[airforms]

> Probably China and India are the only parties now able to influence Putin to back down.

The problem is, if Putin loses the war, he will lose power, and possibly even his life [1]. This makes him more likely to use nukes, as his life is endangered without a victory. Under this circumstance the only way out is to give him a "small victory".

[1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/09/30/exp-gps-1002-khodor...

[jdhendrickson]

Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before.

[naasking]

> Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before.

Given we haven't all died in nuclear fire yet, I'd say diplomatic tactics have worked just fine.

[nosianu]

When the Soviets tried installing nukes in Cuba the US escalated big time to get to a successful resolution.

[gfodor]

Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.

[nosianu]

That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.

[naasking]

> The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate.

We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.

[gfodor]

The root of this thread is rejecting the idea of appeasement. Escalation that ultimately ends in appeasement is not a counterargument but evidence that appeasement is a valid strategy for ending a conflict when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you’re saying we should escalate and then appease, ok, but almost everyone I have engaged with on this is under the grip of a very poorly conceived Hitler analogy leading them to say that we must never, ever appease dictators. Meaning, I suppose, that as long as Putin remains in power, we must continue to escalate until he either gives up or nukes us all. What could go wrong?

[hackerlight]

I feel as though this is hand waving away the problem.

Nobody is saying that appeasement is a good idea in an absolute sense. We're saying that we have two highly risky choices in front of us.

Appeasement is obviously problematic. You set a precedent that nuclear blackmail works. You give their nationalists bloodthirst for their next imperial expedition. You improve Putin's popularity. You doom the Ukrainians inside the currently occupied territories. You effectively kick the can down the road.

But you really do need to detail how it's going to play out when a man with no conscience, a questionable grasp on reality, who has a well-stocked bunker, and has nukes, gets pushed into a corner in the sense of losing face and facing the threat of removal. You can't just say "appeasement is bad" and not deal with this whole problem.

[gfodor]

Hitler didn’t have nukes. The minimum level of appeasement to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons may be the optimal strategy. There is no guarantee that the post nuclear game theory doesn’t converge on dictators grabbing all land that isn’t part of an existing nuclear defense pact.

[hackerlight]

This is downvoted but is clearly true game-theorerically. If you have an autocratic governance structure, the logic of nuke use is highly specific to the preferences of the individual in power and the context of the situation. Appeasement (however defined) may be the optimal strategy depending on that person's age and other factors.