5 ms·

I think it is actually a bit worse than that - there are currently troops hostile to Russia in Kursk. So say what you like, it has been demonstrated that it is

by roenxi 2y ago

I think it is actually a bit worse than that - there are currently troops hostile to Russia in Kursk. So say what you like, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to put hostile troops in a major nuclear power's territory without provoking a nuclear response. Unless we assume that the Russians are substantially more pacifistic than the rest of the world, that suggests that the concept of a nuclear umbrella doesn't exist. If Kursk appears not to be covered by the Russian nuclear umbrella in practice, what realistically will cause any country to fire off nuclear missiles? It is reasonable to say more than an invasion of a close ally. The entire MAD principle seems to have partially broken down over the last few years. Executing a land invasion of Russia, however symbolic, crossed a major line. A lot of rhetoric now looks decidedly like bluff and bluster.

hoseyor 2y ago
I don’t see it that way. MAD does not really come into play here and no, Russia is not pacifist, albeit reluctant, reserved, and level headed; arguably to a fault. And then there’s the reality that Kursk has only played into the Russian’s hands in many different ways, including, that it split already inferior forces in an attrition war and on the geopolitical level where it caused Chinese caution and reluctance about the whole Russian operation to essentially immediately fall away due to the insanity and recklessness if the Kursk operation, which only has gotten more solidified due to the atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians. You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives. If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Do you want nuclear exchanges? Would you have preferred for Russia to have nuked its own territory instead of just using it to their advantage to draw in immense resources in a Ukrainian self created kettle? The fundamental misunderstanding of all the Ukie cheer leaders is that they think this is one type of war, when it’s actually a whole different type of war where Russia is intentionally going it slow. “Russia Is losing their shock and awe, blitz war” they tell you, not knowing Russia is fighting more of a millstone war, grinding up all the Ukrainian men Downing Street and Biden fed into it. This is simply not a scenario where something as reckless as using nuclear weapons is yet warranted even though the West and people like you keep trying to edge us closer to it in the belief that you can just feet away with these kinds of provocations forever … until humanity finds out that there was a line … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Sure. But Kursk matters more to Russia than Poland matters to the US. So if a land invasion by foreign troops is going to be interpreted as no big deal, why would the fall of Poland matter from a nuclear standpoint? You can see it building in the public discourse as people convince themselves that they can push to an absurd distance without Russia being able to respond - we've seen their border integrity violated, strikes on Moscow, British missiles being lobbed in to Russian territories, an explicit US strategy of bleeding them out and fairly credible calls for regime change where it isn't obvious how far the US is acting on the idea. If we assume by symmetry that the US would take similar abuse before it launched any nukes, what on earth is supposed to happen in Europe to provoke a serious response? I wouldn't chance it, but it looks a lot like they're bluffing a willingness to do anything and some idiot dressed up as a general will one day will do something really stupid. We're exploring for the line where Russia breaks the nuclear taboo here; as far as I remember the game-theoretic response to salami tactics is supposed to be wildly disproportionate aggression. And there is a decent chance that it'll go unpunished since the US is clearly not going to stand up for Ukraine to the point where it risks blowback to the US proper.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    I don't think we can say that the nuclear umbrella is illusory until there is direct conflict and invasion across the frontier between what's left of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Ukraine's incursion into Kursk does not realistically threaten the long-term integrity and security of Russia, while Ukraine's self-defense has demonstrated that the cold-war fear of Russia blitzkrieging its way to the Atlantic is not realistic. Maybe Putin's non-invocation (up to now) of the nuclear umbrella shows he is as eager as anyone to maintain it as the ultimate protection against existential threats. The US's sharp turn away from globalism is a gift to Putin, and, given that the US population is strongly divided over the changes the current administration is making, that might be threatened if Russia were to act more belligerently than it already is. Personally, I'm more concerned over what will happen if and when the situation becomes one in which Trump realizes he's going to be seen as the president who 'lost' Taiwan.
    - 2y ago
xyzzy123 2y ago
Can't resist posting this classic video from "yes minister" that discusses the "zeno's paradox" of MAD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang (The general idea is that in a slowly escalating conflict may be no clear logical point where it makes sense to "push the button" first).
kennysoona 2y ago
I don't think it's bluff and bluster. Nuking Ukraine would hurt Russia and the international condemnation would be so much more than just the invasion it isn't worth it. If a country further away like the US or Turkey tried a land invasion, then they might not be so cautious to react.
mopsi 2y ago
If Kursk appears not to be covered by the Russian nuclear umbrella in practice, what realistically will cause any country to fire off nuclear missiles? Existential threat. An attack like Prigozhin's mutiny; an overwhelming force approaching Moscow, with nothing in the way to stop them. This is a realistic scenario where nuclear weapons could be launched as a final "fuck you". Ukraine was in this kind of final stand when Russian forces were on the outskirts of Kyiv, an attack on the city was expected at any moment, and soldiers were handing out guns and ammo from dump trucks to anyone who wanted them. This is the moment to launch nuclear weapons, if you have any. The final, desperate moment before being overrun. Kursk is nothing of the sort. Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine countered, and pushed Russian forces back by 10 miles into Russian territory - so what? Trying to spin this as a "land invasion of Russia" is ridiculous hyperbole that even Russian military experts don't take seriously. I distinctly remember one of them demonstratively rolling his eyes and sighing when Solovyov tried to push the same narrative with leading questions on his show.

by roenxi 2y ago

hoseyor 2y ago

I don’t see it that way. MAD does not really come into play here and no, Russia is not pacifist, albeit reluctant, reserved, and level headed; arguably to a fault. And then there’s the reality that Kursk has only played into the Russian’s hands in many different ways, including, that it split already inferior forces in an attrition war and on the geopolitical level where it caused Chinese caution and reluctance about the whole Russian operation to essentially immediately fall away due to the insanity and recklessness if the Kursk operation, which only has gotten more solidified due to the atrocities against civilians committed by the Ukrainians. You appear to see things in a very narrow scope that is predominated by propagandistic perspectives. If land invasion were some kind of cause for launching nukes, then the wholesale invasion and infiltration by Mexico and its cartels that have killed around 1M Americans would have been cause to, e.g., nuke southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Do you want nuclear exchanges? Would you have preferred for Russia to have nuked its own territory instead of just using it to their advantage to draw in immense resources in a Ukrainian self created kettle? The fundamental misunderstanding of all the Ukie cheer leaders is that they think this is one type of war, when it’s actually a whole different type of war where Russia is intentionally going it slow. “Russia Is losing their shock and awe, blitz war” they tell you, not knowing Russia is fighting more of a millstone war, grinding up all the Ukrainian men Downing Street and Biden fed into it. This is simply not a scenario where something as reckless as using nuclear weapons is yet warranted even though the West and people like you keep trying to edge us closer to it in the belief that you can just feet away with these kinds of provocations forever … until humanity finds out that there was a line … and life on earth ends because of recklessness of narcissistic psychopaths with god-complexes.

roenxi 2y ago
Sure. But Kursk matters more to Russia than Poland matters to the US. So if a land invasion by foreign troops is going to be interpreted as no big deal, why would the fall of Poland matter from a nuclear standpoint? You can see it building in the public discourse as people convince themselves that they can push to an absurd distance without Russia being able to respond - we've seen their border integrity violated, strikes on Moscow, British missiles being lobbed in to Russian territories, an explicit US strategy of bleeding them out and fairly credible calls for regime change where it isn't obvious how far the US is acting on the idea. If we assume by symmetry that the US would take similar abuse before it launched any nukes, what on earth is supposed to happen in Europe to provoke a serious response? I wouldn't chance it, but it looks a lot like they're bluffing a willingness to do anything and some idiot dressed up as a general will one day will do something really stupid. We're exploring for the line where Russia breaks the nuclear taboo here; as far as I remember the game-theoretic response to salami tactics is supposed to be wildly disproportionate aggression. And there is a decent chance that it'll go unpunished since the US is clearly not going to stand up for Ukraine to the point where it risks blowback to the US proper.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I don't think we can say that the nuclear umbrella is illusory until there is direct conflict and invasion across the frontier between what's left of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Ukraine's incursion into Kursk does not realistically threaten the long-term integrity and security of Russia, while Ukraine's self-defense has demonstrated that the cold-war fear of Russia blitzkrieging its way to the Atlantic is not realistic. Maybe Putin's non-invocation (up to now) of the nuclear umbrella shows he is as eager as anyone to maintain it as the ultimate protection against existential threats. The US's sharp turn away from globalism is a gift to Putin, and, given that the US population is strongly divided over the changes the current administration is making, that might be threatened if Russia were to act more belligerently than it already is. Personally, I'm more concerned over what will happen if and when the situation becomes one in which Trump realizes he's going to be seen as the president who 'lost' Taiwan.
  - 2y ago

xyzzy123 2y ago

Can't resist posting this classic video from "yes minister" that discusses the "zeno's paradox" of MAD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang (The general idea is that in a slowly escalating conflict may be no clear logical point where it makes sense to "push the button" first).

kennysoona 2y ago

I don't think it's bluff and bluster. Nuking Ukraine would hurt Russia and the international condemnation would be so much more than just the invasion it isn't worth it. If a country further away like the US or Turkey tried a land invasion, then they might not be so cautious to react.

mopsi 2y ago

If Kursk appears not to be covered by the Russian nuclear umbrella in practice, what realistically will cause any country to fire off nuclear missiles? Existential threat. An attack like Prigozhin's mutiny; an overwhelming force approaching Moscow, with nothing in the way to stop them. This is a realistic scenario where nuclear weapons could be launched as a final "fuck you". Ukraine was in this kind of final stand when Russian forces were on the outskirts of Kyiv, an attack on the city was expected at any moment, and soldiers were handing out guns and ammo from dump trucks to anyone who wanted them. This is the moment to launch nuclear weapons, if you have any. The final, desperate moment before being overrun. Kursk is nothing of the sort. Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine countered, and pushed Russian forces back by 10 miles into Russian territory - so what? Trying to spin this as a "land invasion of Russia" is ridiculous hyperbole that even Russian military experts don't take seriously. I distinctly remember one of them demonstratively rolling his eyes and sighing when Solovyov tried to push the same narrative with leading questions on his show.