5 ms·

If they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They a

by roenxi 2y ago

If they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They aren't going to surrender. I'm not sure what people expect to happen but given the strategic madness out of the west we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted. Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.

talldayo 2y ago
> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted. Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him. You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel. If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us. > You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure. Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > British aren't going to stop until something stops them Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz. Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      The UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz; and the war overall broke them as a world power and they were forced to rely on foreign support to keep them fighting. That was all locked in very early on. And they only have a fraction of the staying power that they did the 1940s now, they can't handle that sort of pressure any more. Particularly since there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war, they're basically in it for bloodymindedness. And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular as it is proven failed by history. (I do not believe any population has been bombed into submission.) > there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside. > bloodymindedness Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder. > this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
[flagged]
- roenxi 2y ago
  What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation? In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.) If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. When did the US make that offer? I missed it.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > When did the US make that offer? I missed it You asked "what concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?" Not what concessions has the U.S. made. Russia isn't negotiating. Only fools negotiate against themselves.
        roenxi 2y ago
        Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all. This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that. Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...

by roenxi 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago

> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted. Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him. You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel. If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.

roenxi 2y ago
The Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us. > You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure. Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > British aren't going to stop until something stops them Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz. Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    The UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz; and the war overall broke them as a world power and they were forced to rely on foreign support to keep them fighting. That was all locked in very early on. And they only have a fraction of the staying power that they did the 1940s now, they can't handle that sort of pressure any more. Particularly since there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war, they're basically in it for bloodymindedness. And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular as it is proven failed by history. (I do not believe any population has been bombed into submission.) > there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside. > bloodymindedness Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder. > this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

[flagged]

roenxi 2y ago
What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation? In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.) If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. When did the US make that offer? I missed it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > When did the US make that offer? I missed it You asked "what concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?" Not what concessions has the U.S. made. Russia isn't negotiating. Only fools negotiate against themselves.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all. This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that. Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...