formal neutrality agreement, involving external parties like the UN — jorndoe

Yes, I think UN involvement will be essential to the success of any plan.

In a war zone. Not a neutral zone — jorndoe

I think Crimean neutrality might be a offer worth considering, but militarily, Ukraine don't have a hope in hell of re-taking Crimea without huge losses.

I think any deal which doesn't include territorial losses is just pie in the sky. The Russians know that any territorial regains now are going to be a massive slog for Ukraine, they're unlikely to settle, when they know Ukraine are bluffing (about how easily they might wage war on Crimea).

The point about any deal is that Ukraine has to offer something fairly substantial because the two sides are pretty equal right now at the current border. Both are exhausted, both have taken huge losses, both face economic collapse (though less so Russia), both face political upheaval if they achieve anything short of victory.

So if all's roughly equal at the current front line, I can't see why one side would see a massive loss of territory as a reasonable deal.

Hence: "It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading" — neomac

What?

the example would be: Germany, Italy, Japan after WW2. — neomac

You could throw in the whole of Europe after WW2.

You could throw in the whole of Europe after WW2. — Olivier5

Indeed, I took just the most notable examples to me.

Hence: "It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading" — neomac
What? — Isaac

You wrote: "War -> reconstruction requirements -> corporate opportunity to screw everyone"
Now if your claim - non-charitably understood - refers only to corporate contributions to reconstruction that, as you would say, "screwed everyone", then claiming "I can't think of a single example from history where that's gone well for the inhabitants" is practically a tautology: there is no corporation that didn't "screw everyone" in a set of corporations that were selected precisely because their contribution "screwed everyone", obviously.
If your claim - more charitably understood - refers only to corporate contributions to reconstruction as such, then one must take into account the Marshall Plan after WW2. Not surprisingly, Chomsky commented (in "The Umbrella of U.S. Power"): “the generosity was largely bestowed by American taxpayers upon the corporate sector, which was duly appreciative, recognizing years later that the Marshall Plan “set the stage for large amounts of private U.S. direct investment in Europe,” establishing the basis for the modern Transnational Corporations, which “prospered and expanded on overseas orders,... fueled initially by the dollars of the Marshall Plan” and protected from “negative “developments” by “the umbrella of American power.” (The former citation comes from the U.S. Commerce Department in 1984, the latter from a "Business Week" article, in 1975).

If your claim - more charitably understood - refers only to corporate contributions to reconstruction as such, then one must take into account the Marshall Plan after WW2. — neomac

The Marshall Plan was a US government loan instrument. It was not a corporate reconstruction contract, which is what I was referring to with Bayer.

More importantly, as economist Tyler Cowen shows, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. So the extent to which Chomsky is right proves exactly the point I was making. The plan hindered growth in recipient countries to the benefit of American corporations.

Paul Hoffman, head of the committee for the distribution of Marshal aid admitted in his memoir, "the aid did not in fact help the economies of Europe. The primary benefit was psychological."


A congressional report on the plan later concluded that

It is, for example, difficult to demonstrate that ERP aid was directly responsible for the increase in production and other quantitative achievements ... assistance was never more than 5% of the GNP of recipient nations and therefore could have little effect.

It did, however, make American firms extremely rich by recycling tax dollars and forcing European countries to rely on American exports.

As usual, all kinds of speculation about what goes on in Moscow...

Vladimir Putin is weakened and his opponents are preparing to strike
^{— Alexey Minyaylo via Chris Brown; CBC; Oct 7, 2022}

Putin’s No-Win Trap
^{— Kirill Rogov; Wilson Center; Oct 13, 2022}

What Could Bring Putin Down?
^{— Daniel Treisman; Foreign Affairs; Nov 2, 2022}

Putin is losing his grip and facing regime collapse, says Russian KGB expert
^{— Yevgenia Albats; The Sun; Nov 5, 2022}

Vladimir Putin's regime is being threatened 'from within', reveals Ukrainian official
^{— Volodymyr Ohryzko via Luan Trimi; Oh My Mag via MSN; Nov 8, 2022}

Would be great (maybe). Not holding my breath though.

point about any deal — Isaac

The neutrality deal was to accommodate Putin's demands, "NATO threatening us", "deNazification", "demilitarization", that stuff. Their tune has changed some, and might continue to change.

Russia declares expanded war goals beyond Ukraine's Donbas
^{— Mark Trevelyan; Reuters; Jul 20, 2022}

As for the limits of the goals that we set during our special military operation, the President has outlined these goals, they remain unchanged. They will be achieved. Ukraine shouldn’t be a terrorist state that terrorizes its own citizens. It should not be a country that’s allowed everything, and whose impunity crosses all boundaries and leads to murders of journalists, political figures, and deputies of the Verkhovnaya Rada. It’s not only about the residents of Donbass, but about how Ukrainian nationalists treat peaceful citizens, as it is now happening in those areas of the Kharkov Region, and parts of the Zaporozhye Region, that they entered after our special military operation participants regrouped. — Sergey Lavrov · TASS · Oct 11, 2022

^{↑ very careful not to suggest "war" by the way :smile:}

Conjecture on my part: If they thought it feasible, they'd grab all of Ukraine, and start re-culturation immediately. Down the line, who knows. On that angle, the demands are more like rationalizations for public consumption. The demands have become increasingly fake-looking (almost ridiculous), but decision-making and such depend on understanding their aims, which may not have much to do with peace anyway. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are being bombed throughout, not pretty.

The neutrality thing addresses the demands, but if their aims are too different, then they wouldn't accept it, perhaps even as a starting point for talks.

corporate opportunity to screw everyone — Isaac

Does this really look that sinister to you...?

Bayer plans to invest approximately $34.9 million (35 million euros) to boost the capacity of the company's seed processing facility in Pochuiky in Ukraine's Zhytomyr region.
[...]
Bayer has donated more than 40,000 bags of corn seed that will enable more than 1,250 smaller farmers to grow food. — USAID and Bayer partner to support Ukrainian farmers and address the global food security crisis (Oct 11, 2022)

I suppose maybe it is. I'd run with it, though. (Foodstuff, millions of children, ...)

Russian Army Endorses Return of Soviet-Era School Military Training – Reports
^{— The Moscow Times; Nov 8, 2022}

Basic military training course to be added to Russian school curricula next year
^{— TASS; Nov 9, 2022}

Military training and "talking about important things" will take up 10% of the study time
^{— Novye Izvestia; Nov 9, 2022}

the introduction of such a subject in schools will allow for the systematic preparation of citizens for a possible confrontation with the enemy — Sergei Mironov

Soviet school kids were taught to assemble and disassemble Kalashnikovs. Now ‘Basic Military Training’ is set to return to Russian schools. Today one unhappy parent tells a Russian newspaper: “We should prepare our children for a peaceful happy life, not for war.” — Steve Rosenberg · Nov 9, 2022

Moscow's busy these days. Some years after 2023, Russia will be increasingly militarized, at least that's what it looks like.

That could be a big victory for Ukraine, or a trap:

Moscow orders retreat from Kherson

The Russian defense minister ordered on Wednesday, November 9, the withdrawal of Russian forces from the right bank of the Dnieper River in the Ukrainian region of Kherson, which includes the regional capital of the same name, target of a large Ukrainian counter-offensive for several weeks.

"Proceed with the withdrawal of soldiers," Sergei Shoigu said on television, after a proposal to this effect by the commander of Russian operations in Ukraine, General Sergei Surovikin, who acknowledged that it was a decision "not at all easy" to take. "The maneuvers [of withdrawal] of soldiers will begin very quickly," assured the general.

The announcement was received with skepticism in Kiev. "We see no sign that Russia is leaving Kherson without a fight. Part of the Russian [troops] is still in the city" in southern Ukraine, said a presidential adviser, Mykhailo Podoliak, blasting "staged television statements" from Moscow.

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/09/guerre-en-ukraine-moscou-ordonne-le-retrait-des-forces-russes-de-la-ville-strategique-de-kherson_6149238_3210.html

The neutrality deal was to accommodate Putin's demands, "NATO threatening us", "deNazification", "demilitarization", that stuff. Their tune has changed some, and might continue to change. — jorndoe

Yeah, I see what you mean. There's a line to walk with any deal between offering Putin a face-saving off-ramp and offering him a sweetener that he actually wants. The two might not be the same. I do think Putin genuinely wants trade access (oil) and he wants a seat at the 'big boys table', but I don't buy for a second that he's actually concerned about Nazis.

The problem with demilitarisation is that it's already in the Minsk agreements so a new agreement would says what?

Conjecture on my part: If they thought it feasible, they'd grab all of Ukraine, and start re-culturation immediately — jorndoe

Maybe, but the "if they thought it feasible" is doing lot of work there. Who would? Ukraine's enormous, they had trouble holding Chechnya and that's actually in their territory already. Talk of Putin's imperial ambitions is propaganda, it's absurd. He's barely been involved in more than a few border scuffles - compared to the US's wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq... If Putin had the slightest imperial ambitions he'd have attacked Ukraine decades ago, what was he waiting for?

The demands have become increasingly fake-looking (almost ridiculous), but decision-making and such depend on understanding their aims, which may not have much to do with peace anyway. — jorndoe

Month's ago the demands were; neutral Ukraine, Independent Donbas, Russian Crimea. It was nothing short of criminal inhumanity that they were not considered as a starting point for a peace deal.

The neutrality thing addresses the demands, but if their aims are too different, then they wouldn't accept it, perhaps even as a starting point for talks. — jorndoe

I think neutrality, and Crimea might be lines in the sand for Russia, but we don't know. The reason we don't know being largely US warmongering.

Does this really look that sinister to you...? — jorndoe

Well they're not going to write down their real plan in the bloody press release are they!

What's sinister is a set of circumstances which have, in the past, turned out to be nothing but a way of transferring money from the poor to the rich. In this case, who knows. If we don't learn our lesson from every other such occasion, then I suppose we'll find out in a few years' time when Bayer are arranged on criminal charges again. My guess (for what it's worth) would be that the corn seed is a Bayer GMO patent which ties the Ukrainian's in to what can then be ever increasing profit margins. We've seen that before.

don't buy for a second that he's actually concerned about Nazis — Isaac

Don't think a whole lot do. Except perhaps in Russia, hard to tell. Either way, it keeps coming up from Putin and compadres.

Fascism Comes to Ukraine -- From Russia
^{— Cathy Young; RealClearPolitics; May 21, 2014}

Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories. We are not going to impose anything on anyone by force. — Full text: Putin’s declaration of war on Ukraine · Feb 24, 2022

Can Ukraine have a ‘Nazi problem’ with a Jewish president?
^{— Shaked Karabelnicoff; Unpacked; May 15, 2022}

Anyway, if that can be scratched off, then their interest in Donbas was another from the get-go, and that was/is among their demands. And, if they had ulterior plans, then it'd be helpful to understand what they were/are, especially for decision-makers.

Moscow orders retreat from Kherson — Olivier5

They're apparently moving further east as well. Maybe trying to isolate the Melitopol region somewhat? It's unclear how many poorly trained soldiers are present, though.

Interactive Map: Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map

Russo-Ukrainian War - Google My Maps

Anyway, if that can be scratched off, then their interest in Donbas was another from the get-go, and that was/is among their demands. And, if they had ulterior plans, then it'd be helpful to understand what they were/are, especially for decision-makers. — jorndoe

Ulterior motives are important, but so's the gloss (often more so). There is a significant neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine, it did ought to be dealt with, and it did form part of Putin's public justification. That makes it an issue worth talking about, regardless of the fact that Putin himself clearly doesn't give a fuck.

But all this is hypothetical because corporate media has made it political suicide for politicians to pursue any route other than Putin's military defeat, they've dug their own grave. The progressives in America couldn't even suggest negotiations. What kind of shit hole country can even fucking discuss peace?

Thanks for the maps.

Reuters give some more detail: they cannot supply Kherson well enough for its defence; they are afraid to lose too many men for nowt.

Russia abandons Ukrainian city of Kherson in major retreat
By Mark Trevelyan

LONDON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu on Wednesday ordered his troops to withdraw from the occupied Ukrainian city of Kherson and take up defensive lines on the opposite bank of the River Dnipro.

The announcement marked one of Russia's most significant retreats and a potential turning point in the war, now nearing the end of its ninth month.

In televised comments, General Sergei Surovikin, in overall command of the war, reported to Shoigu that it was no longer possible to keep Kherson city supplied.

"Having comprehensively assessed the current situation, it is proposed to take up defence along the left (eastern) bank of the Dnipro River," said Surovikin, standing at a lectern and indicating troop positions on a map whose details were greyed-out for the TV audience.

"I understand that this is a very difficult decision, but at the same time we will preserve the most important thing - the lives of our servicemen and, in general, the combat effectiveness of the group of troops, which it is futile to keep on the right bank in a limited area."

I don't buy for a second that he's actually concerned about Nazis. — Isaac

You're making progress.

Unfortunately nearly every article behind a paywall. One article by Mearsheimer, well, he was right in the 1990's about Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons. And the UN article?

Surely they (the UN) plea for the fighting to stop, yet notice:

The Assembly has also expressed strong support for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution of the conflict through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means, “with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and in accordance with the principles of the Charter.”

Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. Furthermore:

She said the General Assembly had been clear that so-called referendums and attempted annexations of southern and eastern regions in Ukraine by Russia, had “no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine.”

And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period

Otherwise the "De-escelation through escalation" principle is successful.

I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great. — Isaac

Less territory the better, but in fact any agreement to end the fighting. Anything goes, yeah right.

Russia seems to be withdrawing from Kherson. At least that seems then to be better for Isaac. :wink:

The Marshall Plan was a US government loan instrument. — Isaac

More grants than loans.

It was not a corporate reconstruction contract, which is what I was referring to with Bayer. — Isaac

You mean it was centrally planned? Yet the private sector was significantly involved, e.g.: Also established were counterpart funds, which used Marshall Plan aid to establish funds in the local currency. According to ECA rules, recipients had to invest 60% of these funds in industry. This was prominent in Germany, where these government-administered funds played a crucial role in lending money to private enterprises which would spend the money rebuilding. These funds played a central role in the reindustrialization of Germany. In 1949–50, for instance, 40% of the investment in the German coal industry was by these funds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Implementation)
Washington’s official commitment to Europe also encouraged American private industry. Some of the big corporations had investments and production facilities in Europe whose expansion and modernization they were now more prepared to consider. Other firms, with a strong dollar in their hands, similarly contemplated attractive participations in European companies that were looking for American technology, new production techniques, work organization, management, and
marketing. (https://www.learneurope.eu/files/8113/7509/5720/Plan_Marshall._Lecciones_aprendidas_s_XXI.pdf)

BTW, and more in general, if both central planning and corporation initiative are always a way to screw people, what's left for you to hope for?

A congressional report on the plan later concluded that

It is, for example, difficult to demonstrate that ERP aid was directly responsible for the increase in production and other quantitative achievements ... assistance was never more than 5% of the GNP of recipient nations and therefore could have little effect. — Isaac

That's reported in the section dedicated to "Critiques of the Marshall Plan" which are all taken into account. But the real conclusion is significantly different:
Accomplishments. While, in some cases, a direct connection can be drawn between American assistance and a positive outcome, for the most part, the Marshall Plan may be viewed best as a stimulus that set off a chain of events leading to a range of accomplishments. At the completion of the Marshall Plan period, European agricultural and industrial production were markedly higher, the balance of trade and related "dollar gap" much improved, and significant steps had been taken toward trade liberalization and economic integration. Historians cite the impact of the Marshall Plan on the political development of some European countries and on U.S.-Europe relations. European Recovery Program assistance is said to have contributed to more positive morale in Europe and to political and economic stability, which helped diminish the strength of domestic communist parties. The U.S. political and economic role in Europe was enhanced and U.S. trade with Europe boosted.

So, even if we shouldn't overestimate the immediate and direct economic impact of the Marshall Plan, there isn't enough to support the idea that the Marshall Plan was just a "corporate opportunity to screw everyone" either.

You're making progress. — Olivier5

And yet you, it seems are as incapable of basic comprehension as you were 300 pages ago.

Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. — ssu

And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period — ssu

Neither of the quotes you cited say this, only that territorial integrity is a goal. As it should be. The less land in Russian control the better. The matter at hand right now is how much we ought be willing to pay for that boon.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against.

if both central planning and corporation initiative are always a way to screw people, what's left for you to hope for? — neomac

As I've said before your lack of imagination is your problem. Unless you're fresh out of high school or you've been raised in cult of fundamentalist neo-liberals, you'll know full well that a wide range of solutions have been proposed which are neither government controlled nor corporate profit engines.

even if we shouldn't overestimate the immediate and direct economic impact of the Marshall Plan, there isn't enough to support the idea that the Marshall Plan was just a "corporate opportunity to screw everyone" either. — neomac

Indeed. But that wasn't the claim was it? Your claim was that the Marshall plan countered my position. To do that it would have to have been a) constituted of corporate reconstruction contracts, and b) an unquestioned success. It was neither.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against. — Isaac

You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually.

you'll know full well that a wide range of solutions have been proposed which are neither government controlled nor corporate profit engines. — Isaac

Like what? Name a couple of these solutions.

Your claim was that the Marshall plan countered my position. To do that it would have to have been a) constituted of corporate reconstruction contracts, and b) an unquestioned success. It was neither. — Isaac

Well the original idea I was addressing was about post-war reconstruction as "corporate opportunity to screw everyone". To question it, it's enough to prove that the post-war reconstruction supported by the Marshall plan was not just a corporate opportunity to "screw everyone", because to some extent and in some cases it succeeded. Besides I do not understand what is so specific about "corporate reconstruction contracts" that can not be applied to the Marshall Plan, since grants and loans in the end trickled down to the private enterprises involved in the national reconstruction. For example, this article (https://worldcrunch.com/business-finance/-2657196800) talks about "Rebuilding Ukraine" with something like a Marshall Plan. Among the examples of Marshall Plan success that were cited there was this one:
The Italian economic miracle was notable for such features:
• restored monopoly: monopoly companies (Fiat, Edison, Montecatini etc.) had priority in receiving loans and financial aid under the Marshall plan, which led to the capture of foreign markets by Italian monopolies and an increase in industrial production;
• the agrarian reform of 1950-1955: the redemption of land allotments with an area of more than 100 hectares by the state and their further sale to citizens in installments;
• Italian supply of materials for the production of U.S. military equipment during the Korean War (1950–1953).
Result: Italy had fully recovered from the war by the early 1950s, and industrial production tripled between 1953 and 1962. However, in the late 1960s, the monopolization of the economy led to corruption and inequalities in the development of individual regions of Italy.
(where Fiat, Edison, Montecatini are big private corporations)

When considering the possibility of a negotiated peace versus continuing the war, it seems to me that that the future of displaced persons takes precedence over security guarantees. Many Ukrainians live as refugees in Europe. Many others have been deported to Russia.

If Russia is to come forward as a serious participant in peace talks, the question of whether people will be allowed to return to where they used to live will be front and center.

↪jorndoe
Thanks for the maps.

Reuters give some more detail: they cannot supply Kherson well enough for its defence; they are afraid to lose too many men for nowt.

"Russia abandons Ukrainian city of Kherson in major retreat ~~ By Mark Trevelyan LONDON, Nov 9 (Reuters) — Olivier5

According to the maps, the Zaporizhzhia high dam which has a hydroelectric plant and supplies water to Crimea is now in the Ukrainian controlled area. Nevertheless, either side is capable of blowing up this dam at any time. The immediate result would be a wall of water carrying debris cascading down the Dnipro valley washing everything in its path into the Black Sea.

The Russian withdrawal to the South could be a recognition of a stalemate along the river caused by the presence of this threat, as neither side can occupy Kherson without incurring the possibility of great loss of men and equipment at any time.

incapable of basic comprehension as you were 300 pages ago. — Isaac

That'd be because you wallow in ambiguity like a pig in his mud. But here too, you seem to be making progress. :-)

Nevertheless, either side is capable of blowing up this dam at any time. The immediate result would be a wall of water carrying debris cascading down the Dnipro valley washing everything in its path into the Black Sea. — magritte

There's indeed that threat. The theory is that the Russians leave Kherson only to flood it once the Ukrainians step in. But the terrain in Kherson is not favorable to such a plan. The left bank is much flatter and lower than the right bank, so the Russians there would be flooded, not the Ukrainians.

You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually. — ssu

I'll take what I "understand" from experts in their field thanks, not some neo-liberal twat off the internet.

if Nato steps up its military involvement and Ukrainian forces push the Russians back militarily, then Putin may become increasingly desperate. Desperate leaders who believe the net is closing are the hardest to both deter and reassure, and if this dangerous cocktail of fear and insecurity is coupled with nuclear weapons, then all the ingredients are present for a dangerous escalation of the crisis.

The reluctant conclusion may be that reducing the risks of nuclear use depends on finding an “off-ramp” that simultaneously does not reward Putin nor leave him humiliated or desperate. Putin has core security interests at stake in this crisis and they will have to be acknowledged in any settlement. This is the lesson from the peaceful ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. — Nicholas Wheeler professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham and senior fellow at British American Security Information Council

In case it's the scale you disagree with...

This from Princetown University Science and Global Security Unit

SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.

This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The risk of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the past two years as the United States and Russia have abandoned long-standing nuclear arms control treaties, started to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons and expanded the circumstances in which they might use nuclear weapons.

the original idea I was addressing was about post-war reconstruction as "corporate opportunity to screw everyone". To question it, it's enough to prove that the post-war reconstruction supported by the Marshall plan was not just a corporate opportunity to "screw everyone", because to some extent and in some cases it succeeded. — neomac

That's right. Yet what you've provided is evidence that some people think "it was not just a corporate opportunity to "screw everyone", because to some extent and in some cases it succeeded". I already knew that.

Going just to ad hominems shows that you don't know much if anything.

But I guess when your line has been to attack the Ukrainians as being neonazis and repeat Putin's line including the West being the culprit and aggressor in the conflict, even to ridicule the whole reasoning for Ukrainians to defend themselves from an aggressor (because we are all people and national borders don't matter), it's quite understandable that you then promote the idea that West should abandon Ukraine because Putin makes nuclear threats. Especially when Russia was forced out of the only regional capital it had taken (but still occupies about 15% of Ukrainian territory), peace at any cost.

Just shows that it's actors both the far left and the far right that support Putin in the West.

Going just to ad hominems — ssu

You've repeatedly insulted my intelligence ("you don't know much if anything", "you don't understand"...), and my morality ("support Putin", "putinistas" - a known war criminal), and you have the gall to start bleating about ad homs...

And no, it's not just ad hominems. It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation.

Alexander Vershbow, NATO’s deputy secretary general from 2012 to 2016, said that Western leaders had concluded that Russian plans to use nuclear weapons in a major crisis were sincere, raising the risk from any accident or misstep that the Kremlin mistook for war.

With Russian forces struggling in a Ukraine conflict that Moscow’s leaders have portrayed as existential, Mr. Vershbow added, “That risk has definitely grown in the last two and a half weeks.” — Reported in the Telegraph

The escalation dynamics of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia could easily spiral into a nuclear exchange — Dmitry Gorenburg, an analyst of Russian military policy

A lot of the pieces of their nightmare are already coming together,... Between volunteers from NATO countries, all this NATO weaponry, reinforcement of Poland and Romania...they might connect dots that we didn’t intend to be connected and decide they need to pre-empt. — Samuel Charap, Russian foreign policy analyst at the RAND Corporation

Scores of war games carried out by the United States and its allies in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine make it clear that Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon if he concludes that his regime is threatened.

In most games, Russia still responds with a second nuclear attack, but in the games that go “well,” the United States and Russia manage to de-escalate after that, although only in circumstances where both sides have clear political off-ramps and lines of communication between Moscow and Washington have remained open. In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed. — Christopher S. Chivvis Senior Fellow and Director American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment

It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation. — Isaac

Again a strawman.

It's not that we shouldn't worry about escalation. I've pointed way earlier the potential danger of the "Escalate to De-escalate" -doctrine and the fact that Russia far before this war in it's large military exercises ended them usually with using the nuclear option that would end (or freeze) the conflict.

And is Putin's regime threatened? Nope. He still sits in the Kremlin. Nobody is invading Russia.

It's just your peace at all cost immediately sends the wrong information: if you are losing, your way out is to use nuclear blackmail. Isaac approved.