3 ms·

> or that they won’t dare use them. What's to be gained by starting a nuclear war with the entire world? Or are you calling them stupid (China and Russia)?

m000 4y ago
> What's to be gained by starting a nuclear war with the entire world? Less than a year ago, the question was: What's to be gained by invading Ukraine? Putin is not stupid to start a war with nothing to gain.
- foverzar 4y ago
  And the answer is still "nothing". Russia doesn't really gain anything substantial. From Russia's point of view it is a huge price to pay for preventing another Turkey-Cuba missile crisis, except this time it is Ukraine instead of Turkey (which Russia considers even worse, given the recent revolution and government apparatus stability) and this time Russia doesn't have as much influence on American continent to deploy its own deterrent.
  - m000 4y ago
    My point is that the war in Ukraine showed that West has little understanding of Russia's point of view, what price Putin is willing to pay, what he perceives as a gain.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      Ah, yep, 100%, westerners impressions of Russia is something directly from fairy tales. I actually wonder if Russia somehow uses it as a part of it psyops. At least that clearly helped with the sanctions.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Except this point of view doesn't make any sense, because if NATO wanted to get their missiles close to Russia they could put them in, say, Poland, or Finland, instead of Ukraine. Russia's point of view is that Ukraine must be destroyed, because when it becomes more successful than Russia it would prove how terrible the Russian government is. Except this isn't particularly convincing, so Russia dropped in the Nazi ideology of "inferior Ukrainians", which kind of fits given their approach of leveling entire cities (cf Mariupol). An alternate theory would assume Russia for some reason _wants_ to lose. Because, honestly, it does look like that. If Putin wanted to make sure Russia remains isolated from the West for the upcoming couple of decades, "resetting" the situation back to late eighties to force its society to choose a different route instead... Except the whole idea seems too absurd even for them. Then again, none of this matters: we've tried appeasing Putin before, and it only provoked him to escalate. It was a logical choice to try something different this time - and it appears it worked.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > Poland, or Finland, instead of Ukraine Is Finland as willing to deploy NATOs military infrastructure and become target/source of the first strike? Consider that you are comparing stable countries with stable government and social institutions to a country that recently had a revolution and whose political drive is based on militant anti-russia rhetorics. > Russia's point of view is that Ukraine must be destroyed, because when it becomes more successful than Russia it would prove how terrible the Russian government is. That's not Russian point of view, that's western propaganda talking points. Moreover, this is just cartoonish, I really don't get how people older than teens manage to detach themselves from real life and humanity to believe it THAT literally. > which kind of fits given their approach of leveling entire cities (cf Mariupol). Mariuol is a singular case and the photos of it still don't look worse than Baghdad. Consider maybe getting some references before engaging in such rhetorics. Otherwise you might end up shilling for nazis yourself. > we've tried appeasing Putin before Uh-uh, sure, that famous dick-swinging bone-throwing lacking-any-reflection supremacist western diplomacy at its finest. Just think of all it's successes. And the amount of love everyone in the world has towards that always willing-to find-common-ground, compromising, meeting-half-way -there, totally never-speaking-from-the-position-of-power diplomacy. Oh wait... Oops.
foverzar 4y ago
> What's to be gained by starting a nuclear war with the entire world Who says it would be the entire world? At worst, it will be with a nuclear-capable fraction of the Western world (a really small part of the world) Besides, somehow I doubt that there won't be a very long and bloody escalation with tactical nukes - no one is going to press "end game for everyone" button until they themselves have lost completely.

m000 4y ago

> What's to be gained by starting a nuclear war with the entire world? Less than a year ago, the question was: What's to be gained by invading Ukraine? Putin is not stupid to start a war with nothing to gain.

foverzar 4y ago
And the answer is still "nothing". Russia doesn't really gain anything substantial. From Russia's point of view it is a huge price to pay for preventing another Turkey-Cuba missile crisis, except this time it is Ukraine instead of Turkey (which Russia considers even worse, given the recent revolution and government apparatus stability) and this time Russia doesn't have as much influence on American continent to deploy its own deterrent.
- m000 4y ago
  My point is that the war in Ukraine showed that West has little understanding of Russia's point of view, what price Putin is willing to pay, what he perceives as a gain.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    Ah, yep, 100%, westerners impressions of Russia is something directly from fairy tales. I actually wonder if Russia somehow uses it as a part of it psyops. At least that clearly helped with the sanctions.
- trasz 4y ago
  Except this point of view doesn't make any sense, because if NATO wanted to get their missiles close to Russia they could put them in, say, Poland, or Finland, instead of Ukraine. Russia's point of view is that Ukraine must be destroyed, because when it becomes more successful than Russia it would prove how terrible the Russian government is. Except this isn't particularly convincing, so Russia dropped in the Nazi ideology of "inferior Ukrainians", which kind of fits given their approach of leveling entire cities (cf Mariupol). An alternate theory would assume Russia for some reason _wants_ to lose. Because, honestly, it does look like that. If Putin wanted to make sure Russia remains isolated from the West for the upcoming couple of decades, "resetting" the situation back to late eighties to force its society to choose a different route instead... Except the whole idea seems too absurd even for them. Then again, none of this matters: we've tried appeasing Putin before, and it only provoked him to escalate. It was a logical choice to try something different this time - and it appears it worked.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > Poland, or Finland, instead of Ukraine Is Finland as willing to deploy NATOs military infrastructure and become target/source of the first strike? Consider that you are comparing stable countries with stable government and social institutions to a country that recently had a revolution and whose political drive is based on militant anti-russia rhetorics. > Russia's point of view is that Ukraine must be destroyed, because when it becomes more successful than Russia it would prove how terrible the Russian government is. That's not Russian point of view, that's western propaganda talking points. Moreover, this is just cartoonish, I really don't get how people older than teens manage to detach themselves from real life and humanity to believe it THAT literally. > which kind of fits given their approach of leveling entire cities (cf Mariupol). Mariuol is a singular case and the photos of it still don't look worse than Baghdad. Consider maybe getting some references before engaging in such rhetorics. Otherwise you might end up shilling for nazis yourself. > we've tried appeasing Putin before Uh-uh, sure, that famous dick-swinging bone-throwing lacking-any-reflection supremacist western diplomacy at its finest. Just think of all it's successes. And the amount of love everyone in the world has towards that always willing-to find-common-ground, compromising, meeting-half-way -there, totally never-speaking-from-the-position-of-power diplomacy. Oh wait... Oops.

foverzar 4y ago

> What's to be gained by starting a nuclear war with the entire world Who says it would be the entire world? At worst, it will be with a nuclear-capable fraction of the Western world (a really small part of the world) Besides, somehow I doubt that there won't be a very long and bloody escalation with tactical nukes - no one is going to press "end game for everyone" button until they themselves have lost completely.