541–550 of 1001 posts
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MAD works both ways. And some European countries (like the above mentioned France) have nuclear weapons. So I don't think Putin would make it to the French coastline easily. Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an op…
MAD was only really feasible when just three countries had nukes. It was abandoned a while back. Russia chose to pursue nuclear supremacy over conventional defense. They have the biggest arsenal, as well as super-nuclear and super-sonic ICBMs to deliver them. Russia is the only country I know that thinks it might actually be able to win a nuclear war.
Of course that's what they'd want the world to believe, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a Ukrainian or Russian perspective, but an alternative perspective. John Mearsheimer gives a popular alternative perspective. He has a realist foreign policy perspective suggesting that the US and the west provoked Russia by trying to push Ukraine to join NATO and by intervening in the protests/coup in 2013/2014. Russia has a legitimate security interest in ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO and become mi…
> Russia has a legitimate security interest in ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO and become militarized. An abusive spouse has a legitimate security interest in ensuring their victim doesn't find a new support network and learn Krav Maga.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a…
I mean the line for action lies in the NATO treaty. NATO is not a philosophical concept it’s literally the outgrowth of written documents with the power of law. The T stands for treaty. The line is the borders of the NATO countries. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial that if someone drove a tank into Poland offensively it would be promptly incinerated.
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
There's this concept in game theory that it's sometimes worth it to hurt yourself in order to hurt an uncooperative player. If you are always thinking "how do I minimize harm to myself" you get salamied to death. Same as in a poker game, you can't fold every time someone raises big, just because you don't know which times he actually has good cards. If you do he ends up with all your chips. Other thing is about MAD.…
Vlad Posner fairly recently made the point that because of strong anti-America sentiment in Russia, he is worried that this time the guy isn’t going to be as skeptical of the flashing light and is just going to hit the button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically Germany and Italy don't want it. Cause of big financial investment in Russian businesses. Germany especially should really do some soul-searching. They are enabling Putin for the last few decades.
> Cause of big financial investment in Russian businesses And because blocking them from some technology that the West has monopoly over will invite a strong(er) drive from the likes of China and Russia to create a competitor and weaken the West's power in that field.
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
The west is a dysfunctional mess. The handling of Wall St/inequality/mindless consumption, FAANG, MIL complex debacles, a news media that drains much more energy than it generates, low quality obama/trump/musk celeb type leaders all show the solutions wont come from such a space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted insta…
European countries have not neglected anything. The current state of things is by design. Europe used to be full of empires waging destructive wars all over the world. After two world wars, people had had enough. The predecessors of the EU were created to tame the former empires. To make them mutually dependent and act like ordinary countries. It worked, and Western Europe has enjoyed a lifetime of peace, which is un…
Britain and France seem less reluctant, probably taking some pride from standing up to Hitler in 1939, and this contributing to them seeing their armed forces primarily as defensive instruments. (Disregarding their long histories as colonial powers.)
Germany's latest experience with a large army was from a time it was used offensively, with catastrophic results for Germany. Nobody argues that Germany should build up that kind of force again.
But if peaceful countries are not able to protect themselves and each other from expansionist aggressors, seeing to annex territory, the world will most likely revert to something we've not really seen since the 19th century, just this time with nukes.
And with internal strife and polarization seeming to mostly pacify the US's ability to provide protection, combined with an increasingly powerful China flexing in East Asia, Europe may have to take some of the responsibility for maintaining the strength needed to guarantee peace.