Russian invasion of Ukraine

Graham wrote:

I think he’s bluffing, and anyway I highly doubt that if he gave an order for a first-strike use of nuclear weapons that it would be obeyed.

Opposite to the US, where “pressing the button” is on one person only – the President, in Russian Federation its not Putin only. There are scenarios developed and starting a nuclear war is not at all off the table. How I see it is more of an IF-THEN set of scenarios, where some of that may lead to a preemptive nuclear strike. I can’t find you the reference at the moment, but as I recall, not so long ago (but way before the invasion) Russia has updated their approach to allow the use of limited (tactical) nuclear attack to reach its goals even if the very existence of the country is not at risk.

@Mooney Driver
Without any irony, I am astonished to see that you have your own formulated opinion and see all this thing a bit differently than it is at the moment “allowed” in the West.
All this warmongering hysteria reminds me of the war-enthusiasm of WW1, and the “by Christmas we are going to be at home”. There is not a single voice I see is for de-escalation, negotiation, agreement. And whoever dares to even think about that is labelled a Russian agent.

robirdus wrote:

There is not a single voice I see is for de-escalation, negotiation, agreement.

I see a lot of voices for de-escalation and any form of negotiation taking place has a prominent place at least in our press. And if I look at the news in respectable media, negotiations take more and more space. If I got the time line right, the first who spoke of some sort of moving of positions was Lavrov and his Ukrainian counterpart after they met in Turkey. Today in our press at least, also Selenski is talking of “more realistic positions” in the talks. He is quoted to say “Every war ends with negotiations and a settlement”. That is a far shout from a few days ago.

And whoever dares to even think about that is labelled a Russian agent.

Or a coward.

Not the first time it happens to me, you know what, I don’t care. I have a 5 year old daughter who deserves to live her life and not end in a flash and nuclear waste. Somehow I hope that also those in power think at least about their own children and what world they are going to leave them if they kill off large parts or all of mankind.

alioth wrote:

Oh, it would be obeyed alright. Russian soldiers are knowingly shelling purely civilian targets quite willingly. Why do you think they would draw the line at the kind of munition used?

Because of nature of those munitions, because it could escalate to something that could pretty much wipe out humanity?

There is precedent here. Look up Stanislav Petrov. He was supposed to push the button and start a nuclear exchange, based on the information the systems presented to him. But he thought “no, I’m not going to do that”.

Putin doesn’t personally press the button that causes the launch. He gives an order to a guy close to him, who passes it to another guy, who passes it to another guy….. and eventually it’ll find its way to some middle-ranking officer who is actually supposed to press the button. That officer will have a family. That officer will not be part of Putin’s close personal circle. That officer will quite probably know Putin has gone mad. That officer will not want to die, nor to cause the deaths of tens of millions of people.

There is ample opportunity for people who don’t share Putin’s death-or-glory attitude to interrupt the process.

Already in this war there is significant precedent for Russians not obeying their orders. They’ve lost three Major Generals killed in action, because their troops don’t follow orders to advance without senior officers there to ‘motivate’ them.

Activating nuclear strikes (and advancing towards defensive positions) carries significant risk of being killed. Pressing buttons to lob some artillery or cruise missiles into apartment blocks in Kyiv does not – that’s the difference.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Or a coward.

Not the first time it happens to me, you know what, I don’t care. I have a 5 year old daughter who deserves to live her life and not end in a flash and nuclear waste. Somehow I hope that also those in power think at least about their own children and what world they are going to leave them if they kill off large parts or all of mankind.

I don’t call anyone a coward or a Russian agent, especially not here.

The thing is though, your reasoning – perfectly valid though it is – is at a personal, individual level. The picture is different at a macroscopic level, and our continued free existence depends on the macroscopic collective view not becoming the same as your individual view. If entire countries and entire free peoples collectively take the view that their own immediate safety is more important that the principle of freedom and maintaining democracy, pretty soon tyranny will conquer them.

In any case, you talk as though nuclear devastation is the inevitable consequence of NATO forces engaging Russian forces on any scale. It most certainly is not.

What is most baffling is that our leaders continue to repeatedly rule out any engagement with Russian forces. Now not engaging them (at present) seems to be our collective political choice, and it may be the right choice, but why do we keep repeating this message? What purpose does it serve other than to remove all doubt from Putin’s mind, to reinforce the idea that he can do anything he wants to Ukraine and NATO will never react? We should at least try and introduce some uncertainty into how he views things, make him worry that perhaps there are some lines he shouldn’t cross.

arj1 wrote:

I think the reason is if you start sending the message that you might intervene, then you start saying that your own country will see some coffins and (potentially) a prolonged conflict. Could it be that? And politically, many countries in the west just seen enough coffins coming from Iraq and Afghanistan and not much of a change (especially in Afghanistan).

I just meant why be so definitive about it? I’m not saying intervene, just that it gives Putin a clear run if you keep on saying that you will not intervene, no matter what he does.

It’s giving away your negotiating position by offering total certainty to the other side. It’s like walking into a car dealership and saying to the salesman “I am ruling out leaving here today without a car”.

Graham wrote:

There is precedent here. Look up Stanislav Petrov. He was supposed to push the button and start a nuclear exchange, based on the information the systems presented to him. But he thought “no, I’m not going to do that”.

Just to make sure you correctly understand the Petrov case: He did not do “no, I’m not going to do that” because he though it was a valid attack but it is not worth to launch counterattack. He knew the system was new and glitchy and though the information presented (few launches, not all-out attack) was much more likely to be an artefact than a real attack.

That is quite a different case from a scenario when the orders are clear: “Launch”

And again: I do believe you don’t really fully appreciate the downside risks of such ‘calling a bluff’.

esteban wrote:

Just to make sure you correctly understand the Petrov case: He did not do “no, I’m not going to do that” because he though it was a valid attack but it is not worth to launch counterattack. He knew the system was new and glitchy and though the information presented (few launches, not all-out attack) was much more likely to be an artefact than a real attack.

That is quite a different case from a scenario when the orders are clear: “Launch”

And again: I do believe you don’t really fully appreciate the downside risks of such ‘calling a bluff’.

Oh for sure I understand it. It’s technically different yes, but still someone making a decision rather than following instructions. He had a clear launch order, just from the system rather than a person.

I do appreciate the downside, believe me. The downside is all-out nuclear war. I just consider it incredibly unlikely.

Graham wrote:

and eventually it’ll find its way to some middle-ranking officer who is actually supposed to press the button. That officer will have a family. That officer will not be part of Putin’s close personal circle. That officer will quite probably know Putin has gone mad. That officer will not want to die, nor to cause the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I think this is wishful thinking. If even only 25% of Russia’s missile crews fire, it would result in a catastrophe never before seen in human history.

In reality, the missile crews (and others using nuclear weapons) will have been carefully chosen, and are likely to be the types who WILL follow orders. (Back in my Houston Gulf days, I knew a former nuclear missileer, and I have absolutely zero doubt that she would have turned the key when ordered). Especially if they are told that a western missile has been used against Russians to make them angry, even if this is untrue (it’s not something they are going to be able to verify in the heat of the moment from a Russian LCF).

alioth wrote:

In reality, the missile crews (and others using nuclear weapons) will have been carefully chosen, and are likely to be the types who WILL follow orders. (Back in my Houston Gulf days, I knew a former nuclear missileer, and I have absolutely zero doubt that she would have turned the key when ordered).

I believe there are orders of magnitudes of difference between the professionalism, and thus the likelihood of following all orders, between western militaries and the Russians. I also have zero doubt that American or British service personnel charged with actually pressing the button would do exactly as instructed.

One of the major learning points from this episode is that we have vastly overestimated the professionalism and capabilities of Russian forces for decades.