What if they decide you should share your stuff with them to pay for protection?
I see lots of problems with plans like this, I’m an engineer, we know things will go wrong.
I have five acres with a well, a 500 gallon butane? propane? tank. My generator uses gasoline. A butane/gas generator is $700. I’d be all set in the decaying trailer there (moved when I got married), but what if my neighbors decide I should share?
Then we’ll form an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We’ll take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week. But all the decisions of that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs- - But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major affairs.
Or, I’m just figuring 6 weeks, and if things really go to shit, we’ll just have to wing it.
Their thermobaric bombs are bigger than the MOABs. About four times bigger. That was the comment. Yes a bit less than half the power of a small tactical nuke. Either one takes out multiple city blocks if used against an urban target.
In regards to weapons nuclear is of course a word that does and should be immediately connected with the word unthinkable. But we hopefully have the same reaction of horror and repulsion if similar death and destruction is achieved by other means.
Wouldn’t even a small nuke make the city unlivable for years?
No, if you mean the radiation. Not unless it was designed to be particularly dirty. More like weeks.
Kyiv is more than 200 miles away from any NATO country, and downwind most of the time.
You will not like what I have to say.
I see this war as a non-issue, and certainly not any more (or less) serious than the US invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Did you see the entire world all freaked out and curled up in horror as the mighty American war machine rolled into these ill-fated nations? No, you did not. For much the same reason, the world mostly does not care what the Russians do in Ukraine, especially if it is over in a few weeks with relatively minimal loss of life.
The condemnation of so many nations, the acquiescence to severe sanctions on Russia, and the steady drumbeat of negative press coverage of Russia is a testament to the collective diplomatic muscle of Western and Western-allied nations, not a spontaneous outpouring of anti-Russian sentiment across the world. (Why the hell would Australia have any sort of emotion at all for Russia, one way or the other?) Remember, outside of the West, the rest of us watched in stoic silence as the US military rampaged across Iraq and Afghanistan, on grievances - real or manufactured - not necessarily more serious or justified than those the Russians claim to have.
War is war, whether waged by the US/West or Russia. Tell me why the murder of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan was less of an issue than the murder of civilians in Ukraine? Why no coordinated economic sanctions against the US and its allies by the rest of the world? The reality is that mighty powers have a degree of freedom that is simply unavailable to other nations, and they CAN act in ways that the rest of the world might perceive as morally indefensible. Just like the US gave the world the finger when it rolled in the tanks uninvited into Iraq and elsewhere, now we will suck it up when the Russians feel compelled to do the same.
I do not believe Putin has “lost it.” He appears to be totally in his senses, seems smarter than the current US president, and certainly way, way smarter than the previous one. I also do not believe Russia will use the nuclear “option”, because it is not really an option. Even NoKo has not used its nukes against the hated SoKo (yet), why do you think a mature nuclear power would use a nuke against people they claim are their own? Totally unbelievable, and probably arises from the level of anti-Russia propaganda floating around these days in the West. Remember, the US and Russia refrained from the use of nukes at the height of the Cold War.
Since this war is a non-issue outside of the West, you have 30+ countries wondering why the hell they have to condemn a trusted trading partner and ally for the same things the US did until less than a year ago? But nobody dares take on Uncle Sam. He is simply too powerful. And he is pissed. However while he can arm-twist smaller countries to toe the line, he cannot really do that to India and certainly not to China. Hence India, a seasoned master of ambiguous messaging, chooses to neither approve nor condemn, as we have done numerous times before during the Cold War.
All this changes if Russia nukes Ukraine. But that is not happening.
I suggest folks on here take a chill pill and relax, like you did while America’s wars went on and on, interminably, with hundreds of thousands of innocents killed. All this will be over in a few weeks. Life will go on.
Told you you won’t like it.
Yeah, actually most of the world was pretty horrified by the US invasions in Viet Nam and Iraq, and what goodwill the US had in the initial invasion of Afghanistan and displacing the Taliban was quickly squandered by the extrajudicial rendition, indefinite detention without trial or effective legal representation, and admitted torture of ‘enemy combatants’. If you think this is a ‘non-issue’ because the United States has the economic and political clout to get nations to align with it despite objections, I suppose that is true in the immediate ‘realpolitik’ sense, but empires don’t last forever, especially when they engage in military adventurism beyond their financial and logistical means.
The Russian occupation will not be “over in a few weeks with a relatively minimal loss of life,” short of Russia retreating back to its borders, and the idea that Putin is “totally in his senses,” is belied by the apparently unanticipated difficulties that the Russian Army has experienced thus far, even if you discount the impression that leaders who have recently communicated with him and the fact that this incursion will be devastating to the Russian economy even before considering the effects of sanctions. Putin may believe that he can just rattle his nuclear saber to keep the NATO alliance at bay (and to his credit, this is clearly working this far) but that doesn’t mean he won’t find himself backed into a corner where he has to put up or shut up, and with an ego like Putin’s, the latter may just not be an option for him.
Stranger
The paucity of options is concerning.
Ukraine might agree to be partitioned or accept a grubby compromise. It will not happen. Not by choice, at any rate.
NATO might enter the war on Ukraine’s side. It does not dare. The negatives would require a significant event to overcome this. I could not say what event would cause this. I think cyberattacks against Russia are far more likely.
Mr. Putin might be toppled from power. It is hard to see this happening given his position is entrenched. I know little about oligarchs or Russian realpolitik. Putin does not share my naïveté.
Of course, any nuclear attack, however limited, would contaminate both Europe and Russia and not be limited to Ukraine. Putin’s thoughts are obviously crucial but seem unknown even by close lieutenants. Perhaps some of the vitriol expressed is wishful thinking. But Putin seems to have already convoyed himself into a corner. Time will tell.
However, look at the convoy. It seems to be stalled for many reasons, including attacks, sabotage and poor planning - but also a lack of basic maintenance on tires and trucks. The Economist suggested this was due to corruption. If so, the condition of Russian missiles could also be a concern. I cannot think Putin is thinking he wants a nuclear war - or would survive that.
This really is the key question - and the answer is pretty straightforward, even if you might not like it: informed self-interest in maintaining a world that is somewhat predictable playing by rules that most mostly know. Russia doing this action without significant price, in this manner, is destabilizing in a way that risks military build up and increased conflicts across the globe. Using even the threat of nuclear weapons has already undermined efforts to slow nuclear proliferation. No significant price would prove to China that a move on Taiwan is more likely to be of lower cost to them, risking the possibility of a direct military conflict between the USA and China, which plays out in Australia’s theater and would have major impacts on them in many ways economically inclusive. Countries doing moderately well fear instability as they may lose their place in the world. Countries doing poorly fear instability as they know it means that battles will likely play out in their front and backyards.
There are of course many differences between Russia-Ukraine and the USA-Iraq/Afganistan, but the biggest is that the former left unchecked risks dominoing instability that the latter did not.
India would prefer to hope everyone else’s actions gets this to settle to a new normal quickly, and keep up their trade and weapons purchasing from Russia. China having had world resolve with sanctions for military aggression tested by someone else is happy to have Russia now becoming “the Chinese hinterlands”, dependent upon them, but as this threatens to spill over to hurt many economies they will try to pull Putin’s leash too - their power collapses if all economies start to shrink. Ultimately China also wants some stability: the game as it’s in progress, by the current rules, is working out pretty well for them.
I plan to just wing it now. Sounds like if things go pear shaped, you will probably live six weeks longer than me.
The US didn’t invade Vietnam. Just saying. As for Afghanistan, I don’t see it as equivalent, as the US was reacting to an attack on our own soil, and the folks who did that attack were hiding out in Afghanistan. When the Taliban was asked to turn them over, they refused. This isn’t to say that Afghanistan put the US in exactly a good light, but there seems to be a rather large distinction between what the US did and what Russia is doing today. Iraq…well, that’s definitely a point.
Why? Even if what you say is true (and, frankly, it’s mainly whataboutism horseshit, IMHO anyway), two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact is that Russia is invading another country. We can be against that and still acknowledge that the US isn’t right in everything it does. Just because American did bad things, doesn’t excuse Russia from doing bad things, and doesn’t mean we can’t be critical. Around here, busting on the US for things like Iraq and Afghanistan is old hat, so trying to tell folks, many of who were VERY critical and weren’t taking any chill pills when the US did all the bad stuff it did is pretty ridiculous.
China has a nationalist element the leaders like to cultivate and exploit as well. Ultimately, the neighborhoods of the great nuclear powers aren’t going to be considered important enough to risk ballistic missiles or biologicals being unleashed.
I’m surprised that those who inhabit the west are so westocentric in their thinking.
Well, no, but mostly because it seems to be an opinion looking for a thread, rather than an actual response to the question asked. You’re describing China and India’s take right now, not what it would be if Russia unleashes its nukes. Your comparisons to Iraq and Vietnam similarly don’t work, because nukes were not fired in those wars (and possibly for other reasons).
There is no way China and India pretend this is another country’s problem if Russia fires nukes. Their own protection depends on the nuclear deterrence doctrine. Once the nukes fly, they aren’t so safe. And they definitely would be idiots to side with Russia when you look at the relative power of NATO vs. their poorly managed military.
I also, of course, am not a fan of deliberately condescending posts, especially those who tell people who aren’t upset to “chill” or “calm down.” It seems especially unwarranted when your “hot take” didn’t actually address the topic of the thread, and ignored the majority of us who said we don’t think this is actually likely.
Oh, and for the record, my answer is that NATO joins the fight at this point, and we effectively have WWIII if this happens. Anything less would let Russia get away with nukes and would completely undermine what foreign policy is based on. However, NATO will at least try not to use nukes. And, of course, China and India both condemn the nukes action, if not the war in its entirety.
And Russia knows this, and that’s why they don’t try it. Not unless regime change results in someone (more) crazy taking over.