Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[artis]

I really don't believe in diplomacy here, definitely not now. I think there is basically just one option and that is to supply Ukraine with a steady stream of weapons. It will cost yes but EU and US needs to do it because no one else will, and unlike Vietnam, US soldiers don't have to die by the thousands, at least not now so we should seize the moment while it's there.

A strong Ukraine able to defend itself is also a good safety check to keep Russia at bay, otherwise they might try out similar tactics in other former republics.
Ukrainians need to beat Russians then it will be a true blow, if the west get's directly involved then it will only make matters worse and Putin will be emboldened to fight out his "war of ages" that he sees as the rightful continuation of his motherland.

 

[anorlunda]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

 

[neilparker62]

He was shut down and they clearly did not want him to speak. Like he had details that they did not want him to expand on.
'Our forces they are out there...' 'our country it's...'
Interrupted 'no no no'
'they are dying'
Interrupted again
'they are dying..'
Some younger guy in his 30s telling what looked like an decorated war horse to shut up.

@artis and @wrobel. I thought he was being candid: "our forces are dying and our country it's ..." (?). Russia needs more 'war horses' of that ilk who at least have some kind of grip on reality (unlike the TV presenter who plainly didn't have a clue!).

 

[neilparker62]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

No - we all do. It's just too horrific to contemplate!

 

[artis]

Seems like the west pushed Ukraine to abandon too many of their weapons , not just the thermonuclear arsenal.

 

[wrobel]

I don't think this is easy to judge. Firstly, there are no excuses for those war crimes and barbaric actions. On the other hand, normal Russian soldiers, often between 18 and 20 years of age, and of whom thousands have died already, are victims, too. Guilt is an individual property, it does not apply to groups.

Yes but there is a big difference between a soldier and a murderer.
Long ago Soviet artist Nikulin told a story. He was a soldier in Military Intelligence at WW2. In the night his group was going along a railway mound. Suddenly they saw a German Military Intelligence group and Germans saw them. They jumped down to the slope of the mound. Germans jumped down to the opposite side. One German soldier confused in the dark and jumped to the slope where the soviet group was.
Soviets grabbed this guy by his hands and legs swung him and threw him over the mound to the German group. Both groups laughed and went to different directions without fight.

 

[BillTre]

That is like bribing a criminal at the moment when he is stealing your car, sure he might comply and take your money and then come back tomorrow to also take your car.

The US bribed a lot of people in Afghanistan and Iraq to work with the US.

 

[artis]

The US bribed a lot of people in Afghanistan and Iraq to work with the US.

They did, and some were trustworthy while others snitched of US positions and made Taliban easier to attack, is what I have heard.

 

[bob012345]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

Putin will use that fear to ultimately get everything he wants no matter the cost to Russian and other lives. I believe there are opportunities to escalate U.S., E.U. and NATO involvement while minimizing those risks. Let's not kid ourselves, the West is already at war with Russia indirectly as we are pouring weapons into Ukraine as well as troops as unofficial volunteers.

The best chance to mitigate how bad the international situation ultimately gets is to act now in a calculated but assertive way.

 

[artis]

Yes but there is a big difference between a soldier and a murderer.
Long ago Soviet artist Nikulin told a story. He was a soldier in Military Intelligence at WW2. In the night his group was going along a railway mound. Suddenly they saw a German Military Intelligence group and Germans saw them. They jumped down to the slope of the mound. Germans jumped down to the opposite side. One German soldier confused in the dark and jumped to the slope where the soviet group was.
Soviets grabbed this guy by his hands and legs swung him and threw him over the mound to the German group. Both groups laughed and went to different directions without fight.

This reminds me of a story I read in a book written by "Mavriks Vulfsons". He was Jewish and a die hard Marxist when young and fought in the Soviet Red army during WW2, he later became opposed to Marxism and the policies of USSR and even went as far as to publicly denounce the occupation of the Baltic states by USSR after WW2, he dared to talk about this during the "perstroika" years in Moscow. @wrobel I think you might know him or at least heard of him.

Anyway the story goes like this. As he fought back in WW2 he was a radio operator. He was listening in on a German radio operator giving commands and locations of enemy positions to his artillery for them to engage them. He knew German well and after a while learned to mimic the German operators voice. Then one day they jammed the German radios and instead he started speaking to the Germans via his Red army radio. He mimicked the German radio operators voice and gave German artillery locations to bomb, sure enough the Germans carried out the command.
In the end he had given the Germans the locations of their own troops (tanks, bunkers, fortification etc ) Germans managed to conduct a sizeable "friendly fire" bombing before they were informed by their own to stop.

 

[artis]

the West is already at war with Russia indirectly as we are pouring weapons into Ukraine as well as troops as unofficial volunteers.

Just as they were in all the proxy wars during the USSR, so far nothing new under the sun.

 

[bob012345]

Just as they were in all the proxy wars during the USSR, so far nothing new under the sun.

Which is why introducing limited combat regiments into Ukraine will not necessarily trigger nuclear war. I think the West should allow immediate provisional NATO membership (or at least Guardianship) of Ukraine, or at least the parts outside of the Donbas region for now.

 

[anorlunda]

I believe there are opportunities to escalate U.S., E.U. and NATO involvement while minimizing those risks.

What are the consequences if you are wrong?

 

[phinds]

Putin will use that fear to ultimately get everything he wants no matter the cost to Russian and other lives.

Exactly:

 

[artis]

Which is why introducing limited combat regiments into Ukraine will not necessarily trigger nuclear war. I think the West should allow immediate provisional NATO membership (or at least Guardianship) of Ukraine, or at least the parts outside of the Donbas region for now.

And I never claimed that having foreign fighters in Ukraine will trigger a war, in fact there are already quite a few from different countries including mine. So much so I know a few personally that have went to Ukraine and are now fighting there. We have historically had good relations with Ukraine , about 10k people of them already here living among us now, they call us brothers.
From what I hear it's not so much the number of soldiers that is lacking but the weapons that are needed so that each man can be able to cause maximum damage to enemy forces.

 

[PeroK]

What are the consequences if you are wrong?

And once you've sacrified 45 million Ukrainians, then you sacrifice 40 million Poles, then 80 million Germans and eventually hand over the USA to Russia if Putin threatens you with WWIII?

Yes, it's a risk, but there may be no future for any democracy if we've decided that fighting is not an option.

We have to fight sooner or later, so if not now when?

 

[pinball1970]

And once you've sacrified 45 million Ukrainians, then you sacrifice 40 million Poles, then 80 million Germans and eventually hand over the USA to Russia if Putin threatens you with WWIII?

Yes, it's a risk, but there may be no future for any democracy if we've decided that fighting is not an option.

We have to fight sooner or later, so if not now when?

I agree. Reluctantly.

 

[bob012345]

What are the consequences if you are wrong?

When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.

 

[Klystron]

Apologies if this NYT article has been posted. The subject matter is excruciating. The Times allows some free articles per month. I have not been able to read the entire report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-atrocities.html

 

[anorlunda]

We have to fight sooner or later, so if not now when?

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.

So the answer to "if not now when?" is, we are free to war with Russia when MAD (mutually assured destruction) is no longer in effect.

Analogous questions will arise if China invades Taiwan, which has been imminent for a year or so.

Our military has been wrestling with nuclear brinksmanship for more than 60 years. There is nothing new about the situation in Ukraine. MAD imposes huge constraints on the wars we are able to wage.

 

[bob012345]

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.

So the answer to "if not now when?" is, we are free to war with Russia when MAD (mutually assured destruction) is no longer in effect.

Analogous questions will arise if China invades Taiwan, which has been imminent for a year or so.

Our military has been wrestling with nuclear brinksmanship for more than 60 years. There is nothing new about the situation in Ukraine. MAD imposes huge constraints on the wars we are able to wage.

If you don't want to do anything that might risk nuclear war, what's your suggestion then?

 

[BillTre]

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.

If we were to attack first it takes the probability of such a war to 100%, as opposed to now (even if we are somewhat provocative), which would be a much lower probability.

 

[anorlunda]

If you don't want to do anything that might risk nuclear war, what's your suggestion then?

What we're already doing. We used sanctions and a few weapons to help Ukraine without push Putin's/Russia's back to the wall. Escalating weapons, and calling for regime change and war crimes trials is destabilizing.

But if risk of nuclear war is on the table, then I vote for immediate preemptive first strike.

The hellish thing about nuclear strategy is that only extremes are possible, no nuances, no middle roads are available. So between the USA and Russia, our choices are all-out nuclear war, or no war at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

Probably not, but:

• I think it's very unlikely even in the event of NATO entry into the war.
• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

 

[PeroK]

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike.

That's not logic that I can follow. Sorry.

 

[PeroK]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

We can't be ruled by our fears to the extent that we become impassive to the destruction of the free world. If there's nothing in this world that you think is worth fighting for, then what is your world worth?

 

[russ_watters]

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.

Your premise starts with an assumption that nuclear war isn't just possible, but likely. Otherwise, no, it's not less risk.

 

[bob012345]

Probably not, but:

• I think it's very unlikely even in the event of NATO entry into the war.
• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

I agree. Unless the West is foolish enough to attack Mother Russia directly, a wider war will likely remain conventional.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. Unless the West is foolish enough to attack Mother Russia directly, a wider war will likely remain conventional.

Russia has in fact come right out and said just that. To me it was practically an invitation (I mentioned this before). Better to lose to the US and keep us as an enemy/peer than to lose to Ukraine and have no enemy-peers.

To me the stakes are higher for Putin if we remain on the sidelines than if we enter.

 

[phinds]

When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.

I admire your optimism but not your grasp of reality. Humankind will keep searching for bigger and better weapons until/unless full peace and prosperity takes over everywhere and I'm not even sure about then.

 

[bob012345]

I don't think we need to be too concerned about nuclear war. The West has a secret weapon. A Fifth Column in Russia. It's the tens of millions of angry Babushka's in the empty grocery stores due to sanctions. They will topple Putin.

 

[bob012345]

When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.

I admire your optimism but not your grasp on reality. Humankind will keep searching for bigger and better weapons until/unless full peace and prosperity takes over everywhere and I'm not even sure about then.

I don't think my statement was very optimistic as it presumed a collapse and rebuilding of civilization. But I agree Humanity will never achieve a state of permanent peace and prosperity.

 

[russ_watters]

• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

Actually, let me expand on or even walk back that one. World War II was fought on two continents plus Oceania and involved all of the major world powers fighting as peers against each other. Russia has proven with this war that it is not a major world power. While I'm sure everybody recognizes that only the United States is a truly global power at this point I think most people believed and expected that Russia was still a major regional power perhaps on par with the larger European countries like Germany France and the UK. Instead Russia has proven that it is a second-tier regional power. That would make a war against NATO a small Regional War not a World War. It would be no more of a World War than the first Gulf War was. I don't want this to become an argument over definitions - what matters here is the comparisons between other wars. If calling it a World War means we picture it being as destructive as World War I or World War II then that really isn't an accurate comparison or label.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't want to oppose you, but let me add some points. I would not underestimate China as a world power. If a local conflict becomes a nuclear conflict then it isn't local anymore. WW I and WW II both started locally. And who would make any predictions about the other unsolved conflicts (Pakistan and India, China and Taiwan, Russia and Japan, Israel and Iran) and other autocrats (North Korea)? There is a lot of potential for outbreaks besides Russia. And WW I and WW II weren't really global wars. There was no fighting in the Americas, Australia, Antarctica, and most parts of Africa. They were Eurasian wars with others participating. So, even if a conflict between NATO and Russia could be contained, there are good chances it won't stay that way.

 

[anorlunda]

That's not logic that I can follow. Sorry.

I don't think I can express it better than this.

The hellish thing about nuclear strategy is that only extremes are possible, no nuances, no middle roads are available. So between the USA and Russia, our choices are all-out nuclear war, or no war at all.

You argued that it was time for us to fight. I presume you mean a limited war between NATO and Russia. I don't believe that it is possible to guarantee that a war will remain limited. Where end-of-the-world is in question, estimates of likelihood are not sufficient. All out war or no war at all are our choices. That's my logic.

Of course, I prefer no war at all. I also believe that Biden and all the leaders of NATO countries have the same position as I do. No escalation that might trigger WWIII.