[dead]
Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
401–410 of 894 posts
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if Russia resorted to using nuclear weapons against Ukraine we would intervene.
I’ve been wondering if that convoy outside of Kyiv is really stopped because serious thought is being given to the idea of a nuclear attack to save a long bloody insurgency. I don’t know if NATO would respond to a nuclear attack on Kyiv. Would NATO attack knowing the destruction of London/Paris/NYC/etc would be almost guaranteed?
No offense but this is pretty far fetched.
First of all, if Putin wanted to level Kiev he could do it with conventional bombs and artillery. Nuclear weapons are not needed.
But second of all, *why* would he want to flatten Kiev? Why don’t you read his goals in his own words? https://web.archive.org/web/20220224024154/http://en.kremlin...
He says he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people and wants to unify them. No, I’m not defending him, I oppose war in all circumstances.
But it’s important to understand that he’s not some evil maniac out of a comic book that wants to kill everybody, he has actual goals.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.
> One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. This statement, while true, changes denotation depending on the scale at which you view this conflict. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the existential threat is to Ukraine. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and NATO, the existential threat is to Russia.
Whut
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#404One can wonder what does it takes for the west to military intervene. Sanctions are a long term plan but it won't save Ukraine.
In my view three things:
1. NATO Article 5 invocation, i.e. an armed attack on a NATO nation
2. or a disaster so terrible that the security of Europe requires that NATO enter the war i.e. a nuclear reactor meltdown3. a NATO ally such as Poland deciding to enter the war on Ukraine's side.
An NATO Article 5 invocation is the most likely. Russia is taking heavily loses due to NATO arms shipments to Ukraine. To reduce these arms shipments Russia must either bomb the shipments near the border or control the border. Both of these could result in an accidental attack on Poland. Russian bombers often have difficulty navigating and use unguided bombs. If they stray into Polish airspace they make be shot down. If Poland decides that war with Russia will happen sooner or later, they make choose to enter the war on Ukraine's side sooner when Russia is least prepared.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We just have to get rid of autocrats and authoritarianism And why not criminals while we’re at it? Sounds like utopia. The desire for power might be baked into humanity at a deep level.
>The desire for power might be baked into humanity at a deep level. I think we confuse the direction of causality a bit here. People in power tends to be those that want power. To get a powerful person you only really need one person who wants power. I think it's a false conclusion to think that people in general seek power.
How To Win Friends and Influence People is an historical best seller. Almost everyone wants to be rich. Money is power.
I don’t know how many people would be able to resist the One Ring if it was within their reach.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, the side that cares about the conflict more is more likely to engage in direct conflict, and escalate to nuclear use if their goals are being thwarted by conventional war. To Russia, Ukraine is a core interest, and thus they're the most likely to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons if NATO intervenes and Russia starts losing. With a NATO country, that calculus changes, and if for some crazy reason Russia…
A nuclear would most likely mean the end of the world. Russia's core interest should be preventing the end of the world. If Putin is rational, he will never initiate a nuclear war. If he is irrational, he will not stop with Ukraine.
There are paths of escalation that merely risk nuclear annihilation rather than guarantee it. In particular, in a war with NATO, where Russian forces would be heavily outmatched in conventional warfare, Russian forces would consider using "deescalatory" tactical nuclear strikes on NATO troops. The side that has the most invested (e.g. for Russia where Kyiv is seen as integral to its historical Slavic / Rus heritage) is most likely to engage in escalation and brinksmanship while the other side has to consider whether to follow it up the escalatory ladder or back down.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't surprise me if they believe that considering the ridiculous stream of fantasy being spewed out of Russian leader and media.
Every country has its propaganda and lies, but they're generally couched in half-truths. It's truly remarkable how the Russian flavor of misinformation sounds just like a pathological liar making up wild bullshit that nobody could possibly take seriously. That's been a tradition for decades, as far as I know.
No post body was provided.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#408Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#409One can wonder what does it takes for the west to military intervene. Sanctions are a long term plan but it won't save Ukraine.
The risks of nuclear war from a NATO militarily intervention are far too high to even consider it. I’m sorry to say, but there is really nothing that could happen in Ukraine that would be bad enough for us to accept the risk of nuclear annihilation.
You could say this about any military aggression from Russia though.
"Putin taking Estonia isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation."
"Putin taking Berlin isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation."
"Putin taking DC isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation."
What if he just goes, "I'm invading western Europe now too, and if you fight back I launch the nukes"? Do we just roll over and say that it's better to surrender than fight?
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.
> One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. This statement, while true, changes denotation depending on the scale at which you view this conflict. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the existential threat is to Ukraine. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and NATO, the existential threat is to Russia.
I don't quite understand Russia's paranoia around NATO. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia already border Russia (+ Poland if you count Kaliningrad). Why is it such a big deal for Ukraine to enter a defense pact, unless Russia wants to retain the right to invade when they see fit? Not trying to be rhetorical, this existential threat to Russia is news to me.