y ago

>call Putin's nuclear bluff. And what do you think would be the outcome?

k__ 5y ago
Someone in power in Russia would see the issue and "remove" him. The replacement could then spin it as being a good replacement and play by the rules of the west.
- jcadam 5y ago
  When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?
  - g8oz 5y ago
    Yeltsin to Putin.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force? Kruschev --> Brezhnev Brezhnev --> Andropov Andropov --> Chernenko Chernenko --> Gorbachev Gorbachev --> Yeltsin Yeltsin --> Putin Putin --> Medvedev Medvedev --> Putin Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia
    - MrVitaliy 5y ago
      This list is missing Stalin wiping out most of his opposition and things like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        Right. Which is why I didn't include him on the list. What's your point?
    - jcadam 5y ago
      Point taken. Though Putin to Medvedev and back wasn't really a transfer of power :) Also, if you haven't seen "Death of Stalin", it's an excellent dark comedy, if a bit historically inaccurate.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - euroderf 5y ago
    As a general rule, over the decades (centuries?), every change of leadership in Russia has been at least a bit less bloody than the previous one. Some dare call it "progress" :-P
mullen 5y ago
Nothing. A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for. No one is going to have anything to do with him or Russia on any level after that.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  No one is going to have anything to do with Putin after launching a nuclear first strike because he'll be dead. Along with most of the population of Russia and a big chunk of the rest of the world too. And Putin knows this. Thus, it's a bluff.
  - david422 5y ago
    Unless he's got terminal cancer and decides he's going out with a bang. He does seem to have some jowls. I mean the guy is blatantly lying to everyone and acting irrationally as is. The problem with poker is sometimes people go all in even with shit hands.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    Not necessarily. There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side. Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons. Will he decide to end life in America and most of the world over a carrier group? There's a non zero percent chance he would flinch at that. Your argument is that nobody would have anything to do with Putin, but we already pretty close to that point. Backing Putin in a corner makes him MORE dangerous, not less. Putin could do all kind of things to completely undermine as well. What happens if he decides that the world uniting against Russian means Russia no longer need to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treat and offers "free" nukes to whoever aligns with his new order? It's already understood geo politically that "no nukes" means the West and China get to bully you whenever they want. So why not take the offer? There's all kinds of ways this could get worse without all life ending.

kinleyd 5y ago

Given what's already happened, and provided (I'm hoping) Ukraine continues to hold out as it has, both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic and likely to occur in relatively quick order. I think settling for less would be illogical at this point.

bdamm 5y ago
EU membership is only possible if certain economic metrics are met, IIRC, and that is impossible to achieve while under attack or even soon after in the rebuilding phase. So to me EU membership is looking pretty far out. Why does it look realistic to you?
- brimble 5y ago
  Treaties aren't set in stone, and novel ones can be invented. If I had to crystal-ball predict what a plausible Ukrainian victory looks like here—that is, the best likely outcome I think they might achieve on a relatively short timetable—it's a negotiated peace that gives some territorial concessions and, for face-saving for Putin/Russia, rejects Ukrainian NATO ambitions... but puts them in a quick-n-dirty EU status that grants them a security agreement of some kind, as they progress on the slower track to full EU membership. I think if Russia backs them into fully rejecting all security agreements with the West as part of a settlement, they're just in for a takeover by other means, once Russia has its near-term concerns addressed by the peace settlement and can afford to sit back and wait. I think the most likely way out of that (assuming Ukraine achieves one) is a novel arrangement of some kind, more likely with with the EU than NATO, or (waaaay less likely) a new bloc & mutual defense agreement with Sweden and Finland.
- kinleyd 5y ago
  Yes, I understand the requirements for EU/NATO membership and that Ukraine is a long way from there. I thought it was realistic given the circumstances: Ukraine is quite literally fighting for eastern Europe - including those countries that have already acceded to the EU. I can't see any other way to look at it given the facts that have already surfaced. While the EU and NATO waffle over the extent it is willing to risk engaging in this war, Ukraine is getting destroyed, but may yet do enough to set back Putin's designs by 30 or more years, if not permanently. I believe such an outcome should confer the deserved right to special treatment for Ukraine by both the EU and NATO. However, perhaps I am too romantic in this regard as even at this time I'm sensing stodginess on the part of the EU and NATO.

euroderf 5y ago

In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.

CRConrad 5y ago
> hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.
- euroderf 5y ago
  By access I meant civilian access, People doing people things. Commercial entities doing commercial things. Defense? Well, yah. It's complicated for Finland.