4 ms·

>Is it your plan or not? No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. >No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t

>Is it your plan or not? No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. >No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t need to happen and is very unlikely to escalate to this. So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? >NATO is more then capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine in a short period of time with conventional weapons given the state of the Russian armed forces. How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine?

_kbh_ 4y ago
> No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. Then what is your policy? Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. But Russia has already annexed territory in Ukraine, what happens to that?. Can you directly tell me what you want to happen in Ukraine?, does Ukraine get to keep all its borders?. > So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? It’s better then appeasement which is your policy. We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. For evidence of this just see. - Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) > How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine? How can you be sure that Russia will?. Hell at this rate there’s a decent chance that Russias tactical nuke just wouldn’t work, which would be hilarious but also not a point I’d like to get.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. Yes, expensive such that they will determine the cost is greater than the expected benefit. Every semi-rational agent responds to incentives, even Putin. Yes, Ukraine will lose territory under my policy. How much remains to be seen. It turns out we don't get to unilaterally dictate how nuclear powers execute their foreign policy, not without risking a nuclear exchange. >We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. So your policy literally is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. Why do the hawks refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their policy? Why not just own it? > For evidence of this just see Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) This isn't evidence that NATO demonstrating a massively increased cost to expansionist policy will not prevent further expansion. What the evidence shows is that no or lukewarm response to expansion, in conjunction with continued NATO expansion or interference, results in further Russian expansion. We haven't actually tried anything else.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Yes, expensive such that they will determine the cost is greater than the expected benefit. Every semi-rational agent responds to incentives, even Putin. Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatever it wants by holding the world hostage again. > Yes, Ukraine will lose territory under my policy. How much remains to be seen. It turns out we don't get to unilaterally dictate how nuclear powers execute their foreign policy, not without risking a nuclear exchange. So your dictating that Ukraine must lose a war, Russia gets everything it wants in hopes of teaching Russia what lesson again? that it can get its way as long as its threatens to use nukes?. What is to stop Russia doing exactly what they are doing now again?. > So your policy literally is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. My policy is to support Ukraine with any weapons that are not escalatory (ie dont given Ukraine its nukes back) and to provide Ukraine with the intelligence and support that it needs to push Russia out of its borders. > Why do the hawks refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their policy? Why not just own it? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that your policy just allows Russia to continue doing whatever it wants as long as it threatens nukes, all your policy does is train Russia that nukes makes everyone fold like a cheap cardboard box. > This isn't evidence that NATO demonstrating a massively increased cost to expansionist policy will not prevent further expansion. What the evidence shows is that no or lukewarm response to expansion, in conjunction with continued NATO expansion or interference, results in further Russian expansion. We haven't actually tried anything else. What are these costs that you are suggesting that don't go straight out the window when Russia threatens another country with tactical nukes if they don't back down?.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatever it wants by holding the world hostage again. No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. >What is to stop Russia doing exactly what they are doing now again?. To repeat for the millionth time, the extreme cost that we impose on them for adventurism. They will not be willing to pay the cost they paid in Ukraine for fucking Moldova, for example. >Why do you refuse to acknowledge that your policy just allows Russia to continue doing whatever it wants as long as it threatens nukes Because it obviously doesn't to any honest interlocutor. I'm not sure what your deal is. >My policy is to support Ukraine with any weapons that are not escalatory (ie dont given Ukraine its nukes back) and to provide Ukraine with the intelligence and support that it needs to push Russia out of its borders. It's interesting to note the contrast between your actual policy proposal and the bombast of your rhetoric: >The only thing that will stop Russia having its colonial ambitions is to defeat them in such a thorough and direct way that they never think of doing it again as it would risk destabilising their country. It turns out you can't surely achieve the outcome of your rhetoric by adhering to the constraints of your policy. So which one gives first? What outcome are you willing to live with in reality, stripped of the rhetoric and cheerleading?

_kbh_ 4y ago

> No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. Then what is your policy? Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. But Russia has already annexed territory in Ukraine, what happens to that?. Can you directly tell me what you want to happen in Ukraine?, does Ukraine get to keep all its borders?. > So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? It’s better then appeasement which is your policy. We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. For evidence of this just see. - Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) > How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine? How can you be sure that Russia will?. Hell at this rate there’s a decent chance that Russias tactical nuke just wouldn’t work, which would be hilarious but also not a point I’d like to get.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. Yes, expensive such that they will determine the cost is greater than the expected benefit. Every semi-rational agent responds to incentives, even Putin. Yes, Ukraine will lose territory under my policy. How much remains to be seen. It turns out we don't get to unilaterally dictate how nuclear powers execute their foreign policy, not without risking a nuclear exchange. >We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. So your policy literally is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. Why do the hawks refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their policy? Why not just own it? > For evidence of this just see Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) This isn't evidence that NATO demonstrating a massively increased cost to expansionist policy will not prevent further expansion. What the evidence shows is that no or lukewarm response to expansion, in conjunction with continued NATO expansion or interference, results in further Russian expansion. We haven't actually tried anything else.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Yes, expensive such that they will determine the cost is greater than the expected benefit. Every semi-rational agent responds to incentives, even Putin. Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatever it wants by holding the world hostage again. > Yes, Ukraine will lose territory under my policy. How much remains to be seen. It turns out we don't get to unilaterally dictate how nuclear powers execute their foreign policy, not without risking a nuclear exchange. So your dictating that Ukraine must lose a war, Russia gets everything it wants in hopes of teaching Russia what lesson again? that it can get its way as long as its threatens to use nukes?. What is to stop Russia doing exactly what they are doing now again?. > So your policy literally is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. My policy is to support Ukraine with any weapons that are not escalatory (ie dont given Ukraine its nukes back) and to provide Ukraine with the intelligence and support that it needs to push Russia out of its borders. > Why do the hawks refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their policy? Why not just own it? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that your policy just allows Russia to continue doing whatever it wants as long as it threatens nukes, all your policy does is train Russia that nukes makes everyone fold like a cheap cardboard box. > This isn't evidence that NATO demonstrating a massively increased cost to expansionist policy will not prevent further expansion. What the evidence shows is that no or lukewarm response to expansion, in conjunction with continued NATO expansion or interference, results in further Russian expansion. We haven't actually tried anything else. What are these costs that you are suggesting that don't go straight out the window when Russia threatens another country with tactical nukes if they don't back down?.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatever it wants by holding the world hostage again. No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. >What is to stop Russia doing exactly what they are doing now again?. To repeat for the millionth time, the extreme cost that we impose on them for adventurism. They will not be willing to pay the cost they paid in Ukraine for fucking Moldova, for example. >Why do you refuse to acknowledge that your policy just allows Russia to continue doing whatever it wants as long as it threatens nukes Because it obviously doesn't to any honest interlocutor. I'm not sure what your deal is. >My policy is to support Ukraine with any weapons that are not escalatory (ie dont given Ukraine its nukes back) and to provide Ukraine with the intelligence and support that it needs to push Russia out of its borders. It's interesting to note the contrast between your actual policy proposal and the bombast of your rhetoric: >The only thing that will stop Russia having its colonial ambitions is to defeat them in such a thorough and direct way that they never think of doing it again as it would risk destabilising their country. It turns out you can't surely achieve the outcome of your rhetoric by adhering to the constraints of your policy. So which one gives first? What outcome are you willing to live with in reality, stripped of the rhetoric and cheerleading?