3 ms·

and so Putin and his drunk lapdop Medvedev should stop sabre rattling with toy sabres. be careful whom you are advising to back down in fear.

mmooss 1y ago
Weak parties are often more dangerous and unpredictable than strong parties. They are backed into a corner, with no way out. Lecturing them on what they should do accomplishes nothing, of course. Why not find solutions that work? > back down in fear. It's not about fear - it's not about blame, or 'should', or anything but consequences, lives and property, blood and treasure. The destruction of a war with Russia would be immense. Why don't you find solutions that protect Ukraine and prevent war with Russia?
- koonsolo 1y ago
  > solutions that protect Ukraine and prevent war with Russia? Your proposal?
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It might be to destroy the bombers - I don't know enough to do more than ask the question about nuclear stability - my point is that dismissing factors, including via self-righteousness and denial, is a very dangerous and intentionally ignorant choice. All that matters for decision-making is the conquences of your actions. No matter whose fault it is, the outcomes are the same. Ukraine does have to balance nuclear stability, and I expect they have - I can't say if they made the right choice, but it's a very serious question. On HN people can dismiss it in a thousand ways, but it's not a serious analysis. I would guess that the primary things that should happen are, NATO, especially the US, needs to make it clear that they will spend whatever it takes for however long it takes to win. If Russia believed that, they would leave Ukraine now. NATO and the US have order of magnitude more economic resources than Russia - Russia can't compete if NATO seriously invests. And Ukranians need to defend their country. A large portion of their population refuses to fight. That undermines manpower, a critical issue; it raises questions in Russia's mind about Ukraine's motivation to win, which prolongs the war; and it must raise questions in international leaders' minds (though none talk about it, I would guess so they don't undermine support for Ukraine). I don't know that either of those things will happen, and the status quo sadly continues.
    - koonsolo 1y ago
      I'm pleasantly surprised by your answer, to be honest. For me, NATO needs to secure the left of the Dnipro river. This would free up manpower and material on Ukraines side, to fully focus on the front-lines. It would also send a clear message to Russia that we mean business. Also, when Russian jets fly over NATO territory, they should be shot down, just like Turkey did. I have the feeling the West is giving enough material for Ukraine to survive, but not enough to really push back.

mmooss 1y ago

Weak parties are often more dangerous and unpredictable than strong parties. They are backed into a corner, with no way out. Lecturing them on what they should do accomplishes nothing, of course. Why not find solutions that work? > back down in fear. It's not about fear - it's not about blame, or 'should', or anything but consequences, lives and property, blood and treasure. The destruction of a war with Russia would be immense. Why don't you find solutions that protect Ukraine and prevent war with Russia?

koonsolo 1y ago
> solutions that protect Ukraine and prevent war with Russia? Your proposal?
- mmooss 1y ago
  It might be to destroy the bombers - I don't know enough to do more than ask the question about nuclear stability - my point is that dismissing factors, including via self-righteousness and denial, is a very dangerous and intentionally ignorant choice. All that matters for decision-making is the conquences of your actions. No matter whose fault it is, the outcomes are the same. Ukraine does have to balance nuclear stability, and I expect they have - I can't say if they made the right choice, but it's a very serious question. On HN people can dismiss it in a thousand ways, but it's not a serious analysis. I would guess that the primary things that should happen are, NATO, especially the US, needs to make it clear that they will spend whatever it takes for however long it takes to win. If Russia believed that, they would leave Ukraine now. NATO and the US have order of magnitude more economic resources than Russia - Russia can't compete if NATO seriously invests. And Ukranians need to defend their country. A large portion of their population refuses to fight. That undermines manpower, a critical issue; it raises questions in Russia's mind about Ukraine's motivation to win, which prolongs the war; and it must raise questions in international leaders' minds (though none talk about it, I would guess so they don't undermine support for Ukraine). I don't know that either of those things will happen, and the status quo sadly continues.
  - koonsolo 1y ago
    I'm pleasantly surprised by your answer, to be honest. For me, NATO needs to secure the left of the Dnipro river. This would free up manpower and material on Ukraines side, to fully focus on the front-lines. It would also send a clear message to Russia that we mean business. Also, when Russian jets fly over NATO territory, they should be shot down, just like Turkey did. I have the feeling the West is giving enough material for Ukraine to survive, but not enough to really push back.