[beachy]

That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger.

The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility.

That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear.

Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.

[mytailorisrich]

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible.

The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance.

To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action.

Edit:

It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time.

Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.

[richardw]

Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate.

The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land.

The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act.

The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.

[spywaregorilla]

The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.

[mytailorisrich]

The question here is: what nuclear threat?

Russia is not threatening Nato.

There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

[Aeolun]

> but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.

[spywaregorilla]

Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so.

If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.

> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

[mrjin]

^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding?

There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.

[spywaregorilla]

I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.

[frontman1988]

Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. I hope they are in touch with Putin and his cronies(although it doesnt seem like it) and make sure they don't do anything crazy. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.

[spywaregorilla]

> Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales.

Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful.

> Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him.

Lunacy to bank on that

> But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century.

That's a nonsense sense of causality.

[polotics]

In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.

[mrjin]

It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular).

So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.

[Aeolun]

I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional.

Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.

[mrjin]

Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.

[mytailorisrich]

If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia.

Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.

[radu_floricica]

Thanks.

I don't think the fleet would make the best target. Ukrainian territory or not, the Sevastopol military base was always Russian (initially on rented ground, then in annexed Crimea). NATO has no real interest in attacking Russia itself, and will probably avoid even appearing to.

If it intervenes directly (still a big if), I'd mostly guess strikes against Russian bases inside Ukraine - that's the least interpretable action, and technically it's even an obligation for US under the Budapest Memorandum. The George Bush carrier strike group is currently in the Adriatic Sea, with eastern Ukraine barely within Tomahawk range, flying over NATO countries only.

[mrjin]

I seriously doubt US will directly engage Russia if Ukraine get nuked as it's simply doesn't make sense per the "America First" or now "America Only" playbook.

The only question really should be whether Putin dare to nuke Ukraine, if he indeed go there, end of story.

[EdwardDiego]

US isn't the only player with nukes though.

[mrjin]

That's exactly why US doesn't want to get involved directly.

[EdwardDiego]

I wonder what China would do if Russia took things nuclear. They seem happy to watch Russia and NATO weaken each other, but I'm assuming they like a reasonably stable world, given their dependence on trade earnings for internal stability.