411–420 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s strange to me is that Putin is behaving a lot like Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait. So he either must really fear regime change of some sort will happen soon, or thinks the West is OK with this.
So how many nukes did this Saddam guy have? Do you think that can change the calculation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons. Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every…
But when a country has joined NATO, it can later declare it will host nuclear weapons loaned from other NATO countries. Russia is powerless to stop this, since any attack on a NATO country would likely trigger a counterattack. Hence, instead, Russia must prevent these countries joining if they want to ensure no nukes on their border.
This is a game of “who blinks first”. I doubt normally US would use nukes to defend a tiny unimportant country like Latvia or Slovenia, if under attack. Russia knows this too.
Someone crazy like Trump just might, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many countries could also source fossil fuels from friendly allies. But those allies would have to be interested in extracting it from their own sources. From my stand point, and this will be very unpopular here, the push to rely on the unreliables (a better name for the renewables) has been toxic and is a destabilizing force in the world.
As is becoming painfully clear right now, relying on other countries for your energy needs is also unreliable. You just get unpredictable and large supply shocks every few years instead of smaller predictable ones every night. Building out grid level energy storage looks like a way better solution than hoping the countries which are allies now will remain so indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
> you need nuclear energy. Don't forget they are easy targets when war get declared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis. A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1] To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
I fear that with missile defense and impending climate disruption models, the calculus of MAD may have been updated somewhat: no-one wants a starving population with a MAGA-level of understanding and education about their predicament roaming around the enclaves... If you thought California's and Australia's fires were what climate impacts will look like, think again: a limited nuclear exchange will probably have abou…
A limited nuclear exchange will likely kill millions of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no ICBMS in Germany only tactical bombs... these have no military value, there only value is to say that European countries have shared nuclear deterrence. And Russia is big, they have an immense second strike capability from land and from the sea. Wladiwostok is 8000km away from Kiev.
I agree with your sentiment, but to say that a weapon capable of creating a Coloseum-sized crater has "no military value" seems a bit off. On the other hand i cannot think of a critical role played by ICBM's in Central Europe, could your share some insights?
Tactical weapons are not deterrence but actually meant to be used. Nobody will use a tactical nuke for the can of worms it represents. Whatever target can be found for a tactical weapon, it's not important enough to justify a nuke and basically start WW3.. They're a leftover of 50/60s doctrine.
Let's hope that everyone will just accept facts as they are and not further escalate. What Estonia is doing here is just that, an escalation. Instead of implementing the Minsk agreement, Ukraine decided to pursue a military solution of “cleaning” Donetsk region. Now they have a military solution. Now it's time for diplomacy. Just accept the fact that the majority of Donetsk and Lugansk want to be an independent state…
Let's hope that everyone will just accept facts as they are and not further escalate. What Estonia is doing here is just that, an escalation. Instead of implementing the Minsk agreement, Ukraine decided to pursue a military solution of “cleaning” Donetsk region. Now they have a military solution. Now it's time for diplomacy. Just accept the fact that the majority of Donetsk and Lugansk want to be an independent state…
You are just repeating Russian propaganda. Pretty much every sentence is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_ind...
What is false about what he said, and can you provide sources?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia does not care about Ukraine joining NATO, Russia has nukes. Russian politicians care about Ukraine being a prospering democracy and a model for russian citizens. That's it.
In order to use nukes effectively, you need to have second strike capabilities. You know, the 'M' in 'MAD'. Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. It would be similar to Russia placing their bases and weapons into Canada or Mexico.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is happening because the west has no leverage and asymmetrical priorities. Russia -really- cares that Ukraine stays out of NATO, probably to the point where they would scorched earth the country before it joined, and the west only kinda cares about Ukraine comparatively, as demonstrated in 2014 and 2008. If they actually really care, sanctions don't mean much. Makes me wonder why the west thought the third time…
Russia does not care about Ukraine joining NATO, Russia has nukes. Russian politicians care about Ukraine being a prospering democracy and a model for russian citizens. That's it.