Ok, so we have Keeed on record - do nothing if Putin launches a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
Just so when others tell me I’m putting words in people’s mouths, all I’m trying to do is clarify the logical conclusion. We have that now.
Ok these are good ideas. Who knows this might be what happens. It’s better than doing nothing, I’ll give you that at least.
But I’m still not sure if we draw a red line now and say this is what will happen, that will be enough to deter a tactical nuke, which is scary. I’d worry that it might almost invite one if Putin knew this was the only stuff that would happen.
Not trying to pick on you keeed but people have been flip-flopping their positions on this stuff A LOT over the last few days. “I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth, we should do something!” Ok, please list specifics. “Well yeah, I guess basically nothing.”
Same thing happened with Mearsheimer. We went from “Putin has legitimate security concerns” to “Well Putin has irrational fears and we have to respect that” to finally land on “Ok yeah, Putin just doesn’t want a liberal democracy next door embarrassing him and showing Russians a better way to live.”
The Mearsheimer argument is a lot less palatable when you start with the truth. Unspecified Putin security concern arguments go down a lot easier.
I feel like there are some other issues I’m forgetting.
1 Like
I don’t see an off-ramp. Putin has justified this war by portraying Ukraine as genocidal Nazis. It’s a loss for him if this doesn’t end with regime change in Kyiv.
I think we owe Zelesnkyy something because Trump is probably president right now if he goes along with the quid pro quo. I want to see him come out of this still standing as president of Ukraine.
It’s too late to draw any red line that wasn’t drawn before the war, I’m afraid. I think leaving it murky in this regard and as far as chemical weapons go is probably the best deterrent. Call it unacceptable but refuse to lineate a response.
You could say that if one iota of fallout ends up in a NATO country, that’s an act of war against NATO. That limits his nuclear capabilities a lot.
The stuff I said would be the type of response I’d float to the Joint Chiefs for their input and to compare with their preferred response if I were president.
You can’t involve China in advance unless they play ball in advance, which is unlikely. You can’t announce that you’re going to try to kill him ever, you just try. Announcing asset seizure or a cyber attack on advance gives away a huge advantage there.
So yeah this stuff is all a response. It would be my way of making it clear we can and will topple his regime without putting American boots in Ukraine or firing a nuke of our own. The off ramp is some kind of backchanneling that we’re willing to take some sanctions back off for a cease fire, some more for a withdrawal, and you attempt to walk it back from there.
Essentially this leaves him the option of nuclear WW3 or trying to ride out unprecedented sanctions that will likely lead to the annihilation of the Russian economy for a decade.
I mean … I’m sure Keeed’s suggestions could have encompassed some (maybe all) these ‘good ideas’. He just doesn’t think they’ll work. So not really ‘better than doing nothing’ so much as differing on views of prospects of success. I mean I subscribe to the same approach to Cuse, at least 1-4. 5 I’m unsure on nuclear test, I’d rather not reference any nuclear suggestions publically at least (and that would be a public suggestion of nuclear options). 6 mega risky. 7 good.
International recognition of Crimea, perhaps. Let Lonetsk and Duhansk vote on being part of Russia or Ukraine. A promise to never put NATO weapons in Ukraine even if they join, unless they are attacked.
You can give him a lot of stuff he either already has or that’s of no value, but he can sell it to his people by lying like usual.
We all do. Just with minimal risk of ending humanity.
The US signed a partial test ban treaty which only permits underground testing.
1 Like
Maybe we can just get to the root of the disagreement.
I feel like the basic disagreement here is that some of you have come to the conclusion that Ukraine being subjugated (which lets Putin save face with a pyrrhic victory) is the least risky path out of this from a nuclear war POV. And from that, you’re just working backwards to take positions that will get us to that point.
And I guess that’s a reasonable position to take, although personally I think it lacks both empathy and imagination.
So if you think Ukraine to be subjugated is the safest path out of this, then how could you not be hoping for Ukraine to lose, and how could you not be hoping for it to happen as quickly a possible so as to minimize human suffering? I think there’s some cognitive dissonance because if I lay it out like that, I get jumped on. But what else are you hoping for here?
1 Like
If you acknowledged his gains in Crimea, I’d want to place a red line on Russia using force to expand its borders beyond that and charge them an egregious indemnity to pay for rebuilding Ukraine.
You can always make a new red line. They have a dedicated hotline for this stuff. If you do X, we’ll do Y.
But beyond that we have no idea what they’re saying to each other so it’s probably silly to keep speculating.
It’s just consequentialism vs deontology, aka the trolley problem.
Yeah I mean in a world where he hasn’t nuked anyone, my framework would be something like international recognition of the pre-Feb 2022 separatist controlled areas of Donbas as well as Crimea as whatever the hell he wants - independent states or Russia.
Ukraine then gets to join the EU and NATO, but there will be strong restrictions on what types of military assets and from which countries can be placed in Ukraine so long as it’s not under attack - add a clause about what will happen if Russia builds up 200K troops at the border again.
Essentially: OK, you get to annex disputed territory but you’re done invading Ukraine for good, next time it starts WW3.
Putin has to pick up the phone and listen. This stuff is best done before it starts. In reality, it probably was. Biden’s administration is competent and we clearly knew they were invading.
I want to include a provision where Putin has to apologize for comments about denazification and genocide.
I’d rather add a provision where Putin has to make Trump apologize for every stupid thing he said the last five years, if we’re discussing non-starters.
They’ve said they have a dedicated hotline right now specifically to avoid nuclear war. They are listening on the other end. Neither side wants the world to end.
1 Like
If neither side wants to engage in nuclear world war, than figure out the lowest rung on the escalation ladder that Putin won’t climb to and occupy the rung just below it.
Russia may be ground down to the point where they have to accept some sort of negotiated settlement, which would be nice. And making it expensive for powerful countries to do this sort of thing is good, because it provides incentives against doing it for any other powers who are thinking of doing a little recreational invading.
I don’t know what is in Putin’s mind but I also think there’s a solid chance he is not willing to go to the extent of levelling Kyiv. Like your argument has been that Putin is motivated in large part by Russian nationalism, but then you also have him perfectly willing to destroy the cradle of Russian civilization and some of the historical jewels of the Empire. I am by no means certain that he won’t do it but I think there’s at least a chance that that sort of Pyrrhic victory would be a step too far.
MOVED FROM OTHER THREAD
I’m talking about Putin breaking the nuclear taboo. You keep switching over to the current world. We basically agree on what’s being done right now in the current world (if not what was done to get us here). All this discussion (which again should be happening in the other thread!) has just been hypothetical over what would we do if Putin uses a nuke.
They have a dedicated hotline now specifically to avoid nuclear war. I am sure something like, “just so you know, if you do X we will do Y” would be very much in the topic of conversation. You don’t have to call it a red line.
Wording of things seems to be a really big sticking point in these debates.