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. — ssu
The aggregate forecast was 9%. That’s an extraordinarily high risk for a (just-over)-six-month period – if that level of danger was constant, there would be less than 20% chance of making it through any given decade without a nuclear explosion. The likelihood that the 75 years since the Second World War would have passed without any atomic bombs going off would be minuscule.
But that group’s forecast hides a reasonable amount of variation. Some felt it was as low as 5%; others as high as 20%. — https://www.swiftcentre.org/will-russia-use-a-nuclear-weapon/
Ukrainian forces taking any part of Crimea, even for 24 hours, seemed unlikely to the forecasters. “Crimea was not pro-Ukrainian and has a major Russian submarine base on it”, wrote one forecaster. “It is heavily defended and has only two main land access routes. A loss to Crimea would likely be the end of the war for Putin and the area where he is most likely to make a final stand”.
Another thought it was unlikely Ukraine would even try: “I don't think this is likely to happen at all; I don't think the Ukrainians are likely to try to reclaim Crimea offensively, since it doesn't seem militarily or politically tractable”. The group’s combined forecast was 11%.
Once again, though, even if it were to happen, the forecasters did not feel it would change the nuclear risk in a predictable way. “If Putin is backed into a corner as a result of this, a hostile nuclear detonation would be a risk”, wrote one. “On the other hand, if Russia hasn't already detonated a nuclear device by that point, why would they do so after losing territory in Crimea?” The group assigned a 3% chance of a nuclear weapon attack for the month following Ukraine’s capture of Crimea.
Driving Russian forces out of Ukraine altogether was considered even less likely, at 4%
I personally think the fear of nuclear war is based on the idea that Russia is losing in Ukraine. Given the fact that Russia still seems to hold the areas that are strategically most relevant to it, I am skeptical about how desperate they are. — Tzeentch
I would expect several rounds of escalations to have to happen, which would likely have to include NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, before initiating a nuclear attack even becomes a serious possibility for Russia. — Tzeentch
What is likely happening is that Russia is using nuclear threats to manipulate the foreign public - fear mongering, to erode domestic support in NATO countries. — Tzeentch
As pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. The US or NATO isn't fighting Russia. Russia isn't attacking the supply lines in Poland. Nuclear deterrence between NATO and the Russia does holds there's no NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, even if Ukraine desperately wanted there to be that. Places like Yugoslavia and Libya that did happen. In Ukraine it didn't: NATO isn't going to escalate as Russian deterrence works. And vice versa.Now what? What would you have us do? Pretend that Putin can't hold us to ransom just because we don't like that fact? — Isaac
Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria. — Tzeentch
As ↪Olivier5 pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. — ssu
Deterrence and ransom is different.The nuclear ransom is exactly what's preventing NATO planes and troops in Ukraine. — boethius
I think it is reliable, but for the US and NATO to say they will respond to use of nuclear weapons is more an answer to deputy-chairman of the security council and former Russian president Medvedev saying that NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.Supposedly someone inside the Biden administration, not Blinken, had discussions with a high-ranking government official, discussing "red lines", allegedly Russia was told that a mass retaliation would incur a reply by NATO. — Manuel
"I have to remind you again - for those deaf ears who hear only themselves. Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary," Medvedev said, adding that it would do so "in predetermined cases" and in strict compliance with state policy.
When describing a possible strike on Ukraine, a Slavic neighbour which Putin describes as an artificial historical construct, Medvedev said NATO would not get involved in such a situation.
"I believe that NATO would not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev said. "The demagogues across the ocean and in Europe are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse."
Which actually may be so, but to that kind of statement NATO/US has to rattle it's own sabres. And anyway, the first thing would be to make a simply underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya.
The commanding Russian general Suvorikin acknowledged this: that it simply wasn't possible to supply the troops. Russia wouldn't sacrifice it's best troops, the paratroopers of the VDV for nothing. — ssu
Yes, now the threat of Russia taking Odessa and contacting the forces in Transnistria has indeed subsided. — ssu
At least the discussion of talks shows that there might be a deadlock in the battlefield.With all the talk of negotiation (on both sides and other parties(like the US and telling Ukraine to say they're open to negotiation and mentioning "Ukraine fatigue") it seems a strong signal that both sides are hurting pretty bad, but I still fail to see any evidence Russian forces, government, economy is about to simply collapse and the front seems stable going into winter apart from Kherson. — boethius
Deterrence and ransom is different. — ssu
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. — Isaac
At least the discussion of talks shows that there might be a deadlock in the battlefield.
I agree. The war can still continue. — ssu
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Also crossing the Dniepr is a big difficult operation for Ukraine. — ssu
a more defensible position, from which they can bomb Kherson to the ground — Olivier5
And a bunch of cotton wool sharply began to accuse us of provocation, cooperation with the SBU, and so on. And we just stated the obvious - the clowns from the Moscow Region did not learn how to fight normally in 8 months. The city was not destroyed even before the surrender (everything should have been blown up). But cotton wool is grabbing - they have enough excuses for clown AP channels (and channels of supposedly military specialists who are sitting in the rear). For us, this is another betrayal of the Russian people, who believe less and less that "Russia is here forever." What's the next goodwill gesture? Berdyansk or Melitopol? — DShRG Rusich (Nov 9, 2022)
All [30 or so] member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.