The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion

I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options.

I wager that the Americans view 'limited nuclear war' as an excellent means of taking out two potential geopolitical rivals who stand to benefit from a US-China war: Russia and Europe.

____________________________________________________________________________

People in the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink: — ssu

For the sake of geopolitics, they are not. The UK belongs to the periphery, and as such benefits from keeping Eurasia divided and fighting amongst themselves. The US operates on exactly the same principles.

Deterrence stops Putin. — ssu

This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. Besides, the Russians have made clear they believe they are protecting vital strategic interests - in other words, they won't be bluffed out of this.

The US and the UK are playing with fire, and it will be us, the Europeans, that are going to get burned.

Sweden and Finland both have this thing called "total defense". — ssu

What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated.

You're sitting on the front row, I on the second.

We have nothing to gain here.

All we can hope for is for the Russians to understand that it is the US and the UK who are pursuing this strategy over our backs, and that the Russians seek to impose costs on them instead.

That's the only way for the US and the UK to start behaving - if they are the ones to pay the price of war.

Yes sure, that may well be the case.

But we know that "limited nuclear war" cannot be fought with those two countries. It's a total fiction.

I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options. — Manuel

What? I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.

This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.

Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal?

I wager that the Americans view 'limited nuclear war' as an excellent means of taking out two potential geopolitical rivals who stand to benefit from a US-China war: Russia and Europe. — Tzeentch

There's no such thing as a "limited nuclear war" between two nuclear powers.

What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated. — Tzeentch

Which would not be a limited nuclear war but a total one. I fail to see how this is in Russia's interest.

We stood at the precipice of annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis or on the few occasions when a detection error almost set off a nuclear exchange. The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion

Exactly.

Remember that then in Cuba it was Nuclear weapons themselves in Cuba that caused the uproar. Conventional Scuds (which were new during that time) weren't the problem. And ATACMS and Storm Shadow still have what is considered a short range. It would be different if the systems were medium range and could everywhere west of the Ural mountains. Storm Shadow has a range of 250 km range and ATACMS 300 kilometers. Moscow is about 450 kilometers from the Ukrainian border and it would be very perilous for Ukraine to use either weapon system on the Ukraine-Russian border (and have the launcher, be it on ground or an aircraft in reach of many Russian weapon systems).

This is the same game that Russia has played from the beginning of the war. And in a similar way, we ought have not given Ukraine a) any weapons, b) any missiles be it ATGM/SAM/SSM, c) any tanks, d) any fighter aircraft. And since this micromanaging of the weapon system has been going on with usually with too little too late, Ukraine hasn't been able to use them in a decisive way.

Perhaps Russia would have accepted that Germany gives bodybags to Ukraine.

And anyway, it's quite delusional to accept the Kremlin line. During the Cold War there were no limits on just what would be given to a country fighting the other Superpower. This kind of silly talk that Putin says didn't and wouldn't fly then.

The proper answer when Putin rattles his nuclear sabers is to just comment: "We have nuclear weapons too" and simply leave it there.

How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.

This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.

Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal? — Echarmion

That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen?

That's direct involvement. What are they going to do take it?

They probably will hit Ukraine very hard. But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. And then what happens? You can imagine.

So, unless you really believe they will just take attacks without retaliation, I don't see how you don't see this as being dangerous in the extreme.

But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia. — Manuel

No, It isn't. Ukrainians are totally capable using those weapon systems themselves. Besides, Ukraine has had cruise missiles and artillery missiles for a long time.

And besides, those U2 planes shot down over Cuba, the air defence was Soviet Army units. Just without their uniforms on. And these "advisors" were also in Vietnam. For example Israeli Air Force fought Soviet Pilots and their aircraft (posed as Egyptians) also.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen? — Manuel

Imagine the US invading Cuba or Mexico, then these countries attacking Florida Keys or municipalities near the Rio Grande. If they have a possibility to do that, why not?

Sorry, but it would be something that really could happen, if the US chose to invade those countries.

In my scenario, the US would eviscerate Cuba and attack Russia.

But I am not here to debate this topic with you or anyone else. After nearly 3 years, what would be the point?

All I'm saying is that I think this is extremely reckless behavior. You disagree. Fine.

That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia. — Manuel

But this is ultimately a matter of degrees. Ukraine has been relying on US intelligence and targeting data since the start of the war. It's an open secret that special forces of NATO countries are active in Ukraine.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen? — Manuel

It depends right? It's a strategic decision of what to do. First of all I have to note that to make the analogy work, the US would already have to be fighting against Cuba on Cuba.

Second Houthi rebels have been firing Iranian weapons at US warships for some months now. Has this caused total war between Iran and the US? Hell Iran just straight up fired missiles into Israel and the result hasn't been a nuclear strike.

They probably will hit Ukraine very hard — Manuel

Are you implying that's not what they have been doing?

But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. — Manuel

Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it.

This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. — Tzeentch

What provocation or escalation is attacking ammo dumps? It's totally logical to destroy the ammo dumps of the enemy. It's not that Ukraine is doing pure revenge bombing and shooting missiles into Russia hospitals (as the Russians do in Ukraine). Ukraine is fighting for it's survival in an all out war. Why would it have to fight with one arm tied to it's back. It's simply nonsense to think otherwise.

Putin can talk all he wants about being in a fight with the US. He is in a similar fight that both sides were during the Cold War basically all the time, when they had proxy wars.

Are you implying that's not what they have been doing? — Echarmion

Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.

I mean full and total devastation of Kiev.

Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it. — Echarmion

Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world.

If Trump wants peace, he has to understand that Putin will accept peace only if continuing the war would be far worse, even fatal, than accepting the peace that is offered. There has to be the stick, because just waving carrots won't matter.

History tells something about this. Like the reasons why Stalin chose armstice and peace with Finland than continuing the war.

In 1940: Stalin feared that the UK and France would commit troops to defend Finland.Worse thing if everybody would be at war with the Soviet Union.

In 1944: Stalin feared that continuing the attack into Finland might reduce the strength of Operation Bagration and the Western allies might into Berlin first. Worst thing to pacify a puny country in the North and thus fail to capture the ultimate prize.

Now, what here is the reason that makes it better for Putin to accept peace than continue with the war? Well, if people are against arming Ukraine, that it's a forever war, then he ought just wait before the West defeats itself again and then he can do with Ukraine whatever he wants.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up.

Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.

I mean full and total devastation of Kiev. — Manuel

It's doubtful whether Russia can afford to do that. But I think more importantly Kiev is part of the russian national heritage at least the way Putin and the (ultra-) nationalists see it.

I don't think Russia is keeping significant operational capacities in reserve. If they had, they had every incentive to use those. Instead Russia got troops from north Korea to aid it's Kursk offensive.

Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world. — Manuel

Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen. — Manuel

And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up. — Manuel

I don't think "can Ukraine beat Russia" is really a good question to ask. The situation right now is that neither country is strong enough to enforce their demands. They're in a fairly even attritional struggle (with the current level of international aid to Ukraine) that favours Russia but does not offer it a clear route to victory.

Given that, what does it take to "beat Russia"? Take Moscow? Push all russian forces over the 2021 borders? The 2014 borders? Stop their momentum? Keep Kiev?

All of these are, imo, plausible variants of "beating Russia". But at the end of the day the operative question should be: What kind of post-war order do we envision?

A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.

On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. — Manuel

There are no forever wars.

All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up. — Manuel

Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine.

Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though. — Echarmion

Correct. But NATO is making it worse, not better. We will see how it pans out shortly.

As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will.

And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be. — Echarmion

I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this.

Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.

No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it.

A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.

On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome. — Echarmion

But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained.

You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred.

They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world.

There are no forever wars.

All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever. — ssu

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing.

Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine. — ssu

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen.

I don't like Putin; I don't like the current Russian government. That has nothing to do with winning or losing.

I was oddly reminded of Star Trek...

Armus: I am a skin of evil, left here by a race of Titans, who believed if they rid themselves of me, they would free the bonds of destructiveness.
Picard: You say you are true evil? Shall I tell you what true evil is? It is to submit to you. It is when we surrender our freedom, our dignity instead of defying you. — Skin of Evil (1988)

If the Kremlin is willing to start a nuclear world war over a fifth of Ukraine, then everyone, including Russians, already has a significant problem to deal with. Is that what we're talking about here? Should Seoul hand the keys over to Pyongyang tomorrow?

Deterrence stops Putin. Appeasement won't. — ssu

And Kim Jong Un is taking notes.

Ukrainians targeting ammunition depots and such is fair enough. Why wouldn't it be? By all means, they should try to destroy bombs that would otherwise fall on their heads, like over the past 1000 days. (By the way, the Kremlin's hostilities don't end there.)

As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will. — Manuel

And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome.

I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this. — Manuel

That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this?

Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.

No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it. — Manuel

And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here?

But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained. — Manuel

I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve?

You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred. — Manuel

I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time.

They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world. — Manuel

What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?

On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand.

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing. — Manuel

Well, comes to mind a small curious anecdote: one of the longest conflicts happened between Sweden and San Marino. You see the tiny nation of San Marino, which was on the Catholic side, and protestant Sweden didn't make peace in treaty of Westphalia, hence the two states were technically at war until 1996. I assume that no Swede noticed this belligerent status of his or her country in the 1980's when visiting San Marino.

And even if some artillery duels or North Koreans attacking US soldiers with axes has happened on the DMZ, this has been a frozen conflict, not a conventional war as is now fought in Ukraine. So there's a huge difference between a frozen conflict and a conventional war.

Insurgencies can go far longer and literally fade away. One of the most bizarre event was when the Baltic States were opened for tourism in the Soviet era during the 1960's and Finns rushed to the countries for the cheap alcohol, the last remnants of the "Forest Brothers", the Balts fighting against the Soviet Union, were still hiding in the forests. In Estonia I think the KGB captured the last "Forest Brother" that had evaded them in the 1970's as an old man.

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen. — Manuel

Why then didn't the Ukrainians denazify themselves then?

Well, it's about the peace deal they get. Is it so difficult to understand that Russia has lost wars, even if the enemy didn't occupy the country? Russia lost to Japan. Russia (or Soviet Union) against Poland. That one has nuclear weapons doesn't mean you can lose wars.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence.

The point here is that Ukraine lacks the ISR and fire control capabilities to strike targets deep inside Russia, which means that at this point US and British weapons are being used, using US and British targeting data, operated by US and British operators, to attack Russia directly. (Maybe a Ukrainian presses the final button for appearance's sake)

In other words, NATO, via the US and the UK, is now directly at war with Russia, or so the Russians argue.

When Russia is directly at war with another nuclear-armed power, that puts into effect aspects of their nuclear doctrine, one of which being (I assume) that nuclear weapons are to be permanently aimed at you and me.


It's honestly quite remarkable to me that you're still showing no signs of alarm. At what point will you say enough is enough? When the air sirens go off?


Do you understand the implications of the argument I have put forward previously, that:

1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.

2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.

3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict.

1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.

2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.

3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict. — Tzeentch

In the domain of what one can conjecture, sure your predictions can be seen as roughly plausible as others (like a re-approaching of the US and Russia to contain China). You didn't put a timeline though, nor offered a concrete path on how this is going to happen. There are bigger demographic and technological processes that may contribute to shape the future, as much as less predictable events (like pandemics and climate change effects). Making claims and showing off how confident you feel about it, shows more your biases than offering insights about our current predicament.

And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome. — Echarmion

I understand that. But we are speaking about nuclear powers. You have to measure if your principles stack up against the real possibility of nuclear annihilation, not just in this case, but many others.

It's not pretty, much less fair.

That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this? — Echarmion

What they've said, what they've sacrificed in war and national pride. Doesn't help they changed official nuclear doctrine. Remember The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has changed from hours to minutes to midnight about two years ago. These are serious people.

And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here? — Echarmion

It's about measuring how much they're going to lose. 52% of Ukrainians now want negotiated settlement, that should count for something.

I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve? — Echarmion

What have they done? Help in tearing apart Yugoslavia? Destroy Libya? Support Israel? Intensify tensions in China?

I don't see why Europe should need the US to pay for their defense. Europe should have its own foreign policy, independent of the US.

Now if that European Defense organization wans to ally with the US for something - they should do so.

I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time. — Echarmion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

If they wanted to "isolate" China, this could have been a smart move. But alas, it was rejected.

What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?

On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand. — Echarmion

Good question. As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence. — ssu

52% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated settlement. Historical parallels are interesting and potentially informative, but each conflict is new and brings unique difficulties to the table.

Ukraine can’t afford to lose tens of thousands of lives to reclaim Crimea, says Zelensky
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/21/ukraine-can-t-afford-to-lose-tens-of-thousands-of-lives-to-reclaim-crimea-says-zelensky

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/russia-launches-icbm-strike-against-ukraine-as-war-escalates/articleshow/115524889.cms

As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia. — Manuel

There are very good reasons for the West not liking those countries and trying to contain them.