All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

The president of the United States said last night that he is concerned about nuclear war. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he remarked, seemingly off-the-cuff, at a Democratic fundraiser. The reactions were what you’d expect: Strategists and foreign-policy experts tried to unpack his statements, while right-wing pundits declared that the old man is too unsteady for the job. Many Americans are, understandably, scared.

I have criticized Biden for intemperate remarks in the past. I gladly stipulate that I never want any president talking about nuclear war extemporaneously (and I wonder what moved the president to speak out this time). But I understand the message Biden is trying, in every possible venue, to send to Russia, and I’m glad that he’s trying to shake us—and Russian President Vladimir Putin—out of our complacency about this potentially cataclysmic issue.

What I suspect Biden knows, and what Americans and their allies should realize, is that Putin is almost certainly talking a lot about nuclear weapons because he wants to accustom the West to the idea that he has the right to use them. From the first day of the war, Putin has woven nuclear threats into both his offensive against Ukraine and his warnings to the West. Like other Russia-watchers, I think the chances that Putin will resort to nuclear use are low. But I have been worried about it since the moment Russia’s military started collapsing on the battlefield.

Now the Russian president is making sure to mention the use of “all means available” to defend Russian territory, and describing the nuclear bombing of Japan as a precedent—a clear implication that he is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons, smaller bombs delivered over short distances. These arms, however, are “small” only relative to the massive weapons on bombers, submarines, and intercontinental missiles; even the tiniest of them can do immense damage, especially against civilian areas.

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”

I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

At that point, Putin—if he is still in power—would either have to accept defeat, or escalate and throw the dice yet again. (And, as even Secretary Perry noted, the United States would have to “take off the gloves the second time around.”) Putin might then claim that the U.S. and NATO are presenting an existential threat to the Russian state, and go to a full nuclear alert that directly threatens all of Europe and North America.

The United States would have to respond and go to a similarly heightened status. Putin, as the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev put it during the Cuban missile crisis, will have tied the knot of war, and each side’s actions would then run the risk of pulling it tighter. Even the slightest miscalculation could lead to an apocalyptic outcome. The only option that avoids such a disaster is agreement to Putin’s terms, an immediate Ukrainian surrender, and general Western abandonment of East-Central Europe. This is likely what Putin expects, but it would be one more mistake from a Russian dictator who has underestimated his opponents and made horrendous miscalculations at every turn.

Putin is trying to normalize the use of nuclear weapons for imperial conquest. If he succeeds, he will not stop. The United States did not fight two world wars and the Cold War merely to bow to blackmail and accept the demands of a despot holding the entire global order of peace and security hostage with a nuclear bomb. It was Biden’s duty—as it would be for any American president—to say clearly and directly that the use of nuclear weapons runs apocalyptic risks."

I’ve got a friend who’s a psych PhD and has her families passports all set up and slots in the US and Canada to head. She’s hardly a reactionary and she’s terrified of what he might pull and she’s in NW Germany around Bremen so buffered a bit compared w East Germany. When we first spoke on this topic a few months back it opened my eyes to how Europeans are feeling about this. Not that I care about most of Europe but I do care about people.

[Kismet]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Not exactly. Once span of the roadway is collapsed. One-way vehicular traffic is cars only until divers can check out of the roadway support is compromised. Nevertheless, not a good look for your 4D chess playing, Vlad. Whose forces responded by rocketing civilian targets in Zaporizhzhia as they decried "terrorism" for the bridge strike.

My "left wing source" was the same as you - Reuters.

Your source VDH could also be short-hand for Very Dumb History.

[old salt]

Just thought everyone would like to see Putin's American fanboy, the Criminal Michael Flynn, supporting the RU and its leadership:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 1685054467

Anyone shocked? Mildly surprised? Like the sun coming up in the morning?

Did you listen to what he's saying ? He's not supporting anyone. He's saying we need to take the threats from Putin & Medvedev seriously (you remember Dmitri - Obama's pal who he patted on the knee & whispered reassurances to).
He's warning us not to let Zelensky lead us into Armageddon.

[old salt]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Not exactly. Once span of the roadway is collapsed. One-way vehicular traffic is cars only until divers can check out of the roadway support is compromised. Nevertheless, not a good look for your 4D chess playing, Vlad. Whose forces responded by rocketing civilian targets in Zaporizhzhia as they decried "terrorism" for the bridge strike.

My "left wing source" was the same as you - Reuters.

Your source VDH could also be short-hand for Very Dumb History.

It's like having one span of the Ches Bay Bridge temporarily closed for construction & truck traffic suspended because of high winds.
Rail traffic is continuing. BFD. Not worthy of the hype.

[Farfromgeneva]

Not credible

[Kismet]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Not exactly. Once span of the roadway is collapsed. One-way vehicular traffic is cars only until divers can check out of the roadway support is compromised. Nevertheless, not a good look for your 4D chess playing, Vlad. Whose forces responded by rocketing civilian targets in Zaporizhzhia as they decried "terrorism" for the bridge strike.

My "left wing source" was the same as you - Reuters.

Your source VDH could also be short-hand for Very Dumb History.

It's like having one span of the Ches Bay Bridge temporarily closed for construction & truck traffic suspended because of high winds.
Rail traffic is continuing. BFD. Not worthy of the hype.

Math obviously not your strong suit. One lane of vehicular traffic and no trucks vs 4 lanes including buses and trucks) seems to be somewhat of a big deal albeit not a total showstopper but supplying Russian units in the south just became more than a bit harder.

Naturally, you sound more like Orange Cheato at a rally. Sure you never voted for him..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Just thought everyone would like to see Putin's American fanboy, the Criminal Michael Flynn, supporting the RU and its leadership:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 1685054467

Anyone shocked? Mildly surprised? Like the sun coming up in the morning?

Did you listen to what he's saying ? He's not supporting anyone. He's saying we need to take the threats from Putin & Medvedev seriously (you remember Dmitri - Obama's pal who he patted on the knee & whispered reassurances to).
He's warning us not to let Zelensky lead us into Armageddon.

I did. "...bold leaders who've got everything at stake in terms of protecting their country." In other words, a reversal of the actual situation, in which the Russian Czar has invaded the sovereign land of another country with the overt intention of eliminating it as a separate nation state. Everything is at stake for Putin because he made a bad bet on Ukraine, a bad bet on his own defense forces and offensive capabilities. You know all this. Why must you continue to prop up the pro-Russia narrative?

The clear history of this conflict shows that Putin -- not Zelenskyy -- has raised the spectre of "all means at my availability" since the first days in February. Putin's use of the nuclear threat is a hostage message: I get what I want or I blow it all up. The blame for Zelenskyy feeds and promotes the pro-Russia narrative.

The world order -- and by that I mean a commitment to law as the organizing principle in the interactions between nation states -- is at risk only and solely because Putin's dreams of a remaking of the empire of his now distant youth are in flames. Guys like you -- pretending a pseudo-balance in order to blame the West and Biden -- only feed his appetite. Glad you are retired.

[old salt]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Not exactly. Once span of the roadway is collapsed. One-way vehicular traffic is cars only until divers can check out of the roadway support is compromised. Nevertheless, not a good look for your 4D chess playing, Vlad. Whose forces responded by rocketing civilian targets in Zaporizhzhia as they decried "terrorism" for the bridge strike.

My "left wing source" was the same as you - Reuters.

Your source VDH could also be short-hand for Very Dumb History.

It's like having one span of the Ches Bay Bridge temporarily closed for construction & truck traffic suspended because of high winds.
Rail traffic is continuing. BFD. Not worthy of the hype.

Math obviously not your strong suit. One lane of vehicular traffic and no trucks seems to be somewhat of a big deal albeit not a total showstopper but supplying Russian units in the south just became more than a bit harder.

Naturally, you sound more like Orange Cheato at a rally. Sure you never voted for him..

No, I'm just not a Ukrainian propagandist like you are. You posted that most of Russia's military support moves by rail. You might want to see what the inspection of the bridge by Russian divers yields before you declare that truck traffic is limited long enough to be a factor.
It's 2 lanes closed / 2 lanes open. Rah Rah by Jingo.

[Kismet]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Not exactly. Once span of the roadway is collapsed. One-way vehicular traffic is cars only until divers can check out of the roadway support is compromised. Nevertheless, not a good look for your 4D chess playing, Vlad. Whose forces responded by rocketing civilian targets in Zaporizhzhia as they decried "terrorism" for the bridge strike.

My "left wing source" was the same as you - Reuters.

Your source VDH could also be short-hand for Very Dumb History.

It's like having one span of the Ches Bay Bridge temporarily closed for construction & truck traffic suspended because of high winds.
Rail traffic is continuing. BFD. Not worthy of the hype.

Math obviously not your strong suit. One lane of vehicular traffic and no trucks seems to be somewhat of a big deal albeit not a total showstopper but supplying Russian units in the south just became more than a bit harder.

Naturally, you sound more like Orange Cheato at a rally. Sure you never voted for him..

No, I'm just not a Ukrainian propagandist like you are. You posted that most of Russia's military support moves by rail. You might want to see what the inspection of the bridge by Russian divers yields before you declare that truck traffic is limited long enough to be a factor.
It's 2 lanes closed / 2 lanes open. Rah Rah by Jingo.

You should know - you are the "expert" propagandist around here. You foist your version of it daily. If you disagree with someone you label them propagandists. I guess Reuters is now propaganda and you'll stop citing it. Go back to watching RT and supporting Tulsi and Tucker.

[old salt]

Just thought everyone would like to see Putin's American fanboy, the Criminal Michael Flynn, supporting the RU and its leadership:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 1685054467

Anyone shocked? Mildly surprised? Like the sun coming up in the morning?

Did you listen to what he's saying ? He's not supporting anyone. He's saying we need to take the threats from Putin & Medvedev seriously (you remember Dmitri - Obama's pal who he patted on the knee & whispered reassurances to).
He's warning us not to let Zelensky lead us into Armageddon.

I did. "...bold leaders who've got everything at stake in terms of protecting their country." In other words, a reversal of the actual situation, in which the Russian Czar has invaded the sovereign land of another country with the overt intention of eliminating it as a separate nation state. Everything is at stake for Putin because he made a bad bet on Ukraine, a bad bet on his own defense forces and offensive capabilities. You know all this. Why must you continue to prop up the pro-Russia narrative?

The clear history of this conflict shows that Putin -- not Zelenskyy -- has raised the spectre of "all means at my availability" since the first days in February. Putin's use of the nuclear threat is a hostage message: I get what I want or I blow it all up. The blame for Zelenskyy feeds and promotes the pro-Russia narrative.

The world order -- and by that I mean a commitment to law as the organizing principle in the interactions between nation states -- is at risk only and solely because Putin's dreams of a remaking of the empire of his now distant youth are in flames. Guys like you -- pretending a pseudo-balance in order to blame the West and Biden -- only feed his appetite. Glad you are retired.

It's not pro-Russian rhetoric to warn that Putin is probably not bluffing, & it's not worth the risk to find out.
That's why Biden is warning his donors of Armageddon & looking for an off ramp for Putin.
You preserve the international order by defending your own borders. Ukraine failed to do so & they're paying the price.
Let that be a lesson to other nations. Sweden & Finland got the message.
At least we are helping Ukraine survive & retain most of their territory, which they should now be able to defend going forward, unless they relapse into a corrupt oligarchy.

[Farfromgeneva]

Am argument against international rule of law existing if I’ve ever seen it. Straight might makes right. Cool, I’m taking the Big Green Egg my neighbor has because even though we’re friends and theoretically respect each other Soros Rory I can definitely kick his a**.

And coming from a guy who claims he’s both strategic and tactical when in reality it’s all tactical philosophy.

[old salt]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”


I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

I’ve got a friend who’s a psych PhD and has her families passports all set up and slots in the US and Canada to head. She’s hardly a reactionary and she’s terrified of what he might pull and she’s in NW Germany around Bremen so buffered a bit compared w East Germany. When we first spoke on this topic a few months back it opened my eyes to how Europeans are feeling about this. Not that I care about most of Europe but I do care about people.

Tell her there's nothing to worry about. Putin's probably just bluffing. It's all Russian propaganda.
The international order must be preserved at all costs, & only the US can preserve it...militarily.

[old salt]

Glad you are retired.

Then you should be glad that Mike Mullen's retired too, because he's saying the same thing I am.
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/a ... n-91239795

End the war & get them to the table.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Glad you are retired.

Then you should be glad that Mike Mullen's retired too, because he's saying the same thing I am.
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/a ... n-91239795

End the war & get them to the table.

We are waiting on Putin. He can end it anytime he wishes.

[old salt]

Glad you are retired.

Then you should be glad that Mike Mullen's retired too, because he's saying the same thing I am.
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/a ... n-91239795

End the war & get them to the table.

We are waiting on Putin. He can end it anytime he wishes.

1914 is calling. They want their logic back.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”


I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

I’ve got a friend who’s a psych PhD and has her families passports all set up and slots in the US and Canada to head. She’s hardly a reactionary and she’s terrified of what he might pull and she’s in NW Germany around Bremen so buffered a bit compared w East Germany. When we first spoke on this topic a few months back it opened my eyes to how Europeans are feeling about this. Not that I care about most of Europe but I do care about people.

Tell her there's nothing to worry about. Putin's probably just bluffing. It's all Russian propaganda.
The international order must be preserved at all costs, & only the US can preserve it...militarily.

And that comment serves what purpose?

She’s got a better handle on this than either of us, you’re not involved in anything related and haven’t been for a long time. When you tell others they’re being anachronistic do you consider yourself to be fully current without any clearance or active involvement?

[old salt]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”


I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

I’ve got a friend who’s a psych PhD and has her families passports all set up and slots in the US and Canada to head. She’s hardly a reactionary and she’s terrified of what he might pull and she’s in NW Germany around Bremen so buffered a bit compared w East Germany. When we first spoke on this topic a few months back it opened my eyes to how Europeans are feeling about this. Not that I care about most of Europe but I do care about people.

Tell her there's nothing to worry about. Putin's probably just bluffing. It's all Russian propaganda.
The international order must be preserved at all costs, & only the US can preserve it...militarily.

And that comment serves what purpose?

She’s got a better handle on this than either of us, you’re not involved in anything related and haven’t been for a long time. When you tell others they’re being anachronistic do you consider yourself to be fully current without any clearance or active involvement?

Don't you recognize TLD style irony ?

I agree with your friend. She's right to be "terrified of what he might pull". ...& she's a psych PhD.

Don't need a clearance for that.

[a fan]

Glad you are retired.

Then you should be glad that Mike Mullen's retired too, because he's saying the same thing I am.
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/a ... n-91239795

End the war & get them to the table.

We are waiting on Putin. He can end it anytime he wishes.

1914 is calling. They want their logic back.

You want to use logic? Ok.

In what world would Xi green light the use of tactical nukes in Asia? In case you've forgotten? Russia ain't the only team with nukes in the area.

What happens to stability of the entire region if they get the green light for these nuclear howitzers while conducting offensive operations?

Again, a steak dinner says Xi told Putin he can't do that. And Biden has the intel on this. And Putin knows that all the key players will stop trade with him if he does this....until he's gone, at the very least.

And again, where is he going to hit that won't harm Russia?

Putin has to go rogue (not use logic, and say "F it"). And so does his military that's shooting the thing. And after watching how incompetent and poorly maintained the Russian military is....if you're a Russian general, how sure are you that the weapon will work?

THAT is logic.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Glad you are retired.

Then you should be glad that Mike Mullen's retired too, because he's saying the same thing I am.
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/a ... n-91239795

End the war & get them to the table.

We are waiting on Putin. He can end it anytime he wishes.

1914 is calling. They want their logic back.

What do YOU want?

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”


I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

I’ve got a friend who’s a psych PhD and has her families passports all set up and slots in the US and Canada to head. She’s hardly a reactionary and she’s terrified of what he might pull and she’s in NW Germany around Bremen so buffered a bit compared w East Germany. When we first spoke on this topic a few months back it opened my eyes to how Europeans are feeling about this. Not that I care about most of Europe but I do care about people.

Tell her there's nothing to worry about. Putin's probably just bluffing. It's all Russian propaganda.
The international order must be preserved at all costs, & only the US can preserve it...militarily.

And that comment serves what purpose?

She’s got a better handle on this than either of us, you’re not involved in anything related and haven’t been for a long time. When you tell others they’re being anachronistic do you consider yourself to be fully current without any clearance or active involvement?

Don't you recognize TLD style irony ?

I agree with your friend. She's right to be "terrified of what he might pull". ...& she's a psych PhD.

Don't need a clearance for that.

I do but the utilization and execution is wildly different. I know what he’s saying (most of the time, I miss it sometimes). Going to have to put the 10,000 hours in it seems/