Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? I'm sure you have good reasons for feeling strongly but the site guidelines don't stop applying when bad things are happening—actually that's just when they should apply the most.

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Even though there's a war going on and it's scary and activating, it's possible to discuss the topic without breaking those guidelines. Plenty of other users are demonstrating that in this very thread.

> He's bluffing with Crimea.

> Oh wait!

> He's bluffing with separatist regions.

> Oh wait!

> He's bluffing with invading Ukraine.

> Oh wait!

These are all straw men. I don't know any serious analysts who thought he was bluffing in any of those areas, primarily because they all understood the Western response would be muted.

He knows, as the rest of the world does, that launching nuclear war will require an all-out response from Western powers.

They're not strawmen, especially the last. There were quite a few intelligent ppl who seriously thought there's no way he was going to war with Ukraine.

Were those "quite a few intelligent people" not watching the news? The US has been explicit about the intelligence for weeks/months now. Even if you wanted to discount the US intelligence, the military buildup surrounding Ukraine was unmistakable.

Biden was quoted as saying the Russian attack had unfolded "largely as predicted". Pretending the invasion was some sort of great shocker is a rewrite of history.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-24/biden-...

The linked article is very informative; it includes things I'd not read elsewhere.

For instance, it talks about Putin's willingness to use "battlefield" nukes rather than "strategic" city-destroying nukes – betting that the West would immediately concede any war where a smaller nuke were deployed in the interest of avoiding escalation.

My bet several weeks before he invaded was that he'd deploy a tactical nuke against the Ukranian military (not necessarily against civilians causing mass casualty) to remove the ability of the West to call his bluff on using nukes and hence affect their calculus. This has the effect of making it crystal clear to NATO that they absolutely cannot put boots on the ground in Ukraine under any circumstances, and secondly it is a massive psychological blow to the Ukranian people themselves. The pundits and talking heads are always saying "I don't get his end-game here, he can't hold these people down, they will resist!" and my suspicion has been he may attempt to frighten the shit out of them into obeying. The other effect such a move may be intended to have is change the calculus of any further non-NATO former soviet countries he may try to go into next if he is successful in Ukraine, as he could essentially win without having to fight potentially.

My guess would be that if he deployed tactical nukes in Ukraine in some capacity NATO would not respond by launching a retaliatory nuclear attack as that would be MAD. Rather they would take the other nuclear option of completely cutting 100% of the banks out of SWIFT and freezing all oil and gas exports in an attempt to completely cripple Russia while eating the pain of those sanctions on their own territories, as I think the people would support it. Secondly I think it would be enough to galvanise millions of Russians to take to the streets and march against Putin to end his reign. This is the scenario I'm currently betting on playing out.

Nuclear war is a HUGE step up from any of the previous steps. Like you could build a binary system based on those principles, with Nuclear War being 1 and the rest being noise that's equivalent to 0.

The only way he'd entertain it is if he's truly lost his marbles, and if that's the case then this timeline just got a whole lot shittier regardless of whether we capitulate to the madman with the nukes or not. I sincerely doubt western institutions are going to show their bellies because of Putin's nuclear threats, so we'll see if he's bluffing one way or another.

You are assuming a rational actor. Putin may not be a rational actor.

And if he isn't?

Then we have nuclear war. Or we let Putin dictate international politics for however long he has left, and tell China/North Korea/every other bad actor that gets nukes for the rest of time that the game is "be serious about launching nukes offensively and you'll get whatever you want". How do you think that'll work long term?

It's that, or Putin at least maintains a shred of rationality. Or his inner circle takes him out before he pushes the button.

That's normally my comment.

For those that still insist that Putin is rational, there's one way to model his current behaviour: his utility function prioritises "make Russia great again", or at the very least, geopolitical concerns. He's willing to take whatever hit he needs to take, whether economically or in the lives of soldiers and civilians, to achieve this goal.

Go for it. I took care of my family, ~50miles away from the next big city, rivers, farmland and enough supplies around us. I'd rather laugh on my stupidity later on.

Sorry, but unless you got a deep bunker with years of supplies, you probably won't survive a large scale nuclear war.

There are US security experts who also argue that limited nuclear war can be waged (Edit: and won). It's an idea from the 80s and it's not something that planners have disregarded.