4 ms·

I'm not sure the difference is as obvious as you imply. Care to elaborate?

lazide 5y ago
Every major conflict since WW2 has some degree of ‘proxy’ to it - with the US and Russia arming or supporting one or both sides to some degree. Sometimes even providing direct troop support. It’s been accepted that as long as troops from one of the side are not directly shooting at uniformed troops from the other side (sides here being US/Russia!), it’s a proxy conflict, not a direct one. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korean War being some of the larger versions of this. With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore once someone from the US or NATO side shoots at someone in a Russian uniform. But providing weapons to Ukrainians has a lot of precedent as being ‘not a war’ between them. Even if the Ukranians use them to shoot Russians.
- JPLeRouzic 5y ago
  > With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore So is it a strategic move to be the first to attack?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That depends on whether you like to see your metal objects glow in the dark.
  - lazide 5y ago
    You’d be staking out the ground first as ‘your fight’ - so in general maybe. In this case for instance, if NATO had moved in before Russia into Ukraine however, that would be really, really bad. A big factor behind this war already is Russian insecurity about NATO strength and being frozen out of traditionally Russian territory. It would be a bit like Russia occupying some of the Aleutians all the sudden. Not likely to go well. Sudden double flashes not well.
    - JPLeRouzic 5y ago
      Thanks for your answer which is insightful. As you explain there is asymmetry in the case of countries that are close to a border of one of the actors (either US or Russia). So can we expect other similar moves from Russia into countries that are not part of NATO and which have no common frontiers with US?
      - lazide 5y ago
        They have been for awhile. Georgia, for instance. They’ve been threatening countries like Finland, Sweden, etc. every time they consider it too. When it was non-western aligned Soviet breakaway republics, it was easier to ignore. The invasion of Ukraine was too obvious and ham handed. Moscow has doubled down on the threats to those on the fence since then, enough to push folks back over to the other side. Which likely just pushes Russia more solidly into doubling down/existential threat mode. Here is some timely news on the topic. [https://news.yahoo.com/finland-and-sweden-moving-toward-possible-nato-membership-brace-for-russian-backlash-215223249.html https://news.yahoo.com/finland-and-sweden-moving-toward-poss...]
  - OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
    MAD still applies, disincentivizing a direct war between the US and Russia. US nuclear policy is unspecified, Russian policy explicitly calls for the use of nuclear weapons if the survival of the Russian state is on the line. Direct war with the US could very easily lead to the Russian state fearing for its future.
    - JPLeRouzic 5y ago
      > Direct war with the US could very easily lead to the Russian state fearing for its future. Yes, that's another dimension in this complex problem.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > It’s been accepted that as long as troops from one of the side are not directly shooting at uniformed troops from the other side During the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Soviet pilots engaged in dogfights with Americans, which makes the amount of handwringing over just sending weaponry being a escalation laughable.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Good point on the pilots! Also MacArthur’s pursuit of the North Koreans across the 38th parallel brought China directly into the war and precipitated a much, much larger conflict, and cost a great many American and UN Allie’s lives. It got him (rightly, IMO) fired. But that was too late. [https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/marshall-macarthur-38th-parallel/ https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/mar...] If everyone agrees that shooting at each other’s pilots isn’t a ‘direct conflict’, then it isn’t. The US didn’t want to officially care to that level that Chinese jets (or troops) were killing US troops, because the US could waltz back home and Korea would be the one to take the hit. At least one of the parties could accept a failure, somewhat. The stakes for Russia here (and especially for Putin), like when MacArthur crossed the 38th, are much, much higher for them. A well armed, actively hostile (well earned hostility or not), and aligned with the west Ukraine is right on their doorstep, with no meaningful geographic barriers. Historically a scary situation for Russia. And Europe, which has a lot (depending on if we’re counting countries or $$) of influence over NATO and is nuclear armed themselves, is also existentially threatened by Russia doing what they are doing. Russia has a recent and very painful history with many of those countries. And even if the WW2 push west from Russia was precipitated by Nazi Germany, nothing they did afterwards left a warm and fuzzy feeling. The hand wringing is because after a long period of peace that people became accustomed too, this is a real and present danger to a lot of folks livelihoods and safety even if nothing goes nuclear. And this turns up the dial on stress in a way that no one can look at it and really be sure the other side wouldn’t go nuclear over the next step or two. Would he be super stupid and self destructive? Yes. But when in an information bubble and when threatened by existential threats is exactly when folks are most likely to do stupid and self destructive things. Would you be willing to bet there is no (crazier) MacArthur, potentially one that has access to a nuke or dirty bomb or the like, in the power structure somewhere there, or even in Ukraine if you really looked? Madmen need to be checked. Getting nuked is also terrible. Starting WW3? Just yikes.
simne 5y ago
This is because men have consciousness, and could understand consequences of his actions, and even most enhanced AI now does not have consciousness. Forecasts say, this will change in nearest decades, but at the moment machines considered incapable. Some people have other opinion, but for us important, that Russian govt agree with what I write.

Every major conflict since WW2 has some degree of ‘proxy’ to it - with the US and Russia arming or supporting one or both sides to some degree. Sometimes even providing direct troop support. It’s been accepted that as long as troops from one of the side are not directly shooting at uniformed troops from the other side (sides here being US/Russia!), it’s a proxy conflict, not a direct one. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korean War being some of the larger versions of this. With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore once someone from the US or NATO side shoots at someone in a Russian uniform. But providing weapons to Ukrainians has a lot of precedent as being ‘not a war’ between them. Even if the Ukranians use them to shoot Russians.

JPLeRouzic 5y ago
> With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore So is it a strategic move to be the first to attack?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That depends on whether you like to see your metal objects glow in the dark.
- lazide 5y ago
  You’d be staking out the ground first as ‘your fight’ - so in general maybe. In this case for instance, if NATO had moved in before Russia into Ukraine however, that would be really, really bad. A big factor behind this war already is Russian insecurity about NATO strength and being frozen out of traditionally Russian territory. It would be a bit like Russia occupying some of the Aleutians all the sudden. Not likely to go well. Sudden double flashes not well.
  - JPLeRouzic 5y ago
    Thanks for your answer which is insightful. As you explain there is asymmetry in the case of countries that are close to a border of one of the actors (either US or Russia). So can we expect other similar moves from Russia into countries that are not part of NATO and which have no common frontiers with US?
    - lazide 5y ago
      They have been for awhile. Georgia, for instance. They’ve been threatening countries like Finland, Sweden, etc. every time they consider it too. When it was non-western aligned Soviet breakaway republics, it was easier to ignore. The invasion of Ukraine was too obvious and ham handed. Moscow has doubled down on the threats to those on the fence since then, enough to push folks back over to the other side. Which likely just pushes Russia more solidly into doubling down/existential threat mode. Here is some timely news on the topic. [https://news.yahoo.com/finland-and-sweden-moving-toward-possible-nato-membership-brace-for-russian-backlash-215223249.html https://news.yahoo.com/finland-and-sweden-moving-toward-poss...]
- OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
  MAD still applies, disincentivizing a direct war between the US and Russia. US nuclear policy is unspecified, Russian policy explicitly calls for the use of nuclear weapons if the survival of the Russian state is on the line. Direct war with the US could very easily lead to the Russian state fearing for its future.
  - JPLeRouzic 5y ago
    > Direct war with the US could very easily lead to the Russian state fearing for its future. Yes, that's another dimension in this complex problem.
mannerheim 5y ago
> It’s been accepted that as long as troops from one of the side are not directly shooting at uniformed troops from the other side During the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Soviet pilots engaged in dogfights with Americans, which makes the amount of handwringing over just sending weaponry being a escalation laughable.
- lazide 5y ago
  Good point on the pilots! Also MacArthur’s pursuit of the North Koreans across the 38th parallel brought China directly into the war and precipitated a much, much larger conflict, and cost a great many American and UN Allie’s lives. It got him (rightly, IMO) fired. But that was too late. [https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/marshall-macarthur-38th-parallel/ https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/mar...] If everyone agrees that shooting at each other’s pilots isn’t a ‘direct conflict’, then it isn’t. The US didn’t want to officially care to that level that Chinese jets (or troops) were killing US troops, because the US could waltz back home and Korea would be the one to take the hit. At least one of the parties could accept a failure, somewhat. The stakes for Russia here (and especially for Putin), like when MacArthur crossed the 38th, are much, much higher for them. A well armed, actively hostile (well earned hostility or not), and aligned with the west Ukraine is right on their doorstep, with no meaningful geographic barriers. Historically a scary situation for Russia. And Europe, which has a lot (depending on if we’re counting countries or $$) of influence over NATO and is nuclear armed themselves, is also existentially threatened by Russia doing what they are doing. Russia has a recent and very painful history with many of those countries. And even if the WW2 push west from Russia was precipitated by Nazi Germany, nothing they did afterwards left a warm and fuzzy feeling. The hand wringing is because after a long period of peace that people became accustomed too, this is a real and present danger to a lot of folks livelihoods and safety even if nothing goes nuclear. And this turns up the dial on stress in a way that no one can look at it and really be sure the other side wouldn’t go nuclear over the next step or two. Would he be super stupid and self destructive? Yes. But when in an information bubble and when threatened by existential threats is exactly when folks are most likely to do stupid and self destructive things. Would you be willing to bet there is no (crazier) MacArthur, potentially one that has access to a nuke or dirty bomb or the like, in the power structure somewhere there, or even in Ukraine if you really looked? Madmen need to be checked. Getting nuked is also terrible. Starting WW3? Just yikes.

simne 5y ago

This is because men have consciousness, and could understand consequences of his actions, and even most enhanced AI now does not have consciousness. Forecasts say, this will change in nearest decades, but at the moment machines considered incapable. Some people have other opinion, but for us important, that Russian govt agree with what I write.