3 ms·

> And in a nuclear world, those threats can escalate to annihilation. They haven't thus far. And the US was a lot more pointed about deterrence (including nucl

by ethbr1 2y ago

> And in a nuclear world, those threats can escalate to annihilation. They haven't thus far. And the US was a lot more pointed about deterrence (including nuclear escalation threats) in the 60s/70s. The status quo is that Russia frequently threatens nuclear escalation to all sorts of Ukrainian actions, and the West... doesn't threaten anything preemptively. Can you think of one instance thus far where the West preemptively said "If Russia does X, then we will Y" for clear Xs and Ys? And then did it?

jfengel 2y ago
The US has said that it stood with Ukraine, and would give money and weapons. It hasn't been specific, but I don't think that increased specificity would have deterred Russia. It's more meaningful to actually do the thing than to talk about it. As you note, Russia's red lines are meaningless. We don't even really take his nuclear threats seriously. The strategy has been to avoid escalation, but just to outlast Russia on its own terms. Russia is running its war badly. They seem willing to spend blood and treasure on it, and no amount of threat is going to stop that. Ukraine just needs to outlast it. What's really going to succeed for them is not that the West failed to make enough threats, but that the US is about to capitulate. Under those circumstances, Ukraine likely cannot outlast it. Some have said all along that the US should have enabled Ukraine to fight to win, rather than outlast. Not a threat, but just going ahead and fighting. Under that theory, Russia would see that it would take more damage than it could afford, and give up. It's possible that this is correct. We'll never really know. The siege strategy seemed viable because the US did not expect to surrender so easily. Giving up in Ukraine wasn't really a major point in this election. But that is how war goes; you do your best with the information you have, and sometimes you fail anyway.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  russia beeing one guy in his 70s with nothing but books and box ahead of him
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > The [Western] strategy has been to avoid escalation This is the part that feels like it's failed. Because the West has escalated, but only reactively to battlefield conditions and without preemptively announcing the steps that will be taken. That ceded the bargaining power that, f.ex., a preemptive "We will give Ukraine surplus F-16s if _____" could have produced.

by ethbr1 2y ago

jfengel 2y ago

The US has said that it stood with Ukraine, and would give money and weapons. It hasn't been specific, but I don't think that increased specificity would have deterred Russia. It's more meaningful to actually do the thing than to talk about it. As you note, Russia's red lines are meaningless. We don't even really take his nuclear threats seriously. The strategy has been to avoid escalation, but just to outlast Russia on its own terms. Russia is running its war badly. They seem willing to spend blood and treasure on it, and no amount of threat is going to stop that. Ukraine just needs to outlast it. What's really going to succeed for them is not that the West failed to make enough threats, but that the US is about to capitulate. Under those circumstances, Ukraine likely cannot outlast it. Some have said all along that the US should have enabled Ukraine to fight to win, rather than outlast. Not a threat, but just going ahead and fighting. Under that theory, Russia would see that it would take more damage than it could afford, and give up. It's possible that this is correct. We'll never really know. The siege strategy seemed viable because the US did not expect to surrender so easily. Giving up in Ukraine wasn't really a major point in this election. But that is how war goes; you do your best with the information you have, and sometimes you fail anyway.

ashoeafoot 2y ago
russia beeing one guy in his 70s with nothing but books and box ahead of him
ethbr1 2y ago
> The [Western] strategy has been to avoid escalation This is the part that feels like it's failed. Because the West has escalated, but only reactively to battlefield conditions and without preemptively announcing the steps that will be taken. That ceded the bargaining power that, f.ex., a preemptive "We will give Ukraine surplus F-16s if _____" could have produced.