4 ms·

> just give in a little bit more and hope he stops I think the idea is to relinquish as little as possible while making Russia suffer as much as possible. > T

> just give in a little bit more and hope he stops I think the idea is to relinquish as little as possible while making Russia suffer as much as possible. > The best strategy is to close the door Are you suggesting that we escalate and incur more suffering in the short term to head off a possible worse future outcome?

hbrn 4y ago
We're all here speculating what is going to lead to a worse future outcome. To me it seems obvious that Putin has been testing the waters for the last 10-15 years. Ukraine is not the end game, it's another test. So far the response that he got is that West is weak, worst they can do is slap on the wrist. Sure, the war turned out to be way more expensive than he anticipated, but Europe is still funding it. Given Russia's rhetoric, hatred towards the west, and abundance of resources, my bet is that escalation is almost inevitable. The question is on whose terms it will happen. Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. If you're choosing between 1% chance of nuclear war today or 10% chance of nuclear war in 10 years, what will you chose?
- mikem170 4y ago
  > Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldova and Poland next, at some point. I think everyone agrees on that. It's in the West's interest to make that as difficult as practical. And the other alternative, escalating more than we have, might not make a difference, because unless we destroy the Russian military nothing would really change, and trying to destroy the Russian military would cost us enormous amounts of blood and treasure. I may have misunderstood your prior "the best strategy is to close the door" remark. Are you saying that the West should be doing something more, like providing air cover to Ukraine? If we escalated too much I assume the Russian's would adjust. Perhaps they would escalate, justifying tactical nukes because the whole world is against them. Perhaps they would withdraw, bide their time, and try again some other day, based on their fears and capabilities. Perhaps it's better that we stick with what we are doing - letting the Russians fritter away their resources trying to attain something just out of their reach. I tend to think that we've been doing a good job of walking that line. We're helping Ukraine beat back Russia, trying to keep the conflict from significantly escalating, and weakening Russia in the process.

hbrn 4y ago

We're all here speculating what is going to lead to a worse future outcome. To me it seems obvious that Putin has been testing the waters for the last 10-15 years. Ukraine is not the end game, it's another test. So far the response that he got is that West is weak, worst they can do is slap on the wrist. Sure, the war turned out to be way more expensive than he anticipated, but Europe is still funding it. Given Russia's rhetoric, hatred towards the west, and abundance of resources, my bet is that escalation is almost inevitable. The question is on whose terms it will happen. Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. If you're choosing between 1% chance of nuclear war today or 10% chance of nuclear war in 10 years, what will you chose?

mikem170 4y ago
> Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldova and Poland next, at some point. I think everyone agrees on that. It's in the West's interest to make that as difficult as practical. And the other alternative, escalating more than we have, might not make a difference, because unless we destroy the Russian military nothing would really change, and trying to destroy the Russian military would cost us enormous amounts of blood and treasure. I may have misunderstood your prior "the best strategy is to close the door" remark. Are you saying that the West should be doing something more, like providing air cover to Ukraine? If we escalated too much I assume the Russian's would adjust. Perhaps they would escalate, justifying tactical nukes because the whole world is against them. Perhaps they would withdraw, bide their time, and try again some other day, based on their fears and capabilities. Perhaps it's better that we stick with what we are doing - letting the Russians fritter away their resources trying to attain something just out of their reach. I tend to think that we've been doing a good job of walking that line. We're helping Ukraine beat back Russia, trying to keep the conflict from significantly escalating, and weakening Russia in the process.