[JumpCrisscross]

> Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump

Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small.

What we can say is neither Russia nor America wants MAD. So the way an exchange would happen would be due to a fuckup. And not any old fuckup, e.g. Ukraine hit Moscow with an American missile or whatever. But a nuclear fuckup, e.g. Moscow thinks it's detected multiple missile launches and can't get the President on the phone.

[samsin]

>Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small.

The UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades. Not because of the risk of a 'fuckup', but due to geopolitical tensions. Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension.

[JumpCrisscross]

> UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades

Would love to see how they're calculating this.

I'd agree we're at post-Cold War high in terms of risk of nuclear war. But that's because we have more nuclear states than before [1]. I'm sceptical we're worse off than the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and former Communist officials were busy staging coups and whatnot. I'm also sceptical that Russia and America are at greater risk of nuclear war than during e.g. the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Syrian civil war.

> Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension

Sure. Though it's difficult to argue anything about nuclear use historically given they've only been used in one campaign, the Cold War was a strategic nuclear stalemate, and the post-Cold War era doesn't particularly sustain your hypothesis. (Pyongyang and Pakistan being particularly-potent wildcards.)

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume you're right. Are you claiming Donald Trump wasn't a source of geopolitical tension? The Trump who continued our occupation of Afghanistan, boosted troops in Iraq and Syria, offed an Iranian major general and seriously weighed leaving NATO? All while launching a multi-pronged salvo at China?

This isn't a Trump v Biden or Harris thing. It's just the reality of a superpower expressing its geopolitical interests.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

[mu53]

Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Kamala would likely continue the policy of continuous, slow escalation. The most recent escalation is Ukraine shooting long range weapon into Russia, what's next?

Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it?

If affects it. We just can't universally say which way.

Appeasement is the classic example of escalatory de-escalation. But a better one is the Cold War: America or the USSR entering or withdrawing from a particular theatre, e.g. Vietnam or Afghanistan, was on average orthogonal to risk of nuclear war.

Whether a peace deal enhances or damages the peace is context dependent and can swing either way.

> De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024

What a strange comment to make in the context of nuclear strategy. Should the U.S. unilaterally dismantle its nuclear deterrent?

[aguaviva]

Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions.

Do you think rewarding the aggressor with large-scale land concessions (the only kind they have indicated they will accept), along with other concessions they will certainly demand (a lifting of sanctions, no need to pay financial restitution for the immense suffering and damage they have caused; and certainly no prosecution for war crimes) -- can provide a viable foundation for "peace"?

[Krssst]

> Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions.

This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control would probably reduce the risk of MAD since the crazy guy got all his wishes. I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.

[CapricornNoble]

>This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control

This is irrational fearmongering. Let's assume NATO falls apart and it's every country for itself. It will take years for Russia to reconstitute its combat power to sufficient degree to conduct another large-scale mechanized invasion of anything bigger than the Baltic states. Speaking of the Baltics, I'm really not concerned about them, combined pop of ~6 million and GDP of ~$650B...they are roughly the size and impact of Hong Kong, and should not drive policy-making that risks continents of hundreds of millions when the West didn't raise a finger to protect HK from the PRC's authoritarian crackdown.

But let's look at the big nation-states that could be in Russia's sights: they aren't sitting still and are ALSO re-arming with everything from US hardware to South Korean tanks and artillery[0]. Now consider demographics. Poland and Romania have a combined population of ~60 million. Their capital cities have metro areas of ~2 million+, much like Kyiv and Kharkhiv, which Russia hasn't been able to take by force of arms. How would Russia control them if they resisted? What sort of sustained insurgency would the populations (who as I understand it are overwhelmingly anti-Russian) be capable of inflicting? What sort of cost-benefit analysis do you really think Putin is doing that would result in some dystopian return to Russian domination of Eastern Europe? In other words, what does he, and perhaps more importantly, the rest of Russia's siloviki, stand to gain that makes waging an open war and/or counter-insurgency against ~60 million Poles and Romanians worthwhile? If you think Putin is just trying to paint the map like a Hearts of Iron player.....that perspective is simply not in touch with reality.

> I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.

You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe, when he had Europe's most important economy in his back pocket: 2000-20013. [1] Russia was printing money selling petrochemicals to German industry. The oligarchs were fat, happy, and spent a bunch of their cash buying European vacation homes and sports teams. The biggest person rocking the boat was Georgia's Mikhael Sakhashvili[2], who Putin simply slapped down as a warning to the US, then went back to printing money (assisted by greasing the wheels with Gerhard Schroder's help)[3]. Second-biggest person rocking the boat was George Bush's administration, which refused to ratify the START II treaty[4], then unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty[5], then insisted on putting ABMs in Russia's near-abroad[6]. And yet....life in Europe got along just fine.

[0] https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/05/poland-south-korea-defens...

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vladimir-putin-is-forbes-...

[2]https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger...

[4] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr...

[5] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr...

[6] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...

[aguaviva]

This is irrational fearmongering

The comment above yours is simply misinformed. Clearly Putin isn't going to try to take all of Europe. Even though you aren't misquoting the commenter, you're basically attacking a straw man here (in that this is not a scenario anyone is seriously considering).

However Putin has objectively threatened Poland and the Baltics (via numerous statements), and if he is appeased (or otherwise allowed to succeed) in Ukraine, there's a much more realistic possibility that he may make a move on those countries. He may not seek to entirely conquer Poland, for example, but it's not unrealistic to expect that he may attempt some form of "border correction", per his sockpuppet Medvedev's recent statements in this regard.[0]. Not for any rational reason, of course. He didn't have a rational reason to invade Ukraine either. He did to make a point, and because he thought he could get away with it.

So getting down to brass tacks here -- should Poland and the Baltics be defended, in your view? Or should they be thrown under the bus, because (at least in regard to the latter) you've decided that you're "really not concerned about them"?

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41646070

And one last thing:

You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe,

A Europe in which Putin enjoys a substantial "soft power" leverage via cheap gas is very different from a Europe in which Putin is allowed to sever off large chunks of countries (if not entire countries), and his people are allowed to murder, rape and deport/kidnap at will.

There's no comparison at all between the "domination" he enjoyed in the previous era, and what he's trying to pull off now.