I’m currently in Lithuania and there are zero Palestinian flags. Also, when I say I’m from Israel (when asked), everyone tells me how much they hate Hamas. I think they associate them with Russia, who they hate with a passion.
At what point does the world say enough and deal with this threat to humanity?
My guess is, that's what the Russians actually want. It is Putin who looks at Kim with envy, not the other way around. He wants the world to prop up his failed-state regime, just like we all indulge North Korea.
All we have to do is wait for things to get a bit worse in Russia, and the pitch will come: "Nice planet you have here. Would be a shame if our thousands of nukes fell into the wrong hands, and something happened to it. Honestly, I just don't know how much longer I can keep my country under control! So FY, PM."
Is it time to put boots on the ground and disarm the nuclear capability by force? This seems like an eventually, just whether the world executes on this before or after Putin is no longer in power. To do otherwise is to be held hostage today by Putin, and tomorrow by whomever comes next.
Developed world is going to allow Putin to hold the world hostage perpetually with nuclear weapons until he ages out? That’s a choice? Certainly not rhetorical, simply curious if there is a cohort that holds that position. What would be the “oh wow this is simply too much aggression [1]” point or if that doesn’t exist and a country with a nuclear capability will be permitted to do whatever they want without consequences.
I think that is a worthy discussion to be had, what are the limits, or if any exist at all. To note, the US expended material effort to secure and prevent proliferation of nuclear material after the fall of the USSR [2]. This will be needed again after Putin’s rule ends.
I am very confused by your comments. Could it be that you imagine that a few thousand Navy Seals could "disarm [Russian] nuclear capability by force"? If not, please describe how you would do it if you were in command of the US military.
I mean, the US couldn't even disarm the Taliban or keep it from ruling Afghanistan after spending trillions of dollars. And the Taliban didn't even have any powerful friends: i.e., none of Russia, China, Great Britain, France or India had any interest in helping or supporting them. I don't think even Iran did. (I realize that parts of the Pakistani national-security apparatus supported them, and they got money from Saudi donors, but still.)
Separately my impression is that the Kremlin hasn't been behaving badly or has been behaving only mildly badly -- for a sovereign nation. It is important not to apply intuitions acquired from interpersonal relations to the international level: in the interpersonal realm (except for anarchic situations like for example Somali in the 1990s) there is always a "night watchman" of some sort that a person can appeal to when he has been mistreated by another person. On the national level, in contrast, what night watchmen formally exist are almost completely toothless. So for example, on the interpersonal level, it is never ethical for me to attack one of my neighbors out of fear that in the future, that neighbor will invite onto his property a third person who will launch a devastating attack on me. On the international level, it is not intrinsically unethical IMHO. The Cuban missile crisis would be a good example here: I don't consider it unethical for the US to have blockaded Cuba until Moscow or Havana promised not to keep Soviet missile forces on the island.
I will think on how NATO could accomplish this with some measure of success.
As a sovereign nation, I believe the Kremlin has already gone too far with what has happened in Ukraine, and they could still do much worse, both in Eastern Europe and the world. The world must be prepared for what escalation comes next. Better to have a plan and not need it vs needing a plan and not having it imho.
To be clear, I do not believe this is warmongering; this is asking if and when we’ll disarm a warmonger (if at all). If the consensus is we’re going to let them run roughshod over civil society until they’re gone, them the breaks I guess.
>Better to have a plan and not need . . . this is asking if and when we’ll disarm a warmonger (if at all).
Well, sure, but the plan goes into action only after the Kremlin has done some grievous harm to US interests, e.g., by causing thousands of nuclear warheads to explode over US city centers. We shouldn't as a nation embrace some totally impractical code of ethics that even we do not follow and try to use our military forces to punish transgressions of that code as if we are the world police.
We agree to disagree then on global military projection and policy, which is fine. We should use military projection when innocent people are in harm’s way. That’s what the annual DoD budget, military hardware, and weapons systems are for. Sometimes, might makes right, and peace through superior firepower, because there will always be bullies.
If we as a nation (the US) are going to confront nuclear powers like Moscow, shouldn't US civilians be a whole lot more prepared for a nuclear war than we actually are?
The chances of a nuclear attack are very low even if we keep on confronting Moscow, but if the very-low-probability outcome actually does come to pass, literally millions of lives would be saved by a cheap investment in readiness now.
That'd be a potential way out, yes. At least, it would be if Putin hadn't already poisoned, blown up, or otherwise murdered everyone who might have been up to the job of replacing him in a coup.
33 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 83.6 ms ] threadIt doesn't pay off to stop Russia. Either from an individual perspective, your party faction, the whole party, or at international level.
Everyone wants to be the good guy, but also succeed in some other goals too. Even assuming no malice.
immediately after ‘they’ stop Israel
My guess is, that's what the Russians actually want. It is Putin who looks at Kim with envy, not the other way around. He wants the world to prop up his failed-state regime, just like we all indulge North Korea.
All we have to do is wait for things to get a bit worse in Russia, and the pitch will come: "Nice planet you have here. Would be a shame if our thousands of nukes fell into the wrong hands, and something happened to it. Honestly, I just don't know how much longer I can keep my country under control! So FY, PM."
I think that is a worthy discussion to be had, what are the limits, or if any exist at all. To note, the US expended material effort to secure and prevent proliferation of nuclear material after the fall of the USSR [2]. This will be needed again after Putin’s rule ends.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_pHZmn5QM
[2] https://www.gao.gov/products/t-nsiad-93-5
I mean, the US couldn't even disarm the Taliban or keep it from ruling Afghanistan after spending trillions of dollars. And the Taliban didn't even have any powerful friends: i.e., none of Russia, China, Great Britain, France or India had any interest in helping or supporting them. I don't think even Iran did. (I realize that parts of the Pakistani national-security apparatus supported them, and they got money from Saudi donors, but still.)
Separately my impression is that the Kremlin hasn't been behaving badly or has been behaving only mildly badly -- for a sovereign nation. It is important not to apply intuitions acquired from interpersonal relations to the international level: in the interpersonal realm (except for anarchic situations like for example Somali in the 1990s) there is always a "night watchman" of some sort that a person can appeal to when he has been mistreated by another person. On the national level, in contrast, what night watchmen formally exist are almost completely toothless. So for example, on the interpersonal level, it is never ethical for me to attack one of my neighbors out of fear that in the future, that neighbor will invite onto his property a third person who will launch a devastating attack on me. On the international level, it is not intrinsically unethical IMHO. The Cuban missile crisis would be a good example here: I don't consider it unethical for the US to have blockaded Cuba until Moscow or Havana promised not to keep Soviet missile forces on the island.
As a sovereign nation, I believe the Kremlin has already gone too far with what has happened in Ukraine, and they could still do much worse, both in Eastern Europe and the world. The world must be prepared for what escalation comes next. Better to have a plan and not need it vs needing a plan and not having it imho.
To be clear, I do not believe this is warmongering; this is asking if and when we’ll disarm a warmonger (if at all). If the consensus is we’re going to let them run roughshod over civil society until they’re gone, them the breaks I guess.
Well, sure, but the plan goes into action only after the Kremlin has done some grievous harm to US interests, e.g., by causing thousands of nuclear warheads to explode over US city centers. We shouldn't as a nation embrace some totally impractical code of ethics that even we do not follow and try to use our military forces to punish transgressions of that code as if we are the world police.
If we as a nation (the US) are going to confront nuclear powers like Moscow, shouldn't US civilians be a whole lot more prepared for a nuclear war than we actually are?
The chances of a nuclear attack are very low even if we keep on confronting Moscow, but if the very-low-probability outcome actually does come to pass, literally millions of lives would be saved by a cheap investment in readiness now.