The way to not have nuclear war is to make it extremely clear that if Putin uses nuclear weapons his dream of a Russian empire ends, because Russia does not exist any longer.
You give in to him now, he takes what he wants in the future because he knows you'll blink.
Stare him right in the face and tell him if you pull the trigger, the first response is going to land right on top of his little 5'5" head, and then the rest of his country ten seconds later.
He blinks.
Maybe he doesn't.
But you can't be the one to blink first, otherwise NATO and the entire premise behind it falls apart.
But no one actually believes that's what would happen. If Russia drops a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian troops, the US isn't going to nuke Moscow in response. The risk is more step-by-step escalation:
Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons -> NATO conducts air strikes on Russian troops in Ukraine and sinks the Black Sea fleet -> Russia uses more small nuclear weapons in Ukraine in response -> NATO starts conducting strikes on more Russian military targets -> and so on.
It's also important to remember the stakes for each country. The US doesn't really care all that much about Ukraine and Russia knows it. So Russia likely thinks that by pushing the envelope and making the risks unpalatable for the west, they can get NATO to back off.
So is the answer to never back down in the face of nuclear bluster? I don't know, I guess it depends how real the threat of nuclear war is. But I don't buy the Domino Theory 2.0 people are talking about. The Western allies handed over control over Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union after WWII, but NATO was never under serious threat. And if somehow Russia gets most of what they want out of this war, that doesn't mean they're dumb enough to attack NATO.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
The outcome is not up to Biden alone, but the choice for the US to attempt de-escalation is up to Biden. Biden is just the one who made that statement. Every leader on every side who believes that there is a real risk of nuclear war should be dedicated to ensuring that's not how this ends.
What is the worst case scenario via de-escalation? Imagine that, then take Biden at his word and compare the worst case scenario of de-escalation to actual nuclear Armageddon as Biden suggests is on the table. There is no way that the worst case scenario from attempting de-escalation is worse than the consequences of actual nuclear war.
I don't know if Biden is being truthful or not in his statements, but if he is then what's on the table is billions of people dying. Just a conventional war in Ukraine has already led to mass hunger and starvation in other parts of the world. If the world is actually facing a rapid slippery slope of escalation into nuclear war, then the entire world is facing the possibility of hunger and starvation, at least those who survive will be. Pretty much anything is better than that.
The world would be a better place if nukes had never been invented, but they do exist and ignoring the potential consequences of their use on a matter of principle about appeasement is madness. False dichotomies of 'either you give Putin nothing or North Korea will take over South Korea' are just fantasies that should be completely ignored if the real situation on the table is de-escalation with Russia now vs. nuclear Armageddon now.
It's entirely possible that Biden is exaggerating the risk for the sake of persuading donors at a fund raiser or to drum up support for some other action he wants to take and we are not actually at the brink of nuclear Armageddon. I am hoping and kind of assuming that is probably the case. I find it hard to imagine anyone, even Putin, actually choosing this future and enough people in the chain of command going along with it to make it happen. That said, if Biden's not exaggerating and can be taken for his word on this, then take some time this weekend to appreciate how this Thanksgiving could be the last you have with friends/family.
De-escalation does not imply waving the white flag. It can just mean stepping back from the precipice to work on alternatives that save more lives and make a better future.
Then show me a plan. De-escalation means compromise. There's no ability to compromise here because the nuclear threat will always loom and Russia will continue to take the Sabre. Can someone show me a plan? I just keep hearing that de-escalation doesn't mean capitulation, but I've seen zero plans offered
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Man. I don't know. I get the not appeasing side, but for me the threat of nukes isn't guaranteed to be something Putin does every time. To risk nuclear death to the region isn't something I'd ever choose as my first choice. Again, I get the take on giving in to Putin, but my first choice is for the US to initiate peace talks immediately to end this conflict. If giving into Russia with a territory like Crimea and another, its better than Putin dropping a nuke on Ukraine.
The Following User Says Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
Putin is the one with his finger on the trigger, but we're all on the precipice if what Biden said is true. Stopping him from pulling the trigger should be everyone's concern. Whether that ultimately comes via assassination, internal revolt/coup, disabling their systems, or something else, all successful outcomes depend upon that trigger not being pulled. There is no successful outcome that includes nuclear war. Fortunately, no country/individual's choices exist in a bubble. Everyone is subject to having choices affected by changing circumstances and outside influence.
Curious, what are some concrete steps that would follow your logic line here? Exactly what should the US/NATO do to de-escalate? Stop supplying Ukraine? Permit Russia to keep the 4 provinces? What exactly do you propose?
All this money being pumped into to support Ukraine from the West... is there any consideration to what a regime change/Ukrainian victory means for the West? Carve up Russia? Take control of their resources? All this money can't just be altruistic.. you gotta think there is some 3D chess being played about what spoils can go to the victors.
Stare him right in the face and tell him if you pull the trigger, the first response is going to land right on top of his little 5'5" head, and then the rest of his country ten seconds later.
Agreed. Doing this and trying to stop it from reaching that point are not mutually exclusive at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
The thing that scares me is that mutually assured destruction is a scenario almost certain to play out one day. Whether it is tomorrow or 200 years from now, I don't know, but I think it is only a matter of time until someone fanatical and bitter enough comes along and puts things in motion. Think about the kind of people who do mass shooting, suicide bombings, murder suicides of their families. Whether that is Putin or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked. Eventually, someone will come into power somewhere who is deranged enough though, in my opinion.
Another part of the equation is the constant evolution of military tech and shifting sense of advantage between rivals as innovations aren't equal. It's times when someone believes they have an advantage over their opponent that action is most likely to be taken. A dangerous aggressor who thinks he may have an edge is a bad situation, especially because military tech will catch up and reduce that advantage with time, so their window of opportunity may just be fleeting and increases the incentive to act while opportunity exists. It would be great if the US came out with something to effectively neutralize the perceived advantage of hypersonic weapons asap.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Fata cyanide pills. I'm going to get me some heroin, meth...all the good stuff. Would be awesome to just be a tweaker for a month or two before going down for the long nap.
All this money being pumped into to support Ukraine from the West... is there any consideration to what a regime change/Ukrainian victory means for the West? Carve up Russia? Take control of their resources? All this money can't just be altruistic.. you gotta think there is some 3D chess being played about what spoils can go to the victors.
Russia is the US's biggest competitor in terms of proxy wars and arms supply (China doesn't do much in either regard currently). So by assisting Ukraine to significantly weaken Russia, the US is strengthening its own hegemony. And by neutering Russia somewhat, the US probably feels like it can focus more on China.
And it's not really all that much money, all things considered. They spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is relative pocket change. And almost all of the US support ends up back in its own pockets one way or another. When they supply weapons, those are US industries (which spend a lot of money on buying US politicians) that are being supported. We're seeing the military-industrial complex in action.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
All this money being pumped into to support Ukraine from the West... is there any consideration to what a regime change/Ukrainian victory means for the West? Carve up Russia? Take control of their resources? All this money can't just be altruistic.. you gotta think there is some 3D chess being played about what spoils can go to the victors.
You get more NATO buffer states and you get rid of what amounts to gangsters that have control of nuclear weapons. You also take a major anti-western player (Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, etc.) off the table.
Then show me a plan. De-escalation means compromise. There's no ability to compromise here because the nuclear threat will always loom and Russia will continue to take the Sabre. Can someone show me a plan? I just keep hearing that de-escalation doesn't mean capitulation, but I've seen zero plans offered
If, and it's a big if, it is actually the case that we're on the brink of nuclear war, then it could just mean stopping the advance of troops in Ukraine for now and entering negotiations. Where it goes from there would be up to the diplomats and leaders. Maybe it still ends up in nuclear war. Maybe it ends up with giving up some lands. Maybe it ends up back with conventional war with the Ukraine taking back that land. We don't know, but it's strange to assume that no situations can be arrived at that are preferable to the worst case scenario. Time and dialogue can change many things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fisher Account
Gonna play devils advocate here for a bit.
All this money being pumped into to support Ukraine from the West... is there any consideration to what a regime change/Ukrainian victory means for the West? Carve up Russia? Take control of their resources? All this money can't just be altruistic.. you gotta think there is some 3D chess being played about what spoils can go to the victors.
One thing I expect is that it would not involve setting up for Russia to become a strong nation in future. To go back to Jeffrey Sachs, he has said that when he was working on the economic policies for post-soviet states at the breakup of the USSR he was directly told that it didn't matter if his economic policies worked in places like Poland and had potential to work for Russia too, the White House wasn't going to accept them being implemented. It was never perceived as being in American interests for Russia to have the potential to build up a strong economy. With America still having a preference for a unipolar world I would think that is very much still the case.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
If, and it's a big if, it is actually the case that we're on the brink of nuclear war, then it could just mean stopping the advance of troops in Ukraine for now and entering negotiations. Where it goes from there would be up to the diplomats and leaders. Maybe it still ends up in nuclear war. Maybe it ends up with giving up some lands. Maybe it ends up back with conventional war with the Ukraine taking back that land. We don't know, but it's strange to assume that no situations can be arrived at that are preferable to the worst case scenario. Time and dialogue can change many things.
.
I'm sorry that just seems naive.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
The Russian General Staff has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send authorisation codes to individual weapons commanders, who would then execute the launch procedures. There is also a back-up system, known as Perimetr, which allows the General Staff to directly initiate the launch of land-based missiles, bypassing all the immediate command posts.
DO THE RUSSIANS HAVE RULES ON NUCLEAR LAUNCHES?
The 2020 doctrine presents four scenarios which might justify the use of Russian nuclear weapons:
-- the use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies;
-- data showing the launch of ballistic missiles aimed at Russia or its allies;
-- an attack on critical government or military sites that would undermine the country's nuclear forces response actions;
-- the use of conventional weapons against Russia "when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy".
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
If, and it's a big if, it is actually the case that we're on the brink of nuclear war, then it could just mean stopping the advance of troops in Ukraine for now and entering negotiations. Where it goes from there would be up to the diplomats and leaders. Maybe it still ends up in nuclear war. Maybe it ends up with giving up some lands. Maybe it ends up back with conventional war with the Ukraine taking back that land. We don't know, but it's strange to assume that no situations can be arrived at that are preferable to the worst case scenario. Time and dialogue can change many things.
I still don't see a plan here. There's already dialogue. If you stop Ukraine from advancing, Russia can strengthen their positions. Any ceasefire while Ukraine is pushing the advantage is capitulating. It's giving Russia what it needs right now. Then what? They continue pushing the moment they have an upper hand again. And Ukraine will not accept anyways so it's moot.
What is the plan to de-escalate?
So what different things can be offered? There's already been how much dialogue, and it's still ongoing.
A Putin who a) wants to rebuild the Russian empire and b) is willing to use nuclear weapons to rebuild the Russian empire has only two outcomes. He rebuilds the Russian empire or nukes are used while trying to rebuild the Russian empire.
Neither are acceptable outcomes so you try to stop Putin focus attacks on invades terrain and hope b isn’t true.
There isn’t a deescalation path that does result in the USSR being recreated by force.
Is the argument being made that Ukraine should surrender the annexed territories in order to save the world from nuclear holocaust?
Seems like a bit of stretch.
No, well, Musk did but he's a self important moron.
JohnnyB was suggesting de-escalation which nobody seems to define. It's a meaningless sound-good phrase. The suggestion was a stop by Ukraine which they would never agree to, so the West would either need to enforce or so giving weapons, which is exactly what Putin is asking for. Ergo, you've capitulated. There's no middle ground to have a summit about here
Kim Jong Un is watching how this plays out. As is Iran. Every despot wants to see how this plays out. There's only one acceptable response, full stop.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
A Putin who a) wants to rebuild the Russian empire and b) is willing to use nuclear weapons to rebuild the Russian empire has only two outcomes. He rebuilds the Russian empire or nukes are used while trying to rebuild the Russian empire.
Neither are acceptable outcomes so you try to stop Putin focus attacks on invades terrain and hope b isn’t true.
There isn’t a deescalation path that does result in the USSR being recreated by force.
If NATO simply lets him rebuild the Russian Empire, why would he stop there? Why not have the Empire stretch from Brandeburg to the Yukon? You shouldn't stop him BeCaUsE hE hAs NuKeS
If NATO simply lets him rebuild the Russian Empire, why would he stop there? Why not have the Empire stretch from Brandeburg to the Yukon? You shouldn't stop him BeCaUsE hE hAs NuKeS
That’s my point. The only rational option is hope b) isn’t true
Putin is the one with his finger on the trigger, but we're all on the precipice if what Biden said is true. Stopping him from pulling the trigger should be everyone's concern. Whether that ultimately comes via assassination, internal revolt/coup, disabling their systems, or something else, all successful outcomes depend upon that trigger not being pulled. There is no successful outcome that includes nuclear war. Fortunately, no country/individual's choices exist in a bubble. Everyone is subject to having choices affected by changing circumstances and outside influence.
Ok, for anyone not named Vladimir Putin, what does “stepping back from the precipice” actually mean to you?
Last edited by Barnet Flame; 10-07-2022 at 01:18 PM.
