Yes, Putin would

[Atreus21]

For the past two days, I’ve become increasingly unsettled by the international sanctions against Russia because I believed they would be perceived as an attack on Russia, thereby denying Putin an off ramp and escalating the possibility he would resort to nuclear weapons. By contrast, I have fully supported arming and supplying Ukraine because not only is that an attack on the invasion (a semantic but important distinction), but it also follows the seventy year rule book that states that Russia and the US may arm each other’s enemies to the teeth, but they may not fire at each other (this is incidentally why the proposal of a no fly zone is so catastrophically stupid). But to the point, my resolve has been notably squishy when it comes to these sanctions, as well as every business and financial institution cutting ties with Russia. It all seemed over the top and it alarmed me.

However, I think this interview with Fiona Hill, one of the foremost experts on Putin, presents an extremely compelling argument for why this full blown response is absolutely necessary, and why denying Putin his agenda in Ukraine is vital to the future security of the world.

If you find yourself on the fence as I did, or merely want a granular and in-depth look into Putin’s motivations, look no further than this article. But fair warning: the inverse proportional relationship between wisdom and happiness holds true here.

‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.

www.politico.com

Just don't see it. He'd have to be crazier than the north Korean leadership.

 

[Cardinal]

Just don't see it. He'd have to be crazier than the north Korean leadership.

The problem can essentially be boiled down to this:

1) He's not faking it (this is according to everybody who is intimately familiar with him). When he reduces the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, he's not kidding. And he wants us to know this so that we don't retaliate in precisely the ways we already have.
3) We cannot give in to what is unambiguously nuclear blackmail, because this is only going to get worse. The overused "appeasement" reference is unfortunately valid here.

 

[Atreus21]

The problem can essentially be boiled down to this:

1) He's not faking it (this is according to everybody who is intimately familiar with him). When he reduces the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, he's not kidding. And he wants us to know this so that we don't retaliate in precisely the ways we already have.
3) We cannot give in to what is unambiguously nuclear blackmail, because this is only going to get worse. The overused "appeasement" reference is unfortunately valid here.

Then MAD is our only option.

 

[Cardinal]

Then MAD is our only option.

Can I assume that this statement is flippant?

 

[jnug]

Then MAD is our only option.

That is correct:
- In the first place MAD is the only thing that has kept nukes from being used all these years, the absolute assurance that a first strike with nukes will without question be met by a retaliatory nuclear strike. The idea of commanders disobeying an order to use nukes by the leader of a country is entirely an issue of first strike. I can see commanders refusing to take an order for a first strike. There is zero chance of a leader not demanding a retaliatory strike and zero chance of his commanders refusing the order for one
- The idea that theater nukes are a tactical weapon is entirely a fabrication in anything but the narrowest of circumstances regardless of Russian claims of its inclusion in their military tactics.

Does Russia also have tactical fans that insure that the fallout does not come back at them? Generally, wars are fought over territory and assets that one country wants from another country. The idea that one country simply wants to destroy another country as opposed to wanting its territory or possessions or assets is too goofy even for Putin. The entire idea of theater nukes is a threat with no basis in reality outside of those narrowest of circumstances.....possibly at sea where the intent is to take out an entire fleet at once or in really wide open uninhabited areas of land that is unusable anyway and where the goal is to take out an entire land attack force at once.

War as Clausewitz states "is a mere continuation of policy “with other means”". Not by "other means" as he is often misquoted as saying. Destruction for its own sake is not a war goal.

We in the West simply cannot get it into our heads that deception and fakery is what Russia does better than anybody else. They have done it since the time of the czars because they literally have little else. Their battlefield tactics are not good. Their logistics are not spotty at best. The equipment is generally inferior. Their fighting spirit is not good when not fighting to defend their own territory.

 

[HangLow]

View attachment 67377617​

​