3 ms·

> 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 attac

> 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.

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.