Is Putin losing it?

@salmon_rushdie said in #18:
> The idea is that people remember those wars and actively shape geopoltics to not repeat them,
My post #10 was precisely about this principle (or rather about the failure of this principle), with Macron suggesting a direct confrontation with Russia.

Some people found it funny though. I really don't see what's funny in it. The fact other major geopolitical actors put him back in his place doesn't mean the idea is not there, including among some of our leaders that people tend to consider "serious people".

Apparently, according to the laughers, my post #10 even means I want to go back to living in caves. An argument usually used against environmentalists. Note however the inanity and irrelevance of this argument in this context.

Firstly, I was merely commenting on an irresponsible comment by the French president. I was not even arguing against having nukes (as opposed to what @LordSupremeChess suggests in #15). Or maybe @LordSupremeChess believes without Macron the whole world would go back to living in caves?

Secondly, even if I had been arguing against nukes, that would still be a dumb counter-argument. Modern lifestyle does not rely on us having nukes. Nukes are not necessary to run your laptop or modern medicine. We happened to have frantically developed more and more bigger and bigger nukes during Cold War, but history could have gone in a different way.

And as a last point, as Noflaps noted, in case of a nuclear war, most people won't be able to live, in caves or outside of it. And we can only assume the survivors would indeed have to live in caves, in a world devastated by radiations, where all major cities and sources of power will have been blasted off. In fact, @LordSupremeChess's suggestion to fight with sticks and bows ironically echoes the famous quote of Einstein
> I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
So maybe if @LordSupremeChess is so adverse to stick and bows, he should carefully think now about what politics he supports.

Sure, Putin is insane, but he isn't alone in Russia. There are many people in the nuclear command, and they are rational. They have no humor, they won't push the button for the hell of it.

If the nuclear scare would be real we would first se several nuclear tests. We are not close to those yet.

Spreading nuclear scare posts is a Russian troll tactic. Be smart, don't fall for it, don't spread Russian propaganda. Don't be a useful idiot.

The war isn't going as Putin hoped for. A sure sign is the desperate trolling with nuclear scares, Ukrainian manpower shortages, Ukrainian losses and so on.

The west have vastly larger economy than Russia, they will cope much better with a long war. Putin fears this and the troll posts show this.

@what_game_is_this said in #22:
> If the nuclear scare would be real we would first se several nuclear tests. We are not close to those yet.
Do you remember, just before the invasion of Ukraine started, those political analysis pieces of news saying "Putin is likely not going to invade, as he hasn't called up reservists and blood donation banks"? I do.

I would argue the point of having weapons is to be able to use it whenever you wish, without having to go through lengthy testing beforehand. Especially when said weapons are the cornerstone of your deterrence policy.

And then again, I am not even arguing Putin will just randomly press the button. I am saying pushing for a direct confrontation with Russia is the most irresponsible stance one can possibly take. Putin will not randomly press the button, but in the eventuality of a total war, pressing the button might suddenly become not so random.

PS: lest you call me a putinversteher or something along those lines, I reiterate I have absolutely no sympathy for his regime or his criminal war. In fact, I saw him for the brutal dictator he is long before the whole thing started, when our Western leaders still used to friendlily greet him as a valuable partner.

My take on this: Never give in for the threats of a bully, confront him. This goes for Putin too. Show him strength. If the west makes sure a very strong response for a nuclear attack Putin would get killed by those close to him if he orders a nuke strike. Why? The don't want to lose their privileges, riches or lives.

Do you want to be terrorized or live in a free world?

There is one big mistake many people do - they take the words of Russian "politicians" seriously.

Normally, when we communicate, we share our ideas, feelings, observations, insights... We formulate our thoughts and express them. We ask for information or for help. Sometimes we don't say what we mean. We may be diplomatic, we might lie for some reason, we could use irony or sarcasm.

Please, remember that Russian top "talking heads" don't use words the same way we do.

They can say ANYTHING they believe helps them.

Truth, consistency, meaning, even ideology means nothing to them.
They don't even care about being believable.
What they say, what they do and what they really think are three completly different things.

For more insight, read Kasparov's book "Winter is coming".

@nadjarostowa said in #5:
> But isn't the article emphasising that there is no intention to use nuclear weapons?

Yes. Actually, the article features the standard answer to the nuclear weapons use (e. g. www.cfr.org/backgrounder/no-first-use-and-nuclear-weapons). It would go unnoticed without the current updated Red Scare.

@WildTiger said in #25:
> Truth, consistency, meaning, even ideology means nothing to them.
> They don't even care about being believable.
> What they say, what they do and what they really think are three completly different things.

You accurately described 99% of governments.

You have to look at the complete picture and containment US policy against Russia. In 2008 when the NATO summit in Bucurest was going on NATo declared that Georgia and Ukraine are welcome to NATO and EU, That was a red line comparable with the Cuba crisis /Monroe doctrine. Ever since Putin has asked to go to the conference table to reach a new security agreement for Europe the US refused to talk with Russia about existing problems and went forward with NATO expansion. Result: War in Europe. Who is suffering most of all? 1. Ukraine, Russia, EU and espcially Germany.

Russia have no right to decide the security arrangements of other countries. Putin tried with Finland and Sweden and failed embarrasingly.

Search for and read up on:
Russian disinformation war

@what_game_is_this said in #28:
> Russia have no right to decide the security arrangements of other countries. Putin tried with Finland and Sweden and failed embarrasingly.

Then it's not Russia's responsibility if they are forced to start a war in response. Just like in chess, it's not that hard to put your opponent in a situation "capture or lose".

But officer, i was forced to rob the bank!

You are never forced to start a war!

If you do you are solely responsible! Russia always paint itself as the victim. I hope nobody is fooled by it.