I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine.
That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia.
Rather, the West should deny Russia a victory in Ukraine but without cornering them, as has been suggested by some leaders. The West has an interest in Russia not winning but they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.
Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we respond, then how they respond…
General Petraeus is a retiree who didn’t officially speak for NATO or the US government. That gives NATO and the US government some wiggle room.
My guess is that that’s a possible response, but not a guaranteed one. Let’s say there’s a detonation high above the Black Sea with zero direct victims and a prognosis of very few indirect victims due to long term effects of radiation (effectively more fireworks than weapon). I don’t see NATO or the US government sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet for that. But who knows?
To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia.
Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.
The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.
Even if the war ends, russia would stay isolated on the world scene. But they must be punished for what they did, if only to get China to not make it any worse.
One thing that has been suggested was the destruction of the black sea fleet for example which might thread an interesting needle:
- because it is stationed on Crimea one could argue it is not Russian soil, if one does not accept the Russian anexation of 2018
- it is mostly a military target so civilian casualties are not on the scale of e.g. nuking a city
- the defeat of the black fleet would certainly be felt in the (as of now) mostly isolated Moskow circles and political survival for Putin would be hard
As everything war you cannot really 100% rely on such planning tho. Unforseen dynamics may arise that take you for a ride with a destination you may not like. IMO Putin is currently on such a ride and if we had a machine that would return everything to a pre-Invasion state, I highly suspect there would be one Russian dictator that would like to use it.
But no such machine exists, and I think "the West" in case of tactical Nuke use has to find a way of threading the needle, with just enough retaliation to stop the Russians from doing more, but not so much that they completely panic. Doing nothing in return will normalize nukes, so it is not an option.
This might no longer be the case, given what looks like early signs of China pivoting away from Russia towards the West.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/...
With the current hard-line politics and that absolute hate between the two, there is a hair trigger on that escalation.
Putin had hoped for that after 2014,but he was in for a nasty surprise in 2022. The probability of NATO to strike back is 100%. It doesn't matter if they destroy the Black Sea fleet or naval bases or do something else, they already communicated to Putin several times that the response will not need to be nuclear but for sure will be painful.
1. The US has put sufficient weapons in the heartland of what used to be the USSR that Moscow is having difficulty keeping troops & friendly administrators in power in Eastern Ukraine. Is it realistic that they are going to try to responsible and peaceful approach a 2nd time? It didn't work last time. The Russians might have noticed. I'm not sure I trust the propaganda that Putin is the only one driving their behaviour.
The US has made the peaceful approach look stupid in hindsight. This time they might try a pufferfish-style escalate-into-nukes to try and get the US to back off sending weapons to their enemies. Otherwise where is the line where the US stops pushing forward? Which could realistically doom us all, I hope nobody misjudges in this tense and terrifying situation.
2. War is very chaotic. Things happen that nobody expects, individuals make irrational decisions, people mis-judge the capabilities of entire populations of other people. Realistically, the US doesn't have the power to engineer this outcome. It is rolling dice.
3. Toppling governments routinely leads to the next government being less stable and rational than the last one. It isn't like toppling a government leads to a sudden tradition of stable government.
I don't think it is likely that this happens or that it prevents nukes being launched. Maybe add in a 20% "other" category somewhere on the diagram. Hardly comforting.
The US media therefore gives the impression that it's a lot more likely than it actually is.
See also: sanctions induced economic collapse within 6 months.
But there are many many alternatives before either of those two, so I imagine the vast majority are hoping against hope something else plays out, and they don’t have to decide between a risky coup attempt and certain nuclear annihilation.
How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years.
Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.
Saying that about the US president who was bankrolling a trillion dollars-plus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have put one in jail, interesting to see that when applied to another country is now perfectly ok. Relevant Whitest Kids U' Know sketch [1]
https://www.thedailybeast.com/volodymyr-zelensky-warns-of-li...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20034143/chilling-signs-putin-...
Yet another one: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/8/7370930/
I wish people in the U.S. would realize the increasing danger we find ourselves in as power gets more and more concentrated and radical here.
But alas, the three things humans are well evolved for -- power dynamics, violence, and technology -- keep rationality, emotional intelligence, and peace at arms length.
Sadly the fact is, to some people, our lives are no more than a number on the report. When it come to politics, everything is much darker than we thought.
This war seems to be quite personal for Putin, and if he is pushed back too hard, he may act irrationally, or be ousted, and then who knows what chaos may ensue.
Europe should accept that cheap Russian gas is history.
And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.
It will be a tax on the west for sure, especially Europe (America should send aid), but a crippling all-consuming drain on Russia. There are rumors Putin is seriously ill. He will not likely last long as leader in any case, if the war drags on and drags Russia to the ground. But a more orderly transition will be possible if there is a stalemate in Ukraine, rather than a humiliating defeat.
As for nuclear escalation, it is now clear that the West's capabilities are so far superior to Russia that we need not respond in haste. If a dog bites you, you don't need to get on all fours and chase it to bite back; it's fate is sealed already. And honestly, will their nukes even work? I have my doubts given everything else that's been exposed by this misadventure.
Even if only a third if them work it’s enough. That’s the point about nukes, they provide egregious overkill.
Far better to keep things on a slow boil, so when things eventually shift internally in Russia, there is at least some stability externally. And when they do shift, it may be in the other direction, with the hawks washed away by popular dissent, or just fatigue for the war.
Imperialist thinking. Why should Ukrainians accept having their country invaded? Why should they just put up with it because of some imaginings about how the world as a whole would be more stable if they bowed down to the dictator?
Screw that. Putin in a wild card, a megalomaniac. You can't reason with or even about such people. The only course with such bullying is to stamp it out.
Of course the loss of life is horrific and we should absolutely do what we can to help stop that, but apart from that moral concern, we're really helping because of the bigger picture of containing/punishing a bully, and deterring similar action from others like China, NK, etc.
Given that we're helping because of the wider implications, we should have a clear idea of what that bigger picture is, and calibrate our help in support of strategic goals.
Putin, and the Russia allied with him must fail, but that does not necessarily mean a battlefield defeat, in fact they will lose hardest through exhaustion.
The west, particularly America, too often gets sucked into the 'sport and glory and winning' of these situations, and Zelenski is understandably egging it on.
The author is just playing number games to try to self-soothe
Whereas the affects of nuclear on his own country will make him a hero? Sorry, it's just lose-lose.
The soviet union was obviously strong militarily with wast sphere of influence, but Russia has not filled its shoes at all.
All the years of corruption and greed shows.
In that backlight, using tactical nuclear weapons will at least let the regime assert some kind of might.
One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability.
It is highly unlikely he has. But in the end, it is his own fault for creating that environment.
Putin is dead in 5-15 years no matter what. Russia should,could,will have 100's of years left if it starts to act 1/2 way sensibly.
- Ukraine isn't in NATO and won't get in before this war concludes with Putin losing. No NATO, no automatic aid, and no WW3.
- The US is outspending Russia's entire defense budget by orders-of-magnitude with HIMARS for Ukraine (artillery: the god of war). It's only a matter of time before Putin's military refuses to take orders.
- Putin's generals would sooner remove him that start WW3 beyond a few tac nukes.
- Tac nukes aren't going to start WW3 except push Russia further beyond DPRK pariah status. Lots of fallout, lots of people will need to move out of the way in a hurry depending on the winds, but brinksmanship escalation by the West would be suicidal/omnicidal.
- Putin is seeking a 1989 do-over and resentment over Afghanistan, but it's going to follow a similar result. Putin is, in recent years, doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
- Putin likely has cancer since an oncologist has been following him around.
- It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. Putin's altered mental state is somewhere between 'roid-rage, low T grouchy old man, and cabin fever from living in a bunker in the Urals separated from society for too long. Unstable crazy person with nukes.
The likelihood Putin will be arrested or assassinated when he tries to order a nuclear strike seems the most likely conclusion.
Further reading: Ellsberg's thesis in book form: "Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision".
As much as it would be nice if it were the case, this is extremely nebulous and more likely just projection/wishful thinking.
Anyone can imagine hundreds of alternatives to the six outcomes the author lists. Putin could choke on his breakfast tomorrow, or fall down a flight of stairs. Winter will hit the region soon, the soldiers might freeze and starve. Why not attach probabilities to those possibilities?
Worrying about things you cannot influence or change strikes me as deeply irrational. “We” as in “the west” can influence the Ukraine situation, but “we” don’t make collective decisions. Extrapolating from “I belong the group of people collectively referred to as America or The West” to “my opinion makes a difference and can influence events” veers into category error. Do you suppose the politicians in D.C. and the military leaders of NATO read Less Wrong posts?
The Ukraine war has many possible outcomes, none of which anyone can predict, and none of which any one person can control. History teaches that. Cherry-picking Finland, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc. as the only possible outcomes misses the unique circumstances of those conflicts and outcomes. Why not include the last Crimean War as a possible outcome? Or the one time nuclear weapons did get used in a war?
There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn't showed up yet".
The best chance Putin has to lose and still keep political power is for NATO to show up. I can't really imagine him successfully losing to Ukraine alone, land lease or no land lease.
It's actually the only scenario where interests align even a bit in this whole mess. Putin would like to win _something_, but at this point he's probably happy to be rid of the whole mess and still be in power. NATO would love to give him a bloody nose and see him turn back. And Ukraine would definitely love to be rid of Russia and start on reconstructing and integrating into the west.
Now, in a rational world they could just have a nice chat over tea and settle things like adults - and who knows, maybe they're actually talking this out in a zoom call, the kind we won't see declassified even in 50 years. But in the real world, the only one we see, they need to perform the dance. For Putin to retreat he needs NATO to bloody his nose. NATO needs a very good reason to do that, because the west is political and has a lot of pacifists. So he throws a nuke or three, NATO bombs the shit out of the Russian forces in Ukraine, and he finally has an excuse and internal political power to sue for peace on realistic terms. Who knows, he might even get to keep Crimea, de facto if not de jure.
The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility.
That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear.
Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.
The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance.
To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action.
Edit:
It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time.
Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.
I don't think the fleet would make the best target. Ukrainian territory or not, the Sevastopol military base was always Russian (initially on rented ground, then in annexed Crimea). NATO has no real interest in attacking Russia itself, and will probably avoid even appearing to.
If it intervenes directly (still a big if), I'd mostly guess strikes against Russian bases inside Ukraine - that's the least interpretable action, and technically it's even an obligation for US under the Budapest Memorandum. The George Bush carrier strike group is currently in the Adriatic Sea, with eastern Ukraine barely within Tomahawk range, flying over NATO countries only.
The only question really should be whether Putin dare to nuke Ukraine, if he indeed go there, end of story.
As Putin did want to:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
> if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner
Equal to who? To Putin this means equal to all others combined. Certainly not those other countries that don’t matter.
The Ukrainian armed forces are pretty spread out so a nuke or two would only take out a very small percentage of them. It would then probably result in something like:
>Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-puti...
ie the US/NATO destroying Russia's forces in Ukraine and or the black sea fleet.
Hitting somewhere like London probably wouldn't go well either as there are like 55 countries against Russia so they hit a small fraction and bang goes Moscow + St Pete and Russia is pretty much done for.
The chances of a nuclear strike by Russia ate very, very low and most of this talk is sensationalism.
Up until very recently the Russians were carrying American astronauts up to the ISS after the shuttle program was abandoned. Maybe not all their rockets are maintained properly, but the ones that were are highly likely to work.
Outright denial that the threat exists at all is just infantile levels of analysis that I expect from reddit.
If Russians can do something that's rockets. Their space rockets have 98% success rate. Land ones are probably at 99%.
"The Soyuz rocket was first launched in November 1963 and has since flown more than 1500 times. It is one of the most reliable launch vehicles, with a 98% success rate."[0]
[0]: https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/31036-launch-vehicle
No Firefox reader support, nothing on the page, effectively the cause is that TPRB blocker block forum.effectivealtruism.org + NoScript blocking lesswrong.com js but anyway, without allowing the third party domain AND the main JS I can't see anything...
I guess I don't see the word qualitative the same way the author does. To me "qualitative" implies inputs like depth, thought, introspection, care, conscientiousness, reflection, things like that.
Anyway, here are some thoughts on the topic and article, based on personality theory, one of the areas I like to think about and hack on:
- Putin thinks of threats as qualitative solutions. He does not think of actions being nearly as valuable. He continually demonstrates that his threats are calculated far more deeply and conscientiously than his actions.
- Putin thinks (likely subconsciously) that actually taking actions (like initiating nuclear warfare) is a quantitative solution that is shallow, irritating and effectively risky to his bluffer's poker strategy. You don't make a Russia out of the equivalent of Italy's resources by _showing_ what you can do with your stuff, after all.
- Putin is in a holistic position that makes nuclear war a far more valuable threat than action. This is partially due to his internal psychology, because he prefers diplomatic and political puzzles to outright warfare. The outright warriors are more like the ones winning this conflict on the ground right now.
- Putin views direct negotiation itself as weakness. Negotiation is conducted by actions that threaten further action, but the planning of negotiation in such a form is where the energy goes.
- Putin would rather not work on conflict at a global scale. His best tools, perspectives, and allies are all local-scale.
- Putin is directly calling many, if not most of the shots, and is effectively in control of the Russian political character on the global stage.
- Putin doesn't think in terms of escalate or not. He thinks in terms of solving puzzles and offering puzzles to be solved in return. (The same is not true of Zelensky or Biden, which is very important here. You have a battle of psychological perspectives, with force good/bad in the West aligned vs politics cunning/weak in Russia. Dangerous match with no default winner [1])
IMO Putin likely believes he has 1,000 strategies that are more effective than triggering something as generic as nuclear war. However, some of them may involve "mysterious" limited nuclear war, for example. In fact I think one of his most effective strategies could be a slow escalation of radiation exposure events via various means, accompanied by denial and diplomatic go-betweens.
Also, I noticed that like most of us, the author writes in such a way as to reveal their personal preferences. A common blind spot for authors with similar preferences is that they will work very hard to answer a near-random question and then spend lots of build time on internal logic.
This then sets up a de facto misdirection fallacy: Look into the question, but don't question the question. This is a particularly tenacious fallacy because there is no other-hand alternative being offered in any case, and humans aren't generally comfortable working with the unknown. So questions, particularly those which are interesting for some set of reasons, can cause big problems just because other questions aren't being uncovered and discussed with the same resources.
Qualitatively impressive internals and a neat model are one possible result of this setup for sure, but in that way this is still a Jedi mind trick the author may not even be aware of. So, was there a question-selection framework? How do we know this question is worth spending time on? What are some other questions that are interesting, for example questions that may help tease out new models for a successful response to the threat? Or are there types of questions that model the situation better?
And this doesn't get into some other issues like the internal terms used and their graphed relationship. A lot of assumptions are made, figures are pulled, and details left out.
Qualitatively it's an interesting article to read for sure, and I wouldn't criticize it too harshly when it at least meets that bar and comes with a graph.
But it doesn't do much for a common dichotomy here, i.e. do we continue to act in what is assumed to be an escalation, or do we deescalate and hope that the result is better than what we are supposed to think is the only alternative to deescalation?
(Dichotomies like escalate and de- are pretty messed up, really.)
1. I do think that the Biden-Zelensky relational support system is extremely risky on the side of force. These are both highly emotive, force-on-force personalities. They may stumble right into Putin's blind spot and force his hand by a combination of his own personal, embarrassing weakness in the areas of lack of care and lack of suitable employed force, and their own combined, nuclear-critical capability for turning passionate moral crusade into political gaffe. God I hope I'm wrong about this.
