Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

While still most unlikely the chance of a small yield nuclear weapon being used as a means to demonstrate Russian resolve isn't completely out of the question. But conversely those saying that this will immediately lead to a large scale nuclear conflict are not dealing in reality. The west isn't jumping on the escalation ladder over Ukraine.

---

I think just the opposite. Once even one "small" one goes off that's the first unstoppable domino to the end. You either reply in kind which rapidly accelerates into a full strategic exchange (like probably within days) or else Russia uses one and doesn't get retaliated upon in kind which only emboldens them to keep using them.

I don't think even the hawkiest of people on here grew up more anti-USSR than me, that place was the center of evil on earth and Putin is a relic from it. But this is the only time in my life, and I'm 54, that I've genuinely thought we were on the brink. That country seems more likely to use nuclear weapons now than they ever did as the USSR because now the whole country is a reflection of one murderous man, not a reflection of a whole party and ideological system with something to lose.

If Putin could somehow know that he was going to be killed tomorrow, there's no doubt in my mind he'd do a full launch. There are people on here basically saying "even if a few nukes go off it wouldn't be that bad", or seemingly saying that somehow if the whole world gets blown up that Putin won't be on people's Christmas card lists any more so he won't do it. The disconnect is bizarre.

I get what the hardliners are saying in principle but playing chicken with a psychopath holding a gun to your family's head who would rather die than not get what he wants is not being brave or tough, it's being idiotic. We've got to slow this thing down, not out of cowardice, but to be smart and buy time to take him out a better way.

---

There are many response options, to include many non nuclear options, across the various instruments of national power that don't lead to uncontrollable escalation available to world leaders. If it helps you, and others, sleep better at night, rest assured that there are really smart folks who have been thinking about these things for years and not just within the past 6 months.

---

I've thought about it ever since I was a kid. roughly for 45 years, and there's nothing any "really smart" person can do once a nuke goes off. You have far more confidence in government types than I do. Are these same people you're referring to the ones who planned Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

There are many response options, to include many non nuclear options, across the various instruments of national power that don't lead to uncontrollable escalation available to world leaders. If it helps you, and others, sleep better at night, rest assured that there are really smart folks who have been thinking about these things for years and not just within the past 6 months.

---

Maybe the Russians begin losing contact with their submarines?

aggie93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Or one that simply studies history and has been brought up by someone who studied the Russians for years. If they pop a nuke in Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist……..even without a nuclear response. There will be ZERO commerce with Russia, none of their foreign assets will be available, and there are more than enough cool heads in Russia to stop the nonsense. The world will destroy Russia economically, financially, politically, socially, etc…..

---

You really haven't been paying attention.

There are no "cooler heads" in Russia. There is Putin and people under Putin that are loyal and indebted to him in the chain of command. He spent decades purging any opposition and there is no one else, certainly no one that is a "cooler head". Russia will still trade with China and India and a number of other countries even if they go nuclear. Those countries care about their own interests and couldn't give a damn about morality. India has been bought off with discounted Oil from Russia for instance and they couldn't give a rats ass about Ukraine.

Russians also have a different mentality than we do. They are used to sacrificing and being at a subsistence level. That's why they beat Napoleon and Hitler while losing tens of millions of people.

I sincerely hope you are right. I hate Putin and think he's a terrible human. I don't want Russia to win anything. The reality is though they have already lost and the juice is not worth the squeeze to keep this going further. Just look at the facts and what we know instead of what you want it to be.

---

Before you start accusing people of this, that, or the other, you may want to actually post some authority for YOUR assertions. You haven't, other than that for 3 obscure countries telling their people to leave the Ukraine, which could be interpreted in ways other than expected nuclear war. I'm not saying you're nowhere near correct -- heck, you COULD be, but don't try and bully people who don't think the way you do. Post some documented facts if you want you want your argument to be taken seriously. That really isn't unreasonable, is it?

There is no evidence, for example, that after a nuke exchange, ANY country would support Russia, whether they'd benefit financially or not. There would be huge world pressure against any country doing so. The reason we got away with using nukes was to defeat an Axis power who everyone pretty well agreed needed to be defeated, and even now, there are some that still criticize us for the use of nukes. Russia will never live that down, even if there is no direct retaliation.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Or one that simply studies history and has been brought up by someone who studied the Russians for years. If they pop a nuke in Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist……..even without a nuclear response. There will be ZERO commerce with Russia, none of their foreign assets will be available, and there are more than enough cool heads in Russia to stop the nonsense. The world will destroy Russia economically, financially, politically, socially, etc…..

---

You really haven't been paying attention.

There are no "cooler heads" in Russia. There is Putin and people under Putin that are loyal and indebted to him in the chain of command. He spent decades purging any opposition and there is no one else, certainly no one that is a "cooler head". Russia will still trade with China and India and a number of other countries even if they go nuclear. Those countries care about their own interests and couldn't give a damn about morality. India has been bought off with discounted Oil from Russia for instance and they couldn't give a rats ass about Ukraine.

Russians also have a different mentality than we do. They are used to sacrificing and being at a subsistence level. That's why they beat Napoleon and Hitler while losing tens of millions of people.

I sincerely hope you are right. I hate Putin and think he's a terrible human. I don't want Russia to win anything. The reality is though they have already lost and the juice is not worth the squeeze to keep this going further. Just look at the facts and what we know instead of what you want it to be.

---

Before you start accusing people of this, that, or the other, you may want to actually post some authority for YOUR assertions. You haven't, other than that for 3 obscure countries telling their people to leave the Ukraine, which could be interpreted in ways other than expected nuclear war. I'm not saying you're nowhere near correct -- heck, you COULD be, but don't try and bully people who don't think the way you do. Post some documented facts if you want you want your argument to be taken seriously. That really isn't unreasonable, is it?

There is no evidence, for example, that after a nuke exchange, ANY country would support Russia, whether they'd benefit financially or not. There would be huge world pressure against any country doing so. The reason we got away with using nukes was to defeat an Axis power who everyone pretty well agreed needed to be defeated, and even now, there are some that still criticize us for the use of nukes. Russia will never live that down, even if there is no direct retaliation.

---

You serious man? A country calling on their citizens to leave a current war zone totally means Nukes.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Or one that simply studies history and has been brought up by someone who studied the Russians for years. If they pop a nuke in Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist……..even without a nuclear response. There will be ZERO commerce with Russia, none of their foreign assets will be available, and there are more than enough cool heads in Russia to stop the nonsense. The world will destroy Russia economically, financially, politically, socially, etc…..

---

You really haven't been paying attention.

There are no "cooler heads" in Russia. There is Putin and people under Putin that are loyal and indebted to him in the chain of command. He spent decades purging any opposition and there is no one else, certainly no one that is a "cooler head". Russia will still trade with China and India and a number of other countries even if they go nuclear. Those countries care about their own interests and couldn't give a damn about morality. India has been bought off with discounted Oil from Russia for instance and they couldn't give a rats ass about Ukraine.

Russians also have a different mentality than we do. They are used to sacrificing and being at a subsistence level. That's why they beat Napoleon and Hitler while losing tens of millions of people.

I sincerely hope you are right. I hate Putin and think he's a terrible human. I don't want Russia to win anything. The reality is though they have already lost and the juice is not worth the squeeze to keep this going further. Just look at the facts and what we know instead of what you want it to be.

---

Before you start accusing people of this, that, or the other, you may want to actually post some authority for YOUR assertions. You haven't, other than that for 3 obscure countries telling their people to leave the Ukraine, which could be interpreted in ways other than expected nuclear war. I'm not saying you're nowhere near correct -- heck, you COULD be, but don't try and bully people who don't think the way you do. Post some documented facts if you want you want your argument to be taken seriously. That really isn't unreasonable, is it?

There is no evidence, for example, that after a nuke exchange, ANY country would support Russia, whether they'd benefit financially or not. There would be huge world pressure against any country doing so. The reason we got away with using nukes was to defeat an Axis power who everyone pretty well agreed needed to be defeated, and even now, there are some that still criticize us for the use of nukes. Russia will never live that down, even if there is no direct retaliation.

---

I still can't even process this thinking. Do people not understand that there will be no future after a nuclear exchange? Some of these arguments from various people are coming across like "If he destroys the world he knows no one will like him anymore."

WTF??

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

While still most unlikely the chance of a small yield nuclear weapon being used as a means to demonstrate Russian resolve isn't completely out of the question. But conversely those saying that this will immediately lead to a large scale nuclear conflict are not dealing in reality. The west isn't jumping on the escalation ladder over Ukraine.

---

I think just the opposite. Once even one "small" one goes off that's the first unstoppable domino to the end. You either reply in kind which rapidly accelerates into a full strategic exchange (like probably within days) or else Russia uses one and doesn't get retaliated upon in kind which only emboldens them to keep using them.

I don't think even the hawkiest of people on here grew up more anti-USSR than me, that place was the center of evil on earth and Putin is a relic from it. But this is the only time in my life, and I'm 54, that I've genuinely thought we were on the brink. That country seems more likely to use nuclear weapons now than they ever did as the USSR because now the whole country is a reflection of one murderous man, not a reflection of a whole party and ideological system with something to lose.

If Putin could somehow know that he was going to be killed tomorrow, there's no doubt in my mind he'd do a full launch. There are people on here basically saying "even if a few nukes go off it wouldn't be that bad", or seemingly saying that somehow if the whole world gets blown up that Putin won't be on people's Christmas card lists any more so he won't do it. The disconnect is bizarre.

I get what the hardliners are saying in principle but playing chicken with a psychopath holding a gun to your family's head who would rather die than not get what he wants is not being brave or tough, it's being idiotic. We've got to slow this thing down, not out of cowardice, but to be smart and buy time to take him out a better way.

---

There are many response options, to include many non nuclear options, across the various instruments of national power that don't lead to uncontrollable escalation available to world leaders. If it helps you, and others, sleep better at night, rest assured that there are really smart folks who have been thinking about these things for years and not just within the past 6 months.

---

I've thought about it ever since I was a kid. roughly for 45 years, and there's nothing any "really smart" person can do once a nuke goes off. You have far more confidence in government types than I do. Are these same people you're referring to the ones who planned Afghanistan?

---

No, not the same people, and my apologies, didn't realize you had 45 years of war planning experience. And, believe it or not, there are options available to respond beyond lobbing nukes. But if you want to continue believe that a low yield weapon being employed automatically leads to the meagaton weapons being lobbed back and forth there's not much I can do for you.

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

A. The "borders are sacrosanct" concept is uniquely modern American and self serving. Post WW2 we locked everyone in regardless of history or how bad of a pinch it put them in, and world-policed ourselves into a situation where we're used to an artificially stagnant map. This is not the historical or cultural norm.

B. The Biden admin is running this proxy war. They got lucky early on with Ukrainian successes, and are now arrogantly backing Putin into a corner (destroying Nordstream, pushing for '91 borders, pushing for Putin's assassination, economic strong arming). The Russian military has been embarrassed as a paper tiger - a wise man would take that as a win unto itself and work with them on an option to back off. But here we are, hearing calls for the defeat of Russia! That's crazy!

C. This idea of "Putin is done if he launches a nuke" is silly. Other countries will still want his oil (especially with Dems driving scarcity by backstabbing our industry). And if the situation becomes even MORE dire for Russia - they'll lash out MORE, not less!

D. "Stand with Ukraine" = "Feed the meat grinder". Not saying that it's wrong to sell arms to those who are invaded - but the Ukrainian population is shouldering the bulk of the human misery in this war. "Get back in there, champ! You can take another round! Your TBI is worth it so that I can call folks 'Ivan's on TexAgs!"

E. I still think nukes are unlikely, but the thing that makes me MOST nervous in this whole equation isn't Putin - it's the Biden Admin.

Point D

It is simultaneously hilarious and true

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A. The "borders are sacrosanct" concept is uniquely modern American and self serving. Post WW2 we locked everyone in regardless of history or how bad of a pinch it put them in, and world-policed ourselves into a situation where we're used to an artificially stagnant map. This is not the historical or cultural norm.

B. The Biden admin is running this proxy war. They got lucky early on with Ukrainian successes, and are now arrogantly backing Putin into a corner (destroying Nordstream, pushing for '91 borders, pushing for Putin's assassination, economic strong arming). The Russian military has been embarrassed as a paper tiger - a wise man would take that as a win unto itself and work with them on an option to back off. But here we are, hearing calls for the defeat of Russia! That's crazy!

C. This idea of "Putin is done if he launches a nuke" is silly. Other countries will still want his oil (especially with Dems driving scarcity by backstabbing our industry). And if the situation becomes even MORE dire for Russia - they'll lash out MORE, not less!

D. "Stand with Ukraine" = "Feed the meat grinder". Not saying that it's wrong to sell arms to those who are invaded - but the Ukrainian population is shouldering the bulk of the human misery in this war. "Get back in there, champ! You can take another round! Your TBI is worth it so that I can call folks 'Ivan's on TexAgs!"

E. I still think nukes are unlikely, but the thing that makes me MOST nervous in this whole equation isn't Putin - it's the Biden Admin.

---

Sorry your Ivan lost.

Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

While still most unlikely the chance of a small yield nuclear weapon being used as a means to demonstrate Russian resolve isn't completely out of the question. But conversely those saying that this will immediately lead to a large scale nuclear conflict are not dealing in reality. The west isn't jumping on the escalation ladder over Ukraine.

---

I think just the opposite. Once even one "small" one goes off that's the first unstoppable domino to the end. You either reply in kind which rapidly accelerates into a full strategic exchange (like probably within days) or else Russia uses one and doesn't get retaliated upon in kind which only emboldens them to keep using them.

I don't think even the hawkiest of people on here grew up more anti-USSR than me, that place was the center of evil on earth and Putin is a relic from it. But this is the only time in my life, and I'm 54, that I've genuinely thought we were on the brink. That country seems more likely to use nuclear weapons now than they ever did as the USSR because now the whole country is a reflection of one murderous man, not a reflection of a whole party and ideological system with something to lose.

If Putin could somehow know that he was going to be killed tomorrow, there's no doubt in my mind he'd do a full launch. There are people on here basically saying "even if a few nukes go off it wouldn't be that bad", or seemingly saying that somehow if the whole world gets blown up that Putin won't be on people's Christmas card lists any more so he won't do it. The disconnect is bizarre.

I get what the hardliners are saying in principle but playing chicken with a psychopath holding a gun to your family's head who would rather die than not get what he wants is not being brave or tough, it's being idiotic. We've got to slow this thing down, not out of cowardice, but to be smart and buy time to take him out a better way.

---

There are many response options, to include many non nuclear options, across the various instruments of national power that don't lead to uncontrollable escalation available to world leaders. If it helps you, and others, sleep better at night, rest assured that there are really smart folks who have been thinking about these things for years and not just within the past 6 months.

---

I've thought about it ever since I was a kid. roughly for 45 years, and there's nothing any "really smart" person can do once a nuke goes off. You have far more confidence in government types than I do. Are these same people you're referring to the ones who planned Afghanistan?

---

No, not the same people, and my apologies, didn't realize you had 45 years of war planning experience. And, believe it or not, there are options available to respond beyond lobbing nukes. But if you want to continue believe that a low yield weapon being employed automatically leads to the meagaton weapons being lobbed back and forth there's not much I can do for you.

---

I've never even been a low-level politician either, but I could do a better job than most presidents have. I have 54 years of being a rational thoughtful introspective human, and I've spent most of those years studying world history and military history. And that's as much experience as anyone else has with what would actually happen when nukes go off.

From everything I've ever seen no one in government is deserving of any benefit of the doubt when it comes to rational intelligent behavior or planning any kind of meaningful strategy. We've spent countless trillions for decades and all we've gotten is Korea and Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs and the Iran "rescue" and Somalia and Afghanistan, and on and on.

But no, don't worry, really smart people have got this in control. Biden and Kamala and Milley, etc. and the other stooges are clearly smarter than me or they wouldn't be where they are, I guess.

This crap reminds me of watching a football game and seeing an "experienced" head coach study a chart to determine whether he should go for 2 or not. I mean, can't you do basic math or intuitively read a situation on the fly? Or needing 10 yards while running out of time and doing a dive into the line. And there's always someone next to you saying "He's been a head coach longer than you've been alive and he's surrounded by specialists, he knows better!"

Uh huh.

I'm not here to defend current political leaders by any means, only to say there's a lot more nuance to this conflict than both sides of the extreme seem to realize. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that there are other responses to the use of a low yield weapon in Ukraine beyond an immediate use of megaton class weapons flying back and forth destroying all of civilization. And the smart folks I refer to, in many cases, have dedicated a significant portion of their professional lives to understanding these nuances and to how best respond to various scenarios. I'm just saying that they've been thinking about nuclear warfare much longer than everyone who have all of the sudden become nuclear warfare experts in the past 6 months. Many of whom just transitioned from being infectious disease experts over the past two years. That's all.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

---

This exemplifies the sad state we are in. Anyone questioning either our methods, our role in Ukraine, or what is being done to de-escalate is being dismissed as a Russian sympathizer.

Y'all are creating a dangerous echo chamber.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

---

This exemplifies the sad state we are in. Anyone questioning either our methods, our role in Ukraine, or what is being done to de-escalate is being dismissed as a Russian sympathizer.

Y'all are creating a dangerous echo chamber.

---

Eto sekretnoye zakodirovannoye soobshcheniye tovarishcham po TexAgs.com.

My dolzhny i dal'she zashchishchat' chest' nashego dorogogo lidera Vladimira Putina.

fka ftc said:

---

Eto sekretnoye zakodirovannoye soobshcheniye tovarishcham po TexAgs.com.

My dolzhny i dal'she zashchishchat' chest' nashego dorogogo lidera Vladimira Putina.

---

Ill save others the effort -
Google Translate:

"comrades at TexAgs.com.

We must continue to defend the honor of our dear leader Vladimir Putin.

Please keep the faith, comrades."

agyellow said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Eto sekretnoye zakodirovannoye soobshcheniye tovarishcham po TexAgs.com.

My dolzhny i dal'she zashchishchat' chest' nashego dorogogo lidera Vladimira Putina.

---

Ill save others the effort -
Google Translate:

"comrades at TexAgs.com.

We must continue to defend the honor of our dear leader Vladimir Putin.

Please keep the faith, comrades."

---

I just wanted to put the insinuations to rest and confirm that any of us who question what we are doing in Ukraine is a Russian plant.

It was supposed to be secret and coded but you revealed it for all to see.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

---

This exemplifies the sad state we are in. Anyone questioning either our methods, our role in Ukraine, or what is being done to de-escalate is being dismissed as a Russian sympathizer.

Y'all are creating a dangerous echo chamber.

---

I think the usa/the west has done a fantastic job of walking the line and administering its support for the Ukrainians.

We have not yet given putin a legit reason to escalate beyond Ukraine. We provided the right weapons at the right time. We've provided key Intel to which the Ukrainians used well.

Putin is not going to launch a nuke because he wants to win his war. The one thing that ensures he does not do that is to use a nuclear weapon of any kind.

If/when putin is serious about it, we will know and can react then.

I would posit that a nuclear weapon will not be his next move.

Cut power and fuel. Restrict the airspace, and starve them to death.

Putin is ruthless, not dumb. He knows nuclear will rally his enemies and alienate his friends.

When he needs workers for the fields come Spring, then his ol friend Lil Kim will load them up on trains. Nice, loyal, communist subjects.

And Biden will pay for it saying it must be done so we have grain to feed the folks in Africa.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

---

This exemplifies the sad state we are in. Anyone questioning either our methods, our role in Ukraine, or what is being done to de-escalate is being dismissed as a Russian sympathizer.

Y'all are creating a dangerous echo chamber.

---

Yep, it's a tired tactic used by simpletons. We can hate Putin and hope he loses while simultaneously be legitimately concerned about him using nukes and preferring an off ramp so that he doesn't.

Ideally, his inner circle takes him out, but no one is certain if anyone is still left that can get close enough to do so. Very early on in this the former MI6 chief shared that he had three dudes in his innermost circle and two of them were already pushed out and that was months ago.

Never mind the dozen or so "accidental" deaths of people formerly tied to him. We really don't know if Putin took them out to create more buffer for himself or what.

I think some people on this thread have contemporary Russian foreign policy confused with the plot of Tenet.

Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

Joes said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

While still most unlikely the chance of a small yield nuclear weapon being used as a means to demonstrate Russian resolve isn't completely out of the question. But conversely those saying that this will immediately lead to a large scale nuclear conflict are not dealing in reality. The west isn't jumping on the escalation ladder over Ukraine.

---

I think just the opposite. Once even one "small" one goes off that's the first unstoppable domino to the end. You either reply in kind which rapidly accelerates into a full strategic exchange (like probably within days) or else Russia uses one and doesn't get retaliated upon in kind which only emboldens them to keep using them.

I don't think even the hawkiest of people on here grew up more anti-USSR than me, that place was the center of evil on earth and Putin is a relic from it. But this is the only time in my life, and I'm 54, that I've genuinely thought we were on the brink. That country seems more likely to use nuclear weapons now than they ever did as the USSR because now the whole country is a reflection of one murderous man, not a reflection of a whole party and ideological system with something to lose.

If Putin could somehow know that he was going to be killed tomorrow, there's no doubt in my mind he'd do a full launch. There are people on here basically saying "even if a few nukes go off it wouldn't be that bad", or seemingly saying that somehow if the whole world gets blown up that Putin won't be on people's Christmas card lists any more so he won't do it. The disconnect is bizarre.

I get what the hardliners are saying in principle but playing chicken with a psychopath holding a gun to your family's head who would rather die than not get what he wants is not being brave or tough, it's being idiotic. We've got to slow this thing down, not out of cowardice, but to be smart and buy time to take him out a better way.

---

There are many response options, to include many non nuclear options, across the various instruments of national power that don't lead to uncontrollable escalation available to world leaders. If it helps you, and others, sleep better at night, rest assured that there are really smart folks who have been thinking about these things for years and not just within the past 6 months.

---

I've thought about it ever since I was a kid. roughly for 45 years, and there's nothing any "really smart" person can do once a nuke goes off. You have far more confidence in government types than I do. Are these same people you're referring to the ones who planned Afghanistan?

---

No, not the same people, and my apologies, didn't realize you had 45 years of war planning experience. And, believe it or not, there are options available to respond beyond lobbing nukes. But if you want to continue believe that a low yield weapon being employed automatically leads to the meagaton weapons being lobbed back and forth there's not much I can do for you.

---

I don't mean to be so combative, but it just blows my freaking mind that after the last 2 and a half years of people being told "Don't question the countless medical experts, and don't worry your little head about it because people much smarter and better educated and experienced than you have this covid thing under control, now shut up and stand 6 feet apart and wear a mask and don't get a haircut. Dr Fauci is in charge and he and his team are infectious disease experts and I'm sorry, are you even a doctor?? No, so shut up."

And how many more experienced and educated economists does the government employ? And we're $31 trillion in debt and climbing, and our solution to inflation is to print trillions more!

And now you're on here literally saying. apparently with a straight face, "Just don't worry your simple little head about it, really smart government experts have this totally under control and will protect you."



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jockstrap love him some daddy gov

YouBet said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Sure are a lot of Russian state sympathizers, ITT.

---

This exemplifies the sad state we are in. Anyone questioning either our methods, our role in Ukraine, or what is being done to de-escalate is being dismissed as a Russian sympathizer.

Y'all are creating a dangerous echo chamber.

---

Yep, it's a tired tactic used by simpletons. We can hate Putin and hope he loses while simultaneously be legitimately concerned about him using nukes and preferring an off ramp so that he doesn't.

Ideally, his inner circle takes him out, but no one is certain if anyone is still left that can get close enough to do so. Very early on in this the former MI6 chief shared that he had three dudes in his innermost circle and two of them were already pushed out and that was months ago.

Never mind the dozen or so "accidental" deaths of people formerly tied to him. We really don't know if Putin took them out to create more buffer for himself or what.

---

Exactly.

ballchain said:

---

Unpopular take, but feel free to screencap it for posterity:

If Putin uses nukes, it won't be in Ukraine.

---

Hard disagree, I think he will use low level yield tactical strike(s) to feel the world's response if he was to use any

THAT.

Joes is hitting them out of the park in the last couple of posts about the overall situation and tone risks.

Jock 07 has brought up an important counter about this kind of scenario has been thought about it long before the Trump-Biden conflict and perhaps some allowance should be made there.

However, Get Off My Lawn has these square on right:

Quote:

---

A. The "borders are sacrosanct" concept is uniquely modern American and self serving. Post WW2 we locked everyone in regardless of history or how bad of a pinch it put them in, and world-policed ourselves into a situation where we're used to an artificially stagnant map. This is not the historical or cultural norm.
B. The Biden admin is running this proxy war.

---

It is very much a US (and secondarily British Empire) created notion. And both Bush and Obama administrations pretty much demolished it as well as anti-nuclear proliferations for getting into wars for non-defensive reasons and bringing down regimes. By doing that, they sent the lesson NK had already chosen---the only way to possibly be secure from that is nuke up yourself. So the previous anti-proliferation world has been dismantled by the 21st C administrations. Now we are talking about letting things get to where the even more profound and visceral `anti nuclear bomb use' taboo is broken. That's very very dangerous.

Quote:

---

E. I still think nukes are unlikely, but the thing that makes me MOST nervous in this whole equation isn't Putin - it's the Biden Admin.

---

I agree. They are too unaccountable and too demonstrably malignant to trust. Ukraine is in disorder in small part due to Obama era meddling.

Now we have a situation where a gangster and ruthless state actor has gone way out of the line, and no one seems to fully realize that instead of playing along with that, you should try to dial it down and make it possible for him to throw in the towel. You can't count on the kind of pressure to overthrow him. It never appeared with Saddam for example, if you recall, despite the massive pounding he got. Defeat doesn't necessarily bring a leader down.

I thibk you're right.

Putin in his speech after the referendum said he would use nukes to defend Russian territory and those Ukrainian territories are now Russian according to him.

He also went on to say the US can't say anything about using nuclear weapons because they used them first against Japan. (Which always irks me when people say that. There's difference between nuclear bombs and atomic bombs)

Anyways he is making the case and laying the framework to justify him using them. He has said numerous times including before the invasion he believe Russia is facing existential threat via Ukraine and nato incursion into it.

Regardless of validity or invalidity of his statements that is what he believes. Rational or not he seems hell bent on this war.

And the West in response IMO is taking his threats too lightly and aren't seeking a resolution beyond WW3.

Putin also knows the US leadership is beyond weak. This might his only chance.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I thibk you're right.

Putin in his speech after the referendum said he would use nukes to defend Russian territory and those Ukrainian territories are now Russian according to him.

He also went on to say the US can't say anything about using nuclear weapons because they used them first against Japan. (Which always irks me when people say that. There's difference between nuclear bombs and atomic bombs)

Anyways he is making the case and laying the framework to justify him using them. He has said numerous times including before the invasion he believe Russia is facing existential threat via Ukraine and nato incursion into it.

Regardless of validity or invalidity of his statements that is what he believes. Rational or not he seems hell bent on this war.

And the West in response IMO is taking his threats too lightly and aren't seeking a resolution beyond WW3.

Putin also knows the US leadership is beyond weak. This might his only chance.

---

That's the crux of it. Yet many on here will say, "his option is to just leave if he wants this to end". That's just a moronic, irrelevant statement.

As if he's going to wake up tomorrow, look at the options in front of him, and say to himself, "You know...the Americans are right. We gave it a good go and it just didn't work out in Ukraine. I'm going to call up my generals and have them retreat forthwith."

The us leadership is so weak that they've armed Ukraine to the teeth and depantsed Putin on the world stage. Putin was supposed to be some sort of bad ass leader and he's been absolutely embarrassed like a little ***** by the presidents of Ukraine and the US, one being a former comedian and the other an 80 year old vegetable.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I thibk you're right.

Putin in his speech after the referendum said he would use nukes to defend Russian territory and those Ukrainian territories are now Russian according to him.

He also went on to say the US can't say anything about using nuclear weapons because they used them first against Japan. (Which always irks me when people say that. There's difference between nuclear bombs and atomic bombs)

Anyways he is making the case and laying the framework to justify him using them. He has said numerous times including before the invasion he believe Russia is facing existential threat via Ukraine and nato incursion into it.

Regardless of validity or invalidity of his statements that is what he believes. Rational or not he seems hell bent on this war.

And the West in response IMO is taking his threats too lightly and aren't seeking a resolution beyond WW3.

Putin also knows the US leadership is beyond weak. This might his only chance.

---

On the italics. Would tacticals be atomic? Nuclear can mean hydrogen bombs, but the way Putin is saying, doesn't he also mean atomic if tacticals?

And agree with taking the threats too lightly --- as too many just do not see we don't get to say what someone thinks something means. Russia has never seen NATO expansion as anything other than anti-Russian offensive motivated alliance.

However, Now Putin has really screwed up Moscow's own message by making NATO look necessary for even non-members like Finland and so has really messed up his own situation.

But arguing about rights and wrongs do no lead to solutions or peace. If you want peace, you have to operate and discuss like gangsters where morality is not the main focus of agreement. High ground was if any was probably long lost with the meddling in the first place.

Maybe France should try to take the lead in some kind of discussion. They have at least a lucid leader and are less Cold War "baggage" saddled than D.C. talking to Moscow.