17 ms·

While I agree with you that Ukraine vs. Putin is clear-cut, morally speaking, I don't think we can apply pre-Atomic Age logic to the situation. I just watched t

While I agree with you that Ukraine vs. Putin is clear-cut, morally speaking, I don't think we can apply pre-Atomic Age logic to the situation. I just watched this scene in Crimson Tide: XO Hunter: "...I just think that in the nuclear world, the true enemy can't be destroyed." Captain Ramsey: "Attention on deck. Von Clausewitz will now tell us exactly who the real enemy is. Von?" XO Hunter: "In my humble opinion... in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself." I think that's the difference. In WWII, appeasing Hitler was a mistake because it only emboldened him. Even back then, Tolkien had reservations about how far to take the war. While he abhorred Hitler, he initially supported Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement" policy. But today, a nuclear Russia cannot be defeated the way Germany was. "In the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself." We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. The question everyone is wrestling with is, how do we save Ukraine while preventing nuclear war? Unfortunately, we don't know the answer, and the risk of getting it wrong is catastrophic.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. As soon as you decide this, and let others know you have, you have lost everything. Because if that logic applies to Ukraine it applies equally to Poland, to Alaska, France, to Washington, D.C., to your hometown. You've committed to surrender everything to any power that has the potential to escalate to nuclear war. (It's even worse if you don't believe this -- or if you think you do but would think differently if the thing to surrender was closer to home -- and let people think you do, because that makes it almost inevitable that things will escalate beyond your trigger point, resulting in nuclear war.)
- zdragnar 2y ago
  Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does, as do many others, which is largely why none of them have put boots on the ground beyond "training". If they did, they would actually be entering the war, and nuclear weapons are back on the table. That's also the reason why Alaska and France are safe, why Iran wants nukes, and is the best argument against disarmament you can find. The cat is out of the bag, and the attempts to put it back are starting to leave scars.
  - arkx 2y ago
    Ukraine did have Soviet-era nuclear weapons at the time of their independence, which they let go of in exchange of US, UK and Russia security guarantees in 1994. It is amazing to me how this fact is being memoryholed.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >It is amazing to me how this fact is being memory holed. Because every time it is brought up it is easily demonstrated that nobody actually agreed to defend Ukraine. They each agreed not to invade Ukraine.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The only assurance of assistance built into the agreement is that parties would complain to the UN security council. The Obama administration let Russia violate the agreement when they took Crimea. Putin's justification that Ukraine isn't a nation but a historically Russian territory only works if Russia pretends it was never a signatory, since recognition of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign nation was a part of it. In short, pieces of paper do not trump the fear of nuclear weapons.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does So? If nuclear war is always an intolerable choice for America, then America's nuclear weapons will never be used in any case, and any aggressor who can plausibly threaten nuclear war is free to seize anything from America with that threat. If nuclear war isn't always intolerable, then, well, we've eliminated the premise off the upthread argument about Ukraine, and are in a different discussion.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      The intolerability of nuclear weapon usage is not a simple binary. We didn't have the same kind of security agreements with Ukraine that we do with NATO countries, hence we are not at war with Russia. Had Russia invaded a NATO country, we still would not have launched first, but rather used conventional weapons, given the fallout (literal and metaphorical), but actually using them to prevent greater numbers of casualties from protracted war is not fully off the table, so to speak.
- danenania 2y ago
  How does the logic “apply equally”? It’s only rational to start a nuclear war if a country faces a direct existential threat: i.e. a significant percentage of the population will be killed or conquered and enslaved. The perceived outcome of nuclear war (widespread devastation) has to be preferable to what would happen otherwise. Conflicts over territories at the far fringes of a great power’s sphere of influence (or desired sphere of influence) obviously don’t meet the bar. If it’s trivial to call your bluff, it’s probably better not to bluff.
  - GMoromisato 2y ago
    Agreed! That's the key problem: we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Unfortunately, I think the rational thing to do is to apply increasing pressure to Putin until he either backs down or proves that he is willing to blow up the world over Ukraine. If the latter, then we back down. Of course, the risks of that strategy are all too obvious.
    - roca 2y ago
      > But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Russia's nuclear arsenal is a perfectly adequate guarantee of Russia's security. Putin knows this, which is why he's happy to leave Russia's western border with NATO practically undefended while he pursues Ukraine. (This also disproves the "Putin invaded Ukraine because he's afraid of NATO" lie.) It's more plausible that Putin's survival depends on the outcome of the Ukraine war. But "mad Putin blows up the world" is as much a problem for the Russians as anyone else.
      - DennisP 2y ago
        Indeed, when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia did nothing at all, despite Finland having a longer border with Russia than Ukraine has.
twoWhlsGud 2y ago
Unfortunately, MAD likely requires that you can't let Putin have Ukraine. And if MAD fails, well then we're all screwed anyway.
Scarblac 2y ago
That's assuming Putin would use nukes in case Ukraine succeeds in winning back their territory. Which he won't do if mutually assured destruction is credible. He's not going to destroy the world including himself and everything he loves for Ukraine. Once there are doubts that use of nuclear weapons will be punished, then all bets are off.
- danenania 2y ago
  The problem is that it’s simply not credible on its face. No matter what is said, there is no possibility of US leaders launching nukes over Ukraine. It’s a bad idea to bluff in situations like this, because when the obvious bluff is called and you are forced to back down, it makes enemies more likely to test all your commitments and “red lines”. While Putin might not be willing to risk MAD either over Ukraine, it’s a lot more believable that he would than that the US would. There have been direct kinetic attacks on Moscow and parts of Russia have been invaded. There have been assassination attempts against people close to him. This is not some far away conflict for him. He’s already taking on a huge amount of risk, a lot more than the US has taken on in a long time—even in WW2 there was no direct attack on the continental US.
  - StormChaser_5 2y ago
    If it's not such a far away conflict then why isn't Putin looking for a way to stop? If anything the war shows how little Putin cares about his own people, even those close around him and how willing he is to spend their lives to burnish his legacy. In that case why would you think that any backing down on Ukraine leads to anything other than him or his successors wanting to swallow more? Personally I don't see any real chance of nuclear escalation over Ukraine on both sides. The war needs to end but to do that Putin needs to be given a way to deescalate and claim a win at home. But that can only be allowed to happen if Ukraine is made safe and secure once again and if Putin is willing to swallow that. And I see no evidence of that being true.
    - danenania 2y ago
      There's definitely a chance it does lead to Russia wanting to "swallow more", which is a terrible thing, but that doesn't really change the strategic dynamics. Until they try to swallow territory that is as important to a nuclear-armed enemy as it is to Russia, they will have an advantage and it will be difficult to stop them.
wongarsu 2y ago
It has become very clear over the last couple of years that Putin doesn't want nuclear war either. Lots of nuclear threats, all of them backtracked. If we marched on Moscow the way we marched on Berlin that might change his mind. But If we push Russia back to Ukraine's rightful border and build a line of fortifications there, Russia has no point where launching nukes is actually advantageous to them. If anything, nukes only remain an option because of the lack of Western troops in Ukraine, allowing Putin to make a limited nuclear attack that hits Ukrainians but isn't worth war a nuclear war for the West. And even that is a trigger Putin has repeatedly refused to pull, preferring to win the war the conventional way even if that takes years
m4rtink 2y ago
This is exactly how you make sure EVERYONE will get nuclear weapons. And it was just so simple - provide Ukraine with all the weapons necessary to help them defend itself from the clear Russian agression. Or, you know, do that before the Russians started their main war in 2022, there was long enough warning from 2013, including hundreds of inocents murdered in an airliner the Russians show down...
- Aeolun 2y ago
  > including hundreds of innocents murdered in an airliner the Russians shot down As much as I felt the Dutch marines should have marched in there to retrieve the bodies when the Russians were faffing around, I do think the shooting down itself was an accident. Zero upside to doing that.
Aeolun 2y ago
> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. No. We cannot let people just walk over other nations even at the cost of nuclear war Anything else means the evil ones eventually win.
- t-3 2y ago
  In the case of nuclear war, everyone loses everything. For most of us in the US, and I'm guessing most people not directly impacted by the war, that's not an acceptable outcome (not that Russia seems to be able to take any more than already have anyway).
  - corimaith 2y ago
    With that kind of mindset you won't have anything anyways at the rate you're going.
    - t-3 2y ago
      I'm sorry, but when you argue that Ukraine losing some territory is bad enough to call for the extinction of the human race, I can't help but think you're not sane enough to be taken seriously.
      - geoka9 2y ago
        I think what the GP is saying is that it never stops with losing some territory. In particular, "some Ukrainian territory" is not what Russia wants. They may settle for it for now (like they sort of did with Eastern Donbas in 2014), but sooner or later they'll come for more. Yes, even after they have all of Ukraine, they will come for more. Look up Russia's ultimatum of Feb 2022. Or the appeasement of Hitler at the onset of WW2. Or just watch some Russian TV... just kidding, I wouldn't hoist that upon anybody :)
      - Aeolun 2y ago
        Of course not, the extinction of the human race would suck. But when you are talking about nuclear threats there is no other way to respond if you don’t want everything taken from you. If you constantly back down by giving the playground bully your lunch money he’ll keep coming back for more. Punch him in the face however, and…
shoubidouwah 2y ago
A good refresher on deterrence seems necessary here. https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1570 https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1570 There's a very real, game theoretic reason why nuclear riposte is fully automated with no way for even commanders to cancel. A rogue actor _menacing_ nuclear attack as a tool of invasion and war of aggression is an obvious case study for this. And finally: "We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Ukraine win the war" is foremost in russian minds, no?

dragonwriter 2y ago

> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. As soon as you decide this, and let others know you have, you have lost everything. Because if that logic applies to Ukraine it applies equally to Poland, to Alaska, France, to Washington, D.C., to your hometown. You've committed to surrender everything to any power that has the potential to escalate to nuclear war. (It's even worse if you don't believe this -- or if you think you do but would think differently if the thing to surrender was closer to home -- and let people think you do, because that makes it almost inevitable that things will escalate beyond your trigger point, resulting in nuclear war.)

zdragnar 2y ago
Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does, as do many others, which is largely why none of them have put boots on the ground beyond "training". If they did, they would actually be entering the war, and nuclear weapons are back on the table. That's also the reason why Alaska and France are safe, why Iran wants nukes, and is the best argument against disarmament you can find. The cat is out of the bag, and the attempts to put it back are starting to leave scars.
- arkx 2y ago
  Ukraine did have Soviet-era nuclear weapons at the time of their independence, which they let go of in exchange of US, UK and Russia security guarantees in 1994. It is amazing to me how this fact is being memoryholed.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >It is amazing to me how this fact is being memory holed. Because every time it is brought up it is easily demonstrated that nobody actually agreed to defend Ukraine. They each agreed not to invade Ukraine.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The only assurance of assistance built into the agreement is that parties would complain to the UN security council. The Obama administration let Russia violate the agreement when they took Crimea. Putin's justification that Ukraine isn't a nation but a historically Russian territory only works if Russia pretends it was never a signatory, since recognition of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign nation was a part of it. In short, pieces of paper do not trump the fear of nuclear weapons.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does So? If nuclear war is always an intolerable choice for America, then America's nuclear weapons will never be used in any case, and any aggressor who can plausibly threaten nuclear war is free to seize anything from America with that threat. If nuclear war isn't always intolerable, then, well, we've eliminated the premise off the upthread argument about Ukraine, and are in a different discussion.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    The intolerability of nuclear weapon usage is not a simple binary. We didn't have the same kind of security agreements with Ukraine that we do with NATO countries, hence we are not at war with Russia. Had Russia invaded a NATO country, we still would not have launched first, but rather used conventional weapons, given the fallout (literal and metaphorical), but actually using them to prevent greater numbers of casualties from protracted war is not fully off the table, so to speak.
danenania 2y ago
How does the logic “apply equally”? It’s only rational to start a nuclear war if a country faces a direct existential threat: i.e. a significant percentage of the population will be killed or conquered and enslaved. The perceived outcome of nuclear war (widespread devastation) has to be preferable to what would happen otherwise. Conflicts over territories at the far fringes of a great power’s sphere of influence (or desired sphere of influence) obviously don’t meet the bar. If it’s trivial to call your bluff, it’s probably better not to bluff.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  Agreed! That's the key problem: we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Unfortunately, I think the rational thing to do is to apply increasing pressure to Putin until he either backs down or proves that he is willing to blow up the world over Ukraine. If the latter, then we back down. Of course, the risks of that strategy are all too obvious.
  - roca 2y ago
    > But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Russia's nuclear arsenal is a perfectly adequate guarantee of Russia's security. Putin knows this, which is why he's happy to leave Russia's western border with NATO practically undefended while he pursues Ukraine. (This also disproves the "Putin invaded Ukraine because he's afraid of NATO" lie.) It's more plausible that Putin's survival depends on the outcome of the Ukraine war. But "mad Putin blows up the world" is as much a problem for the Russians as anyone else.
    - DennisP 2y ago
      Indeed, when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia did nothing at all, despite Finland having a longer border with Russia than Ukraine has.

twoWhlsGud 2y ago

Unfortunately, MAD likely requires that you can't let Putin have Ukraine. And if MAD fails, well then we're all screwed anyway.

Scarblac 2y ago

That's assuming Putin would use nukes in case Ukraine succeeds in winning back their territory. Which he won't do if mutually assured destruction is credible. He's not going to destroy the world including himself and everything he loves for Ukraine. Once there are doubts that use of nuclear weapons will be punished, then all bets are off.

danenania 2y ago
The problem is that it’s simply not credible on its face. No matter what is said, there is no possibility of US leaders launching nukes over Ukraine. It’s a bad idea to bluff in situations like this, because when the obvious bluff is called and you are forced to back down, it makes enemies more likely to test all your commitments and “red lines”. While Putin might not be willing to risk MAD either over Ukraine, it’s a lot more believable that he would than that the US would. There have been direct kinetic attacks on Moscow and parts of Russia have been invaded. There have been assassination attempts against people close to him. This is not some far away conflict for him. He’s already taking on a huge amount of risk, a lot more than the US has taken on in a long time—even in WW2 there was no direct attack on the continental US.
- StormChaser_5 2y ago
  If it's not such a far away conflict then why isn't Putin looking for a way to stop? If anything the war shows how little Putin cares about his own people, even those close around him and how willing he is to spend their lives to burnish his legacy. In that case why would you think that any backing down on Ukraine leads to anything other than him or his successors wanting to swallow more? Personally I don't see any real chance of nuclear escalation over Ukraine on both sides. The war needs to end but to do that Putin needs to be given a way to deescalate and claim a win at home. But that can only be allowed to happen if Ukraine is made safe and secure once again and if Putin is willing to swallow that. And I see no evidence of that being true.
  - danenania 2y ago
    There's definitely a chance it does lead to Russia wanting to "swallow more", which is a terrible thing, but that doesn't really change the strategic dynamics. Until they try to swallow territory that is as important to a nuclear-armed enemy as it is to Russia, they will have an advantage and it will be difficult to stop them.

wongarsu 2y ago

It has become very clear over the last couple of years that Putin doesn't want nuclear war either. Lots of nuclear threats, all of them backtracked. If we marched on Moscow the way we marched on Berlin that might change his mind. But If we push Russia back to Ukraine's rightful border and build a line of fortifications there, Russia has no point where launching nukes is actually advantageous to them. If anything, nukes only remain an option because of the lack of Western troops in Ukraine, allowing Putin to make a limited nuclear attack that hits Ukrainians but isn't worth war a nuclear war for the West. And even that is a trigger Putin has repeatedly refused to pull, preferring to win the war the conventional way even if that takes years

m4rtink 2y ago

This is exactly how you make sure EVERYONE will get nuclear weapons. And it was just so simple - provide Ukraine with all the weapons necessary to help them defend itself from the clear Russian agression. Or, you know, do that before the Russians started their main war in 2022, there was long enough warning from 2013, including hundreds of inocents murdered in an airliner the Russians show down...

Aeolun 2y ago
> including hundreds of innocents murdered in an airliner the Russians shot down As much as I felt the Dutch marines should have marched in there to retrieve the bodies when the Russians were faffing around, I do think the shooting down itself was an accident. Zero upside to doing that.

Aeolun 2y ago

> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. No. We cannot let people just walk over other nations even at the cost of nuclear war Anything else means the evil ones eventually win.

t-3 2y ago
In the case of nuclear war, everyone loses everything. For most of us in the US, and I'm guessing most people not directly impacted by the war, that's not an acceptable outcome (not that Russia seems to be able to take any more than already have anyway).
- corimaith 2y ago
  With that kind of mindset you won't have anything anyways at the rate you're going.
  - t-3 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but when you argue that Ukraine losing some territory is bad enough to call for the extinction of the human race, I can't help but think you're not sane enough to be taken seriously.
    - geoka9 2y ago
      I think what the GP is saying is that it never stops with losing some territory. In particular, "some Ukrainian territory" is not what Russia wants. They may settle for it for now (like they sort of did with Eastern Donbas in 2014), but sooner or later they'll come for more. Yes, even after they have all of Ukraine, they will come for more. Look up Russia's ultimatum of Feb 2022. Or the appeasement of Hitler at the onset of WW2. Or just watch some Russian TV... just kidding, I wouldn't hoist that upon anybody :)
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      Of course not, the extinction of the human race would suck. But when you are talking about nuclear threats there is no other way to respond if you don’t want everything taken from you. If you constantly back down by giving the playground bully your lunch money he’ll keep coming back for more. Punch him in the face however, and…

shoubidouwah 2y ago

A good refresher on deterrence seems necessary here. https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1570 https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1570 There's a very real, game theoretic reason why nuclear riposte is fully automated with no way for even commanders to cancel. A rogue actor _menacing_ nuclear attack as a tool of invasion and war of aggression is an obvious case study for this. And finally: "We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Ukraine win the war" is foremost in russian minds, no?