HuMcK said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Maybe refrain from clogging them all up with trash opinion/reaction tweets.

---

Hey, if you can do it anyone can. You don't get to monopolize making trash posts.

---

You and Rawhide/Amal/etc are bottom tier and can barely form coherent thoughts. Cobretti has actually been sharing useful some information to go along with the reaction tweets.

---

You still think the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation, even after today's revelations.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

Oh no, Hunter Biden's political aspirations are doomed, they might even have to not let him work in the White House anymore! Oh wait no, that was Trump's corrupt children that he overruled his IC to get them security clearance for, not Biden.

Stop pretending to care about corruption, because nobody here believes you. Your messiah and his spawn can't even legally operate a charity in New York because they were caught stealing from their last one, guess I missed your outrage then.

Did you actually read the rest of the NY Times piece you are talking about? The takeaway is they haven't found any evidence to act on, because as you were found of saying in the Trump era: nothing illegal about doing business overseas as a private businessman.

HuMcK said:

---

Oh no, Hunter Biden's political aspirations are doomed, they might even have to not let him work in the White House anymore! Oh wait no, that was Trump's corrupt children that he overruled his IC to get them security clearance for, not Biden.

Stop pretending to care about corruption, because nobody here believes you. Your messiah and his spawn can't even legally operate a charity in New York because they were caught stealing from their last one, guess I missed your outrage then.

Did you actually read the rest of the NY Times piece you are talking about? The takeaway is they haven't found any evidence to act on, because as you were found of saying in the Trump era: nothing illegal about doing business overseas as a private businessman.

---

10% for the big guy email is a discussion of hiding an allocation of ownership tax and securities fraud.

Do you deny that the laptop is real?

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

HuMcK said:

---

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

---

"And?" is the common reply from leftists when they are face to face with undeniable proof of their or their preferred politician's crimes. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" is another.

Kind of like how you pretend the second half of the comment you responded to doesn't exist.

I'm supposed to get mad at Biden's son doing business, but y'all can ignore Trump himself being involved in corrupt schemes? Lol, sure.

If the election was between Biden and almost anyone else, I would have voted someone else, and I haven't really been subtle about that. But it wasn't, it was Biden vs the guy with a secret Chinese bank account and corrupt kids he had to circumvent procedure to get security clearances for their White House jobs. Biden vs the guy who can't legally operate a charity anymore cause he stole from his last one. Biden vs the guy who was negotiating to build Trump Tower Moscow as the Russians attacked our electoral system.

Support less corrupt candidates, then maybe your outrage about corruption will be taken seriously.

HuMcK said:

---

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

---

Hunter Biden signed for the laptop and his lawyer emailed MacIsaac to get it back. No one from the Biden camp has denied it's Hunter's laptop, because they can't.

So the signature is fake and the laptop wasn't Hunter's, got it, must be Putin? Lol.

Haha, sorry, stopped reading at "Biden's son doing business". That's a hilarious way to describe Hunter illegally selling access to then Vice President Joe Biden to Chinese interests. Badge. Of. Pride.

So Giuliani made all those trips to Ukraine and met those sanctioned Russian spies, but they didn't have anything to tell him, and miraculously the exact info they were after the whole time was in the possession of a blind computer repair shop owner...

Sure. In unrelated news, I have some fantastic financial opportunities available, you just have to send me the money up front...

I never doubted the emails are real, but I am dumbfounded that anyone believes the story of how they got them. Not like we didn't all watch Russia hack Trump opponents in 2016 or anything.

I didn't use that language on accident, it's what you guys just spent 4yrs saying everytime we learned about Trump and his kids doing shady business. Not surprised it went over your head though.

HuMcK said:

---

I didn't use that language on accident, it's what you guys just spent 4yrs saying everytime we learned about Trump and his kids doing shady business. Not surprised it went over your head though.

---

Ah yes, so ironic, dontchathink?

HuMcK said:

---

So Giuliani made all those trips to Ukraine and met those sanctioned Russian spies, but they didn't have anything to tell him, and miraculously the exact info they were after the whole time was in the possession of a blind computer repair shop owner...

Sure. In unrelated news, I have some fantastic financial opportunities available, you just have to send me the money up front...

I never doubted the emails are real, but I am dumbfounded that anyone believes the story of how they got them. Not like we didn't all watch Russia hack Trump opponents in 2016 or anything.

---

He was in Delaware often and it didn't magically fall into Rudy's lap, MacIsaac gave it to him.

Rodney Joffe and crowdstrike fabricated the DNC hack that John Durham is now investigating.

Your attempts are both obvious and futile. What you don't get is one issue has spanned a decade and currently sits in office. The other issue is a mere distraction used by people shaken when their narrative refuses to align with the facts.

HuMcK said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Maybe refrain from clogging them all up with trash opinion/reaction tweets.

---

Hey, if you can do it anyone can. You don't get to monopolize making trash posts.

---

You and Rawhide/Amal/etc are bottom tier and can barely form coherent thoughts. Cobretti has actually been sharing useful some information to go along with the reaction tweets.

---

Bless your heart.

HuMcK said:

---

Maybe refrain from clogging them all up with trash opinion/reaction tweets.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Ukraine should've conceded before this turned into an invasion.

---

Live free or die!

---

better red than dead

All these trite little sayings. Those saying them seldom consider what ideas are worth fighting for.

---

I'd rather be dead, like a bump on a log, than have a red head, like a d i c k on a dog!

got it out. in my hands.....

- KKM

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Mr. President, you cannot just waive those off as unknowable and therefore irrelevant. In fact, 7 of the ten sentences are facts/actions already taken. The other three are reasonable/obvious assessments on those facts/actions. You have to recognize the obvious and then make policy. And you cannot dodge tough decisions with worst-case assumptions. Such an approach itself actually creates risk, because your adversary is watching and making his own assessments. If you reflexively short-arm each issue, you WILL embolden your enemy to assume he has a free hand to act. The Korean War literally started that way. THIS WAR STARTED THAT WAY.

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

Your case is merely full of reasons to do nothing. Such emboldens clear-eyed predators like Putin. That compounds the problem on your desk Mr. President. Putin will keep going until he is stopped. Why not stop him now while we have an entire nation of peoples (Ukranians) willing to die to do so. All we have to do is to give them the means to do so.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

I subscribe, so if it's behind paywall, I can copy/paste.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/03/19/the-risk-of-escalation-past-the-nuclear-threshold

Here, in the last two paragraphs of the article we see Schelling and Raine saying what I've been saying for a month about the perverse incentives Nato Article 5 limitations have given Putin to conclude he could act with impunity.

"deterrent threats were "a matter of resolve, impetuosity, plain obstinacy". These were not easy qualities to fake, he noted: "It is not easy to change our character; and becoming fanatic or impetuous would be a high price to pay for making our threats convincing." A man who invades Ukraine without telling most of his ministers or his troops that he is about to do so has already established his character.

For some Western officials, this asymmetry in character and reward underscores the need for a swift settlement even if it favours the Kremlin. Others note that just saying such things gives Mr Putin an advantage that he will press until he is firmly pressed back against. "NATO's fear of a nuclear exchange as the inevitable [end of the line]…has been ruthlessly leveraged by Putin," laments John Raine, a former British diplomat. "He has used it to create a very large space in which he can wage conventional war in Europe without a military response from NATO." The danger is that Mr Putin tries to enlarge that space furtheror misjudges its bounds"

That Putin had good reason to conclude he could invade Ukraine with impunity is manifest evidence that we lost deterrence.

Now is the time to restore it.......

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude. And the more one understands about Russian history, the reasonable his actions seem, to the point of predictablility
.
1) Slavic nationalism: His worldview is there is no basis for a distinction between Russia and Ukraine, the two have always been joined at the hip, the exact same people who happen to speak very slightly different languages. The idea of a Ukraine separate from Russia and following it's own path to become a part of the west is simply unthinkable to this worldview. And it is the worldview of over 100m people in at least 3 slavic countries, so it's hardly "madman" material. Russians remain a highly nationalistic people, as do Slavs in general about being Slavs.

2) Power GeoPolitics: this perspective is thoroughly explained by Mearsheimer and others of the Kissinger-school....Russia is a great power due to its population size and location on the map. And will be for a long, long while. It also has a history of indefensible boarders and being squeezed between either massively larger polities (China) or massively more technologically advanced polities (Europe). This creates relatively more emphasis, from the Russian perspective, for more and larger shatter zones. And, historically, relations with the East have been easier. The East, when powerful, was always happy to take tribute and let Russia be Russia as long as Russia remained loyal. Moreover, the shatterzones in the east are far more vast (look at the map of Central Asia....lots of miles of nothing & nobody between Russia and India/Iran. Plus, Russia owns Siberia outright, effectively a shatterzone but in reality the largest "defense in depth" tract of land in the world. It was in the West where Russia faced the threat of change, rising powers that demanded Russia change, modernize, etc....and today that is manifested in Democracy and the Open Society.

3)Nato: in the Cold War, the USSR dominated ALL of the shatterzone states by incorporating them into the Warsaw Pact. When freed, most of them (predictably) fled to Nato for protection. That was bitter but tolerable as long as Ukraine and Belarus remained at least neutral. Then, NATO started moving eastward again, talking Ukraine and Georgia. Putin warned us for many years, over a decade, as the conversation built. Russia would not tolerate this. And Russia didn't.

Russia is prototypically backward, with respect to the West. Always living in the past, threatened by not just futurity but modernity as well. Putin is classically Russian in his worldview, right down to his belief that autocracy is not just good, but the only way to hold Russia together. And, in the short term, he's right. How does a nation with no democratic tradition transition into an open society? Fitfully, at best. Lots of political instability. For a while. So why start now? (or so the Russian calculation goes).

And into that rodeo of Russian nationalism, rides Ukraine, a near-twin brother whose people have decided that they want to be part of the West rather than the East, democratic rather than autocratic, modern rather than reactionary. This cannot be, to the Russian mind. If such takes hold there, it WILL take hold in Russia. So it must be stopped.

The only surprise to all of this is the pitiful state of the Russian military. We project onto them OUR capabilities. They are a peer competitor, so the should be able to slice into Kiev in 72 hours supported by surgical strikes and it'll all be over. Only we now see, glaringly, that Russia is NOT a peer competitor. Massive incompetence. Their cultural aversion to technology as a weakness, and simplicity as a virtue, has allowed puny little Ukraine, maul them into a near stalemate.

When your rational adversary miscalculates as Putin has done, you have options. You could let him go, saying you didn't need that jewelry anyway, maybe this will placate him. You could remove his club memberships and keys to doorways & gates. You could strew tacks & banana peels in his way. You could pull out a hammer and smash one of his digits, then hand him some bandaids. You could cold-cock him with a left hook. Or you could just shoot him with buckshot.

Tacks and banana peels are not going to make him pull out his shotgun.
Because he knows we have a shotgun too.

At no point has Putin demonstrated that he is not in control of his senses, or of irrational worldview.
He is a steely eyed Russian leader, and in most ways typical: respectful toward power, disdainful of weakness, overconfident in the value of old ways, etc....

Stop using the "madman" (strawman) argument to defend against tough decisions.
Perfectly reasonable to argue tacks rather than banana peels.
NOT reasonable to argue that Putin is so irrational that he would launch nukes against us if we irritate him.
Doing that will only embolden him with perverse incentive - "the West does not have the stomach to stop me."
That is exactly the calculation that started the Korean War, based on Dean Acheson mis-statements.

Caution does not lower risk.
Caution is itself a risk.
Being too cautious is JUST AS RISKY as being too bold.
Know your risk!

HuMcK said:

---

Oh no, Hunter Biden's political aspirations are doomed, they might even have to not let him work in the White House anymore! Oh wait no, that was Trump's corrupt children that he overruled his IC to get them security clearance for, not Biden.

Stop pretending to care about corruption, because nobody here believes you. Your messiah and his spawn can't even legally operate a charity in New York because they were caught stealing from their last one, guess I missed your outrage then.

Did you actually read the rest of the NY Times piece you are talking about? The takeaway is they haven't found any evidence to act on, because as you were found of saying in the Trump era: nothing illegal about doing business overseas as a private businessman.

---

Would the press have deep-sixed the story if it was Eric Trump's laptop?

General protocol is to lay off a candidate's kids, doubly so if the information is suspected to be stolen. Says a lot about Donald's character imo that his main line of attack was against Biden's son, when the Biden camp never went after his kids at all.

Don Jr spent the 2020 campaign doing rails of coke and ranting at cameras for his dad's campaign , yet no major media outfit ever went after him that I know of. Ivanka and her husband were actually White House employees, were there any major media hit pieces about them like what Fox did to Hunter Biden? I don't remember any, even though those grounds are pretty fertile (eg the alleged corruption surrounding Trump Towers Soho and Baku especially, Ivanka's Chinese trademarks, etc).

HuMcK said:

---

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

---

yeah, but back to Biden. Doc asked you a question. Do you deny the laptop his hunter biden's?

quit trying to deflect

HuMcK said:

---

General protocol is to lay off a candidate's kids, doubly so if the information is suspected to be stolen. Says a lot about Donald's character imo that his main line of attack was against Biden's son, when the Biden camp never went after his kids at all.

Don Jr spent the 2020 campaign doing rails of coke and ranting at cameras for his dad's campaign , yet no major media outfit ever went after him that I know of. Ivanka and her husband were actually White House employees, were there any major media hit pieces about them like what Fox did to Hunter Biden? I don't remember any, even though those grounds are pretty fertile (eg the alleged corruption surrounding Trump Towers Soho and Baku especially, Ivanka's Chinese trademarks, etc).

---

dude, you really have unhealthy obsession about a guy who isn't president anymore.

Rawhide said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

---

Do you deny the laptop his hunter biden's?

quit trying to deflect

---

Its all Dem hyper partisans can do these days .

Their administration is a total train wreck and even the casual, independent voter realizes it .

Canada2017 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

And? Maybe put up someone less cartoonishly corrupt next time and something like that might matter. Noone who spent 4yrs supporting Trump like you did has any high ground whatsoever to speak from.

The guys who helped Giuliani "find" that info just pleaded guilty last week btw, to funneling illegal Russian money into Republican campaigns (funny how that just keeps happening, isn't it?). One of them even released an audio recording of his face to face meeting with Trump! Talk about bad infosec, and how compromised someone that dumb could be...

---

Do you deny the laptop his hunter biden's?

quit trying to deflect

---

Its all Dem hyper partisans can do these days .

Their administration is a total train wreck and even the casual, independent voter realizes it .

---

But Trump!?!?

I was living in Europe in 2008 during the election. I remember several conversations with Europeans about Bush. They wanted my opinion. I always asked them theirs first. They nearly all hated him. I asked why. The general response was, "He's BUSH!!"

Leftists never change tactics, just targets.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude.

---

What if you are wrong? You don't say "Probably not a madman", or "likely not a madman". You state with certainty something that you can't know with certainty.

So, what if you are incorrect? The UK and Russia were incorrect about Hitler.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude.

---

What if you are wrong? You don't say "Probably not a madman", or "likely not a madman". You state with certainty something that you can't know with certainty.

So, what if you are incorrect? The UK and Russia were incorrect about Hitler.

---

Hitler wasn't mad. He was evil. Evil is not a mental illness.

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude.

---

What if you are wrong? You don't say "Probably not a madman", or "likely not a madman". You state with certainty something that you can't know with certainty.

So, what if you are incorrect? The UK and Russia were incorrect about Hitler.

---

Hitler wasn't mad.

---

I don't know about Hitler's mental health with certainty, but I agree he was evil

Do you think Hitler would have launched nukes?

Osodecentx said:

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude.

---

What if you are wrong? You don't say "Probably not a madman", or "likely not a madman". You state with certainty something that you can't know with certainty.

So, what if you are incorrect? The UK and Russia were incorrect about Hitler.

---

Hitler wasn't mad.

---

I don't know about Hitler's mental health with certainty, but I agree he was evil

Do you think Hitler would have launched nukes?

---

Hard to say .

Hitler possessed poison gas weapons but refused to use them even when it became clear that the allies has stockpiled such weapons in Italy .

Hitler had been wounded by poison gas in WW1.

Osodecentx said:

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

Don't have time right now, but I'll get back to you later. You express opinion as facts and then draw conclusions from your opinions. For example, "Putin is not a mad man". I hope you are right, but this is your opinion.

---

Furthest thing from a madman, dude.

---

What if you are wrong? You don't say "Probably not a madman", or "likely not a madman". You state with certainty something that you can't know with certainty.

So, what if you are incorrect? The UK and Russia were incorrect about Hitler.

---

Hitler wasn't mad.

---

I don't know about Hitler's mental health with certainty, but I agree he was evil

Do you think Hitler would have launched nukes?

---

Why not? We did. But this isn't WWII.