3 ms·

This was the answer, pre-Ukraine already. That war doesn't move the needle that much, as NATO/Russia escalation is far from the only nuclear war threat -- there

This was the answer, pre-Ukraine already. That war doesn't move the needle that much, as NATO/Russia escalation is far from the only nuclear war threat -- there's also mistakes by any party, India/Pakistan, North Korea, China, etc.

somenameforme 4y ago
The China/Pakistan border clashes have resulted in fatalities on the order of several dozen in something where neither nation really wants to escalate. Ukraine would have long since lost this war if not for the US directing the funneling tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons, training, and so on to Ukraine. This support has been directly responsible for the excess deaths of Russians and Ukrainians alike numbering in the tens of thousands. Not only is this orders of magnitude more impactful than the other conflicts, but perhaps even more concerning is what in the world the endgame might be? By effectively throwing its entire influence into this war, the US has now effectively staked that influence on the outcome of the war. And it's the exact same situation for Russia. The two most nuclear armed nations are now in a conflict that is a must-win for both of them. IMO this conflict ending up going nuclear is still highly improbable, but highly improbable is far closer to nuclear war than we've ever been.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  The Ukraine war is small stakes compared to what the U.S. and USSR did during the Cold War. The U.S. accepted stalemate in Korea and defeat in Vietnam rather than go nuclear. They will not do it over Ukraine. It is not “must-win” for the U.S. Supporting Ukraine is not even significantly risking U.S. influence or standing in the EU. Getting Finland and Sweden into NATO is a benefit to the U.S. that will endure even if Ukraine completely falls (which it won’t). I guess there is a chance that Russia could initiate a nuclear exchange if Putin is 100% suicidally insane. I don’t believe that he is.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
    I think you are underestimating a few facts in the conflict of Ukraine which downplays it's significance. The EU and the US have drawn the lines very explicitly, which before they were able to whist away any pressing questions on relations by claiming 'allies'. Russia has been cut off from the IMF dominated financial system. No FX, No Swift, no IMF support. This is the financial equivilent of going nuclear. This has led Russia and China to announce they are goiing to directly compete with the IMF and start their own federal reserve. My point is not that nuclear war is imminent, but quite the opposite. We have new tools to declare total war without a single bullet being fired. Cyber, destabilization and financial war might prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Russia hasn't used IMF support in decades. Not all Russian banks are banned from SWIFT. > Cyber, destabilization and financial war might prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be. Nuclear could plausibly result in the extinction of our species. Suggesting that financial warfare could "prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be" seems patently false. > far closer to nuclear war than we've ever been. This is the statement that is being disagreed with.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Surprised I had to scroll down so far to find a reasonable comment. It is in human nature to exceptionalize the time period you happen to be living in. It is worth guarding against these cognitive biases.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 4y ago
  > This support has been directly responsible for the excess deaths of Russians and Ukrainians alike numbering in the tens of thousands. No. It's Russian invasion on Ukraine directly responsible for the deaths.
- arisAlexis 4y ago
  so your logic is when a powerful nation invades another weaker nobody should intervene because there will be lost lives. I am writing the comment in hope that at least nobody gets convinced about your well worded and deadly wrong argument.

somenameforme 4y ago

The China/Pakistan border clashes have resulted in fatalities on the order of several dozen in something where neither nation really wants to escalate. Ukraine would have long since lost this war if not for the US directing the funneling tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons, training, and so on to Ukraine. This support has been directly responsible for the excess deaths of Russians and Ukrainians alike numbering in the tens of thousands. Not only is this orders of magnitude more impactful than the other conflicts, but perhaps even more concerning is what in the world the endgame might be? By effectively throwing its entire influence into this war, the US has now effectively staked that influence on the outcome of the war. And it's the exact same situation for Russia. The two most nuclear armed nations are now in a conflict that is a must-win for both of them. IMO this conflict ending up going nuclear is still highly improbable, but highly improbable is far closer to nuclear war than we've ever been.

snowwrestler 4y ago
The Ukraine war is small stakes compared to what the U.S. and USSR did during the Cold War. The U.S. accepted stalemate in Korea and defeat in Vietnam rather than go nuclear. They will not do it over Ukraine. It is not “must-win” for the U.S. Supporting Ukraine is not even significantly risking U.S. influence or standing in the EU. Getting Finland and Sweden into NATO is a benefit to the U.S. that will endure even if Ukraine completely falls (which it won’t). I guess there is a chance that Russia could initiate a nuclear exchange if Putin is 100% suicidally insane. I don’t believe that he is.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
  I think you are underestimating a few facts in the conflict of Ukraine which downplays it's significance. The EU and the US have drawn the lines very explicitly, which before they were able to whist away any pressing questions on relations by claiming 'allies'. Russia has been cut off from the IMF dominated financial system. No FX, No Swift, no IMF support. This is the financial equivilent of going nuclear. This has led Russia and China to announce they are goiing to directly compete with the IMF and start their own federal reserve. My point is not that nuclear war is imminent, but quite the opposite. We have new tools to declare total war without a single bullet being fired. Cyber, destabilization and financial war might prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Russia hasn't used IMF support in decades. Not all Russian banks are banned from SWIFT. > Cyber, destabilization and financial war might prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be. Nuclear could plausibly result in the extinction of our species. Suggesting that financial warfare could "prove deadlier than nuclear could ever be" seems patently false. > far closer to nuclear war than we've ever been. This is the statement that is being disagreed with.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Surprised I had to scroll down so far to find a reasonable comment. It is in human nature to exceptionalize the time period you happen to be living in. It is worth guarding against these cognitive biases.
6ue7nNMEEbHcM 4y ago
> This support has been directly responsible for the excess deaths of Russians and Ukrainians alike numbering in the tens of thousands. No. It's Russian invasion on Ukraine directly responsible for the deaths.
arisAlexis 4y ago
so your logic is when a powerful nation invades another weaker nobody should intervene because there will be lost lives. I am writing the comment in hope that at least nobody gets convinced about your well worded and deadly wrong argument.