Saber rattling and nuclear threats always benefits someone.. who?

I'm not sure the Motherland is really all that strong these days, Dmitry.

careful, Brigadier they can introduce a foriegn substance into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.

Just bend over for Putins liberators then. There’s nothing that can be done. Let them take what they want? No thanks.

If your plan is one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead, it's a bad plan. Attacking strawpersons doesn't make it better. You need a better plan.

> one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead

The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.

> The point is it doesn’t.

That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.

Imagine Trump threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, according to your logic they shouldn't run the risk of a nuclear exchange and Russia should retreat.

Is this correct?

Spot on. Recognising Putin’s fake lines normalizes a nuclear response to conventional tactics. That path opens to a future where it would be irrational not to constantly threaten nuclear holocaust for minor military advantage. And in that world, someone will eventually miscalculate.

And Russia could threaten to nuke the US unless the US surrendered Poland. Obviously, the hypotheticals are absurd and flawed.

> many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk

Look up what they said would trigger a nuclear war at the start of the invasion. Many of those things have already happened.

They said it was a risk. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't disprove that. A 1/100 risk of nuclear war almost certainly wouldn't happen, and would be far too high of a risk.

Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.

It's not yet demonstrated Russia will make the jump from a limited conventional confrontation to an all out nuclear war, even as its territory is under daily attack from a non-nuclear country.

It's not demonstrated, sure, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. This isn't rolling out an update to the text editor.

Sounds like your criticism is better leveled at the country threatening nuclear holocaust if someone sneezes at them.

It's not an issue of fairness or blame, but of outcomes. I am not part of the Russian electorate talking to Russians.

Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.

I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…

By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.

I am glad you didn’t run the Cold War.

Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.

Can I have your house if I threaten to nuke you? Assume I have a nuke. How about your wife?

If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it.

Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.

Well maybe the Russians should stop joking about it if it’s so serious. How many times do I have to hear from Medvedev about how Russia will rain nuclear hellfire on London?

Fuck around, you’ll find out. These guys are wimps. If they want to end the world, so be it. China would be destroyed too.

All the while his very own daughter lives in London. These threats are really just that, nothing to take overly serious.

“ If they want to end the world, so be it.”

This is not a way rational adults make decisions. I truly hope you are not a voter in any democratic nuclear-armed country.

The best way to avoid confrontation is to have an irrational adult at the helm, then all calculated escalation bets are off and you tend to just not play.

We’ve got one of those in the US but it turns out the tradeoffs are terrible.

You’re not thinking about things clearly. You can’t live as a hostage. Otherwise “do what we say or nukes” until you wind up a slave. Better off dead.

If Russia doesn’t like it they can stop with the dumb threats.

Happy to suggest some books on how cold War was actually navigated by both parties without destroying the planet. Not to spoil the ending, but at no point in time was "if we do this and then they blow us all up, so be it" a strategy

To be clear Russia is threatening to do things (blow us up) and the result would be them being blown up too (along with the commie Chinese).

So if that’s their strategy, I’ll call their bluff every time. No point in the human race existing if the result is “do what we say, else we nuke you”. Bet

If someone is threatening to end the world over every issue, then at some stage you need to call their bluff or you'll just be taken advantage of.

If the USA threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, would you be giving these same sage warnings to Russia?

You'd think their escalation threshold would be something a bit more existential than a few more rustbuckets at the bottom of the ocean.

Remember when invading Russian territory was a red line that could cause a nuclear retaliation? And then Ukraine went into Russia and Russia responded with a pretty bog standard conventional force?

Russia isn't gonna fling nukes if the West doesn't first. Putin and co have no interest in Moscow being glassed.

> And then Ukraine went into Russia and Russia responded with a pretty bog standard conventional force?

Standard North Koreans?

Your point stands but Russia is happy to drag in anyone it can. The US and EU letting Ukraine bleed out is shameful.

But Ukraine isn’t NATO.

Red line still pretty intact.

The stated Russian doctrine doesn't really explicitly call for a nuclear response to a naval conflict in the gulf of Finland.

I’m not following.