3 ms·

1. I see no evidence of that. It's what you believe what they believe. 2. Invading Ukraine does not seems completely non sensical given they used to be part of

1. I see no evidence of that. It's what you believe what they believe. 2. Invading Ukraine does not seems completely non sensical given they used to be part of USSR and have no means to defend themselves without external support.

ben_w 2y ago
1. Phrasing is difficult, I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not. I wrote "if", because I don't claim to know what they actually believe. But it's also about what they believe that we believe, so it's even messier than that. As it's about what they believe that we believe, I think the fact they keep rattling that sabre suggests that it's plausible they may believe that we believe that. What I believe: I think there's at least a 50% chance* the Russian nuclear weapon systems as a whole — when going all the way from missile to explosions — don't work. What I kinda-recon the Russian government believes, and also totally do believe myself: the west limits its support of Ukraine out of a fear that Russia will use nuclear weapons against nations that support Ukraine too hard. So, do you and I agree on the point you made? I think we might. 2. Conquering another country that's full of people who hate you is a bad idea, even if they have no substantial army. Doing the invasion so badly that your target's farmers steal some of the tanks you used for the initial invasion, more so. Having to stave off armed insurrection from your own mercenaries, losing your main export market, having troops so ill-prepared they dig trenches in a nuclear fallout contamination exclusion zone, that's really nonsensical. * I previously put the odds at 10% of their systems as a whole functioning, before reading this story — which of course may just be Russian propaganda to make them seem more scary, but who knows?: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o
aguaviva 2y ago
Sweden and Norway used to be one country. Does that mean it would be "not completely non-sensical" for one to invade the other?

ben_w 2y ago

1. Phrasing is difficult, I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not. I wrote "if", because I don't claim to know what they actually believe. But it's also about what they believe that we believe, so it's even messier than that. As it's about what they believe that we believe, I think the fact they keep rattling that sabre suggests that it's plausible they may believe that we believe that. What I believe: I think there's at least a 50% chance* the Russian nuclear weapon systems as a whole — when going all the way from missile to explosions — don't work. What I kinda-recon the Russian government believes, and also totally do believe myself: the west limits its support of Ukraine out of a fear that Russia will use nuclear weapons against nations that support Ukraine too hard. So, do you and I agree on the point you made? I think we might. 2. Conquering another country that's full of people who hate you is a bad idea, even if they have no substantial army. Doing the invasion so badly that your target's farmers steal some of the tanks you used for the initial invasion, more so. Having to stave off armed insurrection from your own mercenaries, losing your main export market, having troops so ill-prepared they dig trenches in a nuclear fallout contamination exclusion zone, that's really nonsensical. * I previously put the odds at 10% of their systems as a whole functioning, before reading this story — which of course may just be Russian propaganda to make them seem more scary, but who knows?: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o

aguaviva 2y ago

Sweden and Norway used to be one country. Does that mean it would be "not completely non-sensical" for one to invade the other?