https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1501276071362281480?s=20&t=pikrKi9Zyk8agc-uKX0EbA
A lot of the palace coup scenarios also end in nuclear war. Are there more hawkish nationalists than Putin afoot in the palace? Who knows.
Yeah that’s no slam dunk either, agreed.
You should have!
Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for the Revolution of Dignity, establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.[18][19] Along with Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, she is seen as a leading supporter of defensive weapons delivery to Ukraine. In 2016, Nuland urged Ukraine to start prosecuting corrupt officials: “It’s time to start locking up people who have ripped off the Ukrainian population for too long and it is time to eradicate the cancer of corruption”.[20] While serving as the Department of State’s lead diplomat on the Ukraine crisis, Nuland pushed European allies to take a harder line on Russian expansionism.[21]
COMPUTER, ENHANCE
From 2003 to 2005, Nuland served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, exercising an influential role during the Iraq War.
2 Likes
This is right up China’s alley. If Russia is desperate for economic support, China will treat them like Africa and wring a bunch of concessions out of them in exchange for exclusive natural resource rights and stuff like that.
1 Like
I guess “weapons-grade plutonium” could be considered a natural resource.
A desperate Russia that can only trade with China is a dream for China (as long as they aren’t launching nukes because of Putin’s fragile masculinity). China would end up owning most of Russia in that scenario, which would be a hilarious outcome of Putin’s assertion that they had to invade Ukraine to protect their sovereignty from NATO countries led by a US where 1/3 of the population thinks their last election was fake.
1 Like
What’s the strategy that maximizes an ending where Zelinsky still governs a free and democratic Ukraine?
Doesn’t a Putin win just lead to further takeovers of former soviet countries?
Still seems up for debate. I mean as has been mentioned upthread near constantly, there is a huge difference between former soviet non-NATO countries and former soviet NATO countries. So Georgia and Central Asia could feasibly be in trouble (although iirc central asian governments will basically do whatever Putin wants already), Baltics are a huge step further and quite a different course of action/discussion imo.
But somehow a subjugated Ukraine where Putin wins only by virtue of a) using a tactical nuke and b) NATO not responding in any real way - that doesn’t lead to nuclear war down the road. Just peace and a calm Russia. Got it.
That would depend on how quickly he can rebuild his army after suffering considerable losses and with the sanctions still in place. He’d also need a compliant Ukraine that lets his puppet rule rather than having the military have to stay there indefinitely to fight an ongoing insurgency. And he’d need to still be alive after all this, or have a successor who agrees Ukraine went swimmingly.
1 Like
I would bet everything I have that in my scenario (nuclear taboo already broken in Ukraine) the exact same people itt arguing for NATO to not respond to a tactical nuke in any severe way (I have to parse my words carefully and spell everything out lest someone jump in and say “I didn’t say exactly that!”), would also be arguing to let Putin have the Baltics.
It’s the exact same argument - we can’t risk doing the right thing over the threat of nuclear war. Kick the can down the road until the next flare up.
It’s easy now to say “well that’s NATO so it’s different”. But if/when the reality is presented, that’s a different story.
Will there be a difference between former Soviet non-NATO countries and former Soviet NATO countries in a future where Donald Trump gets a second-term and withdraws the US from NATO?
I want to know if those people would prefer to withdraw from NATO to avoid fighting Putin if it looks like he won’t be satisfied with just Ukraine.
Based on their performance so far I’m highly skeptical the Russian Army would have success invading any additional countries.
2 Likes
While I’m sure there’s an LOL fuck you exception for Trump, can the President unilaterally withdraw USA from NATO? Or is Congressional approval required?
They’re already bemoaning that NATO added the Baltics. “Aw shucks I didn’t approve, but a deal is a deal, so I guess we have to risk nuclear war over Estonia” is easy to say now. But I don’t think they’d be saying it if the situation is actually at hand.
It’s an interesting wrinkle. I can’t really say more than it is hard to say. I do think it is much harder now for Trump to withdraw from NATO than it was during his first term. If he does withdraw then all bets are off with regards to what Russia does. But no matter how many tens of thousands of posts Suzzer makes, including the use of nuclear weaponry in an aggressive manner (on Russian soil) is just not something I’m going to suggest or contemplate as appropriate. But maybe I’m just a soy boy beta cuck.
Is this something you think I’m advocating?