4 ms·

Professionals in the field are not so sure, and any understanding of the history of warfare reveals that undesireable wars often cannot be stopped by the partie

by mmooss 1y ago

Professionals in the field are not so sure, and any understanding of the history of warfare reveals that undesireable wars often cannot be stopped by the parties if they get into the wrong situations. Russian doctrine now includes the use of nuclear weapons (look up 'escalate to de-escalate'), and Russia has threatened their use. The US government and others have taken the risk very seriously and Ukraine has restrained itself from doing things that might provoke a Russia-NATO war. You are also omitting the Russian perspective, which sees NATO in Ukraine as potentially existential.

tim333 1y ago
They say the see NATO in Ukraine as potentially existential but it mostly seems BS. I mean why is having a defensive alliance in Ukraine more existential than having it in Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway which also border Russia? I think it's more an excuse to try to restore their empire.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  To be fair they also say that about the Baltics and Poland.
- lawn 1y ago
  Of course it is. Russia huffed and puffed about Finland or Sweden joining NATO to be a red line and waving the nuke stick.
- mmooss 1y ago
  You have no idea what you're talking about; are you sure you want to risk nuclear war on the basis of your knowledge? It's far to dangerous to trust to hot takes on HN. I would listen to the experts. This is how wars actually start - ignorant people, ignorant publics, demanding escalatory actions. > why is having a defensive alliance in Ukraine more existential than having it in Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway which also border Russia? The answer is pretty obvious. The Baltic states joined NATO when the relationship with Russia wasn't adversarial. Also, Russia wasn't at war with them.
  - tim333 1y ago
    As far as I know no one is making nuclear decisions on the basis of my HN posts. I still think Russia is full of it. A lot of wars start because Russia decides it wants to start them to grab some neighbors stuff including WW2 where they allied with Hitler to get half of Poland.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > As far as I know no one is making nuclear decisions on the basis of my HN posts. You are in a democratic society where public opinion has a strong effect and where we influence each other. Also, if you don't take your posts seriously, why should anyone else?
breppp 1y ago
Russian propaganda and leaders surely tried to drive that idea forward from day-one of the war. However, three years later, I think we can summarize they highly miscalculated that the west would not intervene because of fear of nuclear war.
- mmooss 1y ago
  NATO hasn't intervened for that reason. There are no NATO troops in Ukraine.
mrguyorama 1y ago
Which "Professionals"? Most "military analysts" are literally just former soldiers trading on fake prestige. So which professionals are you getting your ideology from? Were they the same professionals who insisted that US intel was wrong and there's no way the 300k soldiers amassing on Ukraine's border were part of an invasion literally days before they invaded? >Russian doctrine now includes the use of nuclear weapons (look up 'escalate to de-escalate'), and Russia has threatened their use. Russian doctrine has always included first strike possibility, and has threatened nuclear war constantly since they ran out of legitimate threats. But these have all been public threats, not actual threats. The intention is to get a country's citizens to reduce their support for Ukraine, not genuinely warn a country's leaders of possible escalation risk. The day that Russia ACTUALLY goes "no seriously, we will nuke if you do that", average citizens will not hear it. Diplomacy is not conducted through CNN.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > Most "military analysts" are literally just former soldiers trading on fake prestige. What is fake about it if they are actually former soldiers who have practiced in this field? Who are you and why should anyone listen to you? As far as I can tell, you are just some commenter on the Internet. > ideology I see - you mean to ridicule everyone and hope something sticks. Your ideas are similarly ignorant. Maybe you should learn what you are talking about. It's a serious subject.

by mmooss 1y ago

tim333 1y ago

They say the see NATO in Ukraine as potentially existential but it mostly seems BS. I mean why is having a defensive alliance in Ukraine more existential than having it in Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway which also border Russia? I think it's more an excuse to try to restore their empire.

1718627440 1y ago
To be fair they also say that about the Baltics and Poland.
lawn 1y ago
Of course it is. Russia huffed and puffed about Finland or Sweden joining NATO to be a red line and waving the nuke stick.
mmooss 1y ago
You have no idea what you're talking about; are you sure you want to risk nuclear war on the basis of your knowledge? It's far to dangerous to trust to hot takes on HN. I would listen to the experts. This is how wars actually start - ignorant people, ignorant publics, demanding escalatory actions. > why is having a defensive alliance in Ukraine more existential than having it in Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway which also border Russia? The answer is pretty obvious. The Baltic states joined NATO when the relationship with Russia wasn't adversarial. Also, Russia wasn't at war with them.
- tim333 1y ago
  As far as I know no one is making nuclear decisions on the basis of my HN posts. I still think Russia is full of it. A lot of wars start because Russia decides it wants to start them to grab some neighbors stuff including WW2 where they allied with Hitler to get half of Poland.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > As far as I know no one is making nuclear decisions on the basis of my HN posts. You are in a democratic society where public opinion has a strong effect and where we influence each other. Also, if you don't take your posts seriously, why should anyone else?

breppp 1y ago

Russian propaganda and leaders surely tried to drive that idea forward from day-one of the war. However, three years later, I think we can summarize they highly miscalculated that the west would not intervene because of fear of nuclear war.

mmooss 1y ago
NATO hasn't intervened for that reason. There are no NATO troops in Ukraine.

mrguyorama 1y ago

Which "Professionals"? Most "military analysts" are literally just former soldiers trading on fake prestige. So which professionals are you getting your ideology from? Were they the same professionals who insisted that US intel was wrong and there's no way the 300k soldiers amassing on Ukraine's border were part of an invasion literally days before they invaded? >Russian doctrine now includes the use of nuclear weapons (look up 'escalate to de-escalate'), and Russia has threatened their use. Russian doctrine has always included first strike possibility, and has threatened nuclear war constantly since they ran out of legitimate threats. But these have all been public threats, not actual threats. The intention is to get a country's citizens to reduce their support for Ukraine, not genuinely warn a country's leaders of possible escalation risk. The day that Russia ACTUALLY goes "no seriously, we will nuke if you do that", average citizens will not hear it. Diplomacy is not conducted through CNN.

mmooss 1y ago
> Most "military analysts" are literally just former soldiers trading on fake prestige. What is fake about it if they are actually former soldiers who have practiced in this field? Who are you and why should anyone listen to you? As far as I can tell, you are just some commenter on the Internet. > ideology I see - you mean to ridicule everyone and hope something sticks. Your ideas are similarly ignorant. Maybe you should learn what you are talking about. It's a serious subject.