5 ms·

What Russia is doing is further isolation itself from the rest of the world and their allies like China (who seems to be completely against the use of nuclear w

by _lvbh 2y ago

What Russia is doing is further isolation itself from the rest of the world and their allies like China (who seems to be completely against the use of nuclear weapons). Russia should just give up and withdraw from Ukraine. There is no way they can win against US support and further escalation will only make their recovery more difficult.

armitron 2y ago
They are already winning (how can anyone today look at the situation objectively and come to a different conclusion?) . Not only that, but they retain escalation dominance. If it comes down to a few tactical nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely that the US will choose to get involved. But that is something to be avoided at all costs. It will be doom for Ukraine and horrible for the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, with every passing day it becomes more likely.
_xcs4 2y ago
> There is no way they can win against US support Oh, they can win or at least achieve something they could sell as a victory to their domestic audience. Russia's biggest strength is that they have endless hoards of people who are for some reason more than happy to go die for the dreams of their leader. No amount of US support is going to change that.
- avmich 2y ago
  Those in power in Russia aren't waging war to win, they wage it to stay in power. Ending war is less useful to them.
rainworld 2y ago
[flagged]
- avmich 2y ago
  Ukraine keeps having so many achievements in this war the notion it's losing is laughable. Do you know how long the war will need to be to get to Kiev with today's tempo?
  - armitron 2y ago
    Ukraine has permanently lost huge chunks of its territory. On top of that, the entire country is being structurally wrecked and it will take decades to climb out of the bottomless pit. It's mind boggling that one would not see this as losing or delude oneself with shifting-the-goalposts thinking ("get to Kiev")
    - avmich 2y ago
      There's nothing permanent in Ukraine losing territory though. It's Russia which has long-term problems incompatible with remaining as it is right now. Ukraine instead is going through the nation building, which Russia is still far from.
  - rainworld 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - avmich 2y ago
      Yes, propaganda plays a huge role in this war. No, it's not the reason to stop reasoning about it.
      - rainworld 2y ago
        At the very least 50k KIA, proven. Likely many times that. Total casualties a further multiple of that. Tens of thousands of amputees. Don’t even think about paying the promised compensation for all that. Millions are gone for good. Damage is measured in the hundreds of billions. TPPs are gone. Good chunk of the land gone, most of the coast. Men are getting abducted on the streets, into the trenches within days or weeks. Others drown or freeze to death on the Western borders, attempting to flee. Hundreds of thousands in hiding. Villages without men. Towns with 2% buried already. Every day the hole gets deeper. Every day a bit faster. And you talk about “achievements”. This is not a video game. Unless you’re some Beltway creature. Unless you’re one of the “Holden Bloodfeasts” of the world. In that case it’s nothing but a long, long list of “achievements“, I suppose.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  The west did not invade a sovereign nation. By definition they cannot escalate, only respond with sufficient force to repel the invader.
  - rainworld 2y ago
    >By definition they cannot escalate As they keep saying. If they mean it, too, nukes will fly.
  - antifa 2y ago
    > By definition they cannot escalate By definition, they literally can escalate and have a wide variety of escalating options, I have no idea why you'd go all in on a word without knowing what it means.
- adamrezich 2y ago
  [flagged]
- TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
  Is it? West is only openly doing what USSR used to do during Vietnam and Korean wars. And West still did not send pilots on F35s to help Ukraine however USSR at that time did send pilots on Migs. So there is still way to go for the West to at least level what USSR did during its time.
mrangle 2y ago
"Isolation" isn't an on topic response. The only rational take is to believe nations when they say that they will use them, not when they won't. Capability is the only measurement. Active threats are its decoration. We live in a disinformation environment, and military tactics are at the core of it by definition. Russia should give up and withdraw. But it's frankly ridiculous to assert that "Russia has no way to win" is a relevant statement, as Russia winning is not the relevant metric. Who says that they think that winning is their only option? They may be satisfied with the West losing, should they not see a path to winning for themselves. That's the game theory that needs to be articulated before anyone agrees to be lectured by someone dismissive of such threats. Imagine thinking that "Russia has no way to win" is a statement of reassurance in light of such a threat. Or that telepathic proclamations about their motivations and strategies are, as other people are engaging in here. What people want is for leadership not to play fast and loose with such possibilities.
- RetroTechie 2y ago
  > The only rational take is to believe nations when they say that they will use them, not when they won't. If that were so, any country making a nuclear threat (backed by capability) would get their wish granted. It doesn't work that way. Threats are assessed, weighed & countered. Bluffs are called. And miscalculations happen (for one: I'd wager Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine had he known in advance how things panned out so far). It's my hope that if Putin ever 'pushes the nuke button', some general or missile silo commander(s) will just say "No. Enough! We're not having this". Idle hope perhaps? More hoping - that things won't come to that. As for the non-nuclear part: it's really EU+US vs. Russia now, with Ukraine doing the dirty work. Whether Russia can 'win' depends entirely on how united / determined EU countries & the US are. In other words: politics & economics. Who wants more to win this war? Morale among Russian troops seems low. Any change in that on the horizon?
  - mrangle 2y ago
    >If that were so, any country making a nuclear threat (backed by capability) would get their wish granted. Why? I said that capability is the metric. Followed by threats. Neither absolutely defines response. The primary takeaway is to NOT believe capable countries who say that they are against using them (China). When a capable nation makes the threat, only an irresponsible lunatic wouldn't take it seriously. However, a decision can be made from that starting point. In this instance, the "Russia can't win" take on why they won't engage in such an option isn't good theory in my opinion. As the invasion of Ukraine was a desperate counter-move. I believe that you are dead wrong in assuming that Russia didn't understand the probable response and outcome until now. I also think that you aren't considering the variable of even other options available to them and China. But also, that no one can credibly predict a limit to the specific desperation of arguably the most capable nuclear power in the World. Especially in the midst of an active military campaign.

by _lvbh 2y ago

armitron 2y ago

They are already winning (how can anyone today look at the situation objectively and come to a different conclusion?) . Not only that, but they retain escalation dominance. If it comes down to a few tactical nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely that the US will choose to get involved. But that is something to be avoided at all costs. It will be doom for Ukraine and horrible for the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, with every passing day it becomes more likely.

_xcs4 2y ago

> There is no way they can win against US support Oh, they can win or at least achieve something they could sell as a victory to their domestic audience. Russia's biggest strength is that they have endless hoards of people who are for some reason more than happy to go die for the dreams of their leader. No amount of US support is going to change that.

avmich 2y ago
Those in power in Russia aren't waging war to win, they wage it to stay in power. Ending war is less useful to them.

rainworld 2y ago

[flagged]

avmich 2y ago
Ukraine keeps having so many achievements in this war the notion it's losing is laughable. Do you know how long the war will need to be to get to Kiev with today's tempo?
- armitron 2y ago
  Ukraine has permanently lost huge chunks of its territory. On top of that, the entire country is being structurally wrecked and it will take decades to climb out of the bottomless pit. It's mind boggling that one would not see this as losing or delude oneself with shifting-the-goalposts thinking ("get to Kiev")
  - avmich 2y ago
    There's nothing permanent in Ukraine losing territory though. It's Russia which has long-term problems incompatible with remaining as it is right now. Ukraine instead is going through the nation building, which Russia is still far from.
- rainworld 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - avmich 2y ago
    Yes, propaganda plays a huge role in this war. No, it's not the reason to stop reasoning about it.
    - rainworld 2y ago
      At the very least 50k KIA, proven. Likely many times that. Total casualties a further multiple of that. Tens of thousands of amputees. Don’t even think about paying the promised compensation for all that. Millions are gone for good. Damage is measured in the hundreds of billions. TPPs are gone. Good chunk of the land gone, most of the coast. Men are getting abducted on the streets, into the trenches within days or weeks. Others drown or freeze to death on the Western borders, attempting to flee. Hundreds of thousands in hiding. Villages without men. Towns with 2% buried already. Every day the hole gets deeper. Every day a bit faster. And you talk about “achievements”. This is not a video game. Unless you’re some Beltway creature. Unless you’re one of the “Holden Bloodfeasts” of the world. In that case it’s nothing but a long, long list of “achievements“, I suppose.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
The west did not invade a sovereign nation. By definition they cannot escalate, only respond with sufficient force to repel the invader.
- rainworld 2y ago
  >By definition they cannot escalate As they keep saying. If they mean it, too, nukes will fly.
- antifa 2y ago
  > By definition they cannot escalate By definition, they literally can escalate and have a wide variety of escalating options, I have no idea why you'd go all in on a word without knowing what it means.
adamrezich 2y ago
[flagged]
TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
Is it? West is only openly doing what USSR used to do during Vietnam and Korean wars. And West still did not send pilots on F35s to help Ukraine however USSR at that time did send pilots on Migs. So there is still way to go for the West to at least level what USSR did during its time.

mrangle 2y ago

"Isolation" isn't an on topic response. The only rational take is to believe nations when they say that they will use them, not when they won't. Capability is the only measurement. Active threats are its decoration. We live in a disinformation environment, and military tactics are at the core of it by definition. Russia should give up and withdraw. But it's frankly ridiculous to assert that "Russia has no way to win" is a relevant statement, as Russia winning is not the relevant metric. Who says that they think that winning is their only option? They may be satisfied with the West losing, should they not see a path to winning for themselves. That's the game theory that needs to be articulated before anyone agrees to be lectured by someone dismissive of such threats. Imagine thinking that "Russia has no way to win" is a statement of reassurance in light of such a threat. Or that telepathic proclamations about their motivations and strategies are, as other people are engaging in here. What people want is for leadership not to play fast and loose with such possibilities.

RetroTechie 2y ago
> The only rational take is to believe nations when they say that they will use them, not when they won't. If that were so, any country making a nuclear threat (backed by capability) would get their wish granted. It doesn't work that way. Threats are assessed, weighed & countered. Bluffs are called. And miscalculations happen (for one: I'd wager Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine had he known in advance how things panned out so far). It's my hope that if Putin ever 'pushes the nuke button', some general or missile silo commander(s) will just say "No. Enough! We're not having this". Idle hope perhaps? More hoping - that things won't come to that. As for the non-nuclear part: it's really EU+US vs. Russia now, with Ukraine doing the dirty work. Whether Russia can 'win' depends entirely on how united / determined EU countries & the US are. In other words: politics & economics. Who wants more to win this war? Morale among Russian troops seems low. Any change in that on the horizon?
- mrangle 2y ago
  >If that were so, any country making a nuclear threat (backed by capability) would get their wish granted. Why? I said that capability is the metric. Followed by threats. Neither absolutely defines response. The primary takeaway is to NOT believe capable countries who say that they are against using them (China). When a capable nation makes the threat, only an irresponsible lunatic wouldn't take it seriously. However, a decision can be made from that starting point. In this instance, the "Russia can't win" take on why they won't engage in such an option isn't good theory in my opinion. As the invasion of Ukraine was a desperate counter-move. I believe that you are dead wrong in assuming that Russia didn't understand the probable response and outcome until now. I also think that you aren't considering the variable of even other options available to them and China. But also, that no one can credibly predict a limit to the specific desperation of arguably the most capable nuclear power in the World. Especially in the midst of an active military campaign.