415
Putin's presidential plane visit to US sparks questions
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
415 points (100.0% liked)
News
23774 readers
2859 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Biden needs to transfer to Ukraine a nuke right now to provide some M.A.D. insurance. If he doesn't, I worry Trump will look the other way completely should Russia escalate with tactical ones or worse.
Edit: Guys, please educate yourselves on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory. The point is deterrence through mutual destruction, which effectively worked during the Cold War.
EDIT: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
Because Republicans with Trump gained full control of the US, effectively all geopolitical support is going to drop off for Ukraine over the next 4 years. It is imperative that Ukraine be given leverage ahead of this transition.
If nukes start flying we all lose.
Of course. That's why I advise we provide Ukraine with a nuke and warn Russia that if they try to utilize nukes against Ukraine, then Moscow will be targeted by Ukraine themselves.
Again: MAD Theory. Deterrence.
Edit: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.
UK has stated that if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, there will be a symmetrical response.
Edit:
And a promise is basically all the defense Ukraine has, just like they were promised both non aggression from Russia, and protection from USA, when they gave up their nukes 20 years ago.
Promises are worth zilch, just like when Hitler promised Chamberlain peace. Some things never change, especially when dealing with crazy dictators.
One would hope, but those are mere promises. When the time comes, doing is far different than saying. If we're already committed that far and we already support Ukraine to those ends, then let's cut out the middle man and give Ukraine such missiles themselves where they may be utilized immediately without hesitation. And of course, that's a certainty Putin can be assured of.
I 100% agree, and as it is now, this is all the defense Ukraine has from a nuclear attack.
I’m of Russian Jewish descent but my family has been in America since 1907.
You’re getting downvoted because most of the world thinks increasing nuclear risk is bad. Because it is!
If there were an easy way to end this conflict it would of happened by now. But I’m not interested in nuclear war and MAD only works when both sides are sane. Does anyone look sane right now on either side?!
Also if Russia uses nukes they’ll get a nato nuke response. What’s the point of putting nukes in Ukraine? We can end the whole world in like 30 minutes if we’re fucking dumb enough.
Herein lies the ill-logic of your belief set. You're not really exploring the Game Theory, here.
IF both sides are not sane (Putin), then it still stands as a credible argument to arm the sane side (Zelenskyy), for like you said, what is stopping insanity from attacking a defenseless victim? After all, through time immemorial the bully targets the defenseless, but second-guesses when they can get smacked back.
Moreover your argument only holds water under the false assumption that the insane doesn't yet have nukes either... But in this instance they of course already do.
What we DO KNOW about authoritarian tyrants like Putin — as exemplified by his extremely long table during COVID — is that they are terrified of death and seek not to be a ruler of rubble. Thus, when Putin sees that Zelenskyy has unilateral power to launch a retaliatory strike against Moscow, then that would indeed cause even the insane psychopath to reconsider. After all, what else is lost? Absolutely nothing.
Wouldn't a NATO membership be a similar protection without the movement and danger of arms? I can't recall what restrictions are left for Ukraine to join. It will of course piss Putin off, but anything does, and his whole fear movement that NATO is trying to take Russian land ignores the very purpose behind NATO, a common defense against attacks and invasions. Which of course Putin doesn't even agree they are doing even though they are actively within agreed borders. I mean, Putin's crazy, he has a fixation on remaking the old Mother Russia.
I am amicable to this as well. I wrongfully thought that Article 5 of NATO prohibited someone engaged in an active war from joining, but that appears to be incorrect and more unwritten / traditional. The nice thing with my proposal is that Biden could, to my knowledge, unilaterally do this without requiring other NATO members to endorse.
Based on what we've seen of Biden throughout his entire career, he is not going to do anything bold or decisive. He's excessively risk-averse and always falls back to weak half-measures.
Well, the biggest one is the fact they're embroiled in war over disputed territory.
Neither side is sane. We have belligerent Americans and putin needs to be a strongman to hold power in his country. That’s a recipe for neither side backing down and one side (who knows which) deciding nukes are a good solution.
Biden isn’t running america and probably hasn’t been for some time because he’s too demented but rather his unelected mystery team of advisors are running the place. All of whom I’m sure are handsomely paid by the “defense” industry.
Trumps coming in and well… trump is trump. Obviously not sane either. Complete narcissist. Anybody with more money than him who’s willing to massage his ego will have his attention and support.
Ukraine is a pawn. Zelenskyy doesn’t matter at all. This is a nato Russia proxy war that might turn into the real thing if we don’t find an off ramp soon.
and:
Let me just stop you there. I'm not interested in deep state qnon conspiracy theory lizard people arguments. These are literal Kremlin talking-points.
Get the fuck out, Putin apologist. I have no room for entertaining MuH BoTh SideS bullshit.
I’m just downvoting them because they’re bitching about downvoting.
Eh, sometimes I do that (bitch about downvotes). It’s not the imaginary internet points that matter, it’s the confusion about why I’m not being understood especially when whatever I’m commenting is in general agreement with the rest of the comments.
That's a little bit different from the smug superiority being shown by the commenter in question here.
Don’t mean to sound rude but the first part of your comment was kinda irrelevant
Relevant to “Russians downvoting” because it’s fucking ridiculous
MAD doesn't require sanity. Only rationality by each side about their own chances of survival.
How do you think nukes work that one can just be provided to them? And how do you feel they will implement MAD with only a single nuke?
How do you think nukes work that this is obstacle that cannot be overcome by two innovative powers?
Are you familiar with the Sentinel ICBM launched by vertical-erected launchers?
It's not black-and-white, but rather a gradient: One threatening Moscow is better than none; more is better than one.
Now let me ask you: Why (if this is indeed your belief) do you think such a proposed scenario invites more risk than the current scenario Ukraine is in now while unarmed? Moreover do you believe Russia would have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine did not adhere to the Budapest Memorandum?
I think putting a US nuclear weapon into another country's hands has the potential to make US defense much weaker. What if the weapon (and more importantly all of the training materials and intelligence regarding the system) fell into Russian hands?
I would not oppose Ukraine having its own nuclear program, but what you are proposing is a non-starter for more reasons than I can count.
Personally I don't think there's too much to really glean that Russia doesn't already have and know regarding our nuclear ICBMs. I'd argue the patriot missile system or especially Aegis defense system are far more valuable secrets — the former already being in Ukraine. After all, both nations know how to build ICBMs, MIRVs, and nuclear warheads. Interception thereof is another matter.
I'd be open to Biden providing the recipe and supplies for Ukraine to build their own, but the immediate need to have one now before Trump assumes office puts a time crunch on this.
Ukrainian lives are on the line. I simply do not want Ukraine to be defenseless against an emboldened Russia for the next 4 years without having a deterrent.
That's the point of MAD
MAD requires sane leadership and neither the US nor Russia are to be trusted with that.
Those nations already have nukes. 🤣
And you think Khrushchev was more sane than Putin? The guy who was putting nukes in Cuba?
I don’t have an opinion on krushchev, but I do know that putin needs to be a strong man to keep power.
You’re proving my point though - they already have nukes. Why does Ukraine need nukes? If things are going nuclear it’s all over in a few minutes anyway as whoever strikes first (US or Russia) will be retaliated against immediately by the other, and then everything ends for everyone except for the few unlucky survivors. Why stoke the fire and make that outcome even more likely?
If MAD is working then Ukraine doesn’t need nukes it’s got nuclear allies. If MAD isn’t working then we’re all gonna be fucked in the near future, we all lose and nobody, not even the billionaires in their bunkers, wins.
Wut? No it doesn't - it supports the theory that MAD is "working" since nobody has launched any nukes. Why hasn't Putin nuked Ukraine? I thought Putin was insane right?
Because I doubt NATO would be wiling to retaliate on their behalf. Trump sure as fuck won't and Europe would be far to weak to do so IMHO.
Frankly I believe the way Russia "wins" this whole thing is to simply show Ukrainians that siding with "the west" was a bad idea. Once Trump withdraws US support the war will go very badly. Public opinion will turn on "the west" for abandoning them and towards Russia.
We'll all burn together when we burn.
Funny you say that, I’m burning one right now 🌳
There are plenty of nuclear weapons close to Ukraine that can very easily and quickly be launched if whatever necessary scenario I can't come up with that would require a nuclear weapon happens.
The UK currently has 120 of their 225 nuclear weapons deployed and France currently has 290 of their 280 deployed and Putin is well aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
For the same exact reason that all those surrounding nations aren't committing their own forces to the defense of Ukraine is the exact same reason why providing Ukraine itself with a nuke as a deterrent to Russia's use is essential.
Yes, other nations surrounding Ukraine have nukes. However, the odds are much higher that should Russia use nukes on Ukraine that all the surrounding nations would furrow their eyebrows heavily and condemn the attacks but ultimately do nothing because they want to contain the damage to Ukraine. Chamberlains everywhere would simply reiterate, "This is a tragic day for the world, but we cannot risk a greater conflict." Meanwhile Tump, of course, would look the other way and seek to undermine any substantive NATO response at every turn.
To reemphasize my point that many seem to have missed: This is about giving the actual victim — Ukraine — agency to defend itself directly from a nuclear threat. I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.
I agree, but many are like:
Oh no 😱, that would be crossing a Russian read line! 🤮
Man I hate this argument, Russia only respect one thing, and that is strength. And Putin is insane, he is gambling with extremely high stakes, and has upped the stakes consistently for years now.
All the pearl clutching people are doing, is only helping Russia.
Exactly. I say fuck Putin's red line and give Ukraine nukes to deter Russia unilaterally.
If surrounding nations are unwilling to commit conventional ground forces or establish a No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine for risk of escalation, can we really count on them to respond effectively should tactical nukes or worse be used by Russia against Ukraine? I think not.
He will not be in power in perpetuity.
Perhaps not; however:
This is practically speaking only reinstating the Budapest Memorandum given Russia's failure to comply.
It is very probable he remains in power over the next 4 years, which are the most pivotal 4 years of Ukraine's future and most dire period for nuclear threat against them.
I don't think you are understanding my point. The next person to come to power in Ukraine might decide to use it proactively. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't get put back in.
Respectfully, I believe I do understand your point and I'll try to echo your side to verify that; but you may not be understanding mine.
What I believe your point is: If we give Ukraine nukes now, the future leadership could be volatile, thereby increasing the net-volatility of the region.
However, let's consider what I view as reasonable assumptions at the geopolitical level, both now and into the future:
If say, 4 years from now or whenever Zelenskyy (still overwhelmingly popular in Ukraine) steps down, the future leadership of Ukraine becomes volatile, then MAD theory still works symmetrically; after all, Russia clearly has many more nukes than Ukraine and that spells their destruction.
Practically-speaking, Ukraine geopolitical inertia has moved heavily toward the orbit of the West and its humanitarian values.
If future Ukrainian leadership is unstable, it is therefore reasonable to assume that they are likely Russian-centric and sympathetic; therefore, they would be unlikely to unilaterally and proactively attack Russia.
We trust Ukraine NOW. We trust Zelenskyy NOW.
The risk of Russia launching nuclear attacks against Ukraine during Trump's administration is orders of magnitude greater than the risk in the preceding years going back to 2014.
Therefore, we should be far more concerned about the immediate, real danger Russia poses to Ukraine as opposed to the speculative danger of future hypotheticals down the road that — in my opinion — do not hold water given the aforementioned geopolitical climate. When Russia and North Korea already have nukes and are a global threat, I really am not concerned about the small Ukrainian country who is currently fighting the good fight on behalf of all of us. Seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Why do you think there is any risk of Russia launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine? What would that gain them?
Russia is hemorrhaging losses themselves while their economy on a war time footing cannot sustain this in perpetuity; after all a smaller Soviet-Afghanistan war contributed to the over-toppling of the mightier USSR — mostly along economic lines. They need an off-ramp themselves, and fairly quickly. To suggest the country that has continued to escalate war crimes in Ukraine would suddenly stop escalating — especially now having a key ally in who was once their largest geopolitical threat — I think is somewhat naive.
Putting myself in the shoes of a psychopath like Putin, you're gauging how far you can push the limit on the geopolitical stage. Would I want to end this conflict sooner than later and decisively? Would I not be praised domestically as a hero who vanquished a foreign adversary? Yes. Is it likely I'll ever actually conquer Kyiv by conventional means if the first months failed with my forces at their strongest? No. Could I get away with a nuke under Biden? Probably not. Could I with Trump? Probably yes.
To ask what would that gain for Russia is kind of moot in my view because ultimately, Russia has already lost far more than they've gained in waging this conflict. Their economy is in tatters; their armies exposed as weak and incompetent and crippled. What geopolitical status they had in the West before has completely washed away. Sure they gained something like 17-19% of land including Crimea, but they'll be suffering for decades to come. This is mostly about legacy and vengeance for the cold war in the eyes of Putin and that's reflected in his own essay and the Foundations of Geopolitics.
Either way, the threat is enough that has deterred the West from engaging in conventional defense of Ukraine. I'd say that's concerning enough to warrant provision of a handful of nuclear missiles to Ukraine to serve as a direct deterrent. Ideally one would simply move these nukes into Ukraine and then reveal to Putin that they have already been put in place and ready to respond. Again, the goal is deterrence of course.
Edit: Let's not forget that Putin recently escalated yet again, using an inert MIRV intermediate ballistic missile whose payload would normally contain multiple nuclear warheads. (the first documented use of a MIRV in combat, apparently).
There's this thing called wind. Why on Earth would France and Britain allow fallout and irradiated soil to blow in their direction on Trump's behalf?
You seem to think that the U.S. and Russia are the only two countries involved here or that somehow the rest of Europe would just sit back and put up with that.
Also:
It's not moot at all. With that comment, you're basically saying Russia could do any irrational thing at all, so why stop with a nuke? Maybe they'll spray anthrax spores across all of Ukraine too. Maybe they'll send a hoard of plague rats. Maybe they'll crash all of their satellites into Ukrainian territory for good measure. Why not?
By this rationale, let's just assume Russia will do random bad stuff. Because. And if that's the case, why would Ukraine having a nuke themselves give them pause?
To be fair, it wouldn't be the first time radioactive dust blanketed Europe because of Russia by indirect means. Small-yield tactical nukes would also be less of an issue and an escalatory stepping-stone that is textbook for Putin.
What I seem to think is that military strategists think in terms of cold calculus of sunk cost and numbers; so let's play this out:
Russia drops one tactical nuke on Ukraine.
The world gasps and shudders in horror.
Trump looks the other way, promoting "America First" Isolationism in political expediency.
Russia says they'll consider dropping more if not for the unilateral surrender of Ukraine.
Western European military advisors say, "Yes, radioactive fallout is going to cover parts of Europe, but one small-yield tactical nuke isn't too bad. Maybe we can prevent further damage because if we were to respond by conventional or nuclear means against Russia, they will certainly be able to deploy a sizable amount of their total nuclear arsenal and naturally the deaths from WW3 would be higher than some radioactive dust."
This is how they think. It's rational. But Putin knows this.
... This is why you give Ukraine, the actual active victim here just enough nuclear weapons to threaten Putin's ivory towe on the eve of his political puppet entering the White House in the USA no less. It puts Putin in a bind and it safeguards Ukraine via M.A.D. Theory.
Because a desperate bully targets the weak and defenseless. Always has. None of those threats are as sizable as the nuclear threat, and giving Ukraine a proverbial "trump card" to level the playing-field in terms of risk to Putin himself is the only shot at injecting a dose of self-preservation in Putin's mind. After all I hope we don't tell our kids to not punch the bully back because hopefully a bystander will come to their aid eventually after the damage is already done.
Look at the end of the day, you are presented with two risks, and ask yourself which is more likely:
Personally, I'd much rather exchange more risk with Scenario 2 in order to further mitigate risk of Scenario 1.
So you're playing out what you think military strategists believe? Can you show me the well-respected military strategists who support you in this?
Okay, come on man... You can either begin to sealion me or you can engage in good faith we can have a healthy discussion as adults. Since I'm putting quite a bit of effort in this conversation and not getting anything in return but denial — there really isn't anything in this conversation for me unless something changes and quickly.
That is,
But hey, if you want to play that game I can play it, too:
Can you show me the well-respected military strategists who support you in this? Who think illogically and not in terms of risk and probability?
What in my scenario is actually unreasonable. Do you believe that is unreasonable, and if so, why?
Why do you believe M.A.D. theory would not hold up in this case and that the relative risk of Scenario 2 is greater than Scenario 1?
But sure, finally, I can give you an example: General LeMay and Robert McNamara responsible for the successful bombing of Japan, both by conventional and nuclear means. They employed risk calculus both in terms of their own bombers versus the relative risk to the opposition. This is pretty standard MO.
I am not going to play gish gallop with you and respond to dozens of points when you can't respond to my single points without adding 15 more, but your "YOU show ME the expert YOU have" when I didn't claim I was going with any military strategists at all shows you're the one not discussing things in good faith here.
If you can't back up a claim like that with evidence, don't make the claim.
I'll give you two responses then; one brief, one not so brief that explains my thought process for the closure of this discussion.
Let's cut to the chase. In such discussions, we basically have 3 options:
You're not venturing down a path that is convincing to me, and I'm apparently not convincing you with my strategy — either because (a) my transmission is poor, (b) reception is poor, or (c) I'm wrong and cannot see it. But unfortunately the arguments presented to me have not been compelling for me to see better logic.
Ultimately that you perceive me to be gish gallloping and I perceive you to be sealioning me means this discussion has been exhausted. I have no problem with healthy skepticism; but when you're trying to deflect sound reasoning (at least uncontested) by requests of evidence that aren't even necessary but rather proven by logic itself (what "reputable" military strategist DOESN'T use probability and proportionality in risk assessment!???), then that to me signals lazy posturing than it does healthy skepticism . You see the problem is you aren't just remaining a neutral skeptic; you're taking the opposite stance but not backing up your position in any remote way — neither with evidence, nor logic & reason I have at least done — that your position is the less risky of the two proposals.
So I suppose with that we leave it here and I'll oblige you with the last word. Have a nice day.
I didn't think you'd find anyone to back you up.
Yes, but there could easily be doubt those would be used to defend Ukraine, and make whatever country using them a Russian nuclear target.
If Ukraine has their own, it's a way more obvious defense for Ukraine, and Russia will know for sure they can't use nukes without retaliation with nukes.