> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."
Take a big dose of Realpolitik and leave the "ought to"s behind. There's no nanny to tattle to. Nuclear war is a losing move for us all. Don't encourage it's happening out of some sense of moral justice that will kill billions.
The only way to stop a monster from destroying you is make him afraid you'll crush him back. If you let him know you are willing to let him do anything to save your skin, he will do it. Including destroying you, in the end.
Your moral certainty is laudable and impossible to dispute without sullying one’s own ethics with hypocrisy, and inviting charges of moral and literal cowardice.
But. Nuclear weapons are far beyond the ken and capability of humans’ intuitive game theory, the hueristics we apply in escalatory conflicts of all scales. Applying such intuition risks thoughtless apocalypse; MAD is a novel idea because such weapons required either an entirely new paradigm in power politics, or humanity’s rapid suicide.
Nuclear weapons are a deus, or devil, sprung from the machine of human civilization.
The possibility of their use, even by a bully who wields them especially to intimidate us, must inspire some cowardice in any soul who cherishes humanity’s potential.
The west must find its moral courage within the contraints of antiquarian post-Congress of Vienna style Realpolitik, as others have stated. Partition of Ukraine and many decades applying a new strategy of containment is the most realistic ‘victory’ that can be sought.
We might hope that Russia’s once promising liberal civil society will revolt and save this decade for peace - in vain, I expect.
where do you have that from? you can obviously predict human behaviour very accurately, so you must base that on something. this is a serious situation after all. are you a psychologist?
Putin is turning 70 soon. He knows he's not immortal and his latest moves look to me that he really wants his position in the history books.
He's shown time and time again that from within Russia, he's untouchable and everyone who tries will either be killed or deported to gulag. No sources needed, just look it up quickly on your own.
I do not see an easy solution for dealing with him - left alone the assassination route.
We gave them assurances; their translation said guarantees. They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest.
It is up to Biden now to live up to his tough talk of Putin fearing him (from during the election, if you have forgotten) and other western leaders to find an end that doesn't involve bending over.
Things will have to get really bad for that to happen. I mean it didn't happen / isn't happening in the US despite the people getting royally fucked left and right.
Oh wait there was an attempt, people didn't accept a democratic vote and decided to go and find politicians to lynch. I'm still pretty shocked that there hasn't been a more severe reaction to that one.
Everyone saying "but we should let Putin do whatever he wants with lives of innocents because otherwise nuclear war" is Putin supporter, whether they know it or not.
This is very unfortunate, but true. The reality is this: the window to deal with Putin in a non-confrontational manner has already closed, there are no 'good' options that do not carry a very hefty price tag in front of us right now, but people are - understandably - still having trouble adjusting to that reality.
But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. That's a big source of attrition. Russia is self-sufficient to a point and may still have (financial etc) ties with China, but it will hurt them badly.
But that's as far as it will go at this point. Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
If sanctions worked the first few times, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Why think it will work this time?
EDIT: of course, my opinions are shaped by being in non-nuke-equipped country in Europe, so depending on West's response this time, we're next. I'm sure it looks differently for someone sitting in New Jersey or Australia.
> But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy.
Putin can be faulted for many things but not looking ahead isn't one of them and you can bet that he has priced this in already. If anything he is probably amazed at the lack of response.
> Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
Yes, there will be all kinds of justification for letting Ukraine burn, this one will be near top of the list for sure.
What's your proposal? Let Putin eat Ukraine? Baltic states next? Sit tight, run for the west and hope Putin stops at sooner than we run out of places to run to?
Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.
But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.
There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down.
What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".
Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand?
People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?"
It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Also the wording is fuzzy when it comes to conventional war, but maybe the wiki has wrong wording. Either way, that is nowhere close to full defense pact which NATO is (with forward allied military bases and such).
The agreement literally says "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" on page 3. What is fuzzy about the wording?
How can the treaty be read to not apply to conventional war? Are you saying that one can invade Ukraine and still "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"?
If you want to find a way to not defend an ally, you'll always find one :)
NATO treaty itself does not talk about rapid response forces, joint bases and so on. All of that comes beyond the treaty. What stops key states from retreating back to basic treaty and then finding an excuse when Article 5 comes? E.g. if Russia comes as non-marked „rebels“?
But there was no defense alliance between NATO and Ukraine, right?
Maybe NATO has also weak wording in the treaty itself. So ask yourself - why did Ukraine want so badly to be accepted into it? Why is Russia opposing NATO expansion so much?
Budapest treaty is pretty damn close to defence alliance in it's wording.
Why did Baltic states or Poland wanted into NATO so much? It's one more treaty you can show to media when shit hits the fan. One more treaty your supporters can use debating governments for help.
In reality, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it won't be automatic full-on NATO response. It will still be debates. But certain people will be much more uncomfortable saying „no we won't defend NATO allies“. Yet some will still say it.
Russia wants it's own NATO, with black jack and hookers. And countries joining the real NATO obviously won't join theirs.
NATO has no obligation to Ukraine and it'd be a huge defensive liability. And, as we see, Putin would go to war before seeing Ukraine a part of NATO. The chumps here are the Ukrainian leadership and people. NATO made it clear they wouldn't be admitted. Russia made it clear that he'd invade if they tried. Ukraine did it anyway and this is the unfortunate result.
Baltic states are undefendable, even compared to Ukraine. If Ukraine is down, Poland is as indefendable as Ukraine. Then we are back to Cold War state where Germany is barely defendable.
If we don't initiate nuclear war, a nuclear war would be on Putin. He can do that with or without us defending Ukraine, I don't see how you could blame nuclear war on anyone but the aggressor. Put this pathetic dog down.
It's completely irrelevant on who would be the nuclear war. A nuclear war will wipe out an absolutely humongous part of humanity. Even if you survive, you will be doing much much worse as essentially all supply chains will get broken.
You are missing the point which is: your greatest fear will be turned and used against you by your enemy. So the only actual solution is to stand up and confront what you fear. Then you have a fighting chance to avoid that fate.
But, fine, let's play this game. The US is sends troops into the Ukraine. You do understand this is right at Russia's border. What does Putin do? He'll engage. Great, now we're in a shooting war with our nuclear rival. Now do you want to roll the dice this doesn't escalate further. Does Putin go after neighboring NATO countries? Now the US has to escalate further to defend an ally. And if the US/NATO pushes into Russia, does Russia go nuclear?
This is why the Cold War stayed COLD. We didn't directly engage Russia on anything close to their borders. Yes, we fought two proxy wars in Asia and just look how that turned out.
Do you really want to roll the dice and hope your neighborhood isn't a parking lot in the next five years?
We are dealing with "insane" people. If he is willing to use nukes over Ukraine, I can guarantee he does not plan just taking Ukraine. When should we react? Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Austria, Germany?
He says no. Probably enjoying one last sunset outside before closing the hatch! I can't help but wonder about our h n founders, safe in their bunkers in NZ, reading dog eared copies of The Soveiregn Individual. And then I wonder about all the Ukraine war news stories leading up to this being and flagged and burried here. I hope it's just coincidence. As I have said before, they think they can survive nuclear winter, no problem. But those assumptions are built on test of single small bombs. 10,000 going off at once is an order of magnitude worse, and might easily produce surprising effects. Science is always finding surprises in old experiments when they crank the power way up.
And I am no HN founder, but I live in Eastern Europe. NATO planes and helicopters kept flying overhead all day and my house doesn’t even have a basement.
So I bet we are closer to the danger than you are. And I also bet that the ones doing the flagging and burying are other brave "class warriors" and "eaters of the rich" who can’t accept that their beloved ideology has created monsters like Putin while the capitalism they despise has given the world prosperity, (relative) peace and Elon Musk (the last one's a mixed blessing, I admit).
PG if you are reading this, I love you really, man. And if there's any room left down there for a resourceful fella, I will work for bunk and board. (In fact, I've been stockpiling tins since Feb 20, so I only need the bunk ;)
If Putin directly attacks the West you'll get your dream. Until then you might actually stop advocating nuclear Armageddon. If you are really willing to do this you are no better.
If you're really clever, get all Sun Tzu on him and feed his fears until he chokes on them.
Most bullies are cowards. Threats and ultimatums like that come from a place of weakness. Did you hear America saying anything like that when they invaded Iraq? No, because they weren't scared.
Putin is a symptom of a much deeper problem, and I'm fairly sure that even if you did manage to do that he would be replaced by something similar, possibly even worse.
Having a rogue state with nukes is a serious problem.
How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war.
This is bait and bad bait at that. The longer Russia continues to provide us with video evidence of their bullying only makes it easier for us to convince undecided countries to sanction Russia to submission.
> How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war.
Forever? Look at North Korea: Kim Jong-un is doing fine.
> China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing.
> Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies.
> 60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies.
IIRC, Russia media is basically like having pro-Putin Tucker Carlson on all the channels all the time. And if, despite that, anyone in Russia has even a small chance of actually undermine Putin, they'll find poison in their underwear and get an all-expenses paid trip to a gulag.
The thing I don't understand about these sanctions is - aren't they meaningless when it comes to shaping policy? Russia is not a democracy - Putin doesn't need the support of the targets of sanctions to act however he wants; Russia controls the energy supplies in Europe and sits on a huge pile of currency - hitting them economically will hurt Europe much more than Russia.
Yes, but apparently some of those are soft-walked because the banks and other creditors of Russia are afraid they won't get their money back. As if that should even be a concern at this point.
The reason Putin is invading is because he knows the U.S. is weak, its leadership is politically weak, and there's very little it will do, and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support. It's the effect of clear incentives.
If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Then, wait until midterms when the president loses the house and senate and doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan. This is one of those happening slowly and then all at once events in history I suspect.
> If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again.
Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help.
That said, one should not make stupid decision how to connect and control such infrastructure and you should prepare with working backups instead of another security product.
Have family that are vp cybersecurity in infrastructure; I wish you were correct, but the free market went for quick and cheap implementations, not secure.
Basically, no one wanted to bear all the costs of having secure infrastructure components, this is the tragedy of the commons that government is supposed to solve, but when all the leaders are over 70, it’s hard for them to grok the new reality.
Sure, it could happen. There were hospitals that got knocked out for weeks with as simple ransomware attack.
If you have a dedicated hacker with means to acquire exploits, security is probably almost impossible. This is why effective mitigation is very likely the safer approach. Manual overrides or air gapped systems would help too.
But it is wrong to panic about it. The best mitigation is boring, but yes, some investment in IT could really help.
Maybe you missed Stuxnet / Olympic Games? Not sure how much ICS/SCADA security work you do, but there's a whole field dedicated to it. Can't tell if this is just someones narrative shaping work or sincere ignorance.
Is it in the realm of science fiction because nobody has pulled the trigger yet? Or is it because the gun doesn’t exist?
Ukraine has been subjected to Russian cyberattacks for nearly a decade now. They’ve accomplished knocking the power off multiple times. It would seem the gun exists.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine they could have some success with cyberattacks against the US. How impactful that would be to disrupting day to day life though is a question that remains to be answered. When the power was out in Texas recently, there was quite an impact. Imagine millions losing power in the rust belt in the winter. There would no doubt be loss of life and significant physical damage.
>Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help.
I wish. The gas pipeline shutdown last year was just a rehearsal I imagine. If the Russian government went full send on a cyber attack, we would probably be completely fucked for months at this point.
Post-Vietnam the US hasn’t engaged in large scale active combat against communism or Russian-backed forces. It has instead favored selling weapons to Eastern European states and building the NATO alliance.
Putin has been clear about the breakup of the USSR being a mistake in his eyes. He’s been annexing territories (or in his eyes, re-annexing) since 1999. He looks for countries with strong Russian cultural and linguistic backgrounds and props up allies that will take over. If that doesn’t work he ratchets up the pressure until he feels comfortable using military force. See: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine.
The US is far stronger militarily than Russia, but with nuclear weapons in the equation, no one wins.
It’s easy to be an arm chair hawk and say we should go fight, but it’s another thing to look you kids in the eye and explain they’re going to die from radiation fallout.
Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
> Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
a band-aid solution at best. The fact that putin has desires to resurrect the soviet superpower, is the problem, and i doubt there would be any possible diplomatic solution to that.
Nobody likes war (least of all nuclear war), but if the threat of such weapons is shown to be a bluff, the peace brought about from it's use in WW2 would all but be in vain.
Somebody must back down, and i would say putin and his ambitions must be the one to back down, or the US & allies must escalate. Otherwise, the next authoritarian country is going to want in.
The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons.
France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph.
There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).
Doesn't even make sense for Putin strategically because the alliance will get consolidated by this. On the other hand there are just few diplomatic tools. They were all used up more or less.
the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic.
The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow.
And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.
The West has failed at what, though? All wars are tragedies, but nobody promised they were going to protect Ukraine in the first place, and it’s a long standing international precedent that two countries can go to war without everyone on the planet sending troops.
Ukraine got a raw deal, there's no doubt about that, but they didn't and don't think that it was ever a mutual defense pact. A lot of us have skewed perceptions, because a lot of us live in countries that have never in our lifetimes been invaded, but the general expectation on the international stage is that countries can fight wars without friendly third parties sending in their own troops.
It is out of respect to those that have to fight the wars that those that are not on the front lines should do everything to prevent it from breaking out in the first place.
I agree that there are difficulties in developing arms in peace times, war can be a driver of innovation. But it is not the only one and there are preferable alternatives, even if arms suppliers see that differently out of egoistic ambitions.
A civilian population rejecting involvement in arms manufacture is preferable to one that calls for a war.
I don't think Putin has a single reason, the reason you stated is one in particalur an US one. From a Western European view, my best guess is, he also wants to destabilize EU (with a lot of NATO memebers). Remember Syria an the refugee crisis? This gave TailWind to a lot of right wing parties, which are mostly ProRussia (AFD, FPÖ etc). Incidentally left wing parties, "Die Linke" comes to mind, are also Putin fans. So any polarization within EU will help Russia to sell its resources and don't get sanctioned to much. IMO Putin is playing the divisor.
You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"?
Sure, that would make hypocrites of those who were draft dodgers back then, and advocate the draft now. But how many of those are there? I'd guess the vast majority of baby boomers who now advocate the draft weren't draft dodgers.
And AFAIK, compared to those who went, draft dodgers were a small minority.
>You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"?
No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go."
Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!
If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you.
I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot.
I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside.
I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.
> Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!
Cut it out with the bullshit: You know very well I never said or meant any of that.
But how many people does it take to sit around and smoke, chant, and block traffic? It's not as if it was necessarily new people at every sit-in, is it -- they could very well have been the same pot-smoking, slogan-chanting, and traffic-blocking protesters at most of those protests, right? Sure, they became the cultural phenomenon remembered from the time. To a large degree because, as you point out, of those 80s Hollywood blockbusters... And how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Hollywood blockbuster producers and directors did it take to make thoseand leave this huge imprint on the collective consciousness of posterity?
OTOH, AIUI a majority of draftees... didn't dodge the draft. The USA sent what, half a million young men? (or more?) over there. I'm not saying they all went willingly -- far from it, AFAIK -- but at least, those who went cannot, by definition, have been "draft-dodgers". So by my reckoning, compared to active protesters quite possibly, and compared to actual draft dodgers almost certainly, there were more non-draft-dodgers.
And also by definition, pretty much exactly all of those young men who were sent to Vietnam to fight -- the non-draft-dodgers -- were baby boomers.
So "boomers are hypocrites because they all advocate the draft now but dodged it back then" just doesn't make mathematical or logical sense. For one thing, even if many of them advocate the draft now that's not all of them; maybe the ones advocating it now are the same ones who obeyed it then, and maybe they've been quite consistently and non-hypocritically in favour of it all their lives. And for another, of course the bit about "they all dodged it then" is BS: If they had, there wouldn't have been any of them there.
Your rantings and ravings about Boomer Bloodlust aside, all I was pointing out was the bullshitness of this collective-hypocrisy accusation.
Wow, not really. Putin lies all of the time and he is a bully, but he's not kidding when he says there will be retaliations.
Anything the West does directly they have to expect a response.
That said, I think the west should be using 'distance power'.
There are US Global Hawk drones over Ukraine right now doing surveillance, I think it would be reasonable for the US to launch cruise missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine.
The Russians could make things very difficult for ships in the Black Sea however as one opportunity for retaliation.
We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, but it's impossible to tell, it's just as likely Russia may be able to just smash through Ukranian defences and leave them to some insurgency skirmishes.
> We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back,
Putin won't step back. This is his endgame and he has very little - if not actually nothing - to lose. Going back as a loser is not on the table as a viable option.
Putin is not all powerful, no leader ever is. He has to face realities of the situation, and also populism at home.
And he has a lot to lose, this is a risky manoeuvre. If Russia fails in it's publicly stated objective it will look really bad on him and Russia. Russia could feasibly fail entirely and lose some occupied territory. Unlikely, but it could happen. And then there's the 'overhead' cost of economic disruption.
If the Ukranians can hold off the main thrust of the attack, and especially if Russians start to come back in body bags - he will lose the momentum and have to make serious adjustments.
This is 'extremely expensive' for him in every way: political, populist, economic to conduct such operations and he can't do it for very long.
Or if they do actually 'win' and but then Urkanians can mount material insurgent attacks, it won't work.
Russian Oligarchs just had their wealth cut in half (they are pissed), a lot of Russians will be facing financial pressures, they were never really behind this war in the first place - this will take it's toll at home.
Russia lost 6 fixed wing and 3 or 4 rotary wing just this morning - that's not a good start and if those loses continue at that rate he won't be able to keep it up - he can't risk his Air Force for Ukraine.
Ukranians have 1K+ Javelin and hundreds of Stinger missiles. Those weapons do not require central coordination and can nullify air support and amour advantages, which makes it an ugly ground fight which will be bloody, and it's possible Russians don't have the veracity to fight. Russians soldiers are doing it 'because it's a job' - not because their homeland is under threat.
Russian paratroopers have taken Kyiv Airport this morning, but they are alone without armour or real support, Ukranians shot down 3 of their transport craft. It's entirely feasible that Ukranians take back that airport .
Although it would be risky, the West, particularly could cause serious damage to Russian forces in Ukraine.
I don't really think Ukraine will hold out, but they definitely could and Russia will have to eventually withdraw in some way.
My guess is that he would mostly withdraw to the Donbas region and then make some kind of 'declaration of objectives met' and then sue for a truce, making permanent claims to Donbas recognized by the West (which won't happen, but his claims will make him appear strong).
He is hinting that he can nuke everyone who will stand against. This is a typical tactic of bullies – to hint death threats, without directly stating them. Also they want to assure you that they can definitely do it, even though they know about the consequences.
Strongest practical resource you mean? What else would be a stronger offense than a barrage of nukes crippling a country for hundreds of years to come and effecting the entire global environment with radiation, fallout, complete civil destabilization, etc.
Hypothetically: your precision-guided munitions killing only family members of only military officers who haven't yet surrendered to you would be a stronger offense. Your enemy's anti-aircraft guns firing only at their own aircraft, and their tanks driving under your control to destroy their munitions depots, the crews helplessly imprisoned within. Your enemy's civilian populace becoming convinced that their own leadership is crucifying babies and mass-murdering anyone who speaks their language, your soldiers treat civilians well, and their family members are urging them to surrender to you.
Compared to those things, the power of nukes is trivial; all they can do is destroy. You can't surrender to a nuke, and the point of warfare is to convince the enemy to submit, not to damage the ecosystem. Damaging the ecosystem is just a side effect, so it's the wrong way to measure the strength of offensive resources.
Nuclear contamination doesn't tend to stay put and respect borders. Russia knows that, so I don't think Russia would drop a nuke anywhere in their own vicinity.
Correct, hence the entire reason I suggested the qualifier of practical. Nuclear attacks are clearly impractical by any sane individual, but in terms of strength and damage, aside from some sort of biological weapon, I'm not sure what could have similar impact.
Forget nuclear contamination. If Russia nukes a NATO country, nukes are coming back to land on Russia. And Putin, personally, will die, and so will Russia as a nation.
So, it was an impressive threat. I doubt he actually would follow through... but he might. That's his leverage - that we wonder if he might. Rationally, though, it's a crummy threat, because rationally his own downside is far too big.
Putin is a 69 year old dictator who is realizing his life is over. He's decided to go out with a bang. He obviously does not care about his country since this war will only hurt Russia, it's already had multiple consequences that are directly opposed to his stated goals. He wants to play with his army and tanks.
"Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
And build them a home, a little place of their own.
The Fletcher Memorial
Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.
...
Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead."
Why would Putin think his life is over? He's 10 years younger than Biden. And, have you ever heard the expressions, "better dead than Red" and "give me liberty or give me death"? People often believe that deeply held principles are more important than mere survival. Similarly Putin might believe that establishing Russia's strength and border security is more important than any short term pain Russia endures. In other words, there's other ways to look at this than as just a pure boss move for his own ego and pleasure.
He might think his life is over because there are very obvious physiological effects that occur when you are 69 years old. As a person who does not have problems and gives problems to other people it may frighten him to realize he is going to die.
Sure there are other perspectives and possible motivations for his actions. But it's the idea that he may not care any more and might do anything that I find scary. If he's willing to risk full scale invasion across all of Ukraine after the international focus that preceded it, would he also be willing to launch supersonic nuclear weapons? In his televised statement he said Russia is ready for all outcomes.
For the USA what probably worries me most is cyberattacks. The USA is such a soft target. Our government can't even secure it's systems after a decade of laws, warnings, bad reports, and actual attacks.
I do hope I'm wrong and Putin is actually sane and has a strategic plan that makes sense for his country.
Putin (and his kgb clique) is loosing grip on the power, the war started to be the only way to rally local support and remain in the power. Small scale, local conflicts are growing in size to appease common people to give them taste of USSR former glory, taste of world power, not decay of corruption riddled aristocracy ruled former empire.
Putin is at the top of the pyramid but he is not the sole ruler of the Russia. Its not like if he dies Russia will magically become exemplary democracy.
There were and still are people lining up and aiming to take his seat, but as long as Putin appears to be strong and gives his underlings enough he will remain on the throne.
I find this take very reductive. I would rather see something more concrete like:
Putin's pre invasion speech has a striking amount of blood and soil rhetoric. And in addition just like Hitler he denies the right of existence of East European states between Germany and Russia.
Well he did all of that too. He brought up "grievances" going back almost to the 1800s. He denied that Ukraine and other Eastern European countries were real countries. He said that Lenin and Stalin were too soft.
He all but said that controlling these countries was Russia's "Manifest Destiny".
