Ukraine War | Zelensky seeks NATO guarantees for unoccupied Ukraine for peace

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 361
  • Views: 9K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC said:
Russia never has and never will have the balls to use nuclear weapons- tactical or otherwise-
Click to expand...
What if you're wrong about that? That's the problem with calling a bluff.

There's a reason why petty dictators like to present themselves as crazy. Ahmedinjiad in Iran looked to be a fucking nut. Kim Jong Un shot his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun to prove to everyone that he DGAF about everything. And Putin, of course, has come across as deranged during this war.

It's called strategic irrationality. Well, I call it that when I used to teach it (Carl Icahn has made billions of dollars by being strategically irrational). But the problem is that it might not be strategic. Do we know that KJU isn't actually a nutcase? Do we know that Putin hasn't developed a dangerous megalomania from being in control for two decades.

This shit is complicated. I think we would be better off not having an opinion about whether Biden should have allowed Ukraine to fire into Russia. We have only the tip of the tip of the iceberg's worth of relevant information.
 
superrific said:
What if you're wrong about that? That's the problem with calling a bluff.

There's a reason why petty dictators like to present themselves as crazy. Ahmedinjiad in Iran looked to be a fucking nut. Kim Jong Un shot his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun to prove to everyone that he DGAF about everything. And Putin, of course, has come across as deranged during this war.

It's called strategic irrationality. Well, I call it that when I used to teach it (Carl Icahn has made billions of dollars by being strategically irrational). But the problem is that it might not be strategic. Do we know that KJU isn't actually a nutcase? Do we know that Putin hasn't developed a dangerous megalomania from being in control for two decades.

This shit is complicated. I think we would be better off not having an opinion about whether Biden should have allowed Ukraine to fire into Russia. We have only the tip of the tip of the iceberg's worth of relevant information.
Click to expand...
Totally fair invalid points, all, and definitely good food for thought for me! Appreciate you, super.

I guess I am projecting my rationality onto Putin. I just figured that someone like him, the wealthiest person in the universe, has so incredibly much to lose by starting an actual nuclear exchange.
 
CFordUNC said:
I guess I am projecting my rationality onto Putin. I just figured that someone like him, the wealthiest person in the universe, has so incredibly much to lose by starting an actual nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...
He does. It's a question of risk tolerance. How much risk of a thermonuclear war that might kill us all are you willing to accept? 1%? 0.1%?

And remember: Biden has to make the decision for everyone. Not just America. The whole world could potentially suffer horrible, horrible consequences. And they don't get any input. Imagine being a person living in India and reading about Russia and the US escalating threats. You'd probably be really pissed that your existence was in the hands of an old guy and a psychopath.

So I think it's the right thing to do to minimize that risk. The future of the species really shouldn't in our hands. We shouldn't be making that decision. It's not our right.
 
lawtig02 said:
You have just locked down the rights to the title for Trump's dispositive biography. Copyright it now.
Click to expand...
LOL. Pretty sure Cortes had that one locked up. The textbook case of strategic irrationality was burning the ships before fighting the Aztecs. It's a different sort of strategy but it's basically the same idea.
 
superrific said:
He does. It's a question of risk tolerance. How much risk of a thermonuclear war that might kill us all are you willing to accept? 1%? 0.1%?

And remember: Biden has to make the decision for everyone. Not just America. The whole world could potentially suffer horrible, horrible consequences. And they don't get any input. Imagine being a person living in India and reading about Russia and the US escalating threats. You'd probably be really pissed that your existence was in the hands of an old guy and a psychopath.

So I think it's the right thing to do to minimize that risk. The future of the species really shouldn't in our hands. We shouldn't be making that decision. It's not our right.
Click to expand...
Great points. Looks like I am still retaining some of my old hawkishness from my GOP days, although I guess to be fair the GOP isn’t about hawkishness anymore as much as it is about surrendering to foreign fascists.
 
CFordUNC said:


Lmao. Russia is so desperate to make the rest of the world think they will actually use nuclear weapons and nobody is buying it.

My biggest policy disagreement with the Biden administration has been the refusal until now to allow Ukraine to strike into Russia with U.S.-provided missiles. Russia never has and never will have the balls to use nuclear weapons- tactical or otherwise- and we should have been calling their weak ass bluff a long time ago. I hope Ukraine spends the next two months raining down unholy hell onto Russians so that they get a little taste of what the last three years have been like in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Amen. They aren't gonna do shit and their generals wouldn't follow any orders to launch. They all know full well the score. They are the class bully who cries after being punched once in the mouth.
 
superrific said:
He does. It's a question of risk tolerance. How much risk of a thermonuclear war that might kill us all are you willing to accept? 1%? 0.1%?

And remember: Biden has to make the decision for everyone. Not just America. The whole world could potentially suffer horrible, horrible consequences. And they don't get any input. Imagine being a person living in India and reading about Russia and the US escalating threats. You'd probably be really pissed that your existence was in the hands of an old guy and a psychopath.

So I think it's the right thing to do to minimize that risk. The future of the species really shouldn't in our hands. We shouldn't be making that decision. It's not our right.
Click to expand...
But of course, not making a decision is a decision, too. And I know you know that - but for others in the audience.

In other words, if you don’t make certain decisions because you are afraid of a 0.1% risk of a nuclear war, that appeasement in and of itself could create an even higher risk of a nuclear war.
 
Calheel said:
But of course, not making a decision is a decision, too. And I know you know that - but for others in the audience.

In other words, if you don’t make certain decisions because you are afraid of a 0.1% risk of a nuclear war, that appeasement in and of itself could create an even higher risk of a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Ask Neville Chamberlain
 
I appreciate Biden's caution but I do think at some point you have to call Putin's bluff. This thing has been going on near 3 years and he's done all sorts of horrible war crimes and has now escalated it further by involving an entirely new country. I don't think we can just sit back forever while Russia ups the ante over and over until they get everything they want. It's possible our best chance at stopping him is right now while he's relatively weak and there is a country of people willing to stand up and fight him. If we waste that opportunity it likely only gets more difficult in the future.
 
Calheel said:
In other words, if you don’t make certain decisions because you are afraid of a 0.1% risk of a nuclear war, that appeasement in and of itself could create an even higher risk of a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
In theory. Probably not in practice, but you're not wrong.
 
superrific said:
So I think it's the right thing to do to minimize that risk. The future of the species really shouldn't in our hands. We shouldn't be making that decision. It's not our right.
Click to expand...
But at some point you no longer have an option. If taken to the extreme, he could rule over the world with threats of nuclear war.

That said, I am a pessimist on the matter and have believed that the odds of going 500 more years without a nuclear war is very close to zero. We came so close so many times in the first 50 years of having nuclear weapons.

IMO, the only way we avoid that fate is if society collapses to a point where nuclear weapons can't be produce or maintained. But even in that scenario, society would rebuild and nukes would be rebuilt or rediscovered unless humans die out.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
But at some point you no longer have an option. If taken to the extreme, he could rule over the world with threats of nuclear war.

That said, I am a pessimist on the matter and have believed that the odds of going 500 more years without a nuclear war is very close to zero. We came so close so many times in the first 50 years of having nuclear weapons.

IMO, the only way we avoid that fate is if society collapses to a point where nuclear weapons can't be produce or maintained. But even in that scenario, society would rebuild and nukes would be rebuilt or rediscovered unless humans die out.
Click to expand...
500 years? If AI doesn't kill us by the turn of the century, climate change will.

Obviously at some point there's no option. That's why I said minimize. Before we start to worry about Putin ruling over the world, let's see if he can successfully peel off 15% of Ukraine's territory.
 
CFordUNC said:


Lmao. Russia is so desperate to make the rest of the world think they will actually use nuclear weapons and nobody is buying it.

My biggest policy disagreement with the Biden administration has been the refusal until now to allow Ukraine to strike into Russia with U.S.-provided missiles. Russia never has and never will have the balls to use nuclear weapons- tactical or otherwise- and we should have been calling their weak ass bluff a long time ago. I hope Ukraine spends the next two months raining down unholy hell onto Russians so that they get a little taste of what the last three years have been like in Ukraine.
Click to expand...


Russia should be ashamed that they haven't toppled Ukraine in three years. It's a testament to the complete shit show that their country and army are. Even with the trump terrorist team at the helm, Russia doesn't want war with the United States.
 

Russian gains accelerating as Biden approves new weapon use for Ukraine​


“…
Data from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) shows that Russia has gained almost six times as much territory in 2024 as it did in 2023, and is advancing towards key Ukrainian logistical hubs in the eastern Donbas region.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's surprise incursion into Russia's Kursk region is faltering. Russian troops have pushed Kyiv's offensive backwards. Experts have questioned the success of the offensive, with one calling it a "strategic catastrophe" given manpower shortages faced by Ukraine. …”

www.bbc.com

Russian gains accelerate as Ukraine's Kursk gamble falters

Moscow's forces have taken more ground since September than they did over the course of 2023, analysts say.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
dukeman92 said:
Russia should be ashamed that they haven't toppled Ukraine in three years. It's a testament to the complete shit show that their country and army are. Even with the trump terrorist team at the helm, Russia doesn't want war with the United States.
Click to expand...
That isn't going to happen. Trump will appease Putin with Ukraine territory to negotiate an end to the conflict.
Putin gets to claim victory and Trump gets to brag that he accomplished what the previous administration failed to do.
Ukraine gets no reparations for the devastation of its infrastructure and loss of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top