That is if you trust Putin to think logically. In the past yes. But now who knows. He is running out of time. He might do something completely irrational. With reports of his health I am not so sure. Regardless is he running out of time to get a victory in Ukraine health wise not withstanding.
But you're also assuming he's rational if you argue that limiting the West's intervention helps prevent him from using nukes (though I disagree - this isn't rational anyway). Why would we asume Putin wouldn't use nukes because of sanctions or because of the West providing arms, but would if the West provided different weapons? By definition, that assumes there's some kind of rational decision making being made by Putin that distinguishes between this. If we assume he's not rational, we should really just withdraw and give up all of Europe to him so we don't risk him nuking the world.
The CCP didn’t really learn that until the 1980’s and even then they’ve still been embroiled in long standing conflicts with almost all of their neighbors. Seeing what’s happening to Russia now might be reminding the CCP of the limits and dangers of aggressive action. One irony I find is that cheap drone technology manufactured in the PRC is greatly helping the Ukrainians and if the PRC were to move against Taiwan might be used against them.
I think this is very risky thinking. Just because Putin hasn’t used nukes doesn’t mean there isn’t a circumstance where he wouldn’t. Whether his generals are restraining him there might be circumstances where they themselves would support using nukes. If I had to guess it would be if the west armed Ukraine not just to the point that they could defend themselves but also threaten Russia proper. That’s probably why we’re not giving Ukraine missile with longer ranges.
I disagree with the specifics, but in making your case, you are assuming Putin is thinking rationally, which is my larger point. If we assume he is irrational, then there's no reason to think you could determine what would cause him to use nukes. You'd just be making random guesses, which means that sanctions or providing weapons would be just as likely as anything else. By suggesting there are metrics that Putin would use to decide whether to use nukes, it assumes some degree of rational thinking on his part.
Everyone has red lines. West countries' red lines are a little more clear, because their leaders have to justify decisions/announcments or be voted out. Russian political opposition and observers recently noticed that Putin's media mouthpieces stopped threatening west with nuclear strikes or with blowing up the nuclear power plant after West had made their red lines crystal clear. For one it implies that Putin is still rational (and I agree that we can't assume that Putin is irrational or we might as well disband NATO and start referendum on what's better - getting nuked or surrendering to an irrational player). And it also explains why Biden avoids giving Ukraine long range weapons (rockets, planes) and also directs Ukrainians not to strike Russia proper with foreign armament - I think it makes West's red lines weaker and makes a possibility of unanswered nuclear strike upon Ukraine slightly more likely. Russia can provide proof to the world that American weapons killed Russian citizens on their soil and thereby Russians are justified to "defensively" strike American command centers in Kiev with their utmost (nuclear) force "to stop the beginning of fourth world war". Just like with Iraq war, big decisions like "boots on the ground" or "direct military action" need to be "sold" to the western world first. Although, arguably at some level of use of tactical weapons, it may be no longer a consideration having a decision be "popularly approved" because everyone is dead. @rocketsjudoka, what makes me less nervous is the fact that we had lots of proxy wars with Soviets before, so there are almost some rules of engagement that must exist with regards to what constitutes some sort of "overreach" that both of the government are aware of thanks to the leaders being so f*ing old.. There were American F-16s fighting in Afghanistan in 80's for instance. Although, I do think that the stakes are higher due to hyper-sonic weapons and proximity to Russian boarders. Hopefully, there are more communication channels now than before (due to non-proliferation treaties?) where some of that risk is alleviated a little bit? But, yea, I'm still nervous and hate the Russians for starting this mad sh*t.
Except Putin hasn’t shown to be behaving irrationally. The current Russian strategy of consolidating in arrears where they have a lot of support and good supply lines is ver rational. To argue that Putin is completely irrational to the point that he could use nukes anytime for any or no reason seems like a real stretch. He’s made big miscalculations but those could be do to bad intel and or misreading of the West. Not that he’s completely irrational. I’m not sure what your point is. If it’s that Putin is Irrational so that we should arm Ukraine with what ever the want to and even step in to their side because Putin won’t nuke us because he hasn’t used nukes doesn’t make sense when he could still use nukes at any time. We also have to consider too even if Putin is irrational his top leaders still might be. If they are restraining him they might rationally decide to allow Putin to go nuclear if they feel that the West is arming and intervening enough in Ukraine to be an existential threat to Russia. All of this is my he big gamble with the fate of civilization the stakes.
[CNN]Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant disconnected from power grid for second day after nearby fires Had to turn on the emergency diesel generators to keep water pumping to prevent the core from melting down. Yay Russia.
The post you responded to was my response to this: My larger point to Aleksandar was that Putin is a rational human being and on that, I think you agree with me. My other point where I disagree with you is one that we disagreed on months ago and not really worth rehashing - it's about what specific red lines might cause Putin to use nukes. I think it's insane to assume that arming Ukraine with missiles and anti-aircraft weapons and all sorts of other sophisticated ground weapons while also destroying Russia's economy wouldn't cause him to retaliate, but that providing jets (the original discussion point) would. On that, the US and Europe is now looking at ways to get Ukraine jets... which would have been way more helpful back in March.
There's far more talk of the use of nukes on the NATO side if Russia expands, than there is talk out of Russia of them doing it. And for him, it's really moving to where he needs it to be, a lot of the sanctions of any consequence have been dropped (american banks are even buying russian bonds again comrade ), and they weren't overly effective to begin with (since the rest of the world never joined in, and europe is so reliant on the price spiking gas), on the battlefield they have Lubansk, they ended the water blockade to Crimea, and Donbas has probably 2 months left before its entirely Russian controlled, then comes the winter and they can really turn the screws on Europe, Germany in particular, to either get a permanent agreement on those territories or to strangle supplies to Ukraine for an accelerated Odessa offensive.
Russians are total idiots, they attack nuclear plants being held by them for several month. Yes trust the media.
Here's an idea. When the nuclear reactor you control is in the middle of a war zone, SCRAM the core so intermitent power outages don't have a chance of rendering several hundred square kilometers around you toxic and radioactive. The Russians have been disconnecting from the Ukranian grid which is why half the power lines that would power the pumps were down in the first place.
Far more likely is the other side attacking the plant. From all the new I can see, Ukraine is winning the war and the Russians will be defeated shortly, but is that really the truth?
That is the more objective assessment. All I can see are how many Russians casualty since the start of the war, up to 80k in some articles, I have never seen one time the mention of the Ukraine casualty. There are tons of report on how effective the US weapons are and how many Russian bases they destroyed, from all these articles I see I would have assumed Russians are about to roll over. Is there even one objective western media that report on this war?.
I think they have stopped their advance, but they are not really taking back any ground. I don't really believe the USA wants it over, I think we are trying to get Russia to weaken itself and have to settle for something. DD
Ukraine is winning the war in the sense that Russia keeps failing in its objectives. But Russia has the resources to keep doing this for a very long time - it's unclear if Ukraine does. The original expectation was a few days to a few weeks for Russia to take control and then Ukrainians might conduct an insurgency campaign for who knows how long. None of that has come to pass and Ukraine actually has expanded the playing field into places like Crimea. That's the only sense in which Ukraine is winning.
For further context, we had a rush of articles earlier this summer, with experts predicting the Russian military effort would completely collapse by... oh, look at that, mid-to-late August! Hmph.
I only have a problem with the whole main stream media turning into FOX news on this subject,. I thought new was suppose to be objective, not propaganda. This is what we always claim about the news reporting in authoritarian states.
