NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
Before anyone says “NATO can’t create an offensive no-fly zone, it’s a defensive alliance” I think it’s important to clarify that NATO is being used here as a shorthand for the list of nearby nations that historically stand up to Russia. It would be the individual or concerted action of nations acting outside of the NATO framework.
On March 11 2022 01:39 KwarK wrote: Before anyone says “NATO can’t create an offensive no-fly zone, it’s a defensive alliance” I think it’s important to clarify that NATO is being used here as a shorthand for the list of nearby nations that historically stand up to Russia. It would be the individual or concerted action of nations acting outside of the NATO framework.
It doesn't really matter though does it? If one of the NATO countries starts attacking Russian aircraft for any reason Russia will be well within their rights to consider that an act of war and declare war on said country. Now Russia is declaring war on a NATO member that's going to trigger article 5 isn't it?
This idea that a country could set up a NFZ outside of the bindings of NATO and the Russians wouldn't retaliate I don't think is realistic.
I'm guessing Putin would already be attacking Polish air bases if he thought he could get away with it.
On March 11 2022 01:28 Mohdoo wrote: Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
I have several issues with your logic: - Disregarding the importance of the balance of conventional capabilities - Conflating not initiating with not escalating - Conflating leading to MAD with making MAD a real possibility - Disregarding the other array of nasty shit between conventional warfare and MAD,
If attacked, the nuclear power with the vastly inferior conventional capabilities is more likely to escalate with non-conventional weapons to make the superior force back off to avoid MAD. If under real existential threat, their only options are give up or "look how much crazy shit I'm willing to do, I'll do the ultimate one if you make me."
Whereas the superior force will always do everything it can to keep things conventional if possible since that's where their advantage lies. Even if a member state were attacked, NATO would only use non-conventional weapons if and after the attacker would.
I'm talking in general here, in this particular case "winning" isn't necessarily a survival issue. As Kwark pointed out before, Russia itself can definitely survive without Ukrainian airspace. Whether their regime could survive without it at this point and how that would impact further escalation, that's a different story.
NATO isn't assuming that any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD. What escalation with Russia does is up the chances of MAD from virtually 0 to definitely non-0 (and there are also some horrific possible scenarios without quite reaching MAD). No one is comfortable with the latter, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing Russia could do in Ukraine to make support for direct intervention reach critical mass. Where that point lies is different for everyone, for some it's already past it, for some it's unreachable regardless, for most I imagine it would take something very drastic like for example videos of mass executions in occupied cities.
On March 11 2022 01:28 Mohdoo wrote: Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
Your first assumption is not exactly correct. NATO logic goes this way: 1) Russia won't attack NATO country on their own, because this means MAD 2) Russia may use nukes on a NATO country if directly attacked by the NATO country.
And nobody wants to test if #2 is a bluff or not, because a nuclear war is bad, very bad. It's the reason movies like Threads were created, so people stop thinking about the nuclear war as an option. If nuclear weapons will be used, it's the end of the world as we know it.
Also NATO countries may need to re-evaluate their conventional war capabilities. As an example - how are yours civil shelters? Czech sheltes are between pathetic and non existant. So even if #2 is bluff, going into a conventional war means heavy civilian losses. FFS our capital city has protection for roughly 40 % people in it. And most of it goes because there's a subway, the rest of towns is at even worst state. (e.g. the nearest official shelter my mum can go to is 5 kms away and she knows it's inactive, just nobody filed the papers) The shelters in our country in semi-good conditions are those which were changed to a museum or a pub.
Edit> to show you how FUBAR the situation here is - there are 2 lists of shelters. 1 of them is the official one. That one includes EVERY shelter. The other is from the historian society for shelters(or something like that) - this one removes like half of the shelters as inactive(somehow they know). Neither of them provides addresses and I just checked - no shelter in my town is visibly marked - on the town map out of 12 officially active shelters 4 are marked. And that's the map, in what state are they - I am afraid to ask, or dare to know what's the capacity. (edit of the edit> by map I mean the town plan, which is like 3k x 4k PDF where you're looking for a small star )
At this point I don't see the use of a no fly zone. The Ukrainian airspace is still contested and Russia is barely flying over Ukraine anymore due to the anti air capabilities the Ukrainian army has. Most of their shelling is done by things like artillery and not by air. Then you still have the practical problem that a no fly zone is hard to enforce.
Instead we should start thinking about how to arm the Ukrainian army long term (via something like a lend-lease for example) and increase delivery of anti air systems (like the UK wants to do now). This way we can give proper support without western armies fighting Russia directly.
On March 11 2022 01:28 Mohdoo wrote: Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
Your first assumption is not exactly correct. NATO logic goes this way: 1) Russia won't attack NATO country on their own, because this means MAD 2) Russia may use nukes on a NATO country if directly attacked by the NATO country.
And nobody wants to test if #2 is a bluff or not, because a nuclear war is bad, very bad. It's the reason movies like Threads were created, so people stop thinking about the nuclear war as an option. If nuclear weapons will be used, it's the end of the world as we know it.
Also NATO countries may need to re-evaluate their conventional war capabilities. As an example - how are yours civil shelters? Czech sheltes are between pathetic and non existant. So even if #2 is bluff, going into a conventional war means heavy civilian losses. FFS our capital city has protection for roughly 40 % people in it. And most of it goes because there's a subway, the rest of towns is at even worst state. (e.g. the nearest official shelter my mum can go to is 5 kms away and she knows it's inactive, just nobody filed the papers) The shelters in our country in semi-good conditions are those which were changed to a museum or a pub.
Edit> to show you how FUBAR the situation here is - there are 2 lists of shelters. 1 of them is the official one. That one includes EVERY shelter. The other is from the historian society for shelters(or something like that) - this one removes like half of the shelters as inactive(somehow they know). Neither of them provides addresses and I just checked - no shelter in my town is visibly marked - on the town map out of 12 officially active shelters 4 are marked. And that's the map, in what state are they - I am afraid to ask, or dare to know what's the capacity. (edit of the edit> by map I mean the town plan, which is like 3k x 4k PDF where you're looking for a small star )
Bomb shelters won't help you against nukes. If your town gets nuked, hiding in a shelter just means you die a few hours later from radioactive fallout.
Bomb shelters will obviously help against conventional bombs/missiles, but let's face it: Spain isn't getting bombed by anything other than a casual few nukes tossed our way That said, I know where the air raid shelter from the civil war is, but I think it'll fit a few hundred people in a town of a few thousand. I don't think there's anything since...
If you have any military bases, there are a lot of shelters there that can be used since each barracks is a minimum 1ft thick. There's a lot of other places as well that would serve. But more than likely, you're going to need something underground. I don't know how many places around the world are capable of providing enough space to all of the people, but some is better than none. Ukraine is holding out and I think unless Putin commits far more troops, he's going to be forced to withdraw.
On March 11 2022 05:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you have any military bases, there are a lot of shelters there that can be used since each barracks is a minimum 1ft thick. There's a lot of other places as well that would serve. But more than likely, you're going to need something underground. I don't know how many places around the world are capable of providing enough space to all of the people, but some is better than none. Ukraine is holding out and I think unless Putin commits far more troops, he's going to be forced to withdraw.
I watched an interesting video recently that broke down why Russia realistically cannot occup Ukraine. Basically, even if Russia defeats the Ukrainian government and occupies the country, they do not have the manpower or the economy necessary for a successful occupation of a country putting up minimal resistance, and Ukraine is putting up more than just minimal resistance. In a study conducted by the Rand Corporation, it was found that 20 soldiers per 1,000 people in a geographical region were needed to successfully occupy said region, and Russia's current troop to population ratio is nowhere near that. Also, Russia does not have enough troops in their armed forces to realistically get that number to 20, nor do they have a good enough economy to support an occupation. Here's the link for those interested:
On March 11 2022 05:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: ... Ukraine is holding out and I think unless Putin commits far more troops, he's going to be forced to withdraw.
That or more bombing/airstrikes I guess? I suppose we are already seeing the latter with bombed hospitals and so on.
Putin really only has a couple of options here and none of them are good.
He can withdraw and accept a deal that leaves Donbas or Crimea in Ukraine's hands, Ukraine is never going to accept a deal that gives him both. He isn't going to do that because that would be catastrophic for him at home. He can't afford to go back to Russia empty handed especially after how exposed the Russian military got under his watch.
He can intensify the violence which is only going to make him more hated in Ukraine and make Ukraine even less likely to surrender and it's going to increase the level of the sanctions even further. The longer Ukraine fights the worse the sanctions are going to be on Russia which is going to be bad for his regime back home.
He can try to somehow convince China to support him in the war which China isn't about to do because they don't get anything out of it.
And lastly he can just keep carrying on like this and hope he gets lucky and Zelenskey's luck runs out. I don't know what happens if that happens it might just make things worse for him because now Zelenskey is a martyr.
His options are all bad right now. He's backed himself into a corner he has to see that.
On March 11 2022 05:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you have any military bases, there are a lot of shelters there that can be used since each barracks is a minimum 1ft thick. There's a lot of other places as well that would serve. But more than likely, you're going to need something underground. I don't know how many places around the world are capable of providing enough space to all of the people, but some is better than none. Ukraine is holding out and I think unless Putin commits far more troops, he's going to be forced to withdraw.
I watched an interesting video recently that broke down why Russia realistically cannot occup Ukraine. Basically, even if Russia defeats the Ukrainian government and occupies the country, they do not have the manpower or the economy necessary for a successful occupation of a country putting up minimal resistance, and Ukraine is putting up more than just minimal resistance. In a study conducted by the Rand Corporation, it was found that 20 soldiers per 1,000 people in a geographical region were needed to successfully occupy said region, and Russia's current troop to population ratio is nowhere near that. Also, Russia does not have enough troops in their armed forces to realistically get that number to 20, nor do they have a good enough economy to support an occupation. Here's the link for those interested:
I have no idea how correct the claim of "Russia can't sustain an occupation of Ukraine" is (and it's been mentioned a few times), but it brings me little solace because I have little doubt that Putin won't care about feasibility. If Russia breaks through militarily, repression will be bloody, and it will be brutal.
On March 11 2022 01:28 Mohdoo wrote: Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
I have several issues with your logic: - Disregarding the importance of the balance of conventional capabilities - Conflating not initiating with not escalating - Conflating leading to MAD with making MAD a real possibility - Disregarding the other array of nasty shit between conventional warfare and MAD,
If attacked, the nuclear power with the vastly inferior conventional capabilities is more likely to escalate with non-conventional weapons to make the superior force back off to avoid MAD. If under real existential threat, their only options are give up or "look how much crazy shit I'm willing to do, I'll do the ultimate one if you make me."
Whereas the superior force will always do everything it can to keep things conventional if possible since that's where their advantage lies. Even if a member state were attacked, NATO would only use non-conventional weapons if and after the attacker would.
I'm talking in general here, in this particular case "winning" isn't necessarily a survival issue. As Kwark pointed out before, Russia itself can definitely survive without Ukrainian airspace. Whether their regime could survive without it at this point and how that would impact further escalation, that's a different story.
NATO isn't assuming that any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD. What escalation with Russia does is up the chances of MAD from virtually 0 to definitely non-0 (and there are also some horrific possible scenarios without quite reaching MAD). No one is comfortable with the latter, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing Russia could do in Ukraine to make support for direct intervention reach critical mass. Where that point lies is different for everyone, for some it's already past it, for some it's unreachable regardless, for most I imagine it would take something very drastic like for example videos of mass executions in occupied cities.
I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of autism present in actual military logic. Escalation and retaliation are not relevant in a strictly logical sense. Every action is in reality confined to only the next outcome. The mistake you are making is attributing ethics to military conflict. This is incorrect. Putin will only prioritize his legacy and his life. Nothing else is a real factor.
On March 11 2022 01:28 Mohdoo wrote: Now that we are at the point of children's hospitals being bombed, this is getting way harder for the world to ignore and I think we are starting to drift towards Bad Samaritan.
I'd like to review the basic logic I have outlined previously in a more succinct form:
1) If we assume Russia would never attack a NATO country because of MAD/retaliation, it means Russia would not escalate with a NATO country
2) If we assume NATO is choosing not to create a no fly zone because it would mean military conflict with Russia, meaning Russia could nuke NATO, it means we are assuming Russia is not bothered by MAD/retaliation
3) If NATO assumes any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD, it means NATO isn't actually real. There is no actual difference in defending Ukraine and a NATO country. It all comes down to whether or not Russia is afraid of MAD. If Russia is afraid of MAD, they would not nuke NATO for imposing a no fly zone. If Russia is not afraid of MAD, Russia would not hesitate to attack a NATO country.
(1) and (2) are generally assumed to both be true. I don't think they can both be true at the same time.
In short, I don't think the "reason" behind escalation actually make any difference in these situations. Russia is not going to do something because it is ethical, but not do something because it is unethical. That is simply not who Putin or the Russian military are. We have no reason to assume the 2 situations would be treated differently.
I have several issues with your logic: - Disregarding the importance of the balance of conventional capabilities - Conflating not initiating with not escalating - Conflating leading to MAD with making MAD a real possibility - Disregarding the other array of nasty shit between conventional warfare and MAD,
If attacked, the nuclear power with the vastly inferior conventional capabilities is more likely to escalate with non-conventional weapons to make the superior force back off to avoid MAD. If under real existential threat, their only options are give up or "look how much crazy shit I'm willing to do, I'll do the ultimate one if you make me."
Whereas the superior force will always do everything it can to keep things conventional if possible since that's where their advantage lies. Even if a member state were attacked, NATO would only use non-conventional weapons if and after the attacker would.
I'm talking in general here, in this particular case "winning" isn't necessarily a survival issue. As Kwark pointed out before, Russia itself can definitely survive without Ukrainian airspace. Whether their regime could survive without it at this point and how that would impact further escalation, that's a different story.
NATO isn't assuming that any escalation with Russia would lead to MAD. What escalation with Russia does is up the chances of MAD from virtually 0 to definitely non-0 (and there are also some horrific possible scenarios without quite reaching MAD). No one is comfortable with the latter, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing Russia could do in Ukraine to make support for direct intervention reach critical mass. Where that point lies is different for everyone, for some it's already past it, for some it's unreachable regardless, for most I imagine it would take something very drastic like for example videos of mass executions in occupied cities.
I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of autism present in actual military logic. Escalation and retaliation are not relevant in a strictly logical sense. Every action is in reality confined to only the next outcome. The mistake you are making is attributing ethics to military conflict. This is incorrect. Putin will only prioritize his legacy and his life. Nothing else is a real factor.
Other than the last part where I talked about public support for intervention, my post was strictly about game theory. A simplified version is that the current conventional power distribution makes it so NATO is the least likely entity to be initiated upon. But that's also what makes it so if NATO itself initiates on someone with WMDs, the latter could only choose between giving up or escalation since a conventional war wouldn't be an option for them. And giving up isn't really an option for Putin in those circumstances, we'd have to bet on him getting disobeyed/overthrown.
This part is tongue-in-cheek, but given the audacity of the lies for why he sent troops in Ukraine and what they're doing there, maybe the only good way out of this is for Bush to give him a call and lend him that mission accomplished banner so Putin can announce the immediate glorious return of the troops having successfully denazified Ukraine and saved the world from fascism. No reason the conclusion has to be any more truthful than the premise.
On March 11 2022 05:56 Vindicare605 wrote: Putin really only has a couple of options here and none of them are good.
He can withdraw and accept a deal that leaves Donbas or Crimea in Ukraine's hands, Ukraine is never going to accept a deal that gives him both. He isn't going to do that because that would be catastrophic for him at home. He can't afford to go back to Russia empty handed especially after how exposed the Russian military got under his watch.
He can intensify the violence which is only going to make him more hated in Ukraine and make Ukraine even less likely to surrender and it's going to increase the level of the sanctions even further. The longer Ukraine fights the worse the sanctions are going to be on Russia which is going to be bad for his regime back home.
He can try to somehow convince China to support him in the war which China isn't about to do because they don't get anything out of it.
And lastly he can just keep carrying on like this and hope he gets lucky and Zelenskey's luck runs out. I don't know what happens if that happens it might just make things worse for him because now Zelenskey is a martyr.
His options are all bad right now. He's backed himself into a corner he has to see that.
To add onto this he can't keep Crimea unless he solves the water issue, its way to expensive for him to keep the status quo and Ukraine will never solve that for him unless he installs a friendly government. This will never last without an occupation which will never succeed now.
He can't take kyiv without a level of bloodshed and destruction that will make the rest of the war pale in comparison. Either he send troops in to sweep a city with a Molotov and an ak for every room or he flattens the place with enough munitions that even China cannot continue to support them after. If Zelenskyy dies the best putin can hope for is to destabilize the country and have it turn into an Afghanistan armed with a lot more advanced man-portable weapons while also having neither the economy nor the military to fight such a war, while also having this Afghanistan less than 100 miles from Moscow. .
Putin has no good outcomes and only a series of increasingly worse disasters waiting for him.
Yea I'm confused here. Besides Poland mismanaging the transfer of the MiGs what are they being sanctioned for? Ditto with Hungary. I don't like the Hungarian government lately but I don't remember them doing anything recently that would warrant economic sanctions.
On March 11 2022 11:14 Vindicare605 wrote: Yea I'm confused here. Besides Poland mismanaging the transfer of the MiGs what are they being sanctioned for? Ditto with Hungary. I don't like the Hungarian government lately but I don't remember them doing anything recently that would warrant economic sanctions.
It’s fake news making the right wing Twitter rounds drumming up anti EU sentiment. The irony is that it most likely originated in a Russian psyops facility.
EU members are expected to maintain certain levels of human rights, democracy, laws, basic liberal values. Basically the EU funding to nations is contingent upon their continued commitment to the values they agreed to follow when they joined the EU.
Poland and Hungary have been slipping a little lately and so they’re losing their pocket money. It’s not an economic sanction, it’s not unprecedented, it’s not even new (the articles I found on this were over a year old). It’s just a fake news tweet that went viral linking global sanctions on Russia with Poland/Hungary.
Vivax put it here because he gets his news from Twitter and lacks the sense to google any story that doesn’t sound likely.
EPT
)
