9 ms·

> Probably China and India are the only parties now able to influence Putin to back down. The problem is, if Putin loses the war, he will lose power, and possi

> Probably China and India are the only parties now able to influence Putin to back down. The problem is, if Putin loses the war, he will lose power, and possibly even his life [1]. This makes him more likely to use nukes, as his life is endangered without a victory. Under this circumstance the only way out is to give him a "small victory". [1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/09/30/exp-gps-1002-khodorkovsky-on-putins-mindset.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/09/30/exp-gps-1002-khodor...

jdhendrickson 4y ago
Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before.
- gfodor 4y ago
  Hitler didn’t have nukes. The minimum level of appeasement to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons may be the optimal strategy. There is no guarantee that the post nuclear game theory doesn’t converge on dictators grabbing all land that isn’t part of an existing nuclear defense pact.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This is downvoted but is clearly true game-theorerically. If you have an autocratic governance structure, the logic of nuke use is highly specific to the preferences of the individual in power and the context of the situation. Appeasement (however defined) may be the optimal strategy depending on that person's age and other factors.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before. Given we haven't all died in nuclear fire yet, I'd say diplomatic tactics have worked just fine.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    When the Soviets tried installing nukes in Cuba the US escalated big time to get to a successful resolution.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.
      - nosianu 4y ago
        That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.
        naasking 4y ago
        > The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
        unrealhoang 4y ago
        Without NATO, how can the Baltics defend themselves against Russia? Working on nuclear weapon?
        naasking 4y ago
        The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  I feel as though this is hand waving away the problem. Nobody is saying that appeasement is a good idea in an absolute sense. We're saying that we have two highly risky choices in front of us. Appeasement is obviously problematic. You set a precedent that nuclear blackmail works. You give their nationalists bloodthirst for their next imperial expedition. You improve Putin's popularity. You doom the Ukrainians inside the currently occupied territories. You effectively kick the can down the road. But you really do need to detail how it's going to play out when a man with no conscience, a questionable grasp on reality, who has a well-stocked bunker, and has nukes, gets pushed into a corner in the sense of losing face and facing the threat of removal. You can't just say "appeasement is bad" and not deal with this whole problem.

jdhendrickson 4y ago

Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before.

gfodor 4y ago
Hitler didn’t have nukes. The minimum level of appeasement to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons may be the optimal strategy. There is no guarantee that the post nuclear game theory doesn’t converge on dictators grabbing all land that isn’t part of an existing nuclear defense pact.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is downvoted but is clearly true game-theorerically. If you have an autocratic governance structure, the logic of nuke use is highly specific to the preferences of the individual in power and the context of the situation. Appeasement (however defined) may be the optimal strategy depending on that person's age and other factors.
naasking 4y ago
> Ah yes appeasement, it's always worked so well before. Given we haven't all died in nuclear fire yet, I'd say diplomatic tactics have worked just fine.
- nosianu 4y ago
  When the Soviets tried installing nukes in Cuba the US escalated big time to get to a successful resolution.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.
    - nosianu 4y ago
      That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
        unrealhoang 4y ago
        Without NATO, how can the Baltics defend themselves against Russia? Working on nuclear weapon?
        naasking 4y ago
        The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
hackerlight 4y ago
I feel as though this is hand waving away the problem. Nobody is saying that appeasement is a good idea in an absolute sense. We're saying that we have two highly risky choices in front of us. Appeasement is obviously problematic. You set a precedent that nuclear blackmail works. You give their nationalists bloodthirst for their next imperial expedition. You improve Putin's popularity. You doom the Ukrainians inside the currently occupied territories. You effectively kick the can down the road. But you really do need to detail how it's going to play out when a man with no conscience, a questionable grasp on reality, who has a well-stocked bunker, and has nukes, gets pushed into a corner in the sense of losing face and facing the threat of removal. You can't just say "appeasement is bad" and not deal with this whole problem.