He was just joking, man. :lol:



Just read the David and Goliath stuff from the last page for a start. I'm not going to be your English instructor any more. Sorry, if that's nasty but you're an arrogant nasty little sod yourself when you want to be, aren't you?

If aggressed, I defend myself. Sorry about that.

Just stop lying. You don't need to. I am not cheerleading, you are not cheerleading, nobody is cheerleading. Okay?

The point is that nobody is cheerleading. — Olivier5

For you, maybe. I'm quite happy with the claim and prepared to stand by it. For me, however, the point is very much the astonishing...

No need to get all nasty and insulting. — Olivier5

Your narcissism surpasses your contributions as a subject of interest by some margin.

I never claimed you were cheerleading, @RogueAI was though in my view. Again, read the last few pages. And my objection is that this is an attitude that is easy to take when you're not in the firing line. I'm not even married to the word. Whatever word you like to apply to a trivialized show of support from the sidelines that displays an absolute ignorance for the effects of continued war on the victims. Also, I don't particularly enjoy taking the gloves off here, I can go back to being nice but I do want to call out in the strongest possible terms that kind of behaviour, because it's the type of thing you'd probably usually get a pat on the back on.

Just stop lying. You don't need to. I am not cheerleading, you are not cheerleading, nobody is cheerleading. Okay? — Olivier5

cheerleading
noun [ U ]
uk
/ˈtʃɪəˌliː.dɪŋ/ us
/ˈtʃɪrˌliː.dɪŋ/
the activity of leading the crowd in shouting encouragement and supporting a team at a sports event. The activity usually involves dancing, chanting (= repeating a word or phrase), and special gymnastic movements:
Cheerleading combines a mixture of gymnastics, dance, and teamwork.
the fact of strongly supporting a particular idea or person: — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cheerleading

And its use in context...

https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/the-cheerleading-has-to-stop

For you, maybe. I'm quite happy with the claim and prepared to stand by it. — Isaac

Alright, that's welcome. Who then do you accuse of 'cheerleading'?

It is high time we have this conversation. If you do a search, the term 'cheerlead' appears 41 times, and the gerond 'cheerleading' 40 times in this thread. That's a whole lot. Now do explain who cheerleads whom where, with quotes. Or just drop the accusation.

And my objection is that this is an attitude that is easy to take when you're not in the firing line. — Baden

We seldom find ourselves in the firing line, yet we do comment on the events that happen around the World.

(Although it's sign of the times that many volunteers are going to Ukraine to fight. Similar things happened in the Spanish Civil War and even few came to the Winter War. And no doubt there are also Syrians that support the Russians being there to help the Assad regime and will go to fight in Ukraine for Russia for a decent salary.)

Of course if there would be Ukrainians participating in this forum, I think they would find many comments insulting.

the fact of strongly supporting a particular idea or person: — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cheerleading

So the charge is that we have strong opinions? Meh...

I never claimed you were cheerleading, RogueAI was though in my view. Again, read the last few pages. — Baden

I've read them. People are entitled to an opinion, especially when they present facts buttressing them, as @RogueAI did.

'Propaganda' is another misunderstood word. Just using the passive voice can make the perpetrator disappear. '10 children died in Iraq today' v 'Russia bombed a school killing 10 children today'. Fascinates me it's so effective though that I still haven't managed to get our American friends to find one example of it in anything they've read about this war.

People are entitled to an opinion, — Olivier5

Goalposts shifted. Yes, people are entitled to an opinion and people are entitled to opinions about opinions. It's opinions, goalposts, and cheerleaders all the way down, isn't it?

We seldom find ourselves in the firing line, yet we do comment on the events that happen around the World. — ssu

And it behoves us then as passive observers to put some effort in, no? Some critical thought? I know you do. Anyhow, that's the crux for me.

I expect he'll end up getting more than what he asked for before the war. And a real danger is the longer it goes on, the more he may demand. — Baden

A real danger? You keep asking for evidences (which already seems to clash with the idea that we are living in a news environment poisoned by propaganda from any side) what evidences do you have to support the idea that the longer it goes on, the more Putin may demand? I think we have more evidences to the contrary. Indeed he wanted to denazify Ukraine in the first place , which also implied a regime change, along with having Ukraine forever outside Nato, securing Crimea annexation, and keeping the independents Ukrainian regions independent. Now he is not talking of denazification or regime change on the negotiation table.

If some Ukrainians (they are not, as I keep having to repeat, some kind of homogenised entity, they are 40 million diverse people), if some Ukrainians ask for help in the form of military aid, then our governments (and us in our role as their mandate) have to decide whether it is in the best interests of humanity at large to give such aid. It is totally up to us to decide what's best for them, that's the nature of the power relationship. We have the weapons they need, so we must decide whether what they're asking for is in their (and other people's) best interests. — Isaac

I’m wondering if we should not think of 40M Ukrainians to be some kind of homogenised entity, all the more it’s true for ~8 billion of currently living people that constitute (still in small part) humanity at large, what makes you think we are even capable to decide what it is in the best interests of humanity at large?! In any case your dialectic approach looks to me deeply flawed mainly for the following reasons: you as many other contributors here want to keep the privileged moral position to denounce ("critically think" about) the hypocrisies of the West, its propaganda machine and showcase your pity for the Ukrainian population’s fate while accusing your opponents of “cheerleading” the Ukrainians against the Russians (and this position indeed is not a strategic stand wrt a geopolitical power struggle), and then expect from your opponents a rational and detached strategic analysis (assuming anybody here is as competent and reliably informed as strategic analysts who shape our government’s choices are) based on evidences which you may claim are compromised by propaganda if coming from western mainstream media, to understand Putin’s aggression of Ukraine, Putin’s demands and the likely evolution of this war to convince you that the best options for Ukrainians or “some” Ukrainians (and not humanity at large) is to accept Putin’s demands as soon as possible to end this war (which I doubt it’s a strategic objective for the Ukrainians or “some” Ukrainians or other indirectly involved parties who support Ukrainians).

People are not entitled to their own facts, though. So unless you are prepared to research and discuss facts, it's nothing but opinion against opinion.

One fact is that nobody here is cheerleading -- whatever you mean by that, which remains to be seen -- and that this charge has been levelled unfairly in a facile rhetorical manner. That is a fact. At least in my book.

Another fact is that the reporting coming from certain western and other channels is of high quality. There's some topnotch journalism being done, including by Al Jazeera, or Indian media if you don't like CNN. Of course there are huge data /field access limitations and filters, but these too are being analysed and reflected upon in the best news source. Free press is one of the (many) reasons why democracy is ultimately superior to autocracy, at least on the long run. And that's where I object to a facile and false symmetry between power structures, 'oh it's all propaganda' style. There's a difference between free press and propaganda.

Your narcissism surpasses your contributions as a subject of interest by some margin. — Isaac

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a mental disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with others' feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder is one of the eleven sub-types of the broader category known as personality disorders

It makes a change from 'mad' and 'idiotic', but it's not an improvement. When I was in primary school the insult of choice was 'spastic'. Ah, the good old days.

As to propaganda: the idea that anyone will win is propaganda. Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins.

You're all spastics!

the idea that anyone will win is propaganda. Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins. — unenlightened

Amen. The problem is how far the ruins will go.

And it behoves us then as passive observers to put some effort in, no? Some critical thought? — Baden

As long as the Russian army is fighting in Ukraine, there are few Russian soldiers on our border and near my summerplace (which is on the border). :smile:

As to propaganda: the idea that anyone will win is propaganda. Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins. — unenlightened

The problem is this is simply not true.

There is zero fighting happening on Russian soil and, except for NATO using nuclear weapons (we we shouldn't "want"), zero way for Ukrainians to win militarily.

Military campaigns should have an achievable military objective.

Now, had Ukraine "put up a fight" and then accepted the peace terms offered, that was clearly the minimum Russia would accept (and far away from just taking over the whole country, which obviously they would have done if Ukraine just surrendered immediately), then that's a reasonable military action.

However, there's simply no way to fight Russia to lower peace terms, and, after rejecting the lowest they would be willing to accept, then Russia will be demanding more and more to compensate the cost of continued fighting ... and, unfortunately, the logic quickly becomes that, due to all the bad press from the West spinning Russia is losing by winning somehow, a decisive military victory is needed.

When Western generals lambast the Russians on TV for not using their overwhelming fire power, rather than pointing out the obvious the low-intensity of the first phases of the war were for laudable moral / political reasons ... what does Russia say? Russian generals answer "well, I'll show you high intensity warfare if that's what you want".

Western media goes on and on about how Russia hasn't achieved total air superiority, but then fails to mention Russia is doing 300 bombing sorties a day.

Not achieving immediate total air superiority is also a completely ludicrous criticism. US achieves this fighting irregular forces with ... zero air power and defence whatsoever.

However, US lost a F-117 in Yugoslavia, because any military more sophisticated than the Taliban and ISIS can keep SAM sites hidden and moving around and turn them on for very short engagements to fire a missile. SAM systems are not all on, all the time and you can just go and blow them up.

In addition, Ukraine has CIA intelligence and NATO weapons and training, so the idea of measuring military progress compared with fighting the Taliban, which is basically the Western media uses as a metric, is just crazy.

Of course, if you're saying Russians will also lose "morally" and also lose troops and equipment as well as economically, I agree. Russian people won't be better off due to this war. However, they definitely can win militarily whereas Ukraine has no pathway to victory, and continued fighting, since passing up the minimum offer, simply causes more harm and will result in worse conditions for peace.

And the logic is now completely contradictory: we're told that Russians are losing and getting a spanking and are so incompetent, but also if Ukraine doesn't fight to the last man, fight the Russians in Ukraine rather than in NATO ... the Russia is going to just steam roll into Poland?

How does that even make sense?

As long as the Russian army is fighting in Ukraine, there are few Russian soldiers on our border and near my summerplace (which is on the border). :smile: — ssu

... yeah ... true, but that just means Russia's only option to deal make their point of Finland not joining NATO is with nuclear weapons.

I don't feel all that safer about the fact Russian soldiers are tied up in Ukraine and NATO is escalating tensions ... with the explicit goal to bleed the Russians and collapse the Russian state, which Russia has said it would use Nuclear weapons in that exact scenario NATO desires.

None of the retired generals or NATO officials or NATO heads of state explain to us how giving Ukrainians weapons will lead to their deliverance from the war, Russia's aggression, or any positive outcome for the Ukrainians at at all.

They just praise their bravery and are literally giddy about bleeding the Russians and "giving Russia their Afghanistan".

It makes "social media sense" only because Zelenskyy makes speeches that tap into Western victory nostalgia, and asks for weapons ... so of course we'll give him weapons, he's just so cute.

However, the only plan I can tell Zelenskyy ever had was to cause so much suffering of Ukrainian civilians that NATO would be forced, while creating that "fighting against impossible odds" every Western war and super movie presents (and also associated with victory) -- that, seeing such suffering and "Englishman" bravery, that NATO, being such morally upstanding altruistic people without any self interest whatsoever, to intervene with a no-fly-zone (which, after Libya, doesn't mean "you can't fly here", but that every single military asset can be bombed as any asset could in theory support an air asset ... of course, a logic only just so happens to apply only to one side in the conflict that NATO happens to want to destroy).

Now, maybe there's some secret plan, and all this was just "cover", but it's difficult to believe.

Competent military strategy would have been to mobilise before Russia invaded and took lot's of territory uncontested. However, that would not have played well in social media, as there would be no reasons for stunts like handing out small arms to civilians.

After the battle of Lepanto, the Venetians were ecstatic, but a year later, the Turks had rebuild their fleet.

The Turkish grand vizier told a Venetian envoy: "In wresting Cyprus from you, we cut your arm off; in defeating our fleet [in Lepanto], you have only shaved our beard. An arm when cut off cannot grow again; but a shorn beard will grow all the better for the razor."

Don't underestimate yourself. Just in comparison, would you have thought Western people would fold so quickly in line with covid lock downs? Also, now it might look that West Europe is bound to have the energy ties to Russia. In one year it can be different. — ssu

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. Freedom be damned. I prefer to live and find the relative freedom possible even in the most autocratic regimes.

Empires come and go. I'm not willing to die for one. I'm not willing to risk the lives of others for one.

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. — Benkei

It's incredible that this is the irresponsible, reckless and immoral attitude in today's "media-scape".

And since everyone seems to have forgotten, the whole foundation of the world's previous nuclear diplomatic structure (... involving all the treaties that the US pulled out of) ... was the fact that there's nothing logically stopping a nuclear power from extorting non-nuclear powers, except other Nuclear powers.

Of course, if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon into South Korea or at Japan, its entire military capacity would be immediately obliterated by nuclear weapons ... so that would the end of that.

However, that problem is solved by simply having enough nuclear weapons.

So, previously, immense diplomatic effort was put into creating workable international relations where a nuclear power, aka. Russia, has no incentive to use nuclear weapons to easily win a war, knowing, when nuclear push comes to nuclear shove, that NATO will not use strategic nuclear weapons simply to punish Russia for using tactical nuclear weapons to win a war ... that is only happening because NATO pumps in billions of dollars worth of weapons and many, many, many billions more worth of intelligence.

However, since hyperbaric weapons exist, and are cheaper and more tactically useful as a "giant bomb", Russians ... I guess fortunately in a a sense, will just use those, as we're seeing.

The reason the West complains about them is simply that they are a game changing weapon against a bunch of dug in infantry / Taliban, that the US also uses in the exact same situation of dug in infantry actually causing an conventional military problem.

So it's waiinnn, unfair. Which is the Western media standard of assessment: Russia using it's overwhelming fire power--which if it doesn't use we call them idiots for not using--is unfair and thus Russia has "lost" by using the exact same tactics as the US in similar situation.

For, US has also dropped hyperbaric weapons for the exact same reason (and when there's video of it, social media is alight with glee and celebration, and explaining how clever and effective and painful it is for the enemies of the US and there's nothing they can do about it etc.); it's not the case that the US even adheres to the standard it's judging Russia by now, as "fair" and fighting "unfair" according to this standard is losing by winning.

Literally first hit searching MOAB and Afghanistan:

Weekend Explosions - 5 months ago
Some of the best quality footage out there. RIP to PFC Kirkpatrick and to all the Afghan allies who lost their lives in these battles

Evander Colasimone - 5 months ago
amazing footage dude, and rest in peace to your teammate. i hope his family is doing well and i hope he's in a better place.

Sturmmann - 4 months ago
One of the best combat footage I've seen. Much respect for US troops

Miniard - 3 months ago
@Vegan Zombie lmao wow

someonebroken - 2 months ago
@Vegan Zombie it's also because of them that you can comment on YouTube...sooo

mori remembers - 2 months ago (edited)
@Vegan Zombie They are human same as you and I, they (soldiers) had a choice to fight for a cause. We humans strive to become more than what we are, we try to have a good society, and blood is a price, sadly. War is something almost nobody wants but through history it(war) is needed.

POVHFR Videos - 3 weeks ago
100th like. Yes, absolutely agree. — youtube wisdom about hyperbaric bombs pre-Russia-might-get-advantage-fromt-them

And my favourite:

JewFricans - 3 months ago
Stopped everything I was doing when I found this vid to watch. This is the most RAW and some of the most intense war footage I’ve ever seen. Nothings not shown. from intense ass firefights to just smacking that basketball around and managing to still find some fun things to do. This is probably the most underrated youtube video i’ve come across in a very long time. Thank you and everyone else for your service, even with the film can’t imagine what you all went through. not even sure how y’all sit down with balls that fkn big

Peter K - 3 months ago
Just goes to show how ridiculous it is in video games when nothing jams or malfunctions, you don’t need to worry about timing and headspace on the 50, you can flick the Gustav open with two fingers, the AT4 slides apart like it just came off the production line… thank you and everyone else in these clips for your service. Many feel obligated to share their opinions these days but few could ever do what y’all do — youtube badass

But can't forget the classics, shoutout to:

Nicholas -1 month ago
These men literally have trucks full of freedom. They have everything. Mortars, Sniping rifles, different shoulder fired missiles, heavy machine guns, grenade launcher pistols literally everything. — A true freedom fighter

And lot's more super valuable military analysis, like "Mike Sierra: looks like Abdul got some that day." (The actual MOAB explosion, Abdul "getting some", to thunderous applause, is at the end of the video.)

And yes, I'm ashamed to admit it, but Peter K is right, I have been sharing my opinions these days ... instead of bringing freedom to Afghanistan. I haven't even started ordering from Amazon any freedom supplies, much less started packing my truck with it (and I don't have a truck! That's how unpatriotic of an American I've allowed myself to become).

What was the chain of command and military justification on this one?

Jack- 5 months ago
I can just imagine the phone call to Donald Trump asking if they have clearance to use the Moab. I bet you it was Trump's idea he was probably like okay these a-holds are dug in can we drop a nuke no can't do that okay what's the next best thing oh the Moab that's right and then in his Trump famous voice he says do it just do it, do it.

Jack (replying to himself)- 5 months ago
That's funny the guy took some shrapnel in the butt lol. — Jack

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. Freedom be damned. I prefer to live and find the relative freedom possible even in the most autocratic regimes. — Benkei

That's the attitude that Putin is basing his ideas on using nukes to "escalate-to-de-escalate".

He just needs people like you, @Benkei. If everyone would think like you, it would be totally logical for him to invade the Baltics, at least to get that "landbridge" through the Suwalki corridor to Kaliningrad and basically make NATO meaningless. All the objectives he has purposed in December of last year could be met.

Your idea brings the use of nuclear weapons far closer than you think.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.

Life in Kiev, the deserted capital
by Rémy Ourdan, Le Monde, 19 March 2022, translation Deepl
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/03/19/guerre-en-ukraine-la-vie-a-kiev-dans-une-capitale-desertee_6118235_3210.html

REPORTAGE -- Bite into a croissant on the terrace of a bakery-café, do some shopping in a grocery store with raided shelves, sit down in one of the few open restaurants or paint in the sun. During the rare moments of respite, the inhabitants who have remained in the Ukrainian capital cling to a semblance of normality.

Between the two extremes of exodus and armed struggle, there is a semblance of ordinary life in Kiev, in this capital of Ukraine fighting for its existence, to the rhythm of the air raid sirens and the bombardment of the Russian artillery that strikes at the gates of the city.

The first sign of life in Kiev, every morning at dawn, appears at the central station Pasazhyrskyi. While the Russian army gradually cut off the roads leading to the city, the trains were still running. If the station was, with the convoys of buses, the symbol of the exodus during the first weeks of the war, it has almost returned to its original appearance. The ticket offices and platforms are no longer besieged by desperate crowds trying to flee before the Russians, as the Kievians feared, razed or invaded the city. The capital has already been emptied of almost half its population: 1.6 million inhabitants have left and 2 million have remained, according to the city hall. Seeing the darkened buildings and unlit windows in the evening, this is probably a minimum estimate.

In the train station, where soldiers and policemen keep watch, the stores are closed. Pavlo, the only shopkeeper now, serves coffee to the few travelers. He used to work in a shop in the city, and believes he has not lost out. "They say that the train station is the safest place in town. Well, that's what they say... Well, yes," adds Pavlo, "I heard that the best anti-aircraft defense in the city is around the station." He himself smiles at this popular belief, as if the railway station was better protected than strategic buildings, places of power or military bases.

The five cab drivers beating the pavement in front of Pasazhyrskyi station are out of work. No one uses cabs in town anymore," says Volodymyr. The only customers are refugees fleeing the suburbs" because of the Russian military advance, and those who come to catch a train to the west of the country. The idle driver laughingly mutters a few phrases of French that he used to quote to tourists. How far away do those times of peace seem now...

The city wakes up. The winter cold is still biting but, since a few days, the weather has changed from snow to sunshine. The bakery-cafe La Fabrique opens its doors. With the old French owner back home, three employees decided a few days ago to reopen this place where chic ladies come to buy bread and pastries. "People are so happy that we are open, they come from all over Kiev," says the waitress. Bread is one of the hard-to-find commodities in the city, where only a few bakeries continue to operate.

Mainly military activity

While at a table in front of the shop window, three women are having a morning coffee and laughing out loud, the customers come and go. Baguettes, rye bread, "classic" French croissants and Ukrainian-style filled croissants are all in demand. In a few hours, there will be nothing left. If the success of the bakery is confirmed, the three employees are thinking of relaunching the pastry shop as well.

Kiev lives in a very strange atmosphere. Once the shock of the declaration of war on February 24 and the first air raids had passed, followed by two weeks of exodus for some, or life in the shelters for others, it is as if a certain normality was returning to a capital that is almost deserted, at least from the point of view of civilian life. For the activity in the city is essentially military, in the face of columns of Russian tanks that have arrived about ten kilometers from the city limits, to the northwest and northeast. The time has come to engage in territorial defense, to fortify military positions and checkpoints, to engage in armed resistance. Without knowing what awaits the capital, between an encirclement effort - which is currently extending to the western flank - or a brutal assault attempt.

In Victory Square, where the city's liberation from Nazi occupation by the Red Army is celebrated every year - on November 6, 1943 - and which is ironically today one of the axes of a possible invasion by the Russian army, the Silpo supermarket tries to provide for the needs of the inhabitants. One saleswoman says that the main items missing are "potatoes, onions, eggs and milk," but there are still pasta and canned goods, and even some fruit and vegetables.

The first aile to be stormed at the beginning of the war, as in all grocery stores in Kiev, was tobacco's. It is rarely restocked, and immediately raided. "It's normal, the cigarettes go first to the soldiers," says a young girl. Others pout. The lack of cigarettes becomes a problem that makes some people nervous. "I still have tobacco," says a young man, "but no more leaves to roll." He seems distraught for a brief moment, before picking himself up and smiling, aware that this is not really here nor there when Kiev's survival is at stake.

At the Musafir restaurant, one of the very few establishments still open in Kiev, near another highly symbolic square, that of Independence and the "Maïdan revolution", families and loving couples come to taste Crimean Tatar cuisine. Despite the scarcity of food, there are still tcheboureks and yantiks - beef or mutton turnovers, classic or fried - and cheese naans. Musafir serves them with Georgian tarragon- or vanilla-flavoured lemonade. The war seems far away for a few moments, until a new air raid siren sounds.

Islands of survival

In the Ukrainian capital, partly deserted and turned in on itself, La Fabrique and Musafir are islands of survival appreciated by the rare inhabitants who dare to go outside. There is also the "X", an underground café that very few know about - and whose name and location we will not mention, as the place is illegal -, the only bar to serve alcohol clandestinely. Alcohol has been forbidden in Kiev since the government and the mayor's office distributed tens of thousands of Kalashnikovs to the territorial defense volunteers, not necessarily all of whom are familiar with the use of weapons.

Larysa Pukhanova laughs at the sirens. After three weeks "cloistered knitting socks", this painter felt "inspired by the return of the sun". She picked up her brushes again. After painting the monument of the founders of Kiev, on the bank of the Dnipro river, she set up her easel in the Shevchenko park. She paints the statue of the poet and the red facade of the national university. She never goes down to the shelters anymore. "I think no one goes there anymore."

Apart from the gardeners and the artist, only the birds in the park remain to keep company to the spirit of Taras Shevchenko.

"At my death, stand up, brothers,
Tear off your chains,
Let the enemy's blood sprinkle
A free and healthy life," he wrote in Testament.

Ukrainians often refer to the famous poet, seeing in Taras Shevchenko, a long-time prisoner in Russia who never stopped writing clandestinely about Ukraine, the embodiment of their taste for freedom.

A siren sounds. Larysa quietly continues to paint. "I'm not afraid anymore, it's over."

... yeah ... true, but that just means Russia's only option to deal make their point of Finland not joining NATO is with nuclear weapons. — boethius

No. It's not their only option. How about starting with a) oil & gas embargo, b) migration crisis, c) naval blockade, d) whatever else. Having a panic attack like some about nukes in truth is the last option.

One has to keep a cool head, just like the President of Finland said.

I don't feel all that safer about the fact Russian soldiers are tied up in Ukraine and NATO is escalating tensions ... with the explicit goal to bleed the Russians and collapse the Russian state, which Russia has said it would use Nuclear weapons in that exact scenario NATO desires. — boethius

Finland is closer to war than it has been for a long time. But it's not so close as in the mid 1930's at all. It's still just your average political crisis. That's not a reason to hyperventilate, but to think calmly about the situation.

Russia's plan didn't go the way it was intended. That's clear now. So they are entangled in this war in Ukraine. And Finland is sending arms to Ukraine. That's the reality we have to face.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that. — frank

But does @Benkei feel the same way?

No really, what makes the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate" so scary is that it could work. The risks are obvious and a simple normal deterrence posture will likely make it far too risky. The absence of that deterrence posture is what makes it scary.

If everyone thinks that once a small nuke is used it inevitably leads to an all out exchange with even all the reserves being used, so everything has to be sacrificed to get an armstice, then it becames a possible (if still risky) move escalate-to-de-escalate.

It's the only rational position in any conjoint analysis of this issue.

variables:
1. Putin doesn't use nukes, no escalation
2. Putin uses nukes, no escalation
3. Putin uses nukes, escalation

costs:
1. Ukrainians and Russians die, I pay extra tax funding Ukrainians
2. Ukrainians and Russians die, I pay extra tax funding Ukrainians
3. everybody dies

If Putin uses nukes, we shouldn't do anything. So yes, Putin trusting in me making the only reasonable choice seems about right. I can only hope the jingoist leaders in the West aren't as hubristic they think there's anything to win here.

It's only a risky move because apparently there are some idiots who like to entertain dying in a fiery ball of fire or radiation poisoning because they think it's heroic to stand up to a bully. Let's take the kindergarten morality out of hese equations please for fuck's sake I'm begging everyone before you cause the death of my children.