09 Oct 22
@jj-adams saidMadman?
We have a madman in Russia that is a wildcard and a senile old fool in the White House that will do whatever he's told by his handlers.
Looks like a Seldon Crisis to me.
Edit: If you don't know what a Seldon Crisis is, I feel sorry for you.
Nuclear threats are an American tradition. Remember when Bill Clinton threatened a nuclear first strike on the DPRK if they built a nuclear bomb? If Putin is a madman then many former presidents are madmen.
Why is the rhetoric always “Madman” “Armageddon” “Holocaust” etc? Metal Brain is technically a “madman”, it’s silly talk.
1) Putin will have been made aware by the West what their response will be if he uses a tactical weapon. He will doubt their honesty but will know that best case scenario for him will be instant and mass deployment of MOAB type strikes to wipe out his land military. There would probably be sub attacks and strikes on his known ballistic missile bases.
2) what will Putin gain with a single nuke strike in Ukraine? Nothing much, just a devastated uninhabitable area and lots of his own troops in danger of radiation sickness.
3) Russia would be virtually cut off from 90% the world for the foreseeable future.
4) china will be advising Putin not to escalate to nuclear. Everyone will benefit from a functioning Russia long term.
5) having said that he’s a megalomaniac in a corner!
(Edits: typos)
@divegeester
Zelenskyy called for nuclear war, then he back peddled and said he was talking about sanctions. That is ridiculous since he said it was to prevent Russia from using a nuke. Sanctions obviously do not prevent that.
Zelenskyy called for WW3 and a nuclear holocaust and his madman talk didn't go over well so he lied and said sanctions would prevent Putin from using a nuke. Zelenskyy is obviously incompetent. Nobody in his right mind would say what he said.
https://rumble.com/v1n2b5a-zelensky-calls-for-nuclear-first-strikes-against-russia.html
"Putin will have been made aware by the West what their response will be if he uses a tactical weapon"
So he should launch a full scale nuclear first strike on the USA since it will lead to nuclear war anyway, right? All you are supporting is Putin resorting to a first strike advantage using almost all of Russia's nukes on land. Remember, he has hyper sonic missiles that are perfect for a first strike advantage to take out some of the USA's nukes before they can launch. Right?
@no1marauder saidPeople in Russia have been emboldened lately to openly criticize Putin. They see he is not infallible. That means he is also no longer perceived to be invincible. That is why I think some of his intel and military personnel are probably already making contingency plans (in secret, of course) for a post-Putin climb-down.
What makes you think Putin's "underlings" are any more willing to accept defeat in Ukraine than he is? If the military situation deteriorates significantly as far as Russia is concerned, I would not be shocked to see them you use tactical nuclear weapons (an eventuality that Noam Chomsky warned of in an article I linked to months ago). Would the West than risk an all out ...[text shortened]... ip may well doubt it; after all, NATO and the rest have avoided outright intervention to this point.
Saner people, those less captive to Putin's pipe dream of re-establishing a Greater Russia (USSR), would accept a 'strategic re-grouping of forces to the rear' (don't call it "defeat" ) rather than risk large-scale devastation and decades of isolation.
The West is not committed to an all-out nuclear exchange if Russia uses a tactical nuke. There are many options short of that, and that strategic ambiguity is what makes detente work. The West could respond with conventional weapons only, or a sea blockade, for example. Uncertainty how the West would respond is a more effective deterrent than declaring "I'm not bluffing."
09 Oct 22
1 edit
@divegeester said"Madman" is perhaps not a correct psychiatric diagnosis in Putin's case, but he is clearly blinded by his pipe dream of reclaiming for Russia the power and global reach of the former USSR.
Why is the rhetoric always “Madman” “Armageddon” “Holocaust” etc? Metal Brain is technically a “madman”, it’s silly talk.
1) Putin will have been made aware by the West what their response will be if he uses a tactical weapon. He will doubt their honesty but will know that best case scenario for him will be instant and mass deployment of MOAB type strikes to wipe out ...[text shortened]... tioning Russia long term.
5) having said that he’s a megalomaniac in a corner!
(Edits: typos)
PS TU from me.
09 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidOh yeah I forgot you are a Putin apologist and it’s all the invaded counties fault.
@divegeester
Zelenskyy called for nuclear war, then he back peddled and said he was talking about sanctions. That is ridiculous since he said it was to prevent Russia from using a nuke. Sanctions obviously do not prevent that.
Zelenskyy called for WW3 and a nuclear holocaust and his madman talk didn't go over well so he lied and said sanctions would prevent Putin from ...[text shortened]... fect for a first strike advantage to take out some of the USA's nukes before they can launch. Right?
Thanks for remind me.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
@divegeester saidPeople who immediately embrace the worst-case scenario are invariably the same people who tuck their cardigans into their trousers.
Why is the rhetoric always “Madman” “Armageddon” “Holocaust” etc? Metal Brain is technically a “madman”, it’s silly talk.
09 Oct 22
@moonbus saidMost of the criticism of Putin is by hardliners who are pushing for more, not less, escalation. People in the military at the highest level are not known for their willingness to accept defeat.
People in Russia have been emboldened lately to openly criticize Putin. They see he is not infallible. That means he is also no longer perceived to be invincible. That is why I think some of his intel and military personnel are probably already making contingency plans (in secret, of course) for a post-Putin climb-down.
Saner people, those less captive to Putin's pipe drea ...[text shortened]... ertainty how the West would respond is a more effective deterrent than declaring "I'm not bluffing."
Russia has a stock of about 1900 tactical nuclear weapons about 10 times what the US possesses. Doctrinally their use is contemplated in the case of defense of Russian territory. And Russia, not merely Putin, has annexed areas comprising almost 18% of the land mass of Ukraine. I find it hard to believe that any Russian military leader would simply resign themselves to the humiliation of their loss.
Obviously the situation isn't there yet and might never be. But to think that internal Russian politics is going to develop in a way that Westerners like in the short run is naive. Don't expect Putin to be replaced and a new government to withdraw its troops, apologize, offer reparations and do whatever else the West desires. It's not going to happen no matter how much we think it should.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
09 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidAnd by people who want fair elections, not shams where the incumbent gets 90% of the vote.
Most of the criticism of Putin is by hardliners who are pushing for more, not less, escalation.
And by Georgia, which has been invaded by Putin before.
And by LGBTwhatever people, who are in danger of being murdered every day of their lives under the Putin regime.
And by journalists, who would like not to be thrown into an oubliette for reporting the truth.
And by lawyers, who stand by the rule of... oh, no. Apparently not by them. Corruption runs deep.
09 Oct 22
@shallow-blue saidAlthough the simple minded like yourself like to pretend otherwise, my statement had to do with present public criticism in Russia of his war policies, not with objections to his tyrannical rule.
And by people who want fair elections, not shams where the incumbent gets 90% of the vote.
And by Georgia, which has been invaded by Putin before.
And by LGBTwhatever people, who are in danger of being murdered every day of their lives under the Putin regime.
And by journalists, who would like not to be thrown into an oubliette for reporting the truth.
And by lawyers, who stand by the rule of... oh, no. Apparently not by them. Corruption runs deep.
10 Oct 22
@divegeester saidBy that standard Syria was not at fault for being invaded and occupied by the USA.
Oh yeah I forgot you are a Putin apologist and it’s all the invaded counties fault.
Thanks for remind me.
Has that hypocrisy gone unnoticed by you? Either both are wrong or both are right. Which is it?
10 Oct 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPeople who tuck their cardigans into their trousers should be lined up and shot. Twice.
People who immediately embrace the worst-case scenario are invariably the same people who tuck their cardigans into their trousers.
Then their dogs should be shot.
Gad, I hate intolerant people. They should be lined up and shot, too.
10 Oct 22
@jj-adams saidWell I was more surprised than you until I noticed ‘Foundation’ streamed on Disney or some such platform, I suspect you were in your basement in full Captain America gear immersed in the marvel universe and clicked on it accidentally.
I'm surprised you have even heard of Isaac Asimov.
10 Oct 22
2 edits
@no1marauder saidAnd you think the criticism's of his “war policies” are A) unjustified or B) distinct and unrelated to his ultra right domestic policies.
Although the simple minded like yourself like to pretend otherwise, my statement had to do with present public criticism in Russia of his war policies, not with objections to his tyrannical rule.
or both?
Tell us again how naive we are 🤔
10 Oct 22
@kevcvs57 saidApple TV actually.
Well I was more surprised than you until I noticed ‘Foundation’ streamed on Disney or some such platform, I suspect you were in your basement in full Captain America gear immersed in the marvel universe and clicked on it accidentally.