3 ms·

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 ex

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.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >You're presenting a false dichotomy No, I did not present a false dichotomy. "Up to and including" is not a dichotomy, it's a gradient of escalation. Seems pretty clear. >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... So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. Why do you refuse to own the logical consequences of your rhetoric? >Given they can no longer advance with their regular army, they launch nukes at EU... for any other fake reason. Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory. At worst you threaten MAD, you don't initiate a MAD scenario. This is the nonsense you dream up when you assume your adversary is totally irrational.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange My take is that ensuring Russia loses decreases the risk of nuclear exchange. I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed. Russia has already threatened to use nukes. Where exactly is the line between them threatening and using that we shouldn't cross? You presumptuously act as if know exactly where the fine line is. But lines are blurry. Maybe we're already past the point of no return. Maybe we've been there for the last 10 years. > Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. And yet it happens, and people like you are finding their ways to rationalize it. I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      Just as a side note to your post anyone who uses the annexation of the territories as a increase to the nuclear threat. Ukraine has been hitting territory that Russia either claims to own (Crimea) or actually owns (Belgorod) since the start of the war and nothing happened. This should be the clearest message to everyone that all this nuclear talk from Russia is just posturing. They had every chance to justify this months ago and they didn’t.

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.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>You're presenting a false dichotomy No, I did not present a false dichotomy. "Up to and including" is not a dichotomy, it's a gradient of escalation. Seems pretty clear. >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... So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. Why do you refuse to own the logical consequences of your rhetoric? >Given they can no longer advance with their regular army, they launch nukes at EU... for any other fake reason. Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory. At worst you threaten MAD, you don't initiate a MAD scenario. This is the nonsense you dream up when you assume your adversary is totally irrational.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange My take is that ensuring Russia loses decreases the risk of nuclear exchange. I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed. Russia has already threatened to use nukes. Where exactly is the line between them threatening and using that we shouldn't cross? You presumptuously act as if know exactly where the fine line is. But lines are blurry. Maybe we're already past the point of no return. Maybe we've been there for the last 10 years. > Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. And yet it happens, and people like you are finding their ways to rationalize it. I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    Just as a side note to your post anyone who uses the annexation of the territories as a increase to the nuclear threat. Ukraine has been hitting territory that Russia either claims to own (Crimea) or actually owns (Belgorod) since the start of the war and nothing happened. This should be the clearest message to everyone that all this nuclear talk from Russia is just posturing. They had every chance to justify this months ago and they didn’t.