4 ms·

Putin may be rational and still decide to launch. What is or is not rational is based on objectives and timelines. It is imperative we understand what these ar

Putin may be rational and still decide to launch. What is or is not rational is based on objectives and timelines. It is imperative we understand what these are, as they form the frame of what decisions might be made.

andyjohnson0 5y ago
Are you saying that objectives and timelines are the _only_ factors that can be used to evaluate leadership rationality? In what circumstances is it rational for Putin to trigger a large-scale, first-use nuclear exchange that would probably kill hundreds of millions of people? Edit: I can see how it might be rational for Putin to threaten to use nuclear weapons. But I can't understand how that extends to actually using them.
- pydry 5y ago
  To save his own skin.
  - andyjohnson0 5y ago
    > To save his own skin. So Russia as a functioning society is destroyed in the inevitable counter-attack. How does that benefit Putin? How does that allow him to go on living in the way that he clearly wants to?
    - pydry 5y ago
      I think he probably visualizes the gradual encroachment of NATO ending up with a bayonet shoved up his ass a la Libya. He apparently watched the Gadaffi video obsessively and he was certainly publicly outraged about it, particularly in light of the broken promises the west made to gafaffi that he'd be left alone. In the 2000s he probably would have felt somewhat safe losing power. I think after that video his attitude was probably that if Russia loses its military power and he loses power in Russia he will die a messy and horrible death. And hes been in this state for over 10 years now. Theres probably some truth to the notion that COVID isolated him but I think Libya contributed most to his paranoia. Im pretty sure this puts nuclear weapons strikes on large population centers on the table.
  - arethuza 5y ago
    He'd also have to be confident that he personally could survive a counter strike - which would be quite a decision to make.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      What counterstrike? If he pops a small, relatively clean nuclear weapon over a Ukrainian airfield, the United States will almost certainly not retaliate against the Russian homeland — that path nearly inevitably leads to general war. This is doubly true if Putin decides to cause a high-altitude nuclear EMP event. We are in a serious policy vice and the odds of him resorting to a nuclear demonstration are non-zero and grow by the day. Even the best outcome of that scenario likely means a massive proliferation crisis as countries around the world put plans into effect to join the nuclear club ASAP.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  alright i will have a go at this: Let's say Putin's core objective is 'not letting US win' - this is the only thing he cares about. War goes badly, but this core objective doesn't change. If he wants to achieve this objective, armageddon would achieve it - everyone loses, so US doesn't win. That is better than Russia loses, US wins, so it is rational in this frame to push the button.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    But that isn't what he wants. He doesn't want the US to lose; he wants Russia to win. He thinks he needs NATO to collapse for that to happen, but the end goal is Russia winning, not NATO losing. He can't get Russia winning by a nuclear war. The larger problem is that he is increasingly surrounded by people who tell him what he wants to hear, not what is true. That might lead to a situation where he thinks Russia can win by a nuclear war.
    - hunglee2 5y ago
      my example was illustration of how triggering nuclear war could be a rational decision. I do not have any privileged access to Putin's objective
kkfx 5y ago
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > they push various coup like founding the Solidarność "syndicate" in Poland If you think that Solidarność is some sort of criminal movement, I don't want to be on your side. Maybe they are not relevant now (outlived their purpose a little), but I live in Poland and DO NOT want to be back in Russia. Some old people say "under communism it was better", but when asked a little more they say things like "we had almost nothing and we were happy" while watching some recent news on flat screen in comfy home with all the kitchen appliances they want. Cool, now Russia will be like that old times, they can go there and compare how good it is.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    Solidarność was evidently criminal by history, but that does not means Soviet's were good guys, that's the common error too many commit following actual propaganda: Putin IS clearly a dictator and that does not at all means that on the other side they are less criminal or more just. The blackbird is black and that does not imply the crow is white. Beside that: consider a thing, the Soviet have done some BIG criminal act, for instance on Ukraine starving many to death just to nourish their newly born industry needed for war and cohesion, again that does not means that the white financed by UK, France and others were less criminal or just. States do their own math for specific reasons and sometimes things are complicated. Understanding what happen means being able to comprehend who's right or wrong and at what extent. Another historic example during WWII in France Philippe Pétain, a former WWI hero decide to sign an agreement with nazi German founding Vichy regime. If you read the history at that level he was a hero turned in a monster. That's nor true nor false. He have well seen WWI where French officers where killed taken as a sample "to push troops" while he see that Germany troops were FAR less self-aggressive, he see the degree of separation between officers and soldiers in the army while far less happen on German side, so he just make a small computation: "if we can't win it's better being under Germany than under a corrupted regime that want to sell France to UK" (that's was the plan, read "In The Thick of The Fight 1930-1945" by Paul Reynaud) and many was with him both because they agree and both because they think he will turn side again sooner. He became evil after. Knowing that really change the history, he was both a hero and a villain and the same was valid for many others. Actual Poland gov. for what I've read should be arrested en mass for high treason, attempted coup d'etat and others crimes for instance, and that does not mean opponent of actual gov are good guys. Again we have to read the complexity before judge.
Mikeb85 5y ago
>Putin may be rational and still decide to launch And what about the others who need to follow through to complete his order? Putin can't launch anyway without the cooperation of at least a few others...

andyjohnson0 5y ago

Are you saying that objectives and timelines are the _only_ factors that can be used to evaluate leadership rationality? In what circumstances is it rational for Putin to trigger a large-scale, first-use nuclear exchange that would probably kill hundreds of millions of people? Edit: I can see how it might be rational for Putin to threaten to use nuclear weapons. But I can't understand how that extends to actually using them.

pydry 5y ago
To save his own skin.
- andyjohnson0 5y ago
  > To save his own skin. So Russia as a functioning society is destroyed in the inevitable counter-attack. How does that benefit Putin? How does that allow him to go on living in the way that he clearly wants to?
  - pydry 5y ago
    I think he probably visualizes the gradual encroachment of NATO ending up with a bayonet shoved up his ass a la Libya. He apparently watched the Gadaffi video obsessively and he was certainly publicly outraged about it, particularly in light of the broken promises the west made to gafaffi that he'd be left alone. In the 2000s he probably would have felt somewhat safe losing power. I think after that video his attitude was probably that if Russia loses its military power and he loses power in Russia he will die a messy and horrible death. And hes been in this state for over 10 years now. Theres probably some truth to the notion that COVID isolated him but I think Libya contributed most to his paranoia. Im pretty sure this puts nuclear weapons strikes on large population centers on the table.
- arethuza 5y ago
  He'd also have to be confident that he personally could survive a counter strike - which would be quite a decision to make.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    What counterstrike? If he pops a small, relatively clean nuclear weapon over a Ukrainian airfield, the United States will almost certainly not retaliate against the Russian homeland — that path nearly inevitably leads to general war. This is doubly true if Putin decides to cause a high-altitude nuclear EMP event. We are in a serious policy vice and the odds of him resorting to a nuclear demonstration are non-zero and grow by the day. Even the best outcome of that scenario likely means a massive proliferation crisis as countries around the world put plans into effect to join the nuclear club ASAP.
hunglee2 5y ago
alright i will have a go at this: Let's say Putin's core objective is 'not letting US win' - this is the only thing he cares about. War goes badly, but this core objective doesn't change. If he wants to achieve this objective, armageddon would achieve it - everyone loses, so US doesn't win. That is better than Russia loses, US wins, so it is rational in this frame to push the button.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  But that isn't what he wants. He doesn't want the US to lose; he wants Russia to win. He thinks he needs NATO to collapse for that to happen, but the end goal is Russia winning, not NATO losing. He can't get Russia winning by a nuclear war. The larger problem is that he is increasingly surrounded by people who tell him what he wants to hear, not what is true. That might lead to a situation where he thinks Russia can win by a nuclear war.
  - hunglee2 5y ago
    my example was illustration of how triggering nuclear war could be a rational decision. I do not have any privileged access to Putin's objective

kkfx 5y ago

yetihehe 5y ago
> they push various coup like founding the Solidarność "syndicate" in Poland If you think that Solidarność is some sort of criminal movement, I don't want to be on your side. Maybe they are not relevant now (outlived their purpose a little), but I live in Poland and DO NOT want to be back in Russia. Some old people say "under communism it was better", but when asked a little more they say things like "we had almost nothing and we were happy" while watching some recent news on flat screen in comfy home with all the kitchen appliances they want. Cool, now Russia will be like that old times, they can go there and compare how good it is.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Solidarność was evidently criminal by history, but that does not means Soviet's were good guys, that's the common error too many commit following actual propaganda: Putin IS clearly a dictator and that does not at all means that on the other side they are less criminal or more just. The blackbird is black and that does not imply the crow is white. Beside that: consider a thing, the Soviet have done some BIG criminal act, for instance on Ukraine starving many to death just to nourish their newly born industry needed for war and cohesion, again that does not means that the white financed by UK, France and others were less criminal or just. States do their own math for specific reasons and sometimes things are complicated. Understanding what happen means being able to comprehend who's right or wrong and at what extent. Another historic example during WWII in France Philippe Pétain, a former WWI hero decide to sign an agreement with nazi German founding Vichy regime. If you read the history at that level he was a hero turned in a monster. That's nor true nor false. He have well seen WWI where French officers where killed taken as a sample "to push troops" while he see that Germany troops were FAR less self-aggressive, he see the degree of separation between officers and soldiers in the army while far less happen on German side, so he just make a small computation: "if we can't win it's better being under Germany than under a corrupted regime that want to sell France to UK" (that's was the plan, read "In The Thick of The Fight 1930-1945" by Paul Reynaud) and many was with him both because they agree and both because they think he will turn side again sooner. He became evil after. Knowing that really change the history, he was both a hero and a villain and the same was valid for many others. Actual Poland gov. for what I've read should be arrested en mass for high treason, attempted coup d'etat and others crimes for instance, and that does not mean opponent of actual gov are good guys. Again we have to read the complexity before judge.

Mikeb85 5y ago

>Putin may be rational and still decide to launch And what about the others who need to follow through to complete his order? Putin can't launch anyway without the cooperation of at least a few others...