[psychphysic]

I rarely agree with Kissinger but he's right as far as I can see.

I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power.

Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change.

They could nuke themselves.

They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation.

They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones.

Do you see where I'm going?

If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.

[nine_k]

It's like asking for peace in Europe in 1939. I'm afraid it's a bit late; no attempts to pacify would bring any sustained peace. They will only bring about a Russia more prepared to fight a bigger war :(

«I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.»

This is incredibly depressing, but the faster we pass the phases of denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, turn towards acceptance, and prepare for more and harder fighting, the higher are our chances to win.

[sfifs]

actual sustainable peace requires denuclearization (and possible fragmentation) of the Russian federation because a precedent has to be set for the international order that threat of weapons of mass destruction cannot be used for annexation. Right now, by arming Ukraine, NATO is stripping Russia of conventional forces that keep the nucleae weapons safe and the federation together. Hopefully the emdgame will be achieved politically vs by first strike.

[psychphysic]

This is the problem I'm afraid.

Perhaps it's well meaning but by asking for the end of Russia you're just another war hawk voice asking for world war.

[sfifs]

Not really. We tend to anthropomorphize countries in general conversations but this is really about lessons that political leadership needs to be taught.

There are several current lessons leaders world over have already learned from this conflict - eg. (1) never give up nuclear weapons as the security guarantees won't be honoured (2) the destructive power and accuracy of networked modern light weapons is so great that it is impossible to hold territory conventionally if the other side has access to these

[darthrupert]

I don't understand why they are being ridiculed about military inefficiency. That's without any ill will or sarcasm towards Russia the best part of this whole situation. Literally everything would be worse if their military had been more efficient.

[psychphysic]

They are being ridiculed because their performance has been ridiculous?

Once you set aside the magic thinking idea that laughing will make Russia fight better you can see the funny side of the "Russia 'bout to find out why the US can't afford universal healthcare" memes.

[yywwbbn]

> They could nuke themselves.

How is that helpful for them? But yeah, I agree in general

[psychphysic]

Most people think MAD requires that both sides have an effective means to carry out a strike on the enemy territory.

The fact that Russian nuclear weapons used within Russian territory could destroy modern society tells you that MAD requires no such thing.