This seems unlikely for the simple fact that Belarus is not so stable internally and they add little firepower anyways compared to Russia — boethius

Yes. I would emphasize more the tense political situation in Belarus. Remember the mass protests against Lukashenko? The last thing Belarus would need would be to participate in a war it has absolutely no appetite in participating in. That already quite openly Belarussians are volunteering to join the Ukrainian side tells something (and that the opposition leader is found outside the country).

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more.

You are not afraid of giving them advice, and also to the Americans or the French, but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that... :-) — Olivier5

This has simply not been a topic of discussion.

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms.

You just claimed a few comments ago Russia is irrational ... so what's the point of advising an irrational party?

You literally post a letter a few comments ago, literally some 3000 comments into this discussion, that, as far as I'm aware, is the first content advising the Russians to do anything ... which is not even your writing and it directly contradicts your "opinions" repeated, but not supported, over dozens of comments.

I have zero fear advising the Russians ... I just don't see any here or around me to advise.

Bring me "The Russians" and you will see a fearless viceroy at work.

I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'.

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more. — ssu

Yes, we're in agreement. If anything, I think it would be more Lukashenko wanting "to jump in" and demonstrate what he can do, and Putin calming him down, seeing the wider context ... and Belarus in the fight not changing much anyways.

suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'. — Olivier5

Oh. Could be.

I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'. — Olivier5

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets?

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, finding their way into the hands of every radical group and despot that can get their hands on one, are you really owning those consequences? Is it really what you want?

Or then transforms into a civil war within Russia and, guess what, the commander willing to not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons prevails ... and continues with that philosophy to solve whatever other regional conflict emerges ... or is concurrently happening in Ukraine and just daring NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike in an irrational response to tactical nuclear weapons dropped on non-NATO countries? You rather that outcome? You ready to own that possibility?

Or does it just sound tough to say on the internet and you zero have affect on the situation anyways, zero choices that would actually demonstrate your moral toughness, and zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt"?

The only reason people are so cavalier, as one poster put it, with World War III is that either they simply don't consider that possible outcome at all and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about, or they know actual adults elsewhere will avoid things escalating to that point, based on the realist philosophies expounded here, and so there's no risk in saber rattling and demonstrating your war horny credentials on the internet meanwhile. To say later to internet friends that "you were there, ready to drop nukes on Russia to save Ukraine ... but the softies had their way."

zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt" — boethius

I'm not personally advising anyone to revolt. I know too little and as you said, I have no influence whatsoever. It was Mr Littell's advice based on his own analysis and knowledge. I tend to think he is right that the situation will worsen, and so now is the time, but what do I know? You are right that it seems next to impossible to succeed.

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets.

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, are you really owning those consequences? — boethius

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point.

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded. What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust.

Do you confirm this is what you mean? Because it is a pretty extraordinary statement...

What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences.

That kind of communication is known as prayer.

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point. — Olivier5

It's not "arguing" a "talking point".

It's an undisputed fact that people who can launch nuclear weapons ... can launch nuclear weapons.

That "it could trigger a nuclear holocaust" is not up for debate.

One can only argue they're bluffing and advocate calling their bluff.

However, even if they are bluffing, they may not be in charge anyways for long during the events you hope for, and the people that do become in charge of the the nukes turn out not to be bluffing, even if the previous custodians were.

... indeed, maybe they would be "the previous custodians" precisely because they were bluffing, and, therefore, that "mistake" shouldn't be repeated.

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded. — Olivier5

Obviously they could.

However, it's extremely unlikely for things to "go south" in the current situation.

This scenario was more in the event of direct NATO air power intervention, which most analysts agreed would be met with a nuclear escalation of some sort (from limited strike or then EMP reaching all the way to Norway). Escalate to deescalate as @ssu mentioned is Russian policy.

What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust. — Olivier5

Yes, because it's obviously possible, and even the likely bet, because chaotic revolution and regimes collapsing rarely actually results in a smooth peaceful transition to democracy, but instead triggers a series of more and more violent coups shaking out the most extreme, most violent, most ruthless and most couiest commander to the top.

Putin, who did not gain power by a coup but rather working the Russian political system as it exists, is, in such a scenario, the devil you know and should trust to not himself cause nuclear holocaust, as if he wanted to he would have done so already.

In a violent revolution it will not be Putin in charge. The Kremlin maybe signalling not a threat, just the likely outcome of themselves no longer being in charge, which is what regime change means! For fuck sakes. Crikey.

It's not "what would you do in the event of regime change?" it's "what would the most violent and ruthless commander you know do in the event you guys are no longer in charge to stop him?"

These are obviously scenarios that should weigh on any responsible person's mind.

What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences. — frank

Who on earth has suggested such a ludicrous thing?

Yes, although one could argue a symmetrical point against not advising a friend when you should have.

the devil you know — boethius

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either.

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms. — boethius

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice. If by any malchance they are really lurking and reading these pages in search of a clue about what to do next, then 1) we are truly screwed; 2) let me tell them: I know strictly nothing about military matters; so please don't listen to me.

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either. — Olivier5

This is the usual route to democratisation. Someone concentrates all or a lot of power and, what goes along with that, is that no one in the second echelon has despotic ambitions.

And, Putin as a "dictator" is a caricature; Putin still needs to work within a political system with lots of actors and even democratic process. Certainly has concentrated power, but Putin's power within Russia is simply not comparable to Kim's power with North Korea or Xi's power within China.

Also of note, Putin only started really concentrating power, and doing things like changing the constitution, when the CIA took Medvedev (a moderate) as a sign of weakness and first, to Putin's surprise, declared Georgia and Ukraine would "join NATO one day" (still waiting on that), "interpreted" a "no fly zone" (which used to mean what it sounds like: you can't fly there, but can, like, walk as that's not flying) and then set their sights on Tartus.

Medvedev negotiated the new START treaty for example ... not an escalatory action.

Also of note, following the Georgian war and escalation of tensions with the US and West in general, Putin consolidated power and replaced the second echelon with non-moderates; nevertheless, he still appointed the moderates to important positions (at least nominally), such as Medvedev to the chairman of the security council ... which is more a re-balancing of policy priorities, that still includes moderate voices, than some sort of purge. Certainly not the typical actions of a "despot", such as Sadam Hussein who had his generals executed for retreating from a unwinnable suicidal battle.

I.e. concentrating and consolidating power was a response (whether we see it as a good decision or bad) to a real external threat, which the US isn't coy about calling Russia the enemy and the "near peer competitor" that they can't leave alone and so on.

Previous to the Libya, Syria, Crimea plays (in addition to all sorts of cloak and dagger spy shit we can only guess about) ... Russia, and Putin, was literally minding their own business. Ok, maybe things can be improved there but like ... seems the same everywhere and that there are a lot worse governments, that behead people in public and shit.

In any-case, democratisation usually happens after the death or retirement of a strong man, because he surrounded himself with competent or then incompetent bureaucratic types that don't have the ambition to replace him ... so don't bother when the opportunity arises, and so they then get together and decide elections is the way they all don't die in some sequence of violent coups. And, it was mostly about having sex with women, and being killed in a coup seems contrary to that purpose.

Of course, there are exceptions like North Korea, but this has been accomplished by essentially creating a functionally king ideology, idiosyncratic to Korean culture.

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice. — Olivier5

Ok ... so if I understand correctly you are in favour of certain actions but are not advising those actions you're in favour of be carried out?

To be clear, I have zero problem saying I am in favour of diplomatic resolution and I do indeed advise all parties to try to reach a diplomatic resolution as soon as possible and the foundations of an enduring peace.

I advise this here, I also advised this (well, avoid war in Eastern Europe in the first place) to my government in a letter I wrote the prime minister 2 years ago. Some hapless bureaucrat wrote back.

They didn't take my advice ... but who knows, maybe they will next time. Luckily, since I live in a democratic society (at least the aristocratic population of a larger "democracy" Athenians would actually recognise) where I can affect policy, I'm able, indeed, to advise politicians and bureaucrats directly and perhaps affect their thinking for the better. What's relevant in such political action are the policies of my country, indeed sometimes with respect to the policies of other countries, but what's less relevant is internal matters of other countries that have no real external policy response to change ... except maybe nuking them.

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not?

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be...

Now if you ask me as a hypothetical: what would you advise Biden to do, IF (humongous if) he happened to ask for your advice, then I can think of something along the lines of keeping it steady and non-provocative as you do, man. Just don't lose the script. It freaks people out.

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not? — Olivier5

@Benkei is a lawyer, @Isaac is a shrink of some sort, and I'm a board director of corporations.

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be... — Olivier5

You underestimate the infectiousness of ideas, the complexity of the world's social network, and humanity's response to new information.

Just because it's easier today ... doesn't somehow mean there's less impact of anonymous pamphleteers than there was in the enlightenment.

Look around you: everything you see, every tool used to build it, every plan to put it in motion and connect it with other things, every unfathomably long list of goals everything you see represents, and every political and ethical framework in which anything happens in society at all, was once an idea in one person's head.

Furthermore, if you trace all these ideas that you see to their real root, the "original" and not just a variation or implementation of some pre-existing vision, the real preconditions of human
thought and activity, what will you find? That all these truly foundational ideas originated in a handful of philosophers and mathematicians.

Why are we even talking about nuclear weapons? The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: But all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds.

If you dig below the surface, you'll find we live in the heads of a tiny group of people, their dreams and their madness.

The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: but all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds. — boethius

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair?

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair? — Olivier5

Who knows these things.

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide.

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide. — boethius

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me.

All the demons from Dante's Hell perhaps... — Olivier5

No...no...something more sinister...more nefarious. Like Western journalist who cover the Ukrainian crisis.

:fire:

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me. — Olivier5

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—Isaiah Berlin's "The Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better." Just as the motivational posters instructed me to do, you know "reach for the stars" and "follow your dreams" or whatever.

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—and read Isaiah Berlin's "Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better." — boethius

You mean, you were smart once?

What happened to you, after 12?

You mean, you were smart once? — Olivier5

The game is played now, the score is tallied in 300 to 1000 years.

It's not really so much about being smart, although that certainly helps, it's about the right ideas for the right moment.

And I didn't make the rules, it just so happens foundational concepts get reviewed and added to seldomly. Why? is a good foundational question to ask.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about. — Olivier5

You gotta read the book.

Which, to be honest, is often the case in discussing philosophy.

I've read all the books.

Well that's convenient, and you certainly have the advantage over me in that regard.

Indeed, I'll have to keep on my guard in that respect.