6 ms·

look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solut

look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solution to finally win.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Tautological The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t.
- lukan 2y ago
  But obligatory reminder, that back then there were no nukes. So it is not exactly the same situation.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Neither is now the situation exactly that having nukes, means you can tell everyone to back down and do exactly as you say or else.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Eh, MAD brings us back to equilibrium. It's a significantly more dangerous equilibrium, for sure, but we should be much more afraid of a nuclear accident (not reactor meltdowns but accidental weapon launch) than of purposeful use of a nuclear weapon.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Well, the result is the same, no? If one rocket flies, chances are, they will all fly.
  - lpcvoid 2y ago
    Russia will not use nukes. If you believe they will, then they have you exactly where they want you to be.
    - lukan 2y ago
      So how do you know that? Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea. The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing).
        lukan 2y ago
        Talking and doing are not the same thing. Geopolitics is like Poker, who is bluffing and who is calling it. You are saying only Putin is bluffing - well, I do read russian military blogs/telegram chats. Spoiler: they also think Biden is bluffing. Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Anything can happen, and people say all sorts of stuff online. But from the fact that the warning was expresed privately, and using carefully chosen language (unlike Putin's warnings, which are generally aimed at the public sphere, and are full of bluster) -- and considering, again, that the US is fully capable of carrying through with its promise in this regard -- it seems likely the message was received as intended. Could still go wrong, but the likelihood of things going wrong by not promising any sufficiently serious consequences at all to Russia's regime if it actually deploys nukes seems to be (unequivocally) far greater.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  The nazis won many wars even tho they lost the big one. Will NATO win against Russia? Who knows. But in the showdown NATO/Ukraine vs Russia, they lost.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    “NATO/Ukraine”? I am literally giggling at the absurdity :D Get a grip. Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this. It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).
    - justin66 2y ago
      > It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons). It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict. It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming.

look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solution to finally win.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Tautological The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t.

lukan 2y ago
But obligatory reminder, that back then there were no nukes. So it is not exactly the same situation.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Neither is now the situation exactly that having nukes, means you can tell everyone to back down and do exactly as you say or else.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Eh, MAD brings us back to equilibrium. It's a significantly more dangerous equilibrium, for sure, but we should be much more afraid of a nuclear accident (not reactor meltdowns but accidental weapon launch) than of purposeful use of a nuclear weapon.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Well, the result is the same, no? If one rocket flies, chances are, they will all fly.
- lpcvoid 2y ago
  Russia will not use nukes. If you believe they will, then they have you exactly where they want you to be.
  - lukan 2y ago
    So how do you know that? Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea. The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing).
      - lukan 2y ago
        Talking and doing are not the same thing. Geopolitics is like Poker, who is bluffing and who is calling it. You are saying only Putin is bluffing - well, I do read russian military blogs/telegram chats. Spoiler: they also think Biden is bluffing. Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Anything can happen, and people say all sorts of stuff online. But from the fact that the warning was expresed privately, and using carefully chosen language (unlike Putin's warnings, which are generally aimed at the public sphere, and are full of bluster) -- and considering, again, that the US is fully capable of carrying through with its promise in this regard -- it seems likely the message was received as intended. Could still go wrong, but the likelihood of things going wrong by not promising any sufficiently serious consequences at all to Russia's regime if it actually deploys nukes seems to be (unequivocally) far greater.
meiraleal 2y ago
The nazis won many wars even tho they lost the big one. Will NATO win against Russia? Who knows. But in the showdown NATO/Ukraine vs Russia, they lost.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  “NATO/Ukraine”? I am literally giggling at the absurdity :D Get a grip. Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this. It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).
  - justin66 2y ago
    > It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons). It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict. It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming.