Putin is losing his war badly, so bad he threatened nukes. What should the response be if he does?

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
6,005
1,286
Because Obama was weak, of course.

More specifically, Obama was weak in that he allowed the other major NATO members to determine NATO's reaction... you might call it democracy (and you might say that this proves democracy itself is weak).
Well when we, USA, virtually support the entire financial existence of NATO , we should have a weighted say
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
More than that. I think the NATO response should be immediate and massive, taking out Russia's air/missile defenses and their power and transportation grid. I'm not an expert at this kind of communication but it should be made clear to them, in terms familiar in their culture, calmly, and with details that will be convincing... no macho bluster... that the consequences would be disastrous for Russia and for Putin.

If that is the response then that is the response, but we should all accept the reality that a response like that would most likely lead to a thermonuclear war over the Northern Hemisphere.

We can't discuss a NATO attack on Russia and politely decline to discuss what would happen next.

Russia needs to withdraw from the Ukraine with as little escalation as possible, even if that withdrawal has to be "purchased" with diplomacy and money. We all have to let go of the idea of "beating" the biggest nuclear power on the planet. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but China, Russia and USA cannot be "beaten" militarily with our nuclear arsenals, we can only be "beaten" economically or athletically, or to Space, etc..

The Ukranians have softened Russia up tremendously over the last several months. The diplomatic and monetary cost to get the Russians to withdraw would likely be lower than ever. The NATO members can afford that kind of bribe by kicking the tin after a night of drinking. It won't feel good, but thousands of lives will be saved, and everyday people like you and I won't even know the dirty details.

Then hopefully we will celebrate both the liberation of the Ukranians and the Iranians rather than cry over ashes. Pride means nothing over a pile of ashes.
 
Last edited:

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
6,005
1,286
Russia and China have been behind every hostile action since the end of WW II
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,163
5,867
De Nile
is it really @mikewof ’s position that, with Putin threatening to use nukes, after invading his neighbor, that it’s Great Britain that is the real threat to peace?
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,650
10,309
Eastern NC
If that is the response then that is the response, but we should all accept the reality that a response like that would most likely lead to a thermonuclear war over the Northern Hemisphere.

We can't discuss a NATO attack on Russia and politely decline to discuss what would happen next.

Russia needs to withdraw from the Ukraine with as little escalation as possible, even if that withdrawal has to be "purchased" with diplomacy and money. We all have to let go of the idea of "beating" the biggest nuclear power on the planet. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but China, Russia and USA cannot be "beaten" militarily, only economically.

I would absolutely support a negotiated end to the war, as long as the UKR gov't is the lead party in negotiating. For NATO or the US to tell them "you have to settle for X" would be unacceptable IMHO.

As for "what comes next" after a response to a Russian nuclear attack, the answer is that Russia either backs down while they can, or their nation is destroyed. Russia just helped Syria find out what it's like to have a future of starving amidst rubble, let them share it.

You seem to think Russia can win. They can't, and they won't. They can inflict a lot of damage on the rest of the world, but as a nation they will not survive the escalation.
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
I would absolutely support a negotiated end to the war, as long as the UKR gov't is the lead party in negotiating. For NATO or the US to tell them "you have to settle for X" would be unacceptable IMHO.

As for "what comes next" after a response to a Russian nuclear attack, the answer is that Russia either backs down while they can, or their nation is destroyed. Russia just helped Syria find out what it's like to have a future of starving amidst rubble, let them share it.

You seem to think Russia can win. They can't, and they won't. They can inflict a lot of damage on the rest of the world, but as a nation they will not survive the escalation.

Win? Who wins in the global thermonuclear war other than a few random pockets of civilization who don't get hit by the nukes, like Australia, New Zealand and maybe South Africa, New Caledonia and PNG?

The Ukranians can negotiate their hearts out, but they don't have deep enough pockets to buy the end of this war, they would have to keep fighting. Both Russia and the Ukraine will undoubtedly have to accept terms that they don't like, even the mighty, mighty USA had to accept some repulsive terms to end WWII. That is the nature of peacemaking, it ends with compromise.

To Russia "winning" ... Russia has already lost, but they have not and cannot be defeated in this age of nuclear arsenals unless we are willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity to that defeat.
 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
95,419
12,614
Earth
BAAA59D9-02AF-4DBA-B394-B71B4619B09D.jpeg
 

Chris in Santa Cruz CA

Super Anarchist
6,539
1,487
earths surface
Same shit in the 30's with Hitler. Churchill jumping up and down screaming to "nice guy" politicians that if they did not enforce the signed agreements with Germany after WW1 that Germany would keep building a war machine. Cost a lot more to shut them down when they got going than it would have been when they built their first warship. Huge mistake by UK and France to not coldly slap that fucker down as soon as he did the first breach of treaties.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,650
10,309
Eastern NC
.....

To Russia "winning" ... Russia has already lost, but they have not and cannot be defeated in this age of nuclear arsenals unless we are willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity to that defeat.

They absolutely can be defeated, and most likely will be. The question is, will enough Russians go along with trying to destroy life on the planet to carry out a large-scale nuclear attack as they go down? Or will they accept terms... obviously to include regime change... and remain part of the human race?
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
They absolutely can be defeated, and most likely will be. The question is, will enough Russians go along with trying to destroy life on the planet to carry out a large-scale nuclear attack as they go down? Or will they accept terms... obviously to include regime change... and remain part of the human race?

Throwing the dice against a nuclear superpower doesn't work.

If we win, we are left with a demoralized and broken powder keg that is still a nuclear superpower.

If we lose, we are left with the potential end of humanity and culture as we know it.

Russia can and likely will withdraw from the Ukraine soon (with the right incentives) because they are losing an asymmetric fight. But against NATO? The asymmetry vanishes and the eventual result is the last recourse, the one none of us want to think about. That is not a regular defeat, kind of a mutual, planet-wide defeat.
 
Last edited:

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Because Obama was weak, of course.

More specifically, Obama was weak in that he allowed the other major NATO members to determine NATO's reaction... you might call it democracy (and you might say that this proves democracy itself is weak).

So it was Obama's fault? What about Congress; don't they have a say? What about our man in NATO?
.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,650
10,309
Eastern NC
So it was Obama's fault? What about Congress; don't they have a say? What about our man in NATO?
.

Absolutely it was Obama's fault! Everything bad was Obama's fault, even the shit they had to make up. Just like with Biden.

Obama was weak, just like his "line in the sand" in Syria: he said that he would not escalate deployment of force in Syria without Congressional approval... Congress indicated to him they would approve and he made his "line in the sand" comment... then Congress would not actually approve, ha ha ha on him.

Chuck Todd interviewed the NATO Sec-Gen this morning, who said a number of interesting things including that NATO has alreaqdy agreed to consider a Russian-caused 'accident' at Zaporizhzia or any other nuke plant as a nuclear attack on Europe. And that they have communicated with Russian staff that there would be extreme and immediate consequences for a nuclear attack anywhere.
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Same shit in the 30's with Hitler. Churchill jumping up and down screaming to "nice guy" politicians that if they did not enforce the signed agreements with Germany after WW1 that Germany would keep building a war machine. Cost a lot more to shut them down when they got going than it would have been when they built their first warship. Huge mistake by UK and France to not coldly slap that fucker down as soon as he did the first breach of treaties.

All true. But Hitler didn't have a doomsday device, there was a bit more flexibility back then. Would Hitler have even hesitated to launch a few thousand nukes from his bunker when the end was in sight if he had that ability?
 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Chuck Todd interviewed the NATO Sec-Gen this morning, who said a number of interesting things including that NATO has alreaqdy agreed to consider a Russian-caused 'accident' at Zaporizhzia or any other nuke plant as a nuclear attack on Europe. And that they have communicated with Russian staff that there would be extreme and immediate consequences for a nuclear attack anywhere.

Fuck, I hope there isn't an actual engineering failure of some kind!
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
6,005
1,286
Absolutely it was Obama's fault! Everything bad was Obama's fault, even the shit they had to make up. Just like with Biden.

Obama was weak, just like his "line in the sand" in Syria: he said that he would not escalate deployment of force in Syria without Congressional approval... Congress indicated to him they would approve and he made his "line in the sand" comment... then Congress would not actually approve, ha ha ha on him.

Chuck Todd interviewed the NATO Sec-Gen this morning, who said a number of interesting things including that NATO has alreaqdy agreed to consider a Russian-caused 'accident' at Zaporizhzia or any other nuke plant as a nuclear attack on Europe. And that they have communicated with Russian staff that there would be extreme and immediate consequences for a nuclear attack anywhere.
Lol… Putin don’t give a shit about that statement
Embarrassing yourself again, something you can’t seem to get enough of .
You probably think Biden is not mentally incapacitated, he is!
 

solosailor

Super Anarchist
4,225
918
San Francisco Bay
Lol… Putin don’t give a shit about that statement
Then tell us what he says in your weekly meetings then..... traitor and shill deluxe.
You probably think Biden is not mentally incapacitated, he is!
You prove daily that you are more incapacitated than we could believe a person could be..... or you're an evil shill of a cuckhold flexing your internet anonymous coward fingers.
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
6,005
1,286
Then tell us what he says in your weekly meetings then..... traitor and shill deluxe.

You prove daily that you are more incapacitated than we could believe a person could be..... or you're an evil shill of a cuckhold flexing your internet anonymous coward fingers.
Double up on your BP meds
 


Latest posts



Top