undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmytailorisrich3y ago0 comments

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible.

The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance.

To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action.

Edit:

It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time.

Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.

0 comments

richardw3y ago

Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate.

The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land.

The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act.

The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.

spywaregorilla3y ago

The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.

mytailorisrichOP3y ago

The question here is: what nuclear threat?

Russia is not threatening Nato.

There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

Aeolun3y ago

> but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.

spywaregorilla3y ago

Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so.

If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.

> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

2 more replies

polotics3y ago

In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.

mrjin3y ago

It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular).

So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.

Aeolun3y ago

I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional.

Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.

mrjin3y ago

Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.

mytailorisrichOP3y ago

If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia.

Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

richardw3y ago

Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate.

The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land.

The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act.

spywaregorilla3y ago

mytailorisrichOP3y ago

The question here is: what nuclear threat?

Russia is not threatening Nato.

I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

Aeolun3y ago

> but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.

spywaregorilla3y ago

If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.

> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

2 more replies

polotics3y ago

In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.

mrjin3y ago

It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular).

So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.

Aeolun3y ago

I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional.

Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.

mrjin3y ago

Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.

mytailorisrichOP3y ago

If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia.

Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse