Flirting with the "Finale Rack: - Does no one really care ?

[Killjoy]

[Incidental note: Just in case you're not familiar with the term, "finale rack" refers to the climactic conflagration which ends a fireworks display]

Has Crazy Ivan "cried wolf" so often with the threat of nuclear retaliation that no one in the West believes they will resort to the "Red Pill" ?
Or is the far more fearful truth that we willing to "go all the way" should it come to that ?


Kyiv may have just set the war on a path to nuclear confrontation, and nobody cares

A little over forty years ago, while preparing for a weekly radio address, President Ronald Reagan famously cracked wise about the possibility of attacking the Soviet Union. “I have signed legislation that outlaws Russia forever,” he said. “We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan had not realized that the studio microphone was recording his joke and that technical personnel preparing for the broadcast in stations across the country were already listening. His facetious remarks were leaked. The public reaction was immediate, strong, and negative. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale admonished his election opponent for ill-considered humor, and Reagan’s polling numbers took a temporary hit.

For many, the possibility of thermonuclear annihilation was no joking matter...


...This time, the bombing was no joke. But the Western reaction hardly took the prospect of nuclear escalation seriously.

The operation was “a brilliant technical performance” that showed “why Ukraine will win this war,” according to French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy writing in the Wall Street Journal. Rebecca Grant, vice president of the Lexington Institute, posted on the Fox News site that Americans should “savor Ukraine’s brilliant strike on Putin’s terror bombers. Too bad Ukraine can’t do it again. Or can they?”


...
That lack of worry has itself long been a source of concern in Moscow. Dmitry Trenin, once a leading Russian advocate of improved relations with the United States, lamented last year that “the restraining fear of the atomic bomb … is gone. Nuclear weapons are left aside. The practical conclusion from this is obvious: there is no need to be afraid of Russia’s reaction. This is an extremely dangerous misperception.”

To restore the deterrent effect of nuclear fears, another prominent Russian expert, Sergei Karaganov, has called for nuclear strikes against Ukraine and the West. Dimitri Suslov, an expert on U.S.-Russia relations at Russia’s prestigious Higher School of Economics, has called for a publicly conducted nuclear explosion in Russia to sober up the West.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Kyiv may have just set the war on a path to nuclear confrontation and nobody cares..."

Sure. It's Kyiv's fault.


We all definitely cared when Putin invaded a sovereign country three years ago. Still do.
Nobody is forgetting that it was - and is - an act of war.
Nobody is forgetting that, three years ago, Putin threatened nuclear retaliation on any country that tried to interfere.

This bullshit article is attempting to normalize Russia's occupation of Ukraine, as if it's Ukraine that's responsible for current and future hostilities. Why would you dignify this Russian propaganda by posting it?

FFS.

 

[TheVat]

I didn't get "normalize Russian occupation of Ukraine" from the writer. This is the writer:

George Beebe spent more than two decades in government as an intelligence analyst, diplomat, and policy advisor, including as director of the CIA's Russia analysis and as a staff advisor on Russia matters to Vice President Cheney. He is the author of "The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe" (2019).

To me the article was pointing out the dangers inherent in Ukrainian strikes (which were brilliantly executed) on Russian heavy bombers, given that such an attack was one of the bright lines in the recently stated Russian nuclear doctrine.

I think the writer's sympathies are clearer if you read Killjoy's quotes in context.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't get "normalize Russian occupation of Ukraine" from the writer. This is the writer:

Did you get it from the article title?

The title's purpose is to tell you what you will read in the article, and thus whether it's worth reading.

...
I think the writer's sympathies are clearer if you read Killjoy's quotes in context.

I guess the headline is supposed to be shocking and attention-grabbing, but all it does for me is tell me the author is more yellow-y (as in yellow journalism) than anything else.

 

[TheVat]

Yellowish, yes, but possibly not the writer's choice. Coming from a family with a couple journalists, I've learned that article titles are often attached by an editor, after the writer turns it in. What the writer does say,

There may be no better illustration of our much-relaxed contemporary attitudes than the public reaction to Ukraine’s surprise attacks last week on dozens of Russian strategic bombers located at bases thousands of kilometers from Ukraine.

seemed like a social commentary on how the old Cold War fears of a catastrophic WW3 have somewhat diminished. He goes on to say,

The Washington Post editorialized that the operation showed that Ukrainians are “tough, determined – and right. Theirs is a fight the United States should be proud to support.” Legions of online armchair warriors praised Ukraine’s “bad-ass operation” that will “go down in history” and be “studied for years to come.”

Such reactions largely ignored the impact that such attacks might have on nuclear stability between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

This seems like the part that needs to be discussed, but not in a way that would legitimize Russia's unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation. The writer points out,

Moscow published a revised nuclear weapons doctrine last fall. No longer would it require a nuclear strike or an attack threatening Russia’s existence to trigger a nuclear response; under the new doctrine, Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that simply undermined Russia’s retaliatory nuclear-strike capability. And it noted specifically that an attack by a non-nuclear state carried out with the support of a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack.

This article provoked me to wonder if we should keep on viewing Russian statements like this RNW doctrine as mere saber-rattling or something more serious.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Evil only exists if good does not oppose it. Th West may not really be that good, but Russia is surely that evil.

 

[Killjoy]

"Kyiv may have just set the war on a path to nuclear confrontation and nobody cares..."

Sure. It's Kyiv's fault.


We all definitely cared when Putin invaded a sovereign country three years ago. Still do.
Nobody is forgetting that it was - and is - an act of war.
Nobody is forgetting that, three years ago, Putin threatened nuclear retaliation on any country that tried to interfere.

This bullshit article is attempting to normalize Russia's occupation of Ukraine, as if it's Ukraine that's responsible for current and future hostilities. Why would you dignify this Russian propaganda by posting it?

FFS.

I freely admit that I chose the subtitle of the article as the text of the link rather than the actual title -

What the giddy reaction to Ukraine's surprise attacks says about us​

- in order to be provocative.

My sentiments have always been with Ukraine in this conflict. Were I president at the time of the Russian invasion, we might all be dead right now, because I would have ordered non-stop air strikes on all Russian forces in Ukrainian territory after issuing an ultimatum to Russia that they would be annihilated unless they withdrew immediately. We can only speculate on what Putin's reaction to such action might have been.

Did you get it from the article title?

The title's purpose is to tell you what you will read in the article, and thus whether it's worth reading.


I guess the headline is supposed to be shocking and attention-grabbing, but all it does for me is tell me the author is more yellow-y (as in yellow journalism) than anything else.

A visceral reaction was, in part, my intent. Hence my use of the article's subtitle.

Yellowish, yes, but possibly not the writer's choice. Coming from a family with a couple journalists, I've learned that article titles are often attached by an editor, after the writer turns it in. What the writer does say,

There may be no better illustration of our much-relaxed contemporary attitudes than the public reaction to Ukraine’s surprise attacks last week on dozens of Russian strategic bombers located at bases thousands of kilometers from Ukraine.

seemed like a social commentary on how the old Cold War fears of a catastrophic WW3 have somewhat diminished. He goes on to say,

The Washington Post editorialized that the operation showed that Ukrainians are “tough, determined – and right. Theirs is a fight the United States should be proud to support.” Legions of online armchair warriors praised Ukraine’s “bad-ass operation” that will “go down in history” and be “studied for years to come.”

Such reactions largely ignored the impact that such attacks might have on nuclear stability between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

This seems like the part that needs to be discussed, but not in a way that would legitimize Russia's unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation. The writer points out,

Moscow published a revised nuclear weapons doctrine last fall. No longer would it require a nuclear strike or an attack threatening Russia’s existence to trigger a nuclear response; under the new doctrine, Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that simply undermined Russia’s retaliatory nuclear-strike capability. And it noted specifically that an attack by a non-nuclear state carried out with the support of a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack.

This article provoked me to wonder if we should keep on viewing Russian statements like this RNW doctrine as mere saber-rattling or something more serious.

Points to ponder indeed.
Recall: Putin has already employed an MIRV-equipped ballistic missile in this conflict - and challenged the West to name a target that he would strike with this same system, which they might attempt to protect as they might, claiming there was no known defense against it. As the war drags on, can we trust a man who has already sacrificed a million casualties not to resort to the ultimate weapon should he become desperate enough ? And then what response does the West resort to ?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I think on all sides fear of loss and fear of death often block right action.