@elarquitecto (post #60)
CALLI! CALLIII! CALLIIIIIIIIIII!
COLÓN ERA DE VLADIVOSTOK Y PROU! FEIXISTES!
KYIV ENS ROBA!
ceremonia de anexion de territorios ocupados (y genocidados)
elarquitecto
Started 2022-09-30
87 posts
Showing 27 posts (posts 61-87) of 87 total
Edited 2022-10-01
@lowfour (post #59)
https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5065304/0/mas-mitad-paises-ue-levantan-negativa-comision-limitar-precio-gas-exigen-propuesta/
pues igual es por esto que el gas anda malito
porque está empotrando una inflación monstruosa y gripando las economías (para forre de algunos, también es cierto)
aun no nos hemos dado cuenta de lo que supuso que sanchez consguiera lo de la "excepción ibérica"
el tipo dio un puñetazo en la mesa y todo
nosotros llevamos meses con gas "barato" y en europa pagan sobrecostes absurdos por cómo se tarifan los MWh
mira, el choque ese de trenes que pregonaban los lazis
pues ahora son los rusos
choque de civilizaciones y destrucción a escala planetaria
se va a quedar en lo mismo, choque de tren contra lada
Pues ese Maksim lo que es es un heredero de esa tradición fatalista rusa (bien fundamentanda en su vida vladimir de mierda) y escribió esto el 24. Probablemente un equidindepe.
Maksim Yusin: "Probably the worst, most terrible morning of my life"
Journalist, political scientist Maxim Yusin published a post on Facebook dedicated to the start of Russia's special operation in Donbas.
“This is probably the worst, most terrible morning of my life.
Wake up and read what your Kiev friends write to you: we have explosions.
And at the same time, in the subcortex - the words that you remember from childhood, already at the genetic level: on June 22, at exactly four o'clock, Kiev was bombed, they announced to us that the war had begun. And then they bomb again. Not Germans.
How to live with this? Do not know. Right now, at this moment, I don't want to live.
Then I'll come to my senses, find (I hope) my usual composure. I will try, as before, to analyze events, to understand the situation, to get used to the new reality, which is now for a long time.
I will try (in texts, in comments, in speeches on TV) not to use evaluative, emotional vocabulary. Well, how else? Can't you say from the screen: "this is ..."?
With my Ukrainian friends, buddies, former friends (there are some) in recent years, we often argued. Sometimes to a scream, to a mat.
Everyone has their own truth.
So it was - and so, apparently, will continue to be.
But today, on this terrible morning, I want to say. I'm with you. I haven't changed. I am the way you knew me (and, I hope, loved - or at least respected).
You are not my enemy, and you never will be.
I want you all to be alive. I want us to meet again sometime and hug.
I'm sorry we couldn't prevent this..."
@lowfour (post #64)
ese no es otra cosa que un cerdo con tirantes
Everyone has their own truth.
claro, y fijo que la verdad era que lo mejor para ucrania y sus colegas de kiev era rendirse y claudicar
ahora anda amenazando con nukes, porque Everyone has their own truth.
che, de esta vamos a salir que al primer posmo que nos suelte una pablocoelada le damos un sopapo (dialéctico, claro... o de los otros como se ponga turras)
A ver, la situación es complicadísima por cómo es Putin. El otro día me pasó algo, tuve que renegociar mi rate de consultor con el CEO de mi principal cliente.
El tio es un fiera, es millonario ya pero le tocó arremangarse e intentar salvar la empresa del anterior CEO que era un psicópata de libro. Total el tio es la ostia porque ha tomado decisiones difíciles una tras otra y ha reconducido el rumbo de una manera espectacular. Es parco en palabras, tampoco curro mucho con él pero sabe que lo que hago es bastante importante. Pero a la hora de negociar yo tenía un 35% de incremento en mente pero el tío me dijo " te puedo subir un 20% máximo". Claro, tiré del libro ese de las negociaciones pero me resultó imposible. Totalmente imposoble.
Sabes por qué? Porque consistemente el tío ha cumplido su palabra. Vamos a hacer esto y lo hace. Vamos a lograr esto y lo logra. Es muy jodido negociar con alguien así, porque no es un bullshitter que te cuenta pelis pero luego te está trileando por detrás. Con alguien así subes la apuesta y lo llevas al grado máximo y haces anchoring absurdo y tal. Pero con alguien como el CEO? Pues no pude o no supe. También es cierto que yo pedía mucho, estoy por encima de la media y con lo que gano solo con ellos facturo más que el 90% de los consultores de mi estilo (si trabajas en banca no, ahi facturan más).
Pues con Putin igual pasa lo mismo. Es un mentiroso patológico, pero cuando echa un bluff lo lleva a cabo. Ya lo demostró en el aeropuerto de Kosovo, en el teatro, la escuela de Ruslán creo que era... Es decir, aunque sea una puta locura, si dice que lo va a hacer lo hace. Probablemente haya ido creando eso para llegar a este momento clave de amenaza nuclear.
Lo llevaría a cabo? Yo creo que no llevaría un ataque preventivo total. No es más que un jodidp provocador, lo que haría sería tirar un arma táctica en Ucrania o en el mar o lo que sea. Pero no dudo que lo haría.
Recordemos, pensad siempre en términos de Putin como un acosador escolar, un macarra de barrio que te da una colleja para que le des el reloj o el paquete de tabaco "que si no te raja y raja a tu familia". Esa es la mentalidad. Esos no suelen ser los asesinos en serie, ni los que van a un colegio y se cargan a 30 niños a bocajarro. Normalmente esos son los calladitos.
@elarquitecto (post #65)
Al Pablo Coelho si que había que pegarle a un Pershing de esos con cinta americana y mandarlo como al Mayor Kong a tomar por culo.
Edited 2022-10-01
@lowfour (post #66)
bueno, putin dice muchas cosas
aquí hay que distinguir precisamente lo que son "órdenes" de "bravuconadas" y luego están las mentiras obvias
dijo que no invadiría ucrania
dijo que no bombardearia civiles
dijo que... joder, si miente más que habla
la huida de kiev fue una retirada táctica
el punto de culminación en severodonets una parada técnica (bueno, parada fue, pero porque no tenían fuelle para más)
en fin, ahí tienes todo un universo de "traducciones" de la realidad
puedes empezar por "operación especial" o liberar de "nazis" al genocidio sistemático que están llevando a cabo
cuando estudiaba antropología, en el trabajo de campo, tan importante era lo que se decía como lo que se hacía (cómo se relacionaba lo uno con lo otro, por eso los sociólogos, que tiran mucho de encuestas, o sea, de "lo que se dice", fallan tanto y tantas veces)
así que putin puede decir mil cosas, que lo gordo es lo que luego haga
y casi nunca están relacionados, al menos no últimamente
la primera vez que amenazaron con nukes, que hasta pusieron en alerta a sus puestos de defensa, fue cuando ya no podían rodear kiev y la ue (y luego usa, ojo a la cronologia) metía sanciones del copón que dejaban a rusia en la senda de best-korea
éso ya fue muestra de una tremenda debilidad
seguido de una falta de "acción", más allá de los puestos de defensa esos
pero si hasta la movilización (supuestamente parcial, pero luego en la práctica es "total", aunque están reculando porque se les sublevaban los moscovitas, de hecho, se están pirando) está siendo desastrosa
así que cuando ordene (que yo estoy de acuerdo contigo, que tiene la chaladura suficiente para ordenarlo) lanzar nukes, lo que pase después... pues te sorprenderá
te lo dije el otro día, no vale con un jack d ripper atrincherado en su cuartel, necesitas al ejecutor al otro lado
pero cómo se llega a eso??
vale que en el kremlin o en moscú tienes a un monto de tarados y al nazi ese de indiana jones y tal
pero el que tiene los códigos, el que quita el seguro con la llave, etc, esos qué? son también putiners?
yo veo mucha retórica, pero luego unas acciones muy de untergang total
aunque comparto (lo puse el otro día) completamente que se pueda producir esa orden y que, remotamente, alguien puede cumplirla
Edited 2022-10-01
bueno, esto lo pongo aquí, supuestamente es de un canal de telegram (lo han puesto en burbuja)
_La pérdida de Liman es, ante todo, un grave daño a la reputación de la Federación Rusa. Porque desde ayer, este ya es territorio de Rusia (aunque **los tratados aún no han sido ratificados**, esto no es tan importante), y no solo los territorios liberados de Ucrania o la República Popular de Donetsk.
En círculos alrededor de los militares, están discutiendo que **después de la ratificación el 5 de octubre, comenzarán las hostilidades a gran escala: se levantará en el aire una amplia gama de armas y equipos militares, se creará un infierno en el oeste de Ucrania** y luego En Vivo.
Ya sabes, **si todo esto está ahí y no lo usaron en el marco de la SVO, entonces ¿por qué alguien decidió que el día 5 algo cambiaría?**_
o sea, esta peña tiene la esperanza (mágica) que tras el 5 de octubre habrá un "infierno" en ucrania
hostilidades a gran escala
pero luego le vienen las dudas al general o el tipo ese que pone el mensaje, cómo es que no las usamos ahora???
5000 soldados menos, solo esta semana
hostilidades a suputamadre escala
tío, estos no llegan a navidades, eh?
@lowfour (post #66) Varios altos cargos de Rusia en los últimos 15 años amenazaron varias veces con las armas nucleares, incluyendo por motivo de una posible guerra con Ucrania.
La putina también se tira faroles, ojo, yo la invasión de febrero pensé que era un farol para conseguir algún acuerdo con occidente o para presionar a Ucrania de que no hiciera algo, no pensé que fuera en serio.
Ostia buenísimo, TODO ES MENTIRA EN EL VLADZISMO.
Edited 2022-10-01
Me ha gustado mucho esta editorial del Jew York Times (como lo llaman los tarados).
Putin Is Trying to Outcrazy the West
_Thomas L. Friedman_
**With his annexation of parts of Ukraine on Friday, Vladimir Putin has set in motion forces that are turning Russia into a giant North Korea. It will be a paranoid, angry, isolated state, but unlike North Korea, the Russian version will be spread over 11 time zones — from the Arctic Sea to the Black Sea and from the edge of free Europe to the edge of Alaska — with thousands of nuclear warheads.**
I have known a Russia that was strong, menacing, but stable — called the Soviet Union. I have known a Russia that was hopeful, potentially transitioning to democracy under Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and even the younger Putin. I have known a Russia that was a “bad boy” under an older Putin, hacking America, poisoning opposition figures, but still a stable, reliable oil exporter and occasional security partner with the U.S. when we needed Moscow’s help in a pinch.
But **none of us have ever known the Russia that a now desperate, back-against-the-wall Putin seems hellbent on delivering — a pariah Russia; a big, humiliated Russia;** a Russia that has sent many of its most talented engineers, programmers and scientists fleeing through any exit they can find. This would be a Russia that has already lost so many trading partners that it can survive only as an oil and natural gas colony of China, a Russia that is a failed state, spewing out instability from every pore.
Such a Russia would not be just a geopolitical threat. It would be a human tragedy of mammoth proportions. Putin’s North Koreanization of Russia is turning a country that once gave the world some of its most renowned authors, composers, musicians and scientists into a nation more adept at making potato chips than microchips, more famous for its poisoned underwear than its haute couture and more focused on unlocking its underground reservoirs of gas and oil than on its aboveground reservoirs of human genius and creativity. **The whole world is diminished by Putin’s diminishing of Russia.**
But with Friday’s annexation, it’s hard to see any other outcome as long as Putin is in power. Why? Game theorist Thomas Schelling famously suggested that if you are playing chicken with another driver, the best way to win — the best way to get the other driver to swerve out of the way first — is if before the game starts you very conspicuously unscrew your steering wheel and throw it out the window. Message to the other driver: I’d love to get out of the way, but I can’t control my car anymore. You better swerve!
**Trying to always outcrazy your opponent is a North Korean specialty.** Now, Putin has adopted it, announcing with great fanfare that Russia is annexing four Ukrainian regions: Luhansk and Donetsk, the two Russian-backed regions where pro-Putin forces have been fighting Kyiv since 2014, and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which have been occupied since shortly after Putin’s invasion in February. In a grand hall of the Kremlin, Putin declared Friday that the residents of these four regions would become Russia’s citizens forever.
What is Putin up to? One can only speculate. Start with his domestic politics. **Putin’s base is not the students at Moscow State University. His base is the right-wing nationalists, who have grown increasingly angry at Russia’s military humiliation in Ukraine. To hold their support, Putin may have felt the need to show that, with his reserve call-up and annexation, he is fighting a real war for Mother Russia, not just a vague special military operation.**
However, **this could also be Putin trying to maneuver a favorable negotiated settlement. I would not be surprised if he soon announces his willingness for a cease-fire — and a willingness to repair pipelines and resume gas shipments to any country ready to recognize Russia’s annexation.**
Putin could then claim to his nationalist base that he got something for his war, even if it was hugely expensive, and now he’s content to stop. **There is just one problem: Putin does not actually control all the territory he is annexing.**
That means he can’t settle for any deal unless and until he’s driven the Ukrainians out of all the territory he now claims; otherwise he would be surrendering what he just made into sovereign Russian territory. This could be a very ominous development. **Putin’s battered army does not seem capable of seizing more territory and, in fact, seems to be losing more by the day.**
**By claiming territory that he doesn’t fully control, I fear Putin is painting himself into a corner that he might one day feel he can escape only with a nuclear weapon.**
In any event, Putin seems to be daring Kyiv and its Western allies to keep the war going into winter — when natural gas supplies in Europe will be constrained and prices could be astronomical — to recover territories, some of which his Ukrainian proxies have had under Russia’s influence since 2014.
**Will Ukraine and the West swerve? Will they plug their noses and do a dirty deal with Putin to stop his filthy war? Or will Ukraine and the West take him on, head-on, by insisting that Putin get no territorial achievement out of this war, so we uphold the principle of the inadmissibility of seizing territory by force?**
Do not be fooled: **There will be pressure within Europe to swerve and accept such a Putin offer. That is surely Putin’s aim — to divide the Western alliance and walk away with a face-saving “victory.”**
But there is another short-term risk for Putin. **If the West doesn’t swerve, doesn’t opt for a deal with him, but instead doubles down with more arms and financial aid for Ukraine, there is a chance that Putin’s army will collapse.**
That is unpredictable. But here is what is totally predictable: A dynamic is now in place that will push Putin’s Russia even more toward the North Korea model. It starts with Putin’s decision to cut off most natural gas supplies to Western Europe.
**There is only one cardinal sin in the energy business: Never, ever, ever make yourself an unreliable supplier. No one will ever trust you again.** Putin has made himself an unreliable supplier to some of his oldest and best customers, starting with Germany and much of the European Union. They are all now looking for alternative, long-term supplies of natural gas and building more renewable power.
It will take two to three years for the new pipeline networks coming from the Eastern Mediterranean and liquefied natural gas coming from the United States and North Africa to begin to sustainably replace Russian gas at scale. But when that happens, and when world natural gas supplies increase generally to compensate for the loss of Russia’s gas — and as more renewables come online — **Putin could face a real economic challenge. His old customers may still buy some energy from Russia, but they will never rely so totally on Russia again. And China will squeeze him for deep discounts.**
In short, **Putin is eroding the biggest source — maybe his only source — of sustainable long-term income.** At the same time, his illegal annexation of regions of Ukraine guarantees that the Western sanctions on Russia will stay in place, or even accelerate, which will only accelerate Russia’s migration to failed-state status, as more and more Russians with globally marketable skills surely leave.
**I celebrate none of this. This is a time for Western leaders to be both tough and smart. They need to know when to swerve and when to make the other guy swerve, and when to leave some dignity out there for the other driver, even if he is behaving with utter disregard for anyone else**. It may be that Putin has left us no choice but to learn to live with a Russian North Korea — at least as long as he is in charge. If that is the case, we’ll just have to make the best of it, but the best of it will be a much more unstable world.
@lowfour (post #72) Best Korea pactó con Estados Unidos al más alto nivel, y desde entonces no han dado problemas.
La comparativa del neo-zarato con ese país no la veo correcta tras el acuerdo de Trump:
-Best Korea quiere ser lo más autárquico posible, mientras que el neozarato depende de exportar gas y petróleo y de importar tecnología y maquinaria occidental
-Best Korea está rodeado de China y de Worst Korea (respaldado este último por Estados Unidos). Aunque les gustara expandirse, no tienen la capacidad militar de hacerlo y de hecho en 70 años no se lanzaron a otra guerra con el sur, el expansionismo militar no parece su principal prioridad. Mientras tanto, Rusia/URSS ha invadido unos cuantos países, dentro y fuera de sus fronteras.
-Best Korea tienen palabra, pactaron con Trump y desde entonces la zona está calmada. Mientras que para los psicópatas en el poder en el neozarato, la palabra solo es una herramienta al servicio de conseguir objetivos.
La única similitud que vería en ese caso, sería la de ser Estados militarizados y desconectados del capitalismo neoliberal globalizado.
@lowfour (post #72)
hay muchas cosas que ya hemos comentado aquí
lo de dejar "dignidad" al adversario, pues mira, no
es que esto no es un puto choque de trenes, ya nos sabemos ese cuento
es cierto que hay un tremendo coste de oportunidad al destruir el potencial de todos esos que no podrán desarrollar sus capacidades en rusia (o fuera) simplemente porque han muerto en la guerra, han huido o están presos o algo así
pero la salida a todo ese nazionalismo violento e imperialista no es "dignificar" la salida, es destruirlo
joder, que no aprendemos, eh?
en cuanto se perdone alguna maldad, porque el gas, porque la energía, porque loquesea, la repetición de toda esta mierda está garantizada, solo es cuestión de tiempo.. solo que puede que entonces lo tengan mejor montado y sea peor, mucho peor
cojona, que están en guerra contra todo occidente, toda libertad democrática, lo ha dicho anne esta mañana o ayer, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/russia-annex-ukraine-putin/671607/
a mí todo este editorial me huele un poco a equindepe
igual es que no lo estoy entendiendo del todo
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
No les sobra un long-range HIMARS por ahí? Sería precioso ver a todos los artistas token del régimen entrando en órbita micrófono en mano.
@lowfour (post #75)
brutal esto, brutal porque muestra la descomposición del control del relato
hito militar y político
el borrachín este sabe que está jodidísimos y no lo van a poder ocultar como hasta ahora
que ni nukes ni ostias
y porque le cortan, si no... les hace un traje a los putiners y toda la corte celestial
El New York Times lo borda de nuevo con información y puntos de vista interesantes. Guano nuclear.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/world/europe/washington-putin-nuclear-threats.html
In Washington, Putin’s Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm
In a gathering Cold War atmosphere, American officials are gaming out responses should Russia resort to battlefield nuclear weapons.
WASHINGTON — For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, top government leaders in Moscow are making explicit nuclear threats and officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir V. Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine.
In a speech on Friday, Mr. Putin raised the prospect anew, calling the United States and NATO enemies seeking Russia’s collapse and declaring again that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory — which he has now declared includes four provinces of eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Putin reminded the world of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 77 years ago, adding, “By the way, they created a precedent.” On Saturday, the strongman leader of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, said Mr. Putin should consider using “low-yield nuclear weapons” in Ukraine, becoming the first prominent Russian official to openly call for such a strike.
**Senior American officials say they think the chances that Mr. Putin would employ a nuclear weapon remain low.** They say they have seen **no evidence that he is moving any of his nuclear assets**, and a recent Pentagon analysis suggests the **military benefits would be few**. **And the cost for Mr. Putin — in a furious international response, perhaps even from the Chinese, whose support he needs most — could be tremendous**.
**But they are far more worried about the possibility now than they were at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict** in February. After a series of humiliating retreats, astoundingly high casualty rates and a deeply unpopular move to draft young Russian men into service, Mr. Putin clearly sees the threat of his nuclear arsenal as a way to instill fear, and perhaps to recover some respect for Russia’s power.
Most important, **he may see the threat of unleashing part of his stockpile of roughly 2,000 so-called tactical nuclear weapons as a way to extort concessions that he has been unable to win on the battlefield**. Such weapons involve much smaller, less-powerful warheads than those used in intercontinental missiles, which can destroy whole cities. **Some tactical nuclear warheads are small enough to fit in individual artillery rounds, though they can still devastate and irradiate a few blocks, or a single military base.**
**Some Russian military analysts have suggested exploding a tactical weapon over a remote place like the Black Sea as a demonstration, or perhaps actually using one against a Ukrainian base.**
“This is not a bluff,” Mr. Putin said last month, a reminder that making first use of nuclear weapons is an integral part of Russian military strategy. Last weekend, President Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, responded that any nuclear weapon use would result in “catastrophic consequences” for Russia, adding that **in private communications with Moscow, the United States had “spelled out” how America and the world would react.**
Such threats and counterthreats, seemingly right out of the worst moments of the Cold War, are exactly the kind that most Americans and Russians thought ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
For a quarter-century, both sides celebrated a reduction in their strategic weapons, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach across oceans. Congress spent billions of dollars in the 1990s on programs that paid for dismantling old Soviet warheads and blending them down into fuel for nuclear power plants. For years, American homes were lit, in part, with the remnants of city-busting bombs. When nuclear threats were made, it was mostly by aspiring atomic powers, like North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated that its weapons can reach American shores.
But in the past seven months, that has changed.
**In issuing his warning to Russia last week, Mr. Sullivan declined to describe the playbook of American or NATO responses, knowing that one key to Cold War deterrence was some degree of ambiguity.**
But in background conversations, **a range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included unplugging Russia from the world economy or some kind of military response — though one that would most likely be delivered by the Ukrainians with Western-provided, conventional weapons.**
For their part, **Russian analysts and officials see the specter of nuclear conflict as giving a distinct advantage to their side.**
**Because the outcome of the war in Ukraine is of existential significance to the Kremlin, but not to the White House, they say, Russian officials seem to believe they would have the advantage in the test of wills that nuclear brinkmanship represents.**
**Dmitri A. Medvedev,** a **former Russian president** and the hawkish vice chairman of Mr. Putin’s Security Council, **laid out that thesis this past week in a post on the Telegram social network. If Russia were forced to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he argued, it was unlikely that NATO would intervene militarily because of the risk that a direct attack on Russia could lead to all-out nuclear war.**
**“Overseas and European demagogues are not going to perish in a nuclear apocalypse,” he wrote. “Therefore, they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict.”**
As the full extent of Ukraine’s gains in its September counteroffensive became apparent, **the Biden administration intensified its study of the steps that Mr. Putin might take to reverse the perception that the Russian Army was losing the war. Administration officials quickly saw some of their predictions come true, as Mr. Putin announced a mobilization of military reserves despite the dissent it provoked.**
**Now, with the annexation** of Ukrainian territory, **worry is rising in Washington**. **Should Ukraine be able to build on its success, and Mr. Putin face humiliating defeat, U.S. officials are concerned he might quickly push through the remaining steps and consider the use of a nuclear weapon.**
And with Russian forces retreating from the strategic railroad hub of Lyman — in territory annexed by Moscow on Friday — Russia continues to lose ground in eastern Ukraine.
**Mr. Putin clearly sees Russia’s nuclear arsenal as the foundation of what remains of Russia’s great power status.**
He has trumpeted its world-destroying potential in his state-of-the-nation speeches and has insisted that in the event of a nuclear war, “**we would go to paradise as martyrs, while they would simply perish.**”
**The revelation of the Ukraine conflict — that Russia’s conventional forces were poorly trained, unimaginative and ill-equipped — has made Mr. Putin all the more dependent on his unconventional weapons, an inherently unstable balance of forces.**
“We’re in a situation in which superiority in resources and conventional weaponry is on the side of the West,” said Vasily Kashin, who specializes in military and political issues at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. “**Russia’s power is based on its nuclear arsenal.**”
**The problem for Mr. Putin is how to wring real-world advantage from the destructive force of Russia’s nuclear warheads without actually using them**. To some degree, he has been successful. Mr. Biden’s reluctance to put American or NATO troops into direct combat roles, or to provide Ukraine with weapons that could strike deep inside Russia, is rooted in concern about nuclear escalation.
But Mr. Putin also faces constraints. **His threat to use nuclear weapons must seem credible, and the repeated incantation of nuclear threats can undermine their effectiveness**. The threat may be more effective than actually using a weapon because the cost to Russia of breaking a 77-year taboo could be astronomically high. Most experts think he would reach for them only if Russia — or Mr. Putin himself — felt an existential threat.
**“The chance that Putin would strike out of the blue seems very low,” said Graham T. Allison**, the author of a seminal 1971 book about the Cuban Missile Crisis, “Essence of Decision.” “**But as Kennedy said back then, the plausible scenario is if a leader is forced to choose between a catastrophic humiliation and a roll of the dice that might yield success.**”
Mr. Allison suspects **Mr. Putin will not face that choice unless Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russian forces out of the areas Mr. Putin annexed on Friday.**
For that reason, the **next few weeks could prove a particularly dangerous time,** a range of American and European officials agree. But **Mr. Putin is not likely to use a nuclear weapon immediately. His initial steps, according to the officials, would probably involve a sabotage campaign in Europe, attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure or targeting senior officials in Kyiv. Some officials wonder if the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines may have been a first step** — though it is not clear Russia was behind that sabotage.
But by escalating his nuclear threats in combination with the annexation, **Mr. Putin appears to have two goals in mind. One is to scare the United States and NATO from direct intervention in Ukraine. The second is to force the West to back off supporting Ukraine at all, or to perhaps force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table in a disadvantageous position.**
In Russia, the airwaves are filled with threats that constantly refer to Moscow’s nuclear options.
In a recent state television interview, the foreign policy analyst Dmitri Trenin said that Russia needed to convince Washington that escalation could lead to nuclear strikes against the American mainland.
“The American strategy of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia is based on the belief that Russia will not use nuclear weapons: Either it will be afraid, or it will consider that the destruction of civilization is still too high a price for maintaining its position,” Mr. Trenin said. “And here, in my opinion, lies a potentially fatal miscalculation for all of humanity.”
But the threshold at which Mr. Putin would resort to nuclear weapons — or how he would use them — is far from clear. Another analyst, **Ivan Timofeev, said in a phone interview that he believed that Mr. Putin would use them only in the event of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine.**
**Using them against Ukrainian forces in the context of the current war would bring limited military advantage while deepening Russia’s international isolation, he said.**
“I don’t see the possibility that China or India or any other country friendly to Russia would support such a decision,” said Mr. Timofeev, the program director for the Russian International Affairs Council, a research organization close to the Russian government. “**If you look at interests pragmatically and rationally, this scenario is not beneficial to Russia.”**
Mr. Kashin, the Higher School of Economics professor, said that his analysis of recent statements by Russian officials led him to conclude that Mr. Putin’s annexation on Friday was a signal that further major gains by Ukraine could lead to nuclear use.
“These territories will not be given up,” Mr. Kashin said.
Mr. Putin’s veiled threats about using nuclear weapons have suggested he has also given thought to large-scale, game-changing strikes. He said last year that anyone threatening Russia’s core interests would face an “asymmetric, swift and tough” response. And in June, he was vague when asked how he would respond if Ukraine and the West crossed certain “red lines” in the war.
But Mr. Putin warned that Russia could target “decision-making centers,” a broad term that analysts have interpreted as major government buildings and other military and political hubs.
“With regard to the red lines,” he said, “let me keep this to myself because on our part, it will include fairly tough actions targeted at the decision-making centers.”
_David E. Sanger and Julian E. Barnes reported from Washington, and Anton Troianovski from Berlin._
Edited 2022-10-02
Hay una derivada de la que no se habla y es que las implicaciones internacionales de que Putin ordene un ataque nuclear y se quede sin respuesta son enormes. Si ninguna gran potencia hace nada ante ese ataque, se está dando a entender que el uso del armamento atómico es gratis y se iniciaría una posible carrera armamentística mundial. Al final el arma nuclear, para un país modernamente industrializado es algo asumible y asequible.
¿China dejaría sin respuesta ese ataque teniendo a Taiwán, Japón, Corea del Sur, Australia, Indonesia y Malasia al lado y encabronadas?
¿Polonia, República Checa, Rumanía, Finlandia y Suecia se quedarían mirando? Recordemos que Suecia ya tuvo programa nuclear.
Y así sucesivamente.
@Ungaunga (post #78)
nono, es que habrá respuesta
yo estoy seguro de que habrá incluso si usa armas de destrucción masiva aunque no sean nucleares (en plan armas químicas o algo así)
bastante le están aguantando las masacres de civiles
las nukes no son solución, solo es una amenaza, no funcionan como otra cosa que amenaza
@lowfour (post #77)
timosev lo explica, las nukes no solucionan nada:
Using them against Ukrainian forces in the context of the current war would bring limited military advantage while deepening Russia’s international isolation, he said.
la alternativa a volatilizar ucranianos es volatilizar europeos
pero es exactamente lo mismo o peor
a ver, que hay idiotas que realizan acciones que perjudican y de las que no sacan ventaja y tal, pero putin no es idiota
otra cosa es que se ponga irracional en plan, si no es mio no es de nadie
si yo no tengo putes, nadie las tiene y apocalipsis nuclear para todos
pero bueno, alguien tiene que ejecutar esas órdenes y no veo a putin metiendo códigos de lanzamiento en un submarino y tal, eh??
aquí el rollo es lo que he puesto en el otro hilo
cómo hacemos para que rusia renuncie a lo que firmó el viernes???
igual nos sorprenden y nos digan, eh, era todo una finta y tomad, las llaves de sevastopol y esta pasta por las molestias y tal
pero tiene toda la pinta de que eso solo ocurrirá si encuentran a putin con los sesos desparramados en su despacho o algo así
lo dijo stoltenberg, esto se acaba cuando putin diga que se pira de ucrania, si no, no
Edited 2022-10-02
@elarquitecto (post #80)
En el NYT lo decía el equidindepe… la anexión y los 300k borrachos son el anchoring para la negociación. Y el mensaje interno de que se ha ganado algo en esta guerra imperialista lazi. Por eso las masas y grititos North Korean más fake que la wunderwaffen esa que se están guardando para no se sabe cuando.
No me extrañaría nada que proponga negociación y dejarles Crimea. Por supuesto si no sale Putin sería un error.
Yo creo que USA (ni la UE) no hay nadie dispuesto a dejar con vida a Putin. Si se le dan 5 años la lía pardísima de nuevo. Putin está muerto y lo sabe.
Por supuesto en Rusia saben que su economía no aguanta más de 6 meses así. Por mucho que hagan el paripé y sustituyan el McDonald’s por el Tasty Period. Es como el euribor, sube y al principio no se nota porque hay ahorros pero 6 meses después empiezan a petar familias.
Por eso cortaron el gas, por eso han reventado el nordstream. Piensan que el frío y la falta de energía hará a la UE exigir a Ucrania la negociación antes de que peten ellos. Pero es cuando ellos peten no va a ser una crisis en plan 2008, va a ser en plan 1992 o 1945. Una crisis re-fundacional.
Yo creo que la UE aguanta pero claro, también apuntan a que el siguiente paso en la estrategia es reventar plantas energéticas en Europa o hackeos masivos.
Edited 2022-10-02
@elarquitecto (post #80) es inevitable una respuesta muy contundente con China poniéndose de perfil o incluso apoyándola. Ya le dejó clarinete el señor Winnie the Poo a Putin que está solo, que es su puto problema y que lo deje en paz.
Occidente ens roba! Menudo cacao tienen los rusos cuando el YouTuber les pregunta en plan retórica… se les cruza el cable salvo a algunos que tienen muy clara la historia. Pero a otros es que el cerebro no les carbura con todos los cilindros.
@lowfour (post #83) 
esa no tiene miedo, eh?
como haya muchos así, a putin le debe de quedar poco para una infusioncita de menta-polonio
joder, soros en todas las conspiranoias
creo que es tan rico porque debe de cobrar derechos de autor o algo así, cada vez que alguien dice soros tal o cual (en una trama conspiranoica), pam!! copyright!!
forrao
@elarquitecto (post #85)
Ese curra en burbuja de ciberputi.
Edited 2022-10-03
joder, qué tropa!!
oye, por dónde trazo las fronteras? por el oblast histórico o por el ocupado por nuestras tropas??
y yo qué sé!?!!
y quién lo sabe??
😬😬😬😬
entonces qué vamos a ratificar??
¯
ni los monty phyton, en??
pero los puentes, todos reventaos, que si no nos ocupan lo que sea que hayamos ratificado
Showing 27 posts (posts 61-87) of 87 total
Please log in to reply to this discussion.
Log In