With his presidency winding down, I'm not entirely surprised to see this move. I am a bit nervous to see how Russia responds, though. The evolution of the Ukrainian war between the involvement of...
With his presidency winding down, I'm not entirely surprised to see this move. I am a bit nervous to see how Russia responds, though. The evolution of the Ukrainian war between the involvement of the North Koreans, the US presidential election and the (likely) policy shifts to come when the new administration takes hold, and now this have (in my opinion) given some major changes to the dynamic of the Ukrainian side. I don't know where it's going, but it's certainly going somewhere.
There is good reason to suspect Russia doesn't respond at all beyond what's already happening. I would elaborate why I think so but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now. So if you'll allow...
There is good reason to suspect Russia doesn't respond at all beyond what's already happening.
I would elaborate why I think so but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now. So if you'll allow me to be a bit reductionist I'll say that we would've seen a response already when their territorial integrity was threatened, because we already see strikes hundreds of kilometers inside their borders as well as a cross border incursion by ground troops.
The tricky part is that Russia is muddying the waters on when they do consider things escalatory so we really don't know. Should we just not respond then? What we do know is that Russia continuously (and successfully I might add) sabre rattles with a nuclear threat to prevent further aid and what that quite simply shows is that you should never bow down to a threat of this type or you give carte blanche to anyone with nukes to start grabbing clay.
If anything that will proliferate nuclear bombs further than today, because it will be the only viable defense. We should never let that happen.
I wish this changed something, but it seems more like too little, too late, as usual. edit: In other words:
I wish this changed something, but it seems more like too little, too late, as usual.
edit: In other words:
Illia Ponomarenko
It's been close to three years....three years... three years.
Why, why, why, why is this happening as late as now....how many lives could have been saved, how many opportunities could have been very timely used, in a unique historical situation that we had after March 29, 2022, with the Russian defeat at Kyiv.
Why, why, why waste three years giving Putin time only to eventually utter decisions that have been obvious and critically necessary all this time.
Biden's goal is not to help Ukraine win, but to not lose. And to do so in a way that doesn't make Russia feel like its existence is under threat. By that lens, Biden has been threading the needle...
Biden's goal is not to help Ukraine win, but to not lose. And to do so in a way that doesn't make Russia feel like its existence is under threat. By that lens, Biden has been threading the needle very well during his term.
The issue is that this does not make Russia feel like it fucked up or like it shouldn't just keep attacking other countries. Us who are located close to Ukraine would greatly welcome if Russia...
Biden's goal is not to help Ukraine win, but to not lose. And to do so in a way that doesn't make Russia feel like its existence is under threat.
The issue is that this does not make Russia feel like it fucked up or like it shouldn't just keep attacking other countries. Us who are located close to Ukraine would greatly welcome if Russia felt a much larger threat from potentially attacking other neighbors or advancing further than it feels now.
There is also arguably a pretty significant buffer between what Biden sends now and what could be sent without crossing some actual (not just constantly shifting imaginary) red lines.
We can't know how Russia feels yet; it's still trying to get through this war. Possibly the next time that they think about starting a war, they'll remember that last time, they lost hundreds of...
We can't know how Russia feels yet; it's still trying to get through this war. Possibly the next time that they think about starting a war, they'll remember that last time, they lost hundreds of thousands of troops, wrecked their economy, became a bit of a pariah state, ran through their Soviet stockpile, had to beg North Korea for supplies, drove away their most important customers of their exports, lost their air defenses to old equipment, and all while the West held back the good stuff.
Lines are by definition imaginary and they shift partially because of the way Biden acts, so I don't see that as a valid criticism. No, of course we don't allow long range strikes. These ATACMs will only operate in Ukraine. Russia is not happy, but not that upset with that either. Oh, wait, drones flew from Kursk to strike into Russia? That's not ATACMs; can't be that mad at the US. Well, now that drones have hit, what's the difference between that and ATACMs? Not that much.
The issue is that boiling it as slowly as we do now means tens of thousands more dead Ukrainians than there could have been. I would be pissed in their place. I also see no reason at this moment...
Boiling the frog, as they say.
The issue is that boiling it as slowly as we do now means tens of thousands more dead Ukrainians than there could have been. I would be pissed in their place.
I also see no reason at this moment to think that Russia will not keep doing what it always did if this conflict gets frozen. Cutting off and controlling a part of Ukraine was arguably one of their goals the whole time.
This is good for Ukraine, bad for everyone else. Putin maintained that as long as the other side didn't allow internationally sourced long range weapons, he'd not reach for the nukes. Now Biden...
This is good for Ukraine, bad for everyone else. Putin maintained that as long as the other side didn't allow internationally sourced long range weapons, he'd not reach for the nukes.
Now Biden has said okay. That cannot be good when Russia retaliates.
Numerous supposed red lines have been crossed with Russia and nothing dramatic ever happened. Maybe this time it will, but I certainly would not bet on it.
Numerous supposed red lines have been crossed with Russia and nothing dramatic ever happened. Maybe this time it will, but I certainly would not bet on it.
Cool. Let's see if Mr Z will strike Moscow and see what comes of it. To be fair, reading into what is allowed and the missile range is up to something like 300 miles. That's not really denting...
Cool. Let's see if Mr Z will strike Moscow and see what comes of it.
To be fair, reading into what is allowed and the missile range is up to something like 300 miles. That's not really denting Russia's territory unless the Ukraine get to wheeling something far into Russia before launch.
Moscow is already being hit. One drone even hit the Kremlin. You could argue that was a false flag, but even if it was... Why didn't that trigger the nuclear response? The long and short of it is...
Moscow is already being hit. One drone even hit the Kremlin. You could argue that was a false flag, but even if it was... Why didn't that trigger the nuclear response?
The long and short of it is that we can't know when they do, nor can we accept nuclear threat as a viable means of expanding territory. And of the two, not responding is likely worse in the long term.
Add the fact that simply supplying Ukraine with HIMARS was a supposed red line, or sending jets, or long range equipment, or or or or or or and you see that the red line is rather invisible.
That Kremlin drone was likely self-inflicted to cry out to the Russian people and say how Nazi-ish of the Ukranians. The almost transparent red line could become harshly bold. We just don't know.
That Kremlin drone was likely self-inflicted to cry out to the Russian people and say how Nazi-ish of the Ukranians.
The almost transparent red line could become harshly bold. We just don't know.
Yes it likely was. But it was also a red line which "Ukraine" ostensibly crossed. Which should warrant a stronger response according to their own threats and doctrine. It only made them look weak...
Yes it likely was. But it was also a red line which "Ukraine" ostensibly crossed. Which should warrant a stronger response according to their own threats and doctrine.
It only made them look weak and unwilling to follow through.
He also almost certainly does not have permission to strike Moscow, apart from not having good reasons to do so at this moment (and I trust his judgment). Zelensky was intentionally unclear about...
He also almost certainly does not have permission to strike Moscow, apart from not having good reasons to do so at this moment (and I trust his judgment). Zelensky was intentionally unclear about what he is or is not allowed to do in the announcement, some claims say they may only strike Kurskaja Oblast, but it definitely seems like there are some limits.
Am I crazy, or does it seem somewhat obvious that Putin and anyone who he would need to go through, aren't going to use nuclear weapons? As long as the West isn't threatening to topple the...
Am I crazy, or does it seem somewhat obvious that Putin and anyone who he would need to go through, aren't going to use nuclear weapons? As long as the West isn't threatening to topple the oligarchy, why would they? Launch a nuke, and it all comes topping down, and for what? To have control over Ukraine? Maybe someone here can explain it to me, but it just doesn't make sense to risk all your power and wealth. A conventional war lets you keep power and wealth while pursuing whatever sick things your ego desires, but nuclear war does not.
Ego. Cornered Rat strikes back. Crabs in a bucket. We're assuming that we're working with logical actors who want to preserve the world. If only those people were the ones who were at the top at...
why would they?
Ego. Cornered Rat strikes back. Crabs in a bucket.
We're assuming that we're working with logical actors who want to preserve the world. If only those people were the ones who were at the top at the moment. I don't think we're at that point quite yet, but I'm no longer doubtful we can't get to it.
I don't think we are. We are simply aware, that we can't give in to nuclear extortion, because that would basically mean giving absolute power to the extortionist. Also, you argue as if we were...
We're assuming that we're working with logical actors who want to preserve the world.
I don't think we are. We are simply aware, that we can't give in to nuclear extortion, because that would basically mean giving absolute power to the extortionist.
Also, you argue as if we were only optimizing for maximum safety. Many people have other values. Some people believe certain values are worth a risk. Remember that "Give me liberty, or give me death!" speech? Some people actually believe that.
well yes. The issue is that those with such access to nuclear warfare can think the exact same thing. truly think that nuking this spot off the map and inevitably being retaliated off the map...
ou argue as if we were only optimizing for maximum safety. Many people have other values. Some people believe certain values are worth a risk.
well yes. The issue is that those with such access to nuclear warfare can think the exact same thing. truly think that nuking this spot off the map and inevitably being retaliated off the map themselves is worth whatever crusade they have.
I don't think Putin is that ideological, but it's something to keep in mind as the world is currently in unrest.
That line is completely arbitrary, and we should treat it as such. If Putin said "hand over kyiv or I push the button", we'd rightfully ignore that too. You cant just say you'll use nukes and then...
That line is completely arbitrary, and we should treat it as such. If Putin said "hand over kyiv or I push the button", we'd rightfully ignore that too.
You cant just say you'll use nukes and then expect everyone to bow to your whims. Putin is not insane. He also knows that everyone knows he's not insane. That makes this a pretty obvious bluff. I have no doubt that Putin would push the button if he was facing an existential threat. More missiles at targets inside Russia is not an existential threat.
Previously, it was any help from allies, then it was any attack on russia land, then it was.. what. Honestly it looks like "China's final warning" again and again and again. Also, looking from...
Putin maintained that as long as the other side didn't allow internationally sourced long range weapons, he'd not reach for the nukes.
Previously, it was any help from allies, then it was any attack on russia land, then it was.. what. Honestly it looks like "China's final warning" again and again and again.
Also, looking from other point of view. If any nation has nukes does this nation allowed to do absolutely anything what they want? There no red line from other countries?
I will vote for the end-of-democracy candidate for the rest of my life if it means no one has to get nuked or fight world war three.
Trump has criticized the amount of aid given to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and claimed he could end the war in 24 hours, though he has not explained how.
I will vote for the end-of-democracy candidate for the rest of my life if it means no one has to get nuked or fight world war three.
Is it that easy to get your vote? Vote for me, I’ll end the war in not 24 but 12 hours AND get you basic income, reduce your taxes to zero, and fix the Korean situation too while I’m at it. I’m...
Is it that easy to get your vote? Vote for me, I’ll end the war in not 24 but 12 hours AND get you basic income, reduce your taxes to zero, and fix the Korean situation too while I’m at it.
I’m genuinely more qualified than Trump, too. Make of that what you will.
Well, no. I didn't vote. But getting my vote isn't meant to be some kind of struggle. You can actually just vote for whoever you want, and it's not a difficult decision for most people. No one...
Well, no. I didn't vote. But getting my vote isn't meant to be some kind of struggle. You can actually just vote for whoever you want, and it's not a difficult decision for most people. No one needs to feel ashamed or degraded by the process. Democrats mostly voted to protect abortion and immigrants. I would have voted for an end to this war, which I think Ukraine is going to lose anyway.
It’s easy for you to decide to end wars that aren’t yours, give up territory that isn’t yours, and make judgement calls on who wins or loses them, from the comfort of your own, safe, home. The one...
It’s easy for you to decide to end wars that aren’t yours, give up territory that isn’t yours, and make judgement calls on who wins or loses them, from the comfort of your own, safe, home.
The one thing you can do to prevent wars is not willingly throw a vote for authoritarian people just because they tell you how voting for them prevents doomsday. And yet.
Throughout history, psychopaths always tried to use threats to get what they want. People signaling their willingness to give in to threats are basically inviting psychopaths to threaten them....
I will vote for the end-of-democracy candidate for the rest of my life if it means no one has to get nuked or fight world war three.
Throughout history, psychopaths always tried to use threats to get what they want. People signaling their willingness to give in to threats are basically inviting psychopaths to threaten them. This must be one of the reasons why honor codes and labeling certain behaviors as cowardice evolved. To discourage people from inviting psychopaths to threaten their community.
Appeasing Putin by freezing the war will do nothing to prevent future conflict. There's nothing to stop Putin from, years down the line, deciding that, actually, he does want all of Ukraine,...
Appeasing Putin by freezing the war will do nothing to prevent future conflict. There's nothing to stop Putin from, years down the line, deciding that, actually, he does want all of Ukraine, thanks. From that perspective, giving in increases the risk of nuclear war later on.
Voting for someone like that sounds like it only delays it, at best. We just put the fate of the world into a handful of dictators instead of a variety of checks and balances. Dictators paranoid...
Voting for someone like that sounds like it only delays it, at best. We just put the fate of the world into a handful of dictators instead of a variety of checks and balances. Dictators paranoid about being overthrown.
Good for you, PM Chamberlain[1]. History has seen how appeasement plays out. That's just the pattern to bring about more war and more suffering. Stopping despots has proven to not just be a moral...
Good for you, PM Chamberlain[1]. History has seen how appeasement plays out. That's just the pattern to bring about more war and more suffering. Stopping despots has proven to not just be a moral imperative, but also the right choice when considering the follow on consequences.
[1] It should be noted that while opportune for the reference, I know Chamberlain himself is arguably overly maligned. Depending on your source, he was not as appeasement happy as sometimes claimed, but rather was attempting to stall the conflict to give Britain time to build up enough strength to fight it.
With his presidency winding down, I'm not entirely surprised to see this move. I am a bit nervous to see how Russia responds, though. The evolution of the Ukrainian war between the involvement of the North Koreans, the US presidential election and the (likely) policy shifts to come when the new administration takes hold, and now this have (in my opinion) given some major changes to the dynamic of the Ukrainian side. I don't know where it's going, but it's certainly going somewhere.
There is good reason to suspect Russia doesn't respond at all beyond what's already happening.
I would elaborate why I think so but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now. So if you'll allow me to be a bit reductionist I'll say that we would've seen a response already when their territorial integrity was threatened, because we already see strikes hundreds of kilometers inside their borders as well as a cross border incursion by ground troops.
The tricky part is that Russia is muddying the waters on when they do consider things escalatory so we really don't know. Should we just not respond then? What we do know is that Russia continuously (and successfully I might add) sabre rattles with a nuclear threat to prevent further aid and what that quite simply shows is that you should never bow down to a threat of this type or you give carte blanche to anyone with nukes to start grabbing clay.
If anything that will proliferate nuclear bombs further than today, because it will be the only viable defense. We should never let that happen.
I wish this changed something, but it seems more like too little, too late, as usual.
edit: In other words:
Biden's goal is not to help Ukraine win, but to not lose. And to do so in a way that doesn't make Russia feel like its existence is under threat. By that lens, Biden has been threading the needle very well during his term.
The issue is that this does not make Russia feel like it fucked up or like it shouldn't just keep attacking other countries. Us who are located close to Ukraine would greatly welcome if Russia felt a much larger threat from potentially attacking other neighbors or advancing further than it feels now.
There is also arguably a pretty significant buffer between what Biden sends now and what could be sent without crossing some actual (not just constantly shifting imaginary) red lines.
We can't know how Russia feels yet; it's still trying to get through this war. Possibly the next time that they think about starting a war, they'll remember that last time, they lost hundreds of thousands of troops, wrecked their economy, became a bit of a pariah state, ran through their Soviet stockpile, had to beg North Korea for supplies, drove away their most important customers of their exports, lost their air defenses to old equipment, and all while the West held back the good stuff.
Lines are by definition imaginary and they shift partially because of the way Biden acts, so I don't see that as a valid criticism. No, of course we don't allow long range strikes. These ATACMs will only operate in Ukraine. Russia is not happy, but not that upset with that either. Oh, wait, drones flew from Kursk to strike into Russia? That's not ATACMs; can't be that mad at the US. Well, now that drones have hit, what's the difference between that and ATACMs? Not that much.
Boiling the frog, as they say.
The issue is that boiling it as slowly as we do now means tens of thousands more dead Ukrainians than there could have been. I would be pissed in their place.
I also see no reason at this moment to think that Russia will not keep doing what it always did if this conflict gets frozen. Cutting off and controlling a part of Ukraine was arguably one of their goals the whole time.
If only Ukraine had nukes, so "threading the needle" will apply to both sides of conflict...
You mean like the ones that they gave Russia as a peace offering?
To add onto this, I'd highly recommend video by APN (legit military analyst). Escalation management and Biden’s strategy for Ukraine
This is good for Ukraine, bad for everyone else. Putin maintained that as long as the other side didn't allow internationally sourced long range weapons, he'd not reach for the nukes.
Now Biden has said okay. That cannot be good when Russia retaliates.
Numerous supposed red lines have been crossed with Russia and nothing dramatic ever happened. Maybe this time it will, but I certainly would not bet on it.
Cool. Let's see if Mr Z will strike Moscow and see what comes of it.
To be fair, reading into what is allowed and the missile range is up to something like 300 miles. That's not really denting Russia's territory unless the Ukraine get to wheeling something far into Russia before launch.
Moscow is already being hit. One drone even hit the Kremlin. You could argue that was a false flag, but even if it was... Why didn't that trigger the nuclear response?
The long and short of it is that we can't know when they do, nor can we accept nuclear threat as a viable means of expanding territory. And of the two, not responding is likely worse in the long term.
Add the fact that simply supplying Ukraine with HIMARS was a supposed red line, or sending jets, or long range equipment, or or or or or or and you see that the red line is rather invisible.
That Kremlin drone was likely self-inflicted to cry out to the Russian people and say how Nazi-ish of the Ukranians.
The almost transparent red line could become harshly bold. We just don't know.
Yes it likely was. But it was also a red line which "Ukraine" ostensibly crossed. Which should warrant a stronger response according to their own threats and doctrine.
It only made them look weak and unwilling to follow through.
He also almost certainly does not have permission to strike Moscow, apart from not having good reasons to do so at this moment (and I trust his judgment). Zelensky was intentionally unclear about what he is or is not allowed to do in the announcement, some claims say they may only strike Kurskaja Oblast, but it definitely seems like there are some limits.
Am I crazy, or does it seem somewhat obvious that Putin and anyone who he would need to go through, aren't going to use nuclear weapons? As long as the West isn't threatening to topple the oligarchy, why would they? Launch a nuke, and it all comes topping down, and for what? To have control over Ukraine? Maybe someone here can explain it to me, but it just doesn't make sense to risk all your power and wealth. A conventional war lets you keep power and wealth while pursuing whatever sick things your ego desires, but nuclear war does not.
Ego. Cornered Rat strikes back. Crabs in a bucket.
We're assuming that we're working with logical actors who want to preserve the world. If only those people were the ones who were at the top at the moment. I don't think we're at that point quite yet, but I'm no longer doubtful we can't get to it.
I don't think we are. We are simply aware, that we can't give in to nuclear extortion, because that would basically mean giving absolute power to the extortionist.
Also, you argue as if we were only optimizing for maximum safety. Many people have other values. Some people believe certain values are worth a risk. Remember that "Give me liberty, or give me death!" speech? Some people actually believe that.
well yes. The issue is that those with such access to nuclear warfare can think the exact same thing. truly think that nuking this spot off the map and inevitably being retaliated off the map themselves is worth whatever crusade they have.
I don't think Putin is that ideological, but it's something to keep in mind as the world is currently in unrest.
That line is completely arbitrary, and we should treat it as such. If Putin said "hand over kyiv or I push the button", we'd rightfully ignore that too.
You cant just say you'll use nukes and then expect everyone to bow to your whims. Putin is not insane. He also knows that everyone knows he's not insane. That makes this a pretty obvious bluff. I have no doubt that Putin would push the button if he was facing an existential threat. More missiles at targets inside Russia is not an existential threat.
Previously, it was any help from allies, then it was any attack on russia land, then it was.. what. Honestly it looks like "China's final warning" again and again and again.
Also, looking from other point of view. If any nation has nukes does this nation allowed to do absolutely anything what they want? There no red line from other countries?
I will vote for the end-of-democracy candidate for the rest of my life if it means no one has to get nuked or fight world war three.
If you think appeasing dictators stops world wars, I have some bad news about WW2.
Is it that easy to get your vote? Vote for me, I’ll end the war in not 24 but 12 hours AND get you basic income, reduce your taxes to zero, and fix the Korean situation too while I’m at it.
I’m genuinely more qualified than Trump, too. Make of that what you will.
I voted, now I'm waiting.
Well, no. I didn't vote. But getting my vote isn't meant to be some kind of struggle. You can actually just vote for whoever you want, and it's not a difficult decision for most people. No one needs to feel ashamed or degraded by the process. Democrats mostly voted to protect abortion and immigrants. I would have voted for an end to this war, which I think Ukraine is going to lose anyway.
It’s easy for you to decide to end wars that aren’t yours, give up territory that isn’t yours, and make judgement calls on who wins or loses them, from the comfort of your own, safe, home.
The one thing you can do to prevent wars is not willingly throw a vote for authoritarian people just because they tell you how voting for them prevents doomsday. And yet.
Throughout history, psychopaths always tried to use threats to get what they want. People signaling their willingness to give in to threats are basically inviting psychopaths to threaten them. This must be one of the reasons why honor codes and labeling certain behaviors as cowardice evolved. To discourage people from inviting psychopaths to threaten their community.
Appeasing Putin by freezing the war will do nothing to prevent future conflict. There's nothing to stop Putin from, years down the line, deciding that, actually, he does want all of Ukraine, thanks. From that perspective, giving in increases the risk of nuclear war later on.
Voting for someone like that sounds like it only delays it, at best. We just put the fate of the world into a handful of dictators instead of a variety of checks and balances. Dictators paranoid about being overthrown.
Good for you, PM Chamberlain[1]. History has seen how appeasement plays out. That's just the pattern to bring about more war and more suffering. Stopping despots has proven to not just be a moral imperative, but also the right choice when considering the follow on consequences.
[1] It should be noted that while opportune for the reference, I know Chamberlain himself is arguably overly maligned. Depending on your source, he was not as appeasement happy as sometimes claimed, but rather was attempting to stall the conflict to give Britain time to build up enough strength to fight it.
Do you actually believe that he can accomplish that, or are you just hopeful?