6 ms·
Well, if you identify them then you might have to do something about it. But it's not clear there's much to be done. Sometimes it's easier to deny or just not m
by jjwiseman 3y ago
Well, if you identify them then you might have to do something about it. But it's not clear there's much to be done. Sometimes it's easier to deny or just not mention that someone is acting in a hostile way. The example I often think of is Iran firing missiles at U.S. warships during Operation Praying Mantis, and then, as Wikipedia puts it: "The Pentagon and the Reagan Administration later denied that any Silkworm missile attacks took place, possibly in order to keep the situation from escalating further - as they had promised publicly that any such attacks would merit retaliation against targets on Iranian soil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
- jojobas 3y agoThe situation with Russia is well past escalation by accusation of civil aircraft jamming. After all, they've pretty much stolen all planes they had under lease from Western owners. Appeasement of someone like Putin is always a mistake. So far every time the West calls his bluff he cowardly pretends nothing happened, be it HIMARS, Storm Shadow and HARM missile shipments, tank shipments, AWACS support, you name it. He only attacked Ukraine because he hoped to win in a week, and this wouldn't have happened if the West armed Ukraine earlier. The desire not to escalate with Putin cost Europe a war.
- zuppy 3y agoevery few weeks they're threttening to nuke some country, i think there's nothing that can be called excalation at this point (except the obvious idea to retaliate with guns, but that's a very bad idea).
- cpursley 3y agoCan you provide sources where they actually threaten to nuke anyone out of the blue (excluding Medvedev, he’s especially nuts)? All I can find is them clarifying their nuclear policy when pressed about it (would only use in situation of existential threat). Which seems less bellicose than US policy (as the US changed ours not long ago, seemingly allowing for first strike which is pretty insane): https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-12/focus/bidens-disappointing-nuclear-posture-review https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-12/focus/bidens-disappo...
- jojobas 3y agoThen you remember they called Ukraine in NATO an existential threat, and wiped their butts with international treaties that were supposed to be much more set in stone than some half-official nuclear doctrine. However, this is all playing chicken. Whenever they were facing actual opposition, they backed down.
- cpursley 3y agoWhich threats and treaties, specifically? I don't have a great memory - so please share actual sources. Also, are you aware of this?: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-in...
- computerfriend 3y agoFor some speculative context: this is because of the "pivot to Asia" as the US does not have a strategic arms reduction treaty with China and is not intended to escalate the arms race with Russia (although that might be a side-effect).
- jojobas 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum As for INF, US withdrawal was a response to Russia testing infringing missiles first.
- cpursley 3y agoMaybe, but US pulled out first: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/691521600/russia-pulls-out-of-inf-treaty-in-response-to-u-s-move https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/691521600/russia-pulls-out-of...
- stracer 3y agoPulling out of treaty is not as treacherous as claiming obeying the treaty, and not obeying it.
- egorfine 3y agoBiden did kind of the same. A few years ago he promised russia "devastating consequences if Navalny dies in prison". So Navalny did die in prison. What did Biden do? Right.
- rdtsc 3y agoYup. Promises and talking big works up until someone calls the bluff. NATO in a certain way is based on that as well. If it fails a single test regarding article 5 after someone challenges it, it becomes instantly worthless. The danger as I see it currently is that the West is tired of war and it’s an opportunity for Putin to challenge NATO. Attack a small village in a Baltic state. Are Americans and Germans and the British going to risk their lives for a small village in a Baltic country? I hope they would, but I realistically don’t see it. And that one non-response would make NATO worth less than the paper the agreement was printed on.