Ukraine - somebody explain to me

[Non Sequitur]

Well, if Putin said it was an act of war, we may as well get ahead of things and just launch the nukes now, right? Come on.

And "unfettered"? We have destroyed their economy and set them back at least 30 years.



Exactly.

You're being less than honest with your mischaracterization of what I said. I've never implied in the slightest that we should launch nukes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're being less than honest with your mischaracterization of what I said. I've never implied in the slightest that we should launch nukes.

You are advocating for a direct military conflict with a nuclear superpower.

[Non Sequitur]

You are advocating for a direct military conflict with a nuclear superpower.

When did I advocate that? My point was that we have already deployed weapons against Russia, and just because those weapons do not go bang, does not mean we have not engaged in war? Do you think that Putin honors the distinction?

[Jeff Lebowski]

When did I advocate that? My point was that we have already deployed weapons against Russia, and just because those weapons do not go bang, does not mean we have not engaged in war? Do you think that Putin honors the distinction?

Yes, of course there is a distinction.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, of course there is a distinction.

Where is the line? If we give Ukraine money to buy weapons is that the line? What if we supply weapons? What if we supply military intelligence? Do you think Putin sees a no-fly zone as some sort of magic line that cannot be crossed before he launches nukes? We're past that. Russia isn't the only superpower in the world. We should start acting like one.

[Omaha 680]

If Hitler had had nukes, would we have let him proceed unfettered? If you look at the world response, we're kind of already in World Ware III, just without the guns yet. Putin has already said that the sanctions are equivalent to a declaration of war, so if Putin thinks we are at war, how does that not make us at war?

If Hitler had thousands of nukes with the ability to deliver them to any American city within 20 minutes, you're damn right we would have approached it differently. Also if the US/UK/France had their current nuclear arsenal, Hitler probably would have behaved differently.

There is a reason why the Cuban missile crisis was the closest we have come to nuclear amragedeon (apart from the heroic actions of Stanislov Petrov in 1983 which wasn't public at the time). It's because we had American and soviet assets in very public close contact with each other ready to engage if needed. Both sides went to great lengths throughout the cold war to avoid those situations (even during times of proxy war) because of the inherent danger of rapid escalation.

We obviously want to do the right thing and help the good guys win and prevent innocent suffering, but nuclear weapons deliver systems developed during the cold war permanently changed what we are able to risk. Things like nuclear capacity of our foe and NATO membership of the country being attacked matter a lot. Unfortunately deterrence is a two-way street.

[Omaha 680]

Where is the line? If we give Ukraine money to buy weapons is that the line? What if we supply weapons? What if we supply military intelligence? Do you think Putin sees a no-fly zone as some sort of magic line that cannot be crossed before he launches nukes? We're past that. Russia isn't the only superpower in the world. We should start acting like one.

There is a huge distinction when Americans start directly shooting down Russian planes. I get the frustration; I feel it too. But there are devastating risks to be weighed.

I think the Berlin airlift is one of the proudest moments in modern American history. But if the blockade had happened a few months later after the soviets detonated their first nuke, it might have gone very differently.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Where is the line? If we give Ukraine money to buy weapons is that the line? What if we supply weapons? What if we supply military intelligence? Do you think Putin sees a no-fly zone as some sort of magic line that cannot be crossed before he launches nukes? We're past that. Russia isn't the only superpower in the world. We should start acting like one.

US or NATO military directly engaging russia in battle is a very bright line.

Not sure why this is difficult.

[PaloAltoCougar]

If Hitler had thousands of nukes with the ability to deliver them to any American city within 20 minutes, you're damn right we would have approached it differently. Also if the US/UK/France had their current nuclear arsenal, Hitler probably would have behaved differently.

There is a reason why the Cuban missile crisis was the closest we have come to nuclear amragedeon (apart from the heroic actions of Stanislov Petrov in 1983 which wasn't public at the time). It's because we had American and soviet assets in very public close contact with each other ready to engage if needed. Both sides went to great lengths throughout the cold war to avoid those situations (even during times of proxy war) because of the inherent danger of rapid escalation.

We obviously want to do the right thing and help the good guys win and prevent innocent suffering, but nuclear weapons deliver systems developed during the cold war permanently changed what we are able to risk. Things like nuclear capacity of our foe and NATO membership of the country being attacked matter a lot. Unfortunately deterrence is a two-way street.

Confirming your reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I still remember pretty vividly, although I was only 10), Vasili Arkhipov also deserves a nod here. At the height of the Crisis, U.S. naval forces dropped signaling depth charges hoping to force Arkhipov's submarine to the surface. The sub was running so deep it had no contact with Moscow, and the crew was uncertain if WWIII had broken out. Three officers were required to okay the use of the nuclear weapons on board, and the ship's captain and political officer were arguing strongly in favor of using their weapons. Arkhipov stood firm in not okaying the release. As historian Arthur Schlesinger later observed, "This was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in human history."

[Omaha 680]

Confirming your reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I still remember pretty vividly, although I was only 10), Vasili Arkhipov also deserves a nod here. At the height of the Crisis, U.S. naval forces dropped signaling depth charges hoping to force Arkhipov's submarine to the surface. The sub was running so deep it had no contact with Moscow, and the crew was uncertain if WWIII had broken out. Three officers were required to okay the use of the nuclear weapons on board, and the ship's captain and political officer were arguing strongly in favor of using their weapons. Arkhipov stood firm in not okaying the release. As historian Arthur Schlesinger later observed, "This was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in human history."

Indeed. And typically launching of a "special weapon" only required approval of two: the captain and political officer. It was a quirk of the mission command structure (perhaps divine intervention if you are believer) that Arkhipov was on board as second in command of the sub but chief of staff of the entire sub group. So that was the only sub that required three people to approve launch.

While both of the incidents had civilization on the brink, the 1983 incident strikes me as more likely to have lead to amragedeon. I believe Akhipov "only" prevented the launching of a nuclear torpedo which certainly could have escalated to global thermonuclear war. However petrov witnessed what was supposedly a US nuclear first strike on the soviet union. His training dictated he was to report it immediately and the then soviet protocol would have immediately launch a massive retaliatory strike. That retaliation would obviously have been a soviet first strike which would have been met by a massive US retaliatory response.

Crazy to think that one man saying no might have saved the world in both cases.

[Clark Addison]

I don't know how much to believe the logistics thread MBN linked to, but I did get a chuckle out of this part of it:

Embedded Tweet

[myboynoah]

Are you proposing a no-fly zone with US fighters?

What happens when they shoot down a Russian plane? That seems like a sure way to get us into a war.

Let me be clear, I advocate for a step-by-step ratcheting up of support to the point that a no-fly zone becomes a next logical, doable step or it is simply superfluous. We should take the initiative away from Puten's veiled nuclear threats. Gradually bring more pressure via more sanctions, more intelligence support, covert action and technology support on the ground, and weaponry, etc. We are already engaged in some of this: oil and gas sanctions are gaining momentum and it looks like NATO is on the road to providing aircraft (which was another redline for Puten). We do this gradually, forcing Puten to retreat on his redlines until they lose their meaning and Russia decides to stop this madness. I see scenarios where at least a partial no-fly zone over parts of western Ukraine could be done.

[myboynoah]

No a good sign for the Russians.

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

No a good sign for the Russians.

Embedded Tweet

Next Headline:

Syrian Mercenaries to Russia: "Thanks for the cash, we're going to Bermuda."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Russia now shipping in normal commercial (non-military) vehicles by train. That cannot be a good sign.

Infamous 40-mile column approaching Kyiv hasn't really moved much in 4-5 days. UA said to be targeting fuel vehicles with anti-tank weapons so as to cripple the convoy. Very smart.

I read an article in the NYT this morning indicating that the US is doing a ton of things behind the scenes to cripple/intercept russian communications and is providing lots of intel from satelites/aircraft/etc to UA. This is almost all done on the down-low so you won't hear any details or briefings about it.