[apostacy]

> I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.

So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.

How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII.

Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets?

Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.

[avmich]

> So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.

No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will.

Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.

[apostacy]

> No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

First of all, it does not matter to Russia if NATO uses nuclear weapons or not. If Russia is on the verge of total defeat in their own country, they will use nuclear weapons on us. They have no reason not to, and they have said that they would. So they will.

How exactly is NATO going to use conventional weapons to neutralize nuclear launch facilities buried deep under mountains and in remote parts of Siberia?

What are we going to do if a single ICBM is launched? We do not have any effective defenses against even a 1960s style ICBM, much less Russia's hypersonic ICBMs. They can be launched from anywhere on the planet, and Russia has many of them.

What if we assume that only 1/10th of them are in working order. Or even 1/1000. Many of them would still get through.

> Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.

We have no right to risk hundreds of millions of lives. This was a debate that was already had in the 1960s, and thankfully people like you did not get their way.

The millions of people who risk nuclear incineration are not acceptable losses. Any leader who would casually put us in harms way like that has no business making decisions at all.

You should educate yourself about concepts like mutually assured destruction, and the nuclear triad.

[avmich]

You're right in many points, but not quite right in general. You should take into account not only theoretical aspects, but also the specifics of the moment, for example, the values of those in power in Russia today.

The risks are there, but they are not certainties. Neither can the West totally eliminate them - technically Russia was able to wreak havoc for many years. Yet that doesn't mean the resistance is futile, does it?

[lurquer]

> The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.

[avmich]

Ever heard of Genghis Khan?

[tinus_hn]

In other words, the doormat strategy. We already tried it with Crimea, it doesn’t work. Do you think Putin would be content with half of Ukraine? Will you keep groveling as he takes more and more?

[blub]

Arming and training Ukraine and including them in NATO all but in name is being a doormat?

What about santioning Europe for its own protection to deter NordStream 2?

And what about the sanctions against Russia?

This appeasement meme is tiresome. One forced a country to give up territory, the others did everything except open warfare all in the name of a country which is neither in the EU nor NATO.

[foverzar]

Awww, it's so cute when western folk think that they behave politically flexible and benevolent.

Wake up, you people bring up this rhetoric on each collision with someone "inferior".

South America, Africa, Central and Eastern Asia, even parts of Eastern Europe - isn't it kind suspicious that most of the world the same kind of tensions with the western US-centric world and has some strong opinions on your politics.

> Do you think Putin would be content with half of Ukraine?

I wonder if you are even aware that Russia had been pushing for new security agreements before the war and after Trump had dissolved the IRNFT treaty.

[tinus_hn]

Oh I’m sure Putin pinky promised it was all just for security and he would go no further. If you fall for that crap, that’s the doormat strategy.

There is a line and to the right of the line Putin gets to have his way, and to the left he does not. That’s the border and if Putin remains behind his border he has nothing to fear. He has not been attacked, he has attacked.

Every Russian who can afford it prefers to spend as much time as possible in the west they paint as so decadent. It should be clear that whatever the rhetoric the Russians yearn for the freedom of the west and that’s dangerous for a dictator like Putin. But that is not to blame on the west, that is to blame on Putins dictatorship and is for him to deal with. Inside his borders.

If he wants a neutral zone between his territory and the west, he’s free to build it inside his borders. It’s ridiculous to think he gets to claim a sovereign nation for his own political plays.

And at the end of the line, countries are sovereign in their own borders which are defined as the part they can successfully defend. It’s pretty clear Russia has overextended its reach and now that its bluff has been called it should be happy if its tiresome nuclear threats suffice for keeping its borders as they were before they took Crimea. Perhaps if he comes to his senses quickly the west will even let Putin remain on his throne. Until he gets deposed by his own people, of course.

[foverzar]

Sorry, you've lost me at me your assumptions on how Russians tend to spend their vacations. I don't see how that it is related to war-game and security.

[tinus_hn]

It’s pretty clear you don’t see it indeed. All you see is the picture painted in Russian propaganda, where everything is to blame on the arrogant west underestimating Putin and his determination to restore the Russian empire of old.

Good luck with that. I hope you don’t get drafted to die at the front as untrained cannon fodder.

[foverzar]

You've thrown out a wall of incoherent ideological nonsense, implying that supposed vacation preferences of Russians is somehow a counterpoint to the criticism and objective examples of failures of western foreign politics.

With all your projections and just how wild your imagination had started running to make up what you suppose is my perspective, I'd suggest you bite your tongue before screaming of propaganda.

[avmich]

Putin has one leg in the grave - won't survive long without power, and power doesn't stay for long in many places, Russia included, with those who loses a military campaign, especially against a country perceived less capable. And Putin loses war to Ukraine alright.

With Crimea the West essentially took things as they were, not wanting to change status quo which was set so abruptly. Ukraine proved it can resist - enough to start getting western help, so the situation is different now. Taiwan take notice.