[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.