3 ms·

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time. Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  The question here is: what nuclear threat? Russia is not threatening Nato. There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game. This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.
    - frontman1988 4y ago
      Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. I hope they are in touch with Putin and his cronies(although it doesnt seem like it) and make sure they don't do anything crazy. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful. > Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. Lunacy to bank on that > But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. That's a nonsense sense of causality.
    - mrjin 4y ago
      ^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding? There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    > but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.
  - mrjin 4y ago
    It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular). So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.
  - polotics 4y ago
    In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.
mrjin 4y ago
Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia. Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.
richardw 4y ago
Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate. The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land. The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act. The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.
Aeolun 4y ago
I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional. Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
The question here is: what nuclear threat? Russia is not threatening Nato. There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game. This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.
  - frontman1988 4y ago
    Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. I hope they are in touch with Putin and his cronies(although it doesnt seem like it) and make sure they don't do anything crazy. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful. > Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. Lunacy to bank on that > But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. That's a nonsense sense of causality.
  - mrjin 4y ago
    ^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding? There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.
- mrjin 4y ago
  It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular). So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.
- polotics 4y ago
  In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.

mrjin 4y ago

Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia. Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.

richardw 4y ago

Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate. The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land. The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act. The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.

Aeolun 4y ago

I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional. Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.