6 ms·

> What’s stopping Ukraine and its allies from building these? A nuclear World War 3? > Let’s say you start pounding blocks Let's say we just start the peace

> What’s stopping Ukraine and its allies from building these? A nuclear World War 3? > Let’s say you start pounding blocks Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time.

squidbeak 2y ago
World War 3 hasn't broken out despite Ukraine possesing JDAMs. Ukraine needs a powerful bargaining position before entering negotiations, and though it's regrettable this is the case, a powerful bargaining position derives from power on the battlefield. The best route to peace is therefore to give Ukraine as deadly a sting as possible.
oblio 2y ago
Russia's not going to use nukes, for the same reasons the US didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam or the USSR didn't in Afganistan.
- hollerith 2y ago
  There was serious discussion in Washington of nuking China after China's entry into the Korean war. (Specifically, nuking concentrations of rice fields, causing starvation until the Beijing relents, at which time Washington would provide food aid.) When in the 1960s tensions between Moscow and Peking rose, Moscow asked Washington if Washington would be okay with Moscow's nuking China. (Washington replied with a firm no.) Although Russia is probably not going to resort to nukes, the risk is high enough that I wish my country (the US) had started drastically increasing American preparedness for nuclear war when it started sending military aid to Ukraine.
- casenmgreen 2y ago
  Given the catastrophe risk involved in their use, there is much to be alarmed at simply to consider the possibilities of accident use - miscommunication, false alarms, broken technology, etc. It takes more than one thing going wrong at the same time, for an accident to happen, but that happens - that's why we have car accidents - only here we're talking about a potentially civilization/climate ending accident. Better not to be in that situation in the first place.
  - oblio 2y ago
    This logic fails at first scrutiny, look up Salami tactics.
polotics 2y ago
I don't think Putin can reasonably enter any kind of peace negotiations now: he's clearly losing Crimea, and the rest of the territory the troops under his command was able to invade does not at all resonate with the Russian people. Also there is the question of reparations: the Russians have already done more damage than the 350B$ of foreign currency their central bank has (had?) oversea...
- postalrat 2y ago
  "he's clearly losing Crimea". how?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    Where is the Black Sea Fleet?
    - rasz 2y ago
      russia gained two more submarines just last night.
- MaxPock 2y ago
  Where do you get your news from if I may ask ?
  - polotics 2y ago
    I recommend you check out https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineConflict/new/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineConflict/new/ ... but only if you're ready to see some fried Buryat...
jwr 2y ago
Peace does not require "negotiation" in this war. There is a clear aggressor: Russia. So things are really simple, at least this once. All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory, and we will have peace.
- bananenpubs 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mvc 2y ago
    And if those regions are given up today and peace is declared between Ukraine and Russia why would Russia not just apply the same strategy tomorrow to destabilise and then annex a big chunk of Georgia/Estonia/Moldova.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bananenpubs 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > USSR was also once told in ~1990 “no NATO expansion to your doorstep”. No, they weren’t, as even Gorbachev admitted, and even if they had been given private assurance not memorialized in a treaty or even a formal executive agreement, there would be no reasonable expectation of a binding commitment that survived the administrations on each side then in power, much less an actual collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s not like the Soviet Union didn’t understand the mechanics of how binding international commitments are formed.
        bananenpubs 2y ago
        [flagged]
casenmgreen 2y ago
The only viable peaceful solution is Russian withdrawal, and Putin has made it clear this is off the menu. Anything else rewards and encourages the use of invasion, profoundly encourages China to invade Taiwan, and North Korean and Iran. It will also anyway only be a temporary peace; Putin will try again in some years time. Anyone want to trust him when he promises not to - again? The West has been forced to spend vast amounts of money, in many ways, and millions of people have been forced to flee Ukraine and resettle in the West, and about 500,000 people have been maimed or killed. To not win after such costs is to lose. It also means all nations which have a threatening neighbour need their own nuclear weapons. That's in the end will lead to their use. There is also a more personal reason. The world has a lot of shit in it, and people generally are increasingly depressed in their normal, day to day lives, because of it. We are not happy. Stopping Putin would bright a vast ray of hope and a vision of a decent future in our lives.
oblio 2y ago
> Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time. Also, there can be no peace between the sheep and the wolf. Russia believes Ukraine does not and cannot exists. How can that ever lead to long lasting peace and long term territorial integrity for Ukraine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich

squidbeak 2y ago

World War 3 hasn't broken out despite Ukraine possesing JDAMs. Ukraine needs a powerful bargaining position before entering negotiations, and though it's regrettable this is the case, a powerful bargaining position derives from power on the battlefield. The best route to peace is therefore to give Ukraine as deadly a sting as possible.

oblio 2y ago

Russia's not going to use nukes, for the same reasons the US didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam or the USSR didn't in Afganistan.

hollerith 2y ago
There was serious discussion in Washington of nuking China after China's entry into the Korean war. (Specifically, nuking concentrations of rice fields, causing starvation until the Beijing relents, at which time Washington would provide food aid.) When in the 1960s tensions between Moscow and Peking rose, Moscow asked Washington if Washington would be okay with Moscow's nuking China. (Washington replied with a firm no.) Although Russia is probably not going to resort to nukes, the risk is high enough that I wish my country (the US) had started drastically increasing American preparedness for nuclear war when it started sending military aid to Ukraine.
casenmgreen 2y ago
Given the catastrophe risk involved in their use, there is much to be alarmed at simply to consider the possibilities of accident use - miscommunication, false alarms, broken technology, etc. It takes more than one thing going wrong at the same time, for an accident to happen, but that happens - that's why we have car accidents - only here we're talking about a potentially civilization/climate ending accident. Better not to be in that situation in the first place.
- oblio 2y ago
  This logic fails at first scrutiny, look up Salami tactics.

polotics 2y ago

I don't think Putin can reasonably enter any kind of peace negotiations now: he's clearly losing Crimea, and the rest of the territory the troops under his command was able to invade does not at all resonate with the Russian people. Also there is the question of reparations: the Russians have already done more damage than the 350B$ of foreign currency their central bank has (had?) oversea...

postalrat 2y ago
"he's clearly losing Crimea". how?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Where is the Black Sea Fleet?
  - rasz 2y ago
    russia gained two more submarines just last night.
MaxPock 2y ago
Where do you get your news from if I may ask ?
- polotics 2y ago
  I recommend you check out https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineConflict/new/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineConflict/new/ ... but only if you're ready to see some fried Buryat...

jwr 2y ago

Peace does not require "negotiation" in this war. There is a clear aggressor: Russia. So things are really simple, at least this once. All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory, and we will have peace.

bananenpubs 2y ago
[flagged]
- mvc 2y ago
  And if those regions are given up today and peace is declared between Ukraine and Russia why would Russia not just apply the same strategy tomorrow to destabilise and then annex a big chunk of Georgia/Estonia/Moldova.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bananenpubs 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > USSR was also once told in ~1990 “no NATO expansion to your doorstep”. No, they weren’t, as even Gorbachev admitted, and even if they had been given private assurance not memorialized in a treaty or even a formal executive agreement, there would be no reasonable expectation of a binding commitment that survived the administrations on each side then in power, much less an actual collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s not like the Soviet Union didn’t understand the mechanics of how binding international commitments are formed.
      - bananenpubs 2y ago
        [flagged]

casenmgreen 2y ago

The only viable peaceful solution is Russian withdrawal, and Putin has made it clear this is off the menu. Anything else rewards and encourages the use of invasion, profoundly encourages China to invade Taiwan, and North Korean and Iran. It will also anyway only be a temporary peace; Putin will try again in some years time. Anyone want to trust him when he promises not to - again? The West has been forced to spend vast amounts of money, in many ways, and millions of people have been forced to flee Ukraine and resettle in the West, and about 500,000 people have been maimed or killed. To not win after such costs is to lose. It also means all nations which have a threatening neighbour need their own nuclear weapons. That's in the end will lead to their use. There is also a more personal reason. The world has a lot of shit in it, and people generally are increasingly depressed in their normal, day to day lives, because of it. We are not happy. Stopping Putin would bright a vast ray of hope and a vision of a decent future in our lives.

oblio 2y ago

> Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time. Also, there can be no peace between the sheep and the wolf. Russia believes Ukraine does not and cannot exists. How can that ever lead to long lasting peace and long term territorial integrity for Ukraine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich