5 ms·
This has to be deescalated. The risk of even accidental nuclear war is just too great.
by pmoriarty 4y ago
This has to be deescalated. The risk of even accidental nuclear war is just too great.
- karpierz 4y ago
- midislack 4y ago
- mantas 4y ago
- gbshsbdbdhd 4y ago
- mantas 4y agoIt's insane how many people in West don't understand why people here in eastern europe run for NATO cover. Bucha and other events didn't raise an eyebrow here. It's just business-as-usual for Muscovy :/
- nickff 4y ago>"This has to be deescalated." What do you mean by "this"? Do you mean the attack on Poland, the continuing war on Ukraine, or mutually assured destruction in general? What do you mean by "deescalated"? Do you mean someone should surrender? Who and why would they?
- pmoriarty 4y agoWhatever it takes to prevent nuclear war. Because the alternative is everybody dies.
- mantas 4y ago„Whatever it takes“ is so 1938. The only way is to stop Russia once and for at least some time.
- ceejayoz 4y agoOK, but what does that look like? The West largely took the "deescalate" approach when Russia invaded Georgia, seized part of Moldova, and took the Donbas then Crimea. It's very clear that these sorts of deescalations also serve to embolden future attempts. Ala Ender's Game, the best deescalation may be to give the bully a spanking they'll never come back from.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"the best deescalation may be to give the bully a spanking they'll never come back from" Assuming that works without sparking a nuclear war, that might be a real option... but there's a very real risk of a nuclear war (accidental or otherwise) breaking out over this. Just how much nuclear chicken are NATO and Russia willing to play? I'm afraid the world is going to find out before long.
- 4y ago
- remirus3 4y ago
- thefz 4y ago> This has to be deescalated. So, no justice fo the dead. "Sorry".
- docdeek 4y agoCompensation is likely warranted but no one really wants to 'kill two of theirs to payback for two of ours', do they? That's not likely to lead to justice.
- luckylion 4y agoYeah, let's just give up Europe and invite Putin to rule from the Pacific to the Atlantic -- the risk of nuclear war is just too great. I'm glad that pacifists don't play a role in politics where it matters, or we'd long ago given up all hope of freedom.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"I'm glad that pacifists don't play a role in politics where it matters, or we'd long ago given up all hope of freedom." This is a "we had to destroy the village to save it" type of situation. There's no freedom if everyone is dead.
- luckylion 4y agoGiving up freedom to buy security does not work. Whatever temporary security you gain will be taken away from you tomorrow, because you've shown them that you will not resist. Appeasement does not work, especially when you're dealing with a fascist state. You can sell out Poland today, but you will still not stop Russia from "accidentally" attacking the Baltic States tomorrow.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"Whatever temporary security you gain will be taken away from you tomorrow, because you've shown them that you will not resist." Whatever you imagine that's going to look like, it's going to be better than the world ending.
- totony 4y agoThat's a very subjective (and I assume unpopular) opinion. Western nations especially do not share you views, with popular addages being "better die on your feet than live on your knees," "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," etc. Not that I think appeasement would work, but I think a chance of freedom is more important than a life of servitude for a lot of the west (most?)
- woeirua 4y agoAh, I see it's NATO's responsibility to deescalate? Not Putin's?
- akmarinov 4y agoImagine if Russia had struck an Alaskan village, killing two Americans. Would it be the same response? People hate on Biden now, but if he lets something like that slide, he’d be torn apart on the White House lawn.
- pmoriarty 4y agoYes, people might freak out over it, but whatever it takes to keep the world from ending is worth it. There are no winners in an all-out nuclear war.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- albertopv 4y agoI agree. Once a for all. Destroying russian army. It's too dangerous to leave it as it is.
- rich_sasha 4y agoDe-escalation assumes there are two reasonable parties. Russian policy of the last N decades is to start a conflict, scare everyone about nuclear war, then "de-escalate" and "reset". This is fine, so long as the bombs aren't falling on your house.
- pmoriarty 4y agoIt doesn't matter whose house it lands on. Nobody's house is worth the end of the world.
- rich_sasha 4y agoWhen it falls on yours, and some smart guy from a long way away tells you to deescalate, I think then you can make that call.
- dekhn 4y agoWar as practiced by real-world entities (of which Russia is one) does not work this way. We are talking about a barbaric, incompetent and highly belligerent enemy. You can't be thinking in terms of individual houses or short-term outcomes in situations like this.
- blub 4y agoFrom the polls that I’ve seen it precisely the people on whose houses bombs are falling that want the war to end - including by negotiation - whereas those living far away want to continue the fight. Makes sense when one stops to think about it.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoDeescalation increases the risk of nuclear war. It's a hostage situation. There's a reason that the official policy of most governments is not to pay ransoms -- paying ransoms reduces the risk in the short term but increases the risk of further hostage situations, increasing the risk in the long term.
- ghostwriter 4y agoGeopolitics isn't a hostage situation, big influential states always project power on smaller ones, and the smaller ones always have fewer options to act independently on the world scene. That's why diplomacy exists as an alternative to power projection in the first place.
- blub 4y agoYou’re wrong on… multiple levels. First of all, deescalation and dialogue is what already prevented nuclear war several times since nuclear weapons were invented. We could go as far as saying that it’s the one single thing we know that works. Claiming that it’s precisely this DE-escalation which increases risk is akin to claiming that having sex increases the risk of terminal virginity. Seriously, what were you even thinking when you wrote that? Second of all, what does this situation have to do with hostage taking?! Who is the hostage? What is the ransom? Who is the party paying it?
- wiseleo 4y agoThe path to de-escalation is easy. All troops leave Ukraine's territory and all attacks cease.
- pmoriarty 4y agoTry convincing the leaders of this. All they seem to want is war.
- gls2ro 4y agoWhat you might not want to understand is that we were patient with them long enough. They did this in Georgia and Moldova and Ukraine before. What it shows is that they dont stop. Now they want an entire very big country. So this is the line in the sand. Let them cross this and Poland and Romania might be next. And then maybe Hungary and Germany. And so on. An wanna be empire/dictator does not stop at your border because they like you or they have mercy. They stop for reinforcements and then move on to you.
- blub 4y agoThat is such an extremely low-effort proposal that it would already be rejected by kids in primary school. De-escalation happens gradually and with steps taken by both sides. You may have noticed that there’s mixed signals coming from the US since Russia retreated from Kherson.