This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

[hwk23]

Thread by @Cirincione on Thread Reader App

@Cirincione: 🧵I want to end the week with some of the analysis that @chrislhayes and I did on his show, @allinwithchris, this Friday night. I got quite a bit of positive feedback from people and suggestions...…

threadreaderapp.com

🧵I want to end the week with some of the analysis that @chrislhayes and I did on his show, @allinwithchris, this Friday night. I got quite a bit of positive feedback from people and suggestions that I write it up. So here we go.
We started with Pres. Biden’s comments and Chris cites my WashPost article. “What do you think, Joe, of the President saying that this is the most imminent threat of nuclear weapons deployment since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?" washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/…
Me: President Biden is correct that we are closer to the intentional use of nuclear weapons now than we've been in the 60 years since those terrifying 13 days in October 1962. The President is absolutely correct in his assessment.
Chris: So one thing I’ve heard is this: Putin’s military has performed very poorly…As his forces lose ground, Putin is reaching for a nuclear threat as a means of getting people to come to the negotiating table to arrest those loses and basically get a settlement...
...that lets him keep some of the territory he’s won before it gets lost. And, if you take his threat seriously, you’re playing into his hands of using this as a tool of coercion. What do you think about that argument?

Me: We do have to take his threat seriously. This is not a bluff. (1) He has the means to do this. He has over 6,000 nuclear weapons. We failed to eliminate nuclear weapons after the Cold War, so we left him with this arsenal...

(2) He has the method to use them. Russian doctrine explicitly calls for using nuclear weapons first in a conventional battle in order to turn the tide of war.

(3) He’s got the motive. He’s not only losing the war in Ukraine terribly - the Russian Army looks very fragile...
- but now he’s opened up a second front in Russia and he’s losing that. In part, being attacked by his right-wing base, who are urging him to use nuclear weapons. So, means, method, motive. This is quite serious...

That doesn't mean we give into it. That means we have to do what I think President Biden is doing: Building up a global response to try to deter Putin from going down this nuclear road.

Chris: Well, what does deterrence look like right now?
Me: It’s a combination of things. Most importantly demonstrating to Putin that this is not a winning move. This will not end the war. this will lose it for him.

So: (1) He will be diplomatically isolated.

(2) He thinks economic sanctions are tough now? Wait until he is cut off from the international banking system and all energy supplies are banned from purchase from Russia.

(3) There are military options, including conventional military strikes on the army in Ukraine...
In an extreme case you could bring NATO directly into conventional warfare.

(4) There are cyber options. I don't want to get too over the top, but we could turn Moscow dark with cyber warfare.

(5) There’s psychological warfare. You could be reaching out directly...
...to Russian political and military leaders. Reminding them that we know where they live. That we can reach out and touch them. And that there is life after losing a war, if they break with Putin.


Chris: OK so you have just listed a bunch of deterrence that one could articulate, that are plausible, that are non-nuclear deterrence, right? So, just do a quick mutual assured destruction recap here...
Chris: The doctrine that comes out of the work on MAD, following Tom Schelling’s work, is: You fire nukes; we fire them all; the world gets obliterated; nuclear winter; bye-bye.

That means that no one ever tries to use one. It seems to me that we’re in a different world now.
Me: That’s exactly right! The world you described is 60 years ago, October 1962. This is a different world where you’re tempted to use a nuclear weapon in a limited way. 1, 2, a half dozen, to try to stop the war in its tracks. You try to break the European support for Ukraine..
You try to play into so-called peace sentiments in the US and split American support for Ukraine. That’s what you’re trying to do if you're Putin.
So, you’ve got to try to counter that in a way that doesn’t bring you - the US - to the brink of using a nuclear weapon. Here’s the other thing President Biden was correct about: There is no safe way to use a tactical nuclear weapon that doesn’t bring us down this road.
War games repeatedly show that when you start down this road there are major escalatory risks. That’s what Biden is trying to do: Deter Putin from doing it and prepare response should he do it.

Chris: That was very illuminating, if not slightly terrifying. And that’s our show!
BONUS: Here is a video of the last two minutes of his show with Chris on deterrence theory in the Cold War and me, with deterrence theory now.

Does he seriously think the threat of more sanctions is going to deter a nuclear war? Such nonsense.

 

[h-hawk]

Russia seems to have been trying to intimidate everybody with this attack.

 

[h-hawk]

Czechia calls for the lifting of all restrictions on arms supply to Ukraine​

2022/10/10 - 16:16 • Latest news Ukraine


After Russia’s massive missile attacks on Ukraine on the morning of 10 October, the time has come to lift restrictions on arms supplies to Ukraine, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic Jaroslav Kurfürst has said in Prague:

“Perhaps this is the time when there should be a lifting of many restrictions on the weapons that we supply to Ukraine. Perhaps this is the time to support Ukraine even more. But, of course, there should always be more support. From the very beginning, all of us who support Ukraine, we believe much more needs to be done,” Kurfürst told reporters according to Interfax-Ukraine.

 

[h-hawk]

This is in Russia.

 

[GOHOX69]

I had said Russia is going to kill more innocent Ukrainians. Nothing will change until Russia pays in the same blood. Right now, it's just a turkey shoot of Ukrainian citizens and its going to get far far worse. Russian citizens should be fair game or Ukraine is doomed.

 

[lucas80]

Putin escalates again knowing the West will not respond.

View embedded media

"American journalist near the place where Russian missiles fell: This is Russian genocide against Ukraine. The world must see the crimes of the Russian maniac and his regime. No hopes, no negotiations."

View embedded media

So, not getting rid of Nazis? Just random shots at cities and infrastructure?
The Kerch Bridge had legitimate military value, and was targeted as such. Russia continues to show how impotent it is. Yes, the deaths and infrastructure impacts are tough to handle, but what Russia is not doing is changing the flow on the battlefield.

 

[h-hawk]

Guessing these are not built yet though

.

 

[h-hawk]

So, not getting rid of Nazis? Just random shots at cities and infrastructure?
The Kerch Bridge had legitimate military value, and was targeted as such. Russia continues to show how impotent it is. Yes, the deaths and infrastructure impacts are tough to handle, but what Russia is not doing is changing the flow on the battlefield.

Russia is also trying to hit power and water supplies. These attacks could have an effect on the war especially if the West does nothing to slow them down.

 

[GOHOX69]

So, not getting rid of Nazis? Just random shots at cities and infrastructure?
The Kerch Bridge had legitimate military value, and was targeted as such. Russia continues to show how impotent it is. Yes, the deaths and infrastructure impacts are tough to handle, but what Russia is not doing is changing the flow on the battlefield.

Here's a top tip. Russia doesn't give 2 shits. They are here to kill (ethnically cleanse) all Ukrainians and destroy any vestiges of infrastructure, buildings, culture, heritage. It's never been about winning militarily.

Look at what Putin did in Syria.

Lots of Ukrainian citizens will die unless and until Russian cities are struck and bleed. Until then, turkey shoot.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Terrorism is non-state actors using violence to achieve their aims.
War is state actors using violence to achieve their aims.
Although we nowadays cloak the notion of war in words like 'special military operation', or 'kinetic military action'.

The Germans, being Germans, invented a great word for it back in WW1: Schrecklichkeit

More Russo-Nazi terrorism. Violating every aspect of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[h-hawk]

SIAP

 

[Herky T Hawk]

Or would NATO do anything? Some of the flesh is willing but their traditionally bigger militaries like France and Germany are weak with long neglected forces. I do think they have to do something to stop Russia from continuing to escalate. Russia only understands force.

If Poland invoked Article 5 because they were directly attacked in their sovereign territory, it doesn't matter what France or Germany want to do. You sure as shit would expect that big brother (USA) would show up. And the next biggest brother (UK) would also show up. And frankly that is all that would be needed. We entered into a treaty of mutual self-defense and we better follow it.

If France and Germany don't want to uphold their end of the treaty that has been in place for many decades, then they are out and can fend for themselves the next time the shit hits the fan in western Europe. They should also lose access to weapons and maintenance/replacement parts from American and other NATO country manufacturers in the process.

 

[seminole97]

If Poland invoked Article 5 because they were directly attacked in their sovereign territory, it doesn't matter what France or Germany want to do.

That’s not how it actually works.

Did anyone think ‘NATO’ started a war with China in 1999 when they bombed the Chinese embassy?

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese state media journalists and outraging the Chinese public.[2] According to the U.S. government, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP). President Bill Clinton apologized for the bombing, stating it was an accident.[3][4][5] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenettestified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency,[6] and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.

 

[h-hawk]

Good thread by an actual expert on explosives.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Weird seeing the shift in the thread from "Russia would never use a nuke, it's 100% a bluff" and "they likely don't have functioning ones anyway" back in the spring to "they might use one, and here is what we should do" that we've been seeing here recently.

Almost like most of the posters here have no clue what they're talking about.

Weird.

Or people can change an opinion with out being told by their political leaders what to think. So there is that

 

[seminole97]

Or people can change an opinion with out being told by their political leaders what to think. So there is that

Maybe, but let me check a few Twitter handles to confirm…

 

[h-hawk]

That’s not how it actually works.

Did anyone think ‘NATO’ started a war with China in 1999 when they bombed the Chinese embassy?

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese state media journalists and outraging the Chinese public.[2] According to the U.S. government, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP). President Bill Clinton apologized for the bombing, stating it was an accident.[3][4][5] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenettestified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency,[6] and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.

The above is kind of the point I was also trying to make-due to NATO's "weakness" due to years of neglect, I was thinking that they will not go to war on technicalities. There will have to be an actual attack on a NATO member or a change in how they have been thinking the past 9 months since the war started.

 

[mustang_hawk]

One could argue different times, different tools.

What a crock of crap. Wrong is wrong no matter the time. As far as different tools, it doesn't matter if it's dumb weapons or smart ones, the Allies purposely bombed the civilian population and fire bombed major population centers.

 

[h-hawk]

LOL

 

[Herky T Hawk]

That’s not how it actually works.

Did anyone think ‘NATO’ started a war with China in 1999 when they bombed the Chinese embassy?

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese state media journalists and outraging the Chinese public.[2] According to the U.S. government, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP). President Bill Clinton apologized for the bombing, stating it was an accident.[3][4][5] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenettestified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency,[6] and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.

Well, if China decided they didn't care about the excuse they sure could have treated it as an initiation of an attack against themselves. They likely knew that they weren't an intentional target though and unfortunately were victims of a horrific accident.

There's a major difference between what happened 20+ years ago and what is happening now. NATO attempted to hit a specific location and used bad information and only did it once. Russia is indiscriminately bombing areas of Ukraine and has been doing so with regularity for half a year. Russia knows full well that there are many countries represented with embassies and consulates in Kyiv but it seems they don't care as they continue to attack civilian population areas that aren't of military significance. Russia has also made threats against other neighboring countries for supporting Ukraine. A hit against another country's facilities could be construed as intentional targeting following those threats and a direct attack.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

What a crock of crap. Wrong is wrong no matter the time. As far as different tools, it doesn't matter if it's dumb weapons or smart ones, the Allies purposely bombed the civilian population and fire bombed major population centers.

I don’t think our actions in WWII were wrong. The aim of war is to win. Degrading the will to fight (or trying to put pressure on the population to overthrow their leaders) is part of war, no? Especially if you aren’t the initial aggressor.

But in the era of smart weapons, can you achieve those same goals through less lethal or more target means? I think yes, and think the US has tried to do that in recent years.

That’s why I said different times, different tools.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

Or people can change an opinion with out being told by their political leaders what to think. So there is that

Right, that's obviously what happened. Sort of like how finding off ramps for Putin was Russian propaganda a week ago, until Biden said that himself. Now it's "sending a warning".

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/us/politics/biden-putin-armageddon-nuclear-threat.html

that Mr. Biden has been looking to help the Russian president find an “off-ramp” that might avert the worst outcome.

You guys and your MAGA counterparts have more in common than you like to admit. It's basically like rooting for a sports team at this point for you guys.

 

[h-hawk]

 

[hwk23]

Or people can change an opinion with out being told by their political leaders what to think. So there is that

Well yes, slight chance.

 

[Joes Place]

Weird seeing the shift in the thread from "Russia would never use a nuke, it's 100% a bluff" and "they likely don't have functioning ones anyway" back in the spring to "they might use one, and here is what we should do" that we've been seeing here recently.

Almost like most of the posters here have no clue what they're talking about.

Weird.

Weird how you've shifted the discussion from "Russia probably doesn't have a fully functional nuclear arsenal that could take out the US" to "Russia could use a tactical nuke on Ukraine".


No one's argued the latter here, ever.

 

[h-hawk]

 

[h-hawk]

Fresh meat on the way.
"Russian soldiers from the Republic of Bashkiria march towards Ukraine."

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Shooting down Russian type cruise missiles.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

Weird how you've shifted the discussion from "Russia probably doesn't have a fully functional nuclear arsenal that could take out the US" to "Russia could use a tactical nuke on Ukraine".

No one's argued the latter here, ever.

Let's check that...

Russia is not going nuke. It would mean they are committing suicide. Just not going to happen. Keep playing the scared game of nukes and you will see nuclear proliferation across the planet.

Here is one genius's take(s):

Not really.
And this is presuming they want to off themselves, too.

Which they do not.

Which is why they ain't gonna go there.

Russia starves w/o Ukrainian grain. Turn that into a nuclear wasteland and Putin, along with all his oligarchs, are toast.

And for the fun of it:

2. The Russian nuclear launch protocols are not a 1-man-with-a-button situation. They will not go nuclear unless existentially threatened, which they will not be, so your hypothetical question is moot.

But hey, give me more than 10 minutes of looking and I'm sure I can find quite a few more if you want.

 

[Joes Place]

Let's check that...



Here is one genius's take(s):





And for the fun of it:




But hey, give me more than 10 minutes of looking and I'm sure I can find quite a few more if you want.

NONE of those posts claim what you stated, spud.

The post I just made today indicates the consequences they'll face.
Which ain't good for them.

You continue to post that them using a nuke in Ukraine poses a threat to the US.

It does not. MY post pointed out how that endgame would work out for them. And it would eliminate them ever coming back from it, anytime soon.

 

[MitchLL]

Some here have mentioned an "off ramp" for Putin.

It isn't anyone's responsibility except the person that started this in February. He can easily make some claim of success at home and the majority of the population likely buys it.

What he's doing today will guarantee he loses Crimea before this is finished. I fully expect more attacks on the big bridge sometime this week.

 

[seminole97]

View embedded media

While it looks like something that would be cool at an air show, it’s seems in a practical sense a complete waste to just spray those little unguided rockets on a ballistic arc.

 

[Joes Place]

Some here have mentioned an "off ramp" for Putin.

It isn't anyone's responsibility except the person that started this in February. He can easily make some claim of success at home and the majority of the population likely buys it.

What he's doing today will guarantee he loses Crimea before this is finished. I fully expect more attacks on the big bridge sometime this week.

Perhaps if his buddy in Belarus sees some "consequences", Putin and his cronies will get a reality check.

Let Lukashenko understand that the next volley out of his airspace means 2x military bases go up in smoke, and he'll scurry back into his hole.

 

[seminole97]

A quick search on Google Maps reveals that it is the same Samsung R&D office that’s located in the building that seems to have been hit by the missile, as reported by the tweet below. You can also see a video that shows the damaged building. There also seems to be a DTEK office (one of the biggest firms in the energy sector) and the German consulate (22nd floor) in the same building.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Perhaps if his buddy in Belarus sees some "consequences", Putin and his cronies will get a reality check.

Let Lukashenko understand that the next volley out of his airspace means 2x military bases go up in smoke, and he'll scurry back into his hole.

Joe, I get the anger but we can’t just shoot missiles at everyone!

 

[noleclone2]

A quick search on Google Maps reveals that it is the same Samsung R&D office that’s located in the building that seems to have been hit by the missile, as reported by the tweet below. You can also see a video that shows the damaged building. There also seems to be a DTEK office (one of the biggest firms in the energy sector) and the German consulate (22nd floor) in the same building.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Quite the image. Russia = Al Qaeda

 

[h-hawk]

Joe, I get the anger but we can’t just shoot missiles at everyone!

 

[h-hawk]

 

[h-hawk]

This is real-I checked.

"Jet suits for flying New technology used by soldiers #البريطانيون around the aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" in port "



#نيو

 

[h-hawk]