Putin: on bringing nukes to a conventional war fight
One of the reasons for the urgency of the Manhattan Project during World War II was the fear that if the US didn’t develop a nuclear weapon, Germany would. However close or however far Germany may actually have been from obtaining one, the idea that Germany and Hitler might have done so, and accomplished it first, was terrifying. The fear was that a power-mad tyrant bent on conquering much of the world – and killing or enslaving many of the people in it – would have had little to no reluctance to use such weapons.
The United States used the atomic bomb to force Japan into surrendering. The rationale was that this prevented far more deaths than an invasion would have caused, not just on the Allies’ side but for the Japanese as well. After the war ended, there was a short time when the US held a monopoly on atomic weapons, but in 1949 that ended when the USSR detonated its own atomic weapon in a test.
Since then, of course, many nations have acquired such weapons, and during the Cold War we had MAD (mutual assured destruction) as a supposed deterrent, with one especially nerve-wrecking albeit very short confrontation known as the Cuban Missile Crisis [*see NOTE below].
However, as far as I can tell, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is the first time that a major nuclear power (in this case Russia) has invaded another sovereign country and engaged it in a hot war of aggression with conventional weapons, while explicitly stating at the outset that if anyone tries to fight them in order to protect the invaded nation, then the invading country (Russia again) will be using nuclear weapons. The Ukraine action therefore amounts to not so much an invasion as a kind of hostage-taking (of another country, rather than a person) with the threat that if the hostage is freed the hostage-taker could retaliate by blowing up the world or at least a goodly part of it.
We have long been worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hand of a group that is either irrational or that does not care about the amount of destruction it causes, but that has focused on rogue terrorist groups having a small arsenal, or leaders such as the Iranian mullahs or North Korea’s. Russia had supposedly joined that group of nations – or at least was on its way to joining it – who were not using nuclear weapons as aggressive threats nor did they have any intention to militarily invade each other. NATO’s weapons were meant to be defensive or to perhaps be used as a last resort in response to chemical or biological warfare waged on its members.
One of the many casualties of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been the notion that Putin would not initiate a first nuclear strike on Europe or the US. However, he has threatened as much if his more conventional war on Ukraine is directly interfered with by those forces. (He has also declared that arms shipments from those powers are fair game for retaliation by his conventional weapons, but that’s a different issue.)
Thus Putin has put the West in a bind. They could send non-nuclear military forces to Ukraine that would probably defeat him easily, but his nuclear threats have tied their hands to a certain extent and they are trying to carefully thread the needle in order to help the Ukrainians but not too much. And although this is about Russia and Ukraine and NATO and Europe, it’s not just about that. It’s about the precedent it sets, which is that any nuclear power can take whatever it wants by threatening to nuke the world. We already knew that, I suppose, but here’s a good demonstration of it. It’s like something out of a James Bond movie, but Bond is nowhere to be seen.
So we are reduced to guessing the answer to questions such as: How crazy is Putin? How self-destructive, if he doesn’t get his way? Is he one of those people described here?:
I don’t think that’s Putin. I don’t even think he is acting irrationally by merely threatening to go nuclear. However, it’s not as though I can read Putin’s mind. Also, I think that if Putin actually believed that Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia again, he was fooling himself,
If Putin wants Ukraine – and there is every indication that he wants it very very badly – then an invasion plus a nuclear threat is a perfectly rational (although terrible) way to go about it. However, if Putin is actually willing to begin a nuclear war if he doesn’t get his way, that would be irrational. But tyrants who have their expansionist dreams thwarted or their aggressive actions challenged often turn their destructive impulses in different directions. It is known, for example, that in the final months of World War II, when all was lost for Germany and Hitler was realizing it, that he considered that the German people should suffer maximally for letting him down.
With Putin, the other very important question is, “How crazy are those around him? Are they in agreement with him?” And no one knows the answer.
We fear challenging him; the stakes of finding out the answers seem very high. And “we” is the entire Western world.
[*NOTE: It’s beyond the scope of this post to explain the huge differences between the Cuban missile crisis and the invasion of Ukraine, but suffice to say that in Cuba missiles had already been placed by the USSR, and placed in a country almost 7,000 miles from Russia and very close to the US. Clearly, those missiles could only have offensive purposes for Russia. What’s more, neither the US nor the USSR was engaging in a related hot war at the time. The situation was resolved diplomatically.]
[NOTE II: No one knows what’s in Putin’s head or the heads of those around him, but there’s plenty of speculation – for example, this:
I asked Martynov if he thinks anyone in Putin’s inner circle is watching the images of Ukraine being broadcast by channels that do not belong to the Russian state. And if so, do they feel badly about the damage, deaths and refugee crisis?
“I feel like there are smart people around President Putin, and I believe that they understand pretty well what happens in Ukraine,” Martynov said. “They can see the same as we are, as we still have some, some independent source of information left — YouTube, Telegram and some other social media — which was not completely blocked in Russia for now. But I feel like they have decided that they are war criminals, so they can’t break this ties with Mr. Putin.”]
I’ve been wondering about what this might look like. I’ve read (and not sure if I should believe) that the Russians have always held that tactical nuclear weapons are fair play.
Suppose they do that, they set off one or two. What does the rest of the world do?
If we retaliate, it’s a full on nuclear war I assume, we’d have to retaliate with strategic weapons because I don’t think we have tactical weapons in place.
Does anyone believe anyone in the world would do this? Get hundreds of millions of people all over the world killed, instead of thousands in Ukraine who can’t be brought back to life anyway?
So what do we do short of that? Cut Russia off from SWIFT? Stop using their oil and gas?
It seems that where we’d end up is a new norm where if you’re a big country with ICBMS at least you can use tactical nuclear weapons and no one will do anything to you.
I don’t know what that world would be like. But the MAD concept would be seriously weakened and limited nuclear war at least is something we all start having to worry about.
Supposing the next country decides to do 3-4 instead of 1-2 and this time the tactical weapons are bigger. We will no longer be in the world where there’s a bright line between nuclear and non-nuclear combat.
Frederick:
I agree that that’s a possible scenario.
“How crazy is Putin? How self-destructive, if he doesn’t get his way? Is he one of those people described here?:”
I think not. I think he does not want the world to burn, but he’s not the only one with a match.
As long as he’s winning in the Ukraine …. and yes it is a slugging match but yes so far he is in terms of ground gained if not love lost… He may even be satisfied with a negotiation that leaves him with a Half-Ukraine… As long as this is the case I don’t think he’ll go near the Russian match.
If he starts to lose ground and sees that losing as a direct result of the NATO powers interfering in a blatant manner … + insane ideas about flying NATO / American jets + the globalist project to reject and isolate all things Russian from money to students to novelists…
Well, then we might have to revisit his real attitude.
And on top of that, you have the piece in play concerning the Biolabs … that’s something that is just begging for a false-flag incident to cause hundreds of millions of plague scared Europeans and Americans to start beating the war drums… and then well we might have to revisit his attitude.
In sum, it seems to me that there is more (much more) than one nuked-armed nation with men/women/tran, etc. inside their power loop that “just want to see the world burn.”
After all, the movie from which that clip was taken was made in Hollywood by those that Hollywood loves and snuggles and rewards. Projection?
The Russians have had nutty ideas about “escalate to terminate” a fight since the 1970s – that is, if they achieved enough of their aims they might nuke a city and then call for negotiations to end the fighting on the grounds of “you don’t want this to escalate, do you?” You can see a version of this in Sir John Hackett’s _The Third World War_ (written in the late 1970s). Yes, the Russians really are this nutty. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, they told the Chinese that if there was an invasion of the Russian Far East, they would not bother trying to fight conventionally; they would use nukes from the outset.
Gerard vanderleun:
But that’s my point. If Putin gets at least part of what he wanted – to take over a large portion of Ukraine by aggressive conquest and nuclear blackmail – that means that he or any other nuclear-armed nation with a sufficiently determined and tyrannical leader can do the same. Or Putin can do it over and over. It would be the demonstrated success of nuclear blackmail, through the FEAR that Putin is the sort of person who wants to see the world burn if he doesn’t get his way.
I fail to see why so many people seem quite ok with that.
Perhaps because, like you and I, they are not OK but don’t see any way around it.
If you see a way, fire away. I don’t right now.
And I believe it is the world “burn” and not the world “born.” Although that might reflect Putin’s thinking.
My main point in my response is that there are others — besides Putin — right now who might just start it . . . (how to say this?) RIGHT NOW! After all, they love the 2 minutes hate, why not the 2 minute world burning?
At which point we roll into a world that, at best, it doesn’t matter who started it only who can survive it.
You want it darker
We kill the flame
From where I sit with my little brain that knows less and less the denser the fog of war gets the best (best) we can hope for is a negotiated settlement at this point. To get there will take more grinding war, but if we don’t we just have grinding war ongoing.
Trying go out a little further than I did:
Russia becomes a giant and expensive North Korea, isolated from all the world except for China.
China probably can’t subsidize Russia for that long.
Russia starts blackmailing its neighbors for Danegeld?
I don’t know where this ends up.
I do know that the EU has 447 M people vs Russia’s 146 M, and and a $22 T (PPP) GDP vs Russia’s $4 T (PPP) GDP.
I think they put up with this for about ten years while they build up their military and wait for Russia to fall apart demographically.
I’d like to think the US would let the EU handle it, too, because I don’t understand why we’re taking on the defense of a superstate bigger than we are in population and comparable in economy. Our border with Russia is really hard to come across, and they won’t have a navy worth the name for decades even if they blackmail the EU or China into helping them build it….
@neo:I fail to see why so many people seem quite ok with that.
Not sure people are ok with it so much as thinking it’s a fact about how the world is which we shouldn’t delude ourselves about. No one’s tried to do it yet, and we’ve been lucky, but the possibility was always there.
Obviously everyone can’t get their way doing nuclear blackmail. So what does the stable equilibrium look like? I don’t really see it…
Oh, so the argument is that we should just accept that nuclear blackmail works and submit to it.
I also wonder why you don’t see that the consequences of that could easily be worse than challenging it.
Especially if you don’t think Putin actually wants to see the world burn.
And of course we’re not just talking about Putin, either. Many other tyrants are observing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Frederick on March 14, 2022 at 5:41 pm said:
Trying go out a little further than I did:
Russia becomes a giant and expensive North Korea, isolated from all the world except for China.
China probably can’t subsidize Russia for that long.
Russia starts blackmailing its neighbors for Danegeld?
I don’t know where this ends up.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps it ends in the end of a unipolar world and the birth of a bipolar world with the dollar no longer the reserve currency and the Western financial system no longer trusted by many national and international financial officers and private fund managers.
Perthaps China and Russia and India and Other players in Asia decide to go elsewhere with their monies and assets and let the US drown in debt if the reserve currency status of the dollar is dissolved or diminished.
The confiscation of assets simply because the owner is Russian has not been missed by the major capital holders of the planet.
If say you were an asset manager of the monies of a MIDEASTERN oil state would you feel comfortable parking the assets and cash in a financial system that just ran over and sequestered funds as has happened.
Put aside the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the sanctioning of people because of their ethnicity… it still destablilzes and alters forever the way money flows on the planet just as it has altered the way oil flows on the planet.
I submit that, although it may be overall a “poor” relation to Europe Russia has plenty of natural resources and ready markets for it. I don’t envision the starving North Korea future for it even before applying the simple observation, Fredrick, that Russia is nothing at all like effing North Korea! For one thing Russia is full of Russians and they have a very long history and an historical memory to match.
These last few weeks have, to be sure, been very painful for the Russian people… of that I have no doubt. The other thing these social/cultural sanctions (mostly by Western woke corporations) have done is to alienate massive swathes of Russians from the west. Of this have no doubt.
It’s not a danegeld extortion sort of scenario lurking between Russia and Western Europe. it’s a scenario of “Hey we’ve gone nice and green and now we are freezing and walking everywhere here in Germany, etc.”
Russia’s not a North Korea.
Russia is, well, Russia.
All of which brings us back to the stolen election of 2020: “Elections have consequences.”
This is one of them. Not the only one. There were others. There will be others.
Essentially, Russia and NATO each has the same position on nukes. Neither has renounced the right to launch a first strike.
NATO has stated that, if invaded and in their judgement a first strike against Russia is necessary to prevent conquest, the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be justified.
Russia’s position is that NATO on its Ukraine/Russia border would be an existential threat to a vital core interest, which would equally justify a first strike by them.
Agreement with Russia’s position is irrelevant. That is their position.
I do not agree that Putin wants western Ukraine. He does want a demilitarized, neutral western Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and NATO. A now even less likely prospect. Absent that agreement, he’s likely to level western Ukraine, while daring the West to interfere.
I do agree that this sets a very bad precedent. But not for the major nuclear powers.
Specifically when in the near future Iran gains nuclear ICBM capability. I think it likely that shortly after Iran goes nuclear it will absorb Iraq, Yemen and eastern Saudi Arabia, which besides being majority Shia contains the bulk of the Saudi’s oil fields. That will greatly expand Iran’s coffers. We know to what use the Mullahs will place that windfall.
Frederick,
NATO has nuclear cruise missles, which are tactical nuclear weapons.
Gerard vanderleun,
Agreed.
Gerard vanderleun:
I don’t think you or anyone else has a clue what the Russian people think at this point.
And of course Russia is Russia and not North Korea. The nature and history of Russia is pretty awful, however, and is not the least bit reassuring.
I’m not talking about Russian people as individuals. I’m talking about the history of Russian – what for want of a better word I’ll call “imperialism”, as well as Russia’s idea of itself as a world apart. Are you familiar with the works of Dugin? If not, here’s his Wiki page (also see this post of mine). Putin is supposedly of mostly the same mind.
Perhaps you’re saying these changes are inevitable and there’s nothing we can do to stop them? I’m really not sure what you’re saying, except that some of our economic sanctions went too far and have undermined trust in our banking system (I agree that there are gave potential dangers to trust in our banking system).
https://haqqin.az/news/238300
Russian chief propagandist Vladimir Solovyov threatened Europe and said that the Russian Federation is not afraid of sanctions and would not stop at war with Ukraine. Pay attention to his facial expressions, please. Here he uses strong profanity against the leaders of the West.
At the end he said: “If you think that we will stop at Ukraine, think 300 times. Let me remind you that Ukraine is just an intermediate stage in ensuring the strategic security of the Russian Federation.”
No words..
Geoffrey Britain:
They do not have the same position. NATO has preserved a first strike right but has been explicit in stating it is only in the case of a threat on the magnitude of another nation waging a war with other weapons of mass destruction such as widespread chemical or biological warfare. That’s really just a question of using one WMD to defend against another, not a first aggressive strike by NATO.
Putin has specifically and clearly said he would use nuclear weapons if people try to militarily join Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion.
If you don’t see the huge difference, there’s little more to be said to you on the subject.
I already wrote a lengthy post, with links, that covered the topic of the NATO policy about first strikes.
@neo:Oh, so the argument is that we should just accept that nuclear blackmail works and submit to it.
I presented an “is” and you decided on your own to derive an “ought” from it. I never said anything like “we should submit”.
Really, neo, this is not fair. I am tired of being smeared. The Tailgunner Trolls don’t bother me but I know you can be fair and usually are. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth anymore….
I think we need to figure out if nuclear blackmail can be made to work and if so what our options are. If not we’re stupid and a lot of us will get killed. No matter how moral and principled we are.
neo,
If Putin once again tried to use nuclear blackmail it would have to be against NATO states and I do think that would be for the West an equal red line. He knows it.
It’s other, now certain to emerge lesser nuclear powers, where the danger will likely emerge.
I do see the difference. Hopefully you see the difference between official policy and the possible reality of ‘unforeseen circumstances’. Policies are always subject to revision and in war the exigencies of the situation… determine ‘policy’. If Russian tanks are driving on Berlin, the pressure to use tactical nukes upon them will be overwhelming.
Frederick:
I wasn’t addressing you, although I suppose that wasn’t clear. I usually make it clear (as I’m doing now).
I was in a hurry and didn’t make it clear, but I was actually addressing Gerard vanderleun.
Geoffrey Britain:
He already threatened NATO states and he would do it again because so far it’s been very successful in staying their hand. So far it looks like if he’s ruthless enough he will subdue Ukraine after causing major suffering to his country and Ukraine.
And other nuclear states watch and realize they can probably grab whatever they want if they just threaten a nuclear strike against anyone who interferes. They might even conclude they could seize nuclear states, because most nuclear states would be reluctant to start a back-and-forth nuclear war or to believe they might win such a war.
That is the argument that’s been going on for years about Iran vis a vis Israel, if Iran becomes nuclear-armed.
Count on Geoffrey:
If NATO countries are invaded, they reserves the right to drop a nuke on Vlad’s forces.
If Vlad feels threatened while he is invading, he reserves the right to drop a nuke wherever on whomever.
Makes perfect sense?
Useless.
@neoI wasn’t addressing you, although I suppose that wasn’t clear.
Got it, I’ll try to be less sensitive… but I don’t think Gerard’s saying that either. Well he can express himself better than I can for him.
Geoffrey once again clams to know Putin’s mind.
Threatening Sweden and Finland the first time wasn’t enough?
Useless and hubris.
Zara A.:
Thank you for that.
Very very disturbing.
Zara A,
To be effective, the first skill a propagandist must master is to be convincing in their demeanor. He is certainly that.
Russia continuing beyond the Ukraine would put Russia at war with NATO. I don’t see the Russians as eager to risk suicide, which invading NATO States would greatly risk.
Kazakhstan however is a possibility.
Geoffrey Britain:
It’s always dangerous to assume that tyrants don’t mean what they say.
Of course, it can likewise be dangerous to assume that they do.
But I think the former error tends to be more dangerous than the latter.
Time to dust off the Rods from God again. They have a very personal way of sending direct communications to errant leadership in a way that captures their attention without creating too much collateral damage.
Geoffrey Britain
He considers Kazakhstan already his)) Here he says that NATO should return to the borders of 1997
Geoffrey Britain:
I suspect at this point that Putin doesn’t even think that NATO would defend itself with nuclear weapons, as long as he didn’t launch them first but just threatened to do so.
The nations most at risk right now are those of eastern Europe that are not members of NATO, followed by the nations of eastern Europe that are members of NATO. Do really believe that NATO would use nuclear weapons to defend Estonia against a conventional Russian attack, for example? I don’t think it would do so, and I doubt Putin thinks it would do so either.
Estonia is currently trying to build up its conventional forces because it sees the writing on the wall.
“Perhaps you’re saying these changes are inevitable and there’s nothing we can do to stop them? “
A year ago, no, they were not inevitable. Now, after a year of the Bidenoids, yes, they are inevitable.
“I’m really not sure what you’re saying, except that some of our economic sanctions went too far and have undermined trust in our banking system (I agree that there are grave potential dangers to trust in our banking system).”
This is what I am saying quite distinctly. Only it is now seen by Russians as extremely alienating and not just from “some” sanctions but from all.
And the destruction of the international banking system alone is not the only force of alienation. The cultural bullshit that’s gone on has also alienated Russians on a deep level from which there is no recovery.
The interesting fact that this was a “spontaneous spasm of Wokeness” done by Globalist corporations and not at the behest of governments. That makes this especially galling and indelibly permanent. It’s not a significant sanction to make all the Russian people (especially their urban academics and intelligensia) do without their latest iPhone or Facebook page. But the endless woke gestures have consequences that are real as the stolen election of 2020.
Many millions of Russians have gotten the message from the west that, to reverse a popular Hollywood meme, “You HATE us. You really, really HATE us.”
“I don’t think you or anyone else has a clue what the Russian people think at this point.”
Easy to say since nobody can refute its common generality of viewpoint.
Not a clue? Well, one can make suppositions based on a rudimentary understanding of human nature with a soupcon of rough Russian history. No clue? Not a single one? Perhaps not… but only perhaps. And it is not at all a stretch to say that Russians are a paranoid people with a deep history having very good reasons to be paranoid.
And you have to remember that much of the cultural attacks have been done at the behest of/ or stimulated by the Bidenoids in our politics, businesses, and academia. These people are all deeply disturbed and even deformed in terms of their politics and philosophies and it shows.
Many of the so-called sanctions are stupid but ALL of the cultural sanctions are very very stupid and just drive Russia back from the West into its own history and traditions which are not all that “Western European.” (Catherine The Great was a European import who had to learn quickly to govern in the Russian way.)
And when the alienation of Russia is complete, guess what, Russia will still cover the largest landmass on the planet, hold huge amounts of national resources (nickle is already becoming difficult), will be trading hand over fist** with China, India, the Middle East, parts of South America, Canada, etc, and still be sitting on the eastern border of Europe with nukes (all, I pray, unfired.)
** Look for countries in Europe to come begging hat in hand.
“Aggie on March 14, 2022 at 6:40 pm said:
Time to dust off the Rods from God again. ”
There are no Rods from God made by man.
There are rods from God. Lightning? Don’t stand under a tree,
neo,
So far, his warnings to NATO States is not to directly interfere with his ensuring that the Ukraine cannot be incorporated into NATO. I’ve already stated why I don’t think he’ll try to invade NATO countries like the Baltics but of course I’m guessing about that, just as you and everyone else here is doing.
If Putin does invade say the Baltic States, I would concede he’s taken the off ramp to Crazytown because it risks so much.
“If Vlad feels threatened while he is invading, he reserves the right to drop a nuke wherever on whomever.” om
A predictable twist on “Russia’s position is that NATO on its Ukraine/Russia border would be an existential threat to a vital core interest, which would equally justify a first strike by them.”
Putin invaded to prevent NATO parking itself upon the Ukraine/Russia border. His other ‘reasons’ are window dressing.
Gerard vanderleun:
I repeat that you haven’t a clue what the Russian people think.
It’s also irrelevant, since Putin doesn’t care if they disagree with him. He prefers that they agree, of course, and perhaps they do. I don’t know and you don’t know, so I’m not sure why you’re going on about it. What is important to him is whether his subordinates agree with him, and whether they and the military will follow his orders.
I don’t think the US had much alternative to what it has done. It couldn’t use nuclear weapons and couldn’t send conventional troops, and sanctions are all that was left.They had to be severe, but there was always (and remains) the chance of backlash against what it did. But doing nothing was not a good option either.
Once Putin acted as he did, good options were foreclosed. So again, I’m not sure what you think the US should have done. Forbidden people from canceling concerts of Tchaikovsky’s music? A lot of that sort of thing happened in Europe anyway, as far as I can see. The sanctions and anger against Russia encompass most of the western world, which has acted similarly to the US. Those who are with Russia are nations that were already with him, mostly because they have economic or other dependence on Russia, or are already positioned against the US and the west.
Uh, Neo? You might want to take a little break from Ukraine blogging and go chill out in a sensory deprivation tank or something. You’re kind of losing your grip.
I mean, this “NATO has preserved a first strike right but has been explicit in stating it is only in the case of a threat on the magnitude of another nation waging a war with other weapons of mass destruction such as widespread chemical or biological warfare” is just ridiculous. The suggestion that if the Russian army were rolling west but NOT using chemical or bio weapons, that NATO would say “Gosh. I guess we just have to let ourselves be defeated.” is beneath you.
For pete’s sake, you are certainly old enough to remember the fuss of NATO putting nuclear weapons in Western Europe back in the 1980s. What were those nukes for, if not to act as a first-strike deterrent against conventional Soviet forces? What other purpose were they supposed to serve?
Again, I have to ask…what is your position on Ukraine? Do you think American and NATO forces should directly go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine? Because you sure seem angry that Russian nukes are stopping that from happening.
Mike
Gerard vanderleun:
Aggie is referring to this.
Gerard vanderleun,
Not to quibble but I’m doubtful that Canada will be doing much trading with Russia in the near future. Trudeau’s wokeness won’t allow it.
” So again, I’m not sure what you think the US should have done.”
Publicly declare “Ukraine will NEVER be a member of NATO.”
Mike
MBunge:
Warning on your recent comment at 6:57 PM, for personal attacks.
Disagree with me all you want, but cut out the troll-like “you’re losing your grip” stuff and the other snide references like “chill out in a sensory deprivation tank or something.”
As for stating my position on Ukraine, I’ve probably written well over 100,000 words on the subject and if you read my blog I think my position has been quite clear.
But just to make it even clearer, I see grave dangers in almost any position the West could take against Russia because of Russia’s nuclear brinksmanship. Reading this post and my comments here should tell you that. But I think the gravest danger is from the west’s stance of weakness expressed and acted out during the year of the Biden administration as well as many years of Europe’s activities.
The US cannot possibly make such a promise to Russia about Ukraine – nor do I think for one moment that it would stop Russia. I suppose that for those who think this is really about Ukraine and NATO, they disagree strongly. I have written tons about why I think that NATO is just an excuse for Putin. I don’t need to go into all of that again here.
Neo:
“The US cannot possibly make such a promise to Russia about Ukraine – nor do I think for one moment that it would stop Russia. I suppose that for those who think this is really about Ukraine and NATO, they disagree strongly. I have written tons about why I think that NATO is just an excuse for Putin.” – Yes and yes again, you`re absolutely right! Putin has already captured Belarus, which never aspired to NATO
I don’t think Putin would use nukes if we intervened militarily in Ukraine but I’m certainly not willing to take that risk. I also would not be willing to take that risk for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania or many other countries that are already members of NATO. I think I would draw the line somewhere around Poland. I know this is somewhat arbitrary and not entirely logical but this is the type of calculation that needs to be made. I don’t think we should have admitted countries into NATO that we weren’t prepared to take the risk of nuclear war to defend.
In the bigger picture it seems increasingly likely that we will see nukes used by somebody in the not too distant future. When I look at the quality of leadership in the world with the threat of the weapons that exist now and will exist in the future, it is hard not to be very pessimistic.
I certainly don’t know what all Russians think, but I do know some whose lives have been destroyed and they are now desperately trying to leave the country but there are few places to go. I know some who already live in the West and realize that they can’t go back to see their families and they face increasing prejudice from people who are now distrustful of everything Russian.
These are terrible times for a lot of people.
Geoffrey:
Your response was entirely expected when I did not block quote you; we are talking about hand grenades and A-bombs (close enough is good enough), not 1/2 minute of angle, and you fall back on playing the pettiflogger lawyer.
“It all depends on the meaning of is.’
We’re beating a dead horse here, but indeed, the NATO argument coming from Putin is the “window dressing” over his drive to reassemble the Russian empire under his leadership. He wants Ukraine because he considers it part of his empire.
My best hope under existing circumstances is a negotiated settlement giving Crimea, the two eastern Donbas provinces, and the land route to Crimea, to Russia. For what would remain of Ukraine, which would still be very large, Western European countries would invest heavily in rebuilding and rearming it, to prevent Putin from coming back for more in a few years. The next two to three weeks will probably show whether that is even possible.
Okay, we’ll go with “Not a clue” and see what unfolds in the new world where a dictator never cares what the people he rules think about him in a nomenklatura nation where it just subordinates all the way down.
I admit that the concept “Human beings are much the same everywhere” has no business in thinking about Russians. They are so very different.
I now agree with the notion that no clue can be had about those ever-enigmatic Russian people who are very different from humans elsewhere now and throughout history. Certainly so different that nothing can be learned by thinking about them in terms of history. On the one hand, you have “Homo Erectus” and you have “Homo Russkitus.” I freely admit they are a complete mystery to me. I don’t think I could assume a single thing about what they think.
I concur that we can never know the inner feelings of a society that is culturally spurned when mere “people” cancel concerts, where mere “people” shut down the ATM machines, where mere “people” evaporate lines of credit, where “people” shut down Facebook, and now see how such actions repeated hundreds of times by “people” cannot ever drive the Russians closer to their czar. It is especially unknowable since it has never been done before. It could be that millions of Russians are yearning for their Facebook connection, their Big Mac, their chance to stream “Dancing with the Stars.” That could very well be the case. But I can’t know because I admit I can’t have a “clue.”
I am glad, damned glad, to hope for a peaceful, mollified, and controlled populace with no specific affinity for their history and traditions. I am sure the Russians will behave like that ancient people whose ancient dictator, long long ago, told them they were the best that ever was and that other western nations hated them and that the Versailles treaty and the social conditions it created was the proof of that hate and that all they needed was a little more lebensraum. As we know, this really disunited that ancient nation, and all their soldiers stopped serving and just went home to tend the fire because after all, they knew the other Europeans of the time didn’t mean to be mean. It was just their policies, their behaviors. I mean, who could have had a clue about that?
I’m not sure what the US should have done since it’s the Bidonites that are driving the car and they have failed numerous sobriety tests. I do know what they should not do now. More.
But they will because they’ve all been assured they can chopper out of DC before the surface temperature goes up well above 107 degrees in the shade of Foggy Bottom.
I’ve read in some places that people think Putin is seriously ill (bowel cancer. Parkinsons). and that this is affecting what he is doing-that he wants to go out as a great Russian leader. They also mention how far he stays away from people to avoid Covid. Who knows?
You can’t KNOW what you THINK until you SEE what you SAY.
Well, here is the rub. If Putin is successful in backing down the civilized world with the threat of nuclear weapons, he will validate a proven winning strategy for his own ambitions.
Why wouldn’t he repeat it? What country is next on his list? How many countries would he enslave before he stopped, or was stopped?
Moreover, he would provide a road map for every other nuclear capable rogue nation.
If this works for Putin, does anyone doubt that China will use similar rhetoric when they cross the Straits of Taiwan? How about Pakistan, Iran or N. Korea down the road?
Folks can argue that the risk of confronting Putin directly is unacceptable. I argue that the risks of not putting this nuclear blackmail to rest now are equally unacceptable. It is essential that the major nuclear powers; i,e,, the U.S., the UK, and France present a united, and unwavering, front to this threat.
Assuming Putin successfully swallows Ukraine, keep an eye on Moldova. It’s a former Soviet Republic that was extorted from Romania early in World War 2 (before Barbarossa), and it’s apparently likely to rejoin Romania soon. Moldova isn’t a part of NATO, but Romania is (and wonder of wonders, actually meets it’s NATO defense spending obligation). And Moldova has its own Moscow-backed autonomous region it’s trying to deal with.
Assuming Putin wants to put Russia’s borders back to where the old USSR had them, he’d want to deal with Moldova *before* it reunifies with a member of NATO.
“I feel like there are smart people around President Putin, … But I feel like they have decided that they are war criminals, so they can’t break ties with Mr. Putin.”
I feel like my eyes have been opened about “sanctions”.
They steel the resolve of the targeted leaders without actually damaging them that much.
They lead to a lot of damage for the common folk, as if to say “You guys need to gather together with garden tools and assault oligarch bodyguards armed with submachine guns”. Along with “Here, let me help make you so desperate you’ll attempt that suicide assault mission.”
If there are key commodities involved, such as oil, fertilizer, grain … then common folk around the world are damaged as prices inflate, businesses are stressed, layoffs occur and so on.
Meanwhile, in the Western Democracies, elites can hold their heads up high because they are “doing something”.
Kate:
I think it was on the Generation Jihad podcast with CDR Salamander where it was suggested that if Vlad The Terrible takes the city of Odessa he will essentially render whatever remains of Ukraine a totally dependent entity.
Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea would be eliminated, bye bye grain exports unless you dance to Vlad’s tune. What is the least costly and most efficient method to move bulk comodities? Floaty thingies if you can’t put them in a pipeline.
But you see it’s NATO! (never was, as you said).
Yep the Ukrainians are thanking the western elites every day, ask the Poles about that logic.
Sure is funny how many Eastern Europeans long for the embrace of the Russian bear. The Berlin Wall was necessary to keep those Nazis out of the GDR, funny that the mine fields and kill zones were on the GDR side. Very strange that history
om, yes, they need to hold Odesa. Exports would be possible through Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Moldova/Romania, but on road or rail, not water, which would change things a lot.
If Putin swallows Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic states will be next.
Putin’s nuclear button pushers can read the papers and who knows what else. They must think that, should they push the button, everything they know, including themselves, dies.
Question, I think, might be if the button pushers think things are so bad that pushing the button is the better option.
Than what?
Okay, back after lunch, without the sarcasm filter fogging my mind.
I will stipulate that I cannot know what Russians think either as individuals, groups, minorities, or majorities. This is clearly beyond my ken.
I will confess I can only know what is being thought through an interrogation of my own assumptions about how a significant percentage of a population (perhaps just a remnant) would react under a similar set of (how do the Bolsheviks put it?) “provocations.”
Are my assumptions right or wrong? I confess I have no way of knowing other than my inner sense that emotionally (and politics is the art of projecting and policing national emotions) nations and people react within certain known parameters. I could be wrong but I think I have a reasonable sense of what they are. Not perfect and certainly not specific but in general pretty good.
I understand the assertion that a dictator does not have to account for his actions to the people at large. There are many such in history and some in the present that bears this out. But this is not always the case, especially in a society in which the Soviet structure of the nomenklatura still exists to prop up the structure of Putinesque Cronyism. In this case, I would posit that the dictator *does* have to pay attention to the thoughts and feelings of the people if only to manipulate them into supporting the dictator through supporting Rodina. Not yet Stalinesque, I’d think Putin does watch the pulse of Russia carefully.
As to the other elements about Putin, I don’t think he’s crazy, I don’t think his old age drives him, I don’t think he’s ill, and I don’t think he’s leaving. One way or another the world is stuck with Russia’s Western Ukraine, which is not good. (Long term guerilla and terrorist war — think Northern Ireland Cubed). And we are stuck with the Bidonites driving the car off the cliff of Western Civilization. But it could be worse. Come to think of it it will be.
As my eternal president Lyndon Johnson once said: “I don’t wanna hold out any hope for you folks that I don’t hold out for myself.”
–OR —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZuMe5RvxPQ
+++++++
Oldflyer on March 14, 2022 at 7:42 pm said:
Well, here is the rub. If Putin is successful in backing down the civilized world with the threat of nuclear weapons, he will validate a proven winning strategy for his own ambitions.
Why wouldn’t he repeat it?
+++++++++++++++++++
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
“Folks can argue that the risk of confronting Putin directly is unacceptable. I argue that the risks of not putting this nuclear blackmail to rest now are equally unacceptable. It is essential that the major nuclear powers; i,e,, the U.S., the UK, and France present a united, and unwavering, front to this threat.”
Seems to me they already have. And have stayed behind the line and have not, as of this afternoon, stumbled over any trip wires.
What, exactly, sir, would you have this do in this united front?
Footnote to Aggie and Rods from God: Yes, I know about the rods and their background. Yes I’ve known about rail guns and their descendants since I invested money for a bit in some company in the 90s that was pursuing rail guns and what finally evolved into rods.
What I meant is that there are NO Rods from God operational on the planet and especially in orbit which is what they’d have to be to count in war.
For Geoffrey and Gerald?
Reality bites:
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/what-realists-get-wrong-about-putin.
Gerald, how would you know what “black” projects the DOD has up it’s sleeves? Rods from a demigod?
Otay.
What were those nukes for, if not to act as a first-strike deterrent against conventional Soviet forces? What other purpose were they supposed to serve?
They were medium range missiles meant to counterbalance Soviet medium range missiles.
JimNorCal:
Yes: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”
And yet sanctions are all that may be left right now for the West.
I don’t think sanctions are virtue-signaling, to allow Western nations to feel good about themselves. I think that empty silly gestures like cancelling a Tchaikovsky concert are virtue-signaling.
Sanctions are aimed at the oligarchs.They would not be worried about being accused of war crimes, and they probably have at least some leverage over Putin or perhaps ways to deal with him or those surrounding him. I really have little idea whether that could or would ever happen, but I believe it’s at least possible.
I have no idea whether this video is correct, but it discusses the situation with some oligarchs. I do believe they have influence in Russia and a certain amount of power, but beyond that I do not know.
om
The emotions of the participants. What a target for projection.
I mentioned some time back about Russia’s history of being invaded with horrific results. I just checked out the Great Northern War. Multiples of combat deaths due to famine–and disease and exposure.
The Russians can’t say the following–with local corrections–and it’s necessary to to try to understand whether we can understand them, because we can say it.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/835472-i-was-having-dinner-in-london-when-eventually-he-got-as-the
Is there a defensiveness in them built on borders having no particular obstacles save distance to inconvenience an invader? No oceans. In what world can we see into them?
It’s said, read the report long ago, that Chinese can discern a motive behind a question better than anybody else. Likely because they’ve been under a Big Man longer and it’s practically DNA to see what’s really going on.
Is Sapir-Whorf still a thing?
Read an alt-hist where Hemingway did not kill himself but lived to write more and more macho short stories whose effect on the POTUS lead him to start a nuclear war. Not likely to have that effect but can we say there would be exactly zero effect?
What if Hollywood contained half a dozen John Fords in John Wayne’s big days?
These are thought experiments to make the case that, as Sowell says, cultures vary and differences have consequences.
The Athenians didn’t, because they couldn’t, understand the Melians.
om,
The entire point of the article you linked to is to criticize the realist POV of Mearsheimer, fair enough. Yet, in utterly ignoring his primary point, that Russia has since the Soviet Union’s breakup adamantly stated that NATO’s incorporation of Ukraine to be an existential threat to a core interest, it fails as a serious rebuttal of Mearsheimer’s assessment.
In regard to what the Russians see as a strategic reality, it doesn’t matter whether Mearsheimer sees geopolitical relations in too narrow a manner.
As they are irrelevant to the overriding importance of the strategic reality to which Mearsheimer points. That must first be addressed and then the parties can “pay attention to the emotions of the participants”.
Priorities start with strategic realities for both parties.
I happen to agree with Thucydides, that in general, “humans are naturally unreliable calculators of their own interests”, as our present circumstances amply demonstrate.
I also agree with Thucydides that what’s needed is a truly gifted leader* who can counteract the vacillations and ‘certainties’ in the popular passions of the moment.
‘Certainties’ demonstrated by the 42 Republican Senators that want to route Poland’s old MIG jet fighters through the US base at Ramstein, Germany. A move that Putin may well see as the US and NATO taking a direct hand in the conflict.
What is needed on our side is a leader who is willing to fight but seeks peace. A lasting, peaceful resolution to war requires a compromise that both sides can live with and in which each side sees as their having gotten the better of the deal.
Otherwise it requires ending an enemy’s ability to resist.
When faced with a nuclear armed state which has the capability to turn America into a glass parking lot from coast to coast… ending Russia’s ability to resist requires accepting the certainty of suicide.
*A leader who molds their approach upon Lincoln’s example. Which is of course an impossibility with Bidet and Harris.
Absent that kind of leader, ‘shall not the blind lead the blind into the ditch’?
Aggie:
When Russia invaded Ukraine three weeks ago, my very first thought was “rods from God.” Then I asked myself what the target would be. The Kremlin? The forty miles of tanks massed on the road to Kyiv? A Russian airbase near the Ukrainian border? And this is assuming Biden would pull the trigger and they were already in orbit and ready to be deorbited. Lots of stuff we don’t know at this point. Maybe we could convince Elon Musk to put some up there and maintain our plausible deniability as a nation.
Well, Mr Vanderleun, for starters I would provide the Ukrainians with anything that would be useful for defending their country; and not advertise that we are whith holding essential weapons for fear of “appearing” to escalate. I refer to the fighter planes that Poland offered and our government vetoed. I would offer the best air defense systems we can provide. I would pour in sophisticated anti-tank weapons in great numbers.
I would offer American non-combatant medical support right now.
I would publicly state that while the U.S. will not actively engage in combat, any U.S. citizen who wants to go to Ukraine and fight for freedom will not be sanctioned in any way by the United States.
I would publicly announce that we are establishing logistic channels to the Ukrainian border–along the lines of what we did for Israel during the Yom Kippur war. (I was in the Naval force that stared down the Soviet Navy when they threatened to intercede on the side of the Arabs. I guess memories are too short to remember that. The USSR was as nuclear capable then, as Russia is now.)
It is too late now; but, a few weeks ago I would have had the 82nd Airborne, and maybe the 2nd or 4th Armored Divisions conduct joint exercises with Poland along the Ukrainian border; and maybe even with the Ukrainian Army. Prolonged, open ended exercises.
In other words, I would have seriously defended the freedom and sovereignty of a European country; and tell Putin to think twice before he committed his two bit Army.
Now that the situation is what it is, I would train Ukrainians in unconventional warfare tactics. My understanding is that such a program was contemplated, and rejected by the WH.
And when Putin announced that his nuclear forces were on alert, I would have gone to Defcon 1, deployed every Boomer sub and every carrier capable of going to sea. SAC would have gone to its highest alert level. Then, I would have invited Putin to meet for talks on how to spare the world.
It may sound like a cliche to say that succumbing to Blackmail leads to more blackmail; but, it is nevertheless true. In the world of major powers, it can lead to very serious miscalculations if it is tolerated.
neo lets agree to disagree.
Let’s first start off: would Ukrainians be better under Russian rule, or killed in the 10s of 1000s in years and years of battle, armed with US-supplied weapons in an endless insurrection?
And if living under Russian rule is so bad, then how could US corporate and banking sanctions make the average Russian’s citizen’s life worse? Maybe it isn’t that bad. At least they don’t have gay sex taught to their five year olds in school. Although that could be a condition to get our great, wonderful, western companies to return, especially Disney.
So maybe life under Putin isn’t that bad – sure worse than an American housewife – but maybe the Western position is just needlessly killing thousands of extra people who don’t need to die. Instead it’s: We care about you Ukraine, now here’s some weapons, go get yourself killed and your cities leveled, because the US hasn’t killed enough people in various regions over the last 40 years, while having zero effect on the final outcome.
It’s not like Ukraine was some great democracy. It is a corrupt, poor county with a civil war in the eastern region killing over ten thousand in just the last few years. It is in no way a “democracy”, and no reason we should care about its fate more than any other land grab going on right now.
In the meantime 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year. That’s more than will die in Russia’s invasion, are our fellow countrymen, and something we could actually do something about.
All of these intense, and sometimes heated, discussions make me feel like a kibitzer at a Massively Multiplayer Online RISK game.
It’s not like anyone in Washington or Moscow is going to read what we say to each other.
FWIW
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/14/zelenskyy-to-address-congress-on-wednesday-00016966
He may not know what Putin thinks, but he is somewhat closer to the Ukrainian view of the matter.
They could send non-nuclear military forces to Ukraine that would probably defeat him easily, but his nuclear threats have tied their hands to a certain extent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s the thing – sending in troops to fight with Russia (a nuclear power) directly automatically risks escalation to nuclear war, Putin’s threats wouldn’t even be a factor. If a NATO affiliated soldier or airman kills a single Russian soldier, you would absolutely be risking nuclear war.
whatever:
No it would not be better for the Ukrainians to live under Putin, and for us and you to forever live under the Left because what are rights and freedom after all? Why should they, you, me, or anyone have any choice in how we live? It is not, after all only important if you eat.
See Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisition, IIRC (post by neo).
Sure, NATO could very well just be an “excuse”. Assume it absolutely is.
Does that mean that our horrific stance towards Russia for the last 30 years isn’t virtually 100% to blame for the current situation ? Treat Russia like a pariah, gin up a fake scandal where they’re the chief bogeyman that hacked and defrauded the US election in 2016 ?
Is it possible that we could have treated Russia like a potential partner instead of the enemy that they were for the previous 40 years ? And that doing so could have led to better relations between the US and Russia, maybe led them to be closer to the US than China ?
The answer to every one of those questions is YES. The obvious conclusion is, regardless of the NATO in Ukraine question, this is a problem of our own making. We shouldn’t be going to war with Russia over Ukraine, regardless, but we sure as hell ought not to be tossing around ideas that might lead to nuclear war over a problem we helped cause.
Furthermore, the sanctions that hurt the Russian people directly with no appreciable effect on Putin or his military / oligarchs are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid. #WOKE corporate America comes to foreign affairs and diplomacy, I guess. What a colossally stupid idea.
Frankly, the biggest takeaway from this is the US is not a serious nation at this point. And we should all proceed accordingly.
Geoffrey read the article, but it changed naught a thing regarding his opinion on Putin’s invasion, nor did the statements of Putin’s spokesman, posted by Zara, change Geoffrey’s opinion.
Useless.
Such is a “Realist,” it’s never to early for appeasement it seems. But, if only we had that perfect leader in charge the Geoffrey would follow? Never have, never will, in the now, Putin is doing.
deadroddy:
See the link I posted from Radio Free Europe yesterday or Sunday regarding Vlad’s behavior and European outreach.
It takes two to Tango.
Feel free to pretend I don’t exist. I have already taken that action with respect to you. Your latest only confirms it was the right decision
Yeah, we’re “appeasing” an enemy we helped create.
I see this very much as a relic of the boomer fixation on the USSR. I work with a number of people that served in the nuclear navy during the cold war. They absolutely view Russia and the USSR as the same.
They’re not.
Yeah, we’re “appeasing” an enemy we helped create.
We helped ‘create’ our enemy in your imagination only.
Oldflyer, I salute your resolve and your suggestions.
However, you have an advantage over “Biden”, an advantage that gives you more operational flexibility: you’re not colluding with Putin.\
(Yeah, I know it sounds totally nuts. To my way of thinking, the Iran “Deal” and the offer to Zelensky to fly the coop give “him” away. Fine. What it does do is present “Biden” with a horrendous OPTICS problem. So far he appears to be threading the needle, sort of.
deadroddy:
It was a link that you can choose to ignore or not. Confirmation bias? Have a good day,
NATO created the USSR? And I thought it was Lenin and Stalin and … you get the picture? And NATO created the KGB that Vlad worked for before the Great Tragedy. Spots and Leopards.
It’s the new improved Russian Federation, now with 20% less despotism and aggression. Now Boomer free! How telling, deadroddy.
Otay.
But have a good day anyway.
What might have been–might–an unlooked-for result of the Russian collusion hoax was that the Russians were now, at least partially, Bad Guys. Had to be. And that’s a neck-snapping one-eighty for libs and dems.
That means more people than right-wing McCarthyite anti communists are or could be brought to be mad at Russia.
Took a hundred years to get the libs mad at Russia and, finally….here we are.
Not sure what we used to have could have been called a balance, but whatever it was, we don’t have it any longer.
Suppose I should have written, “To my way of ‘thinking’…”
(BTW, another advantage you have over “him” is that you love your country….)
Neither are boomers:
https://redstate.com/jerrywilson/2022/03/15/john-ondrasik-of-five-for-fighting-composes-brilliant-tribute-to-volodymyr-zelensky-n536120
Heroism comes in various shapes and sizes. And forms:
“Polish, Czech & Slovenian Leaders Head To Kiev By Train In Show Of Support To Zelensky”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/polish-czech-slovenian-leaders-head-kiev-train-show-support-zelensky
Twenty-First Century (rhyming?) version of “To the Finland Station”…?
“Geoffrey read the article, but it changed naught a thing regarding his opinion on Putin’s invasion, nor did the statements of Putin’s spokesman, posted by Zara, change Geoffrey’s opinion.” om
I explained quite specifically why the article did not change my mind. While acknowledging that the emotional perceptions of combatants must be considered, though only after strategic realities for both parties are addressed.
Instead of responding to that objection, I’m labeled as an obstinate, hopeless reactionary. While utterly ignoring my objection, effectively dismissing it without rebuttal.
That tactic is right out of the left’s playbook.
GB. As the Melian example shows, strategic realities as considered by the Athenians were irrelevant. They were right. No question. But it was irrelevant.
The question is…what considerations governed the result? Not the Athenians’ rational calculations.
Geoffrey, if you choose to describe yourself that way there is nothing anyone can do about it. How you respond is up to you.
I should reconsider why I provide you information, the result seems useless.
Putin’s spokesman seemed to undermine the NATO existential threat pretext, but why believe what he said, since a Realist really knows the reasons? Don’t blow a gasket. 🙂
Richard Aubrey,
Clarification please.
strategic realities as considered by the Athenians were irrelevant
Irrelevant to whom?
“The question is…what considerations governed the result? Not the Athenians’ rational calculations.”
Are you speaking strictly to the Melian’s POV?
om,
I did not “choose to describe myself that way”. I dealt only with the facts of our interchange. It is you that is not responding, just labeling.
“Putin’s spokesman seemed to undermine the NATO existential threat pretext”
Link please. I can neither evaluate nor respond to a comment by Putin’s spokesman of which I’m uncertain or even unaware.
Geoffrey:
See Zara’s comment from Sunday in this thread. Look at it again. Just propaganda from Vlad’s spokesman? Really?
Vladimir Solovyov
Would as far as I can tell be a television commentator. Does not quite tell us the government’s thinking, but his presence on television does indicate notions the government is content to have in circulation.
While it’s a short clip to interpret, it would appear he has Russia’s fancied ‘natural boundaries’ in mind, which would mean subjugating at least 11 European countries and perhaps the Caucasus as well.
GB. No, speaking of the results. Irrelevant to the Melians and irrelevant to the results.
Think of all the stupid things, even if only restricting it to war, that nations have done when all of us armchair Bradys can see how strategic considerations pointed to how stupid the act(s) was/were and should have been seen in advance by the actors.
The damned foolishness in the Balkans should have been left there, but the powerful parties decided they were entitled/required to attack everybody they could find on a map and we had WW I. How nuts it should have looked…..
Strategic considerations are only relevant if they match the POV of the actors in terms of initiating an action. Later on, the strategic considerations may impose their reality, but it’s likely too late.
Putin may be, at this stage of his life, nuts due to illness or something else and so his POV may not be as we would wish, or as we impose on him since it makes it easier to contemplate the future.
But the POV of his general staff has to be considered. Is the destruction of Russia the best option as opposed to….not getting Russia reintegrated as Putin and likely some other nationalist thinkers wish?
I sure hope the general staff is looking forward to a prosperous retirement on what is likely a generous pension. Deking the US into nuking them flat is counterproductive. Depending on what they want most. And on what they convince themselves we might do.
I had to read up on Vladimir Solovyov. He’s an extremist, one that Putin approves of but not an official spokesman for Putin. I approve of Tucker Carlson but I do not agree with everything he says or his positions. So too with Solovyov and Putin. I suspect his main value to Putin is to make Putin look more reasonable.
Again, I agree that Putin is a brutal dictator. I simply view Russia as having a valid and legitimate concern with the Ukraine becoming part of NATO. That doesn’t mean that NATO would act aggressively if on Russia’s border. It simply acknowledges Russia’s unwillingness to risk their national security upon NATO’s assurance of its peacefulness.
No, the situation with Tucker and Solovyov is not analogous; Russian media environment is not analogous to US media environment IMO. But that’s me.
}}} with one especially nerve-wrecking albeit very short confrontation known as the Cuban Missile Crisis [*see NOTE below].
Actually, although the public is largely unaware of it, we were supposedly much much closer at one point during the Korean War (basically, about the point Truman fired MacArthur), when tensions were high as the Chinese invaded NoKo as we approached the border with China, close to winning the war. MacArthur encouraged Truman to use nukes, and was public about it, then kept publicly harping on it afterwards, which is why Truman cashiered him, since he was speaking in direct opposition to Truman’s chosen policies for dealing with the situation. I have heard that there were planes on their way at one point, but they were recalled.
Several interesting points to make, here, regarding nukes. Some of them have been made here, before, by me, but for those who did not droolingly follow my every utterance ( 😉 ) and missed it, I suggest they bear consideration…
===================================================
On August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of Hiroshima, the formerly prominent nighttime news show Nightline had SF author Harlan Ellison on, and he made an interesting point: “We have not used The Bomb, after those initial uses, for 45 years.” (now *76* years).
He continued: “This is utterly unprecedented in human history, for us to invent a weapon and not use it again in warfare.”. His point, in general, was that, in being so totally indiscriminate, The Bomb, far from being an immoral weapon, had become a highly moral one. For the first time since Kings stopped riding into battle at the head of their armies, the ones whose decision it was to go to war stood to suffer as much or more than the poor schlubs whose job it became to **prosecute** the war. That is, the Rich Bastards in whose power it was to decide to go to war stood to lose as much, and likely even more, than the common joe.
Moreover, I will add to his point, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were remarkably graphic examples of what the most primitive forms of this weapon could do. Unlike some test examples of a few abandoned buildings in a desert, those cities were remarkably destroyed, reduced to scattered garbage. A person might think, “we can weather that”, as might have happened with only the desert examples, Hiroshima and Nagasaki very much made the point, “we could lose everything.” and, even more importantly, to the Rich Bastards, “*I* could lose everything.”.
And so we backed down, in at least one, and probably two or more cases, from doing the awful thing.
While it seems cold, there is a deep kind of truth in the notion that the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificial lambs for the rest of humanity. They died to greatly improve the chances that those weapons would not be used again for a long time, if ever.
I am not sure if Putin is just saber rattling, but one hopes he understands that, if he uses one, even one, he will be brought up on war crimes, if he survives what follows. One hopes his lieutenants also realize that they will likely accompany him to the gallows, and are wise enough to depose him.
OTOH, perhaps we need another Hiroshima, to remind people of what happens when you let fools get control over nuclear weapons. There are far too many people who cannot seem to grasp what it truly means. This whole Iran treaty business is being taken far far too lightly, IMNSHO.