3 ms·

>What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes? What's the state of their economy again? Wha

>What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes? What's the state of their economy again? What's the state of their military readiness? How many lives have been lost? How much wealth have the oligarchs had frozen? This is the COST. I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. >Why cant this extreme cost be laid on them right now, so that they leave Ukraine Because they are likely willing to pay that cost to secure Ukraine, whereas they likely will not be willing to pay a similar cost for Moldova. >Your policy didn't work for Hitler and won't work for Russia. This facile Hitler comparison is going to lead us straight into WW3. >Ukraine is completely capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, they are in fact doing it right now. We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Also notice how you didn't answer my question. It's the same with all you guys, you refuse to state explicitly where your lines are and what cost you're willing to pay.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Russias mobilisation has already started, mobilised soldiers have already made it to the front and have had enough time (~1 week) to be captured as POWs. This is literally all Russia has.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten. If you want to show the gains the Russian conscripts have made I’d be happy to look at the evidence. But it appears to me after mobilisation that Russia has started being pushed back to their own borders at a incredible rate. Unless you expect the conscripts to do better then the professional soldiers how does Russia have anything more to give?.
hbrn 4y ago
> This is the COST. So far the most of the "COST" you're talking about has been covered by EU oil exports. Your "COST" is a missed opportunity. Not great, not terrible. > whereas they likely will not be willing to pay "Likely". That's reassuring. > I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. Conveniently your theory is that Russia costs are just on the line of winning in Ukraine, but not pushing forward. Same theory has been applied to every single Russia expansion, and it hasn't worked yet. But this time it's going to work, right? You presented absolutely no evidence that supports your theory, and yet you act incredibly condescending. It's just "trust me guys, this time the costs are high enough for Russia to stop. But only after they conquer Ukraine". Who's playing dumb here? At this point there's plenty of evidence that Russia actions are not rational, they are ideological.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Let's skip any further unproductive back-and-forth's. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? If your answer is "no" then you are tacitly accepting a possible scenario where Ukraine loses territory and we let it happen. If your response is something along the lines of "it won't come to that": 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? Ukraine losing some territory or a direct engagement with Russia with a significant likelihood of nuclear war? If you're unwilling to do a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy, then it is clear you're an unserious interlocutor and only engaged in propaganda and cheerleading.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? You're presenting a false dichotomy: either Russia wins, or Russia launches their nukes. Coincidentally same points are being made by Russian propaganda. My opinion is that you prevent nuclear war by showing strength. Not by helping Ukraine fight, but by ensuring Ukraine wins. If Putin is willing to use nukes now, he would be way more willing to do it 10 years later, when he's at the death's door. Or, Putin aside, Russians would be way more willing, because NATO made them pay the "high cost" and they want revenge more than ever. > If you're unwilling to do a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy Naive worst-case analysis for nuclear powers is exactly what opens up infinite opportunity for blackmail. Here, I can do one for your theory. Let's say Russia wins in Ukraine but pays a very high cost. Given they can no longer advance with their regular army, they launch nukes at EU. Because there are "secret labs developing bioweapons" in Poland. Or because russian people (the ones that ran from mobilization) are being discriminated in EU. Or those mobilization refugees decide to form their own state and separate from Finland. Or for any other fake reason. Or, they declare Alaska purchase illegitimate and demand US to give it back. If US refuses, they launch nukes at US for stealing their territory. Sounds crazy, right? But not so crazy when a dictator learns he's dying from cancer and decides to take his enemies with him to the grave.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Russias mobilisation has already started, mobilised soldiers have already made it to the front and have had enough time (~1 week) to be captured as POWs. This is literally all Russia has.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten. If you want to show the gains the Russian conscripts have made I’d be happy to look at the evidence. But it appears to me after mobilisation that Russia has started being pushed back to their own borders at a incredible rate. Unless you expect the conscripts to do better then the professional soldiers how does Russia have anything more to give?.

hbrn 4y ago

> This is the COST. So far the most of the "COST" you're talking about has been covered by EU oil exports. Your "COST" is a missed opportunity. Not great, not terrible. > whereas they likely will not be willing to pay "Likely". That's reassuring. > I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. Conveniently your theory is that Russia costs are just on the line of winning in Ukraine, but not pushing forward. Same theory has been applied to every single Russia expansion, and it hasn't worked yet. But this time it's going to work, right? You presented absolutely no evidence that supports your theory, and yet you act incredibly condescending. It's just "trust me guys, this time the costs are high enough for Russia to stop. But only after they conquer Ukraine". Who's playing dumb here? At this point there's plenty of evidence that Russia actions are not rational, they are ideological.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
Let's skip any further unproductive back-and-forth's. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? If your answer is "no" then you are tacitly accepting a possible scenario where Ukraine loses territory and we let it happen. If your response is something along the lines of "it won't come to that": 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? Ukraine losing some territory or a direct engagement with Russia with a significant likelihood of nuclear war? If you're unwilling to do a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy, then it is clear you're an unserious interlocutor and only engaged in propaganda and cheerleading.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? You're presenting a false dichotomy: either Russia wins, or Russia launches their nukes. Coincidentally same points are being made by Russian propaganda. My opinion is that you prevent nuclear war by showing strength. Not by helping Ukraine fight, but by ensuring Ukraine wins. If Putin is willing to use nukes now, he would be way more willing to do it 10 years later, when he's at the death's door. Or, Putin aside, Russians would be way more willing, because NATO made them pay the "high cost" and they want revenge more than ever. > If you're unwilling to do a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy Naive worst-case analysis for nuclear powers is exactly what opens up infinite opportunity for blackmail. Here, I can do one for your theory. Let's say Russia wins in Ukraine but pays a very high cost. Given they can no longer advance with their regular army, they launch nukes at EU. Because there are "secret labs developing bioweapons" in Poland. Or because russian people (the ones that ran from mobilization) are being discriminated in EU. Or those mobilization refugees decide to form their own state and separate from Finland. Or for any other fake reason. Or, they declare Alaska purchase illegitimate and demand US to give it back. If US refuses, they launch nukes at US for stealing their territory. Sounds crazy, right? But not so crazy when a dictator learns he's dying from cancer and decides to take his enemies with him to the grave.