Diesen went to Twitter with a long-ass post that I'm going to quote in full:
---
I received several reactions to the discussion I hosted about how nuclear weapons may be used against Europe to restore deterrence. To be clear, this is not a normative argument about what I think should happen or what I think is just. My argument is what I think will happen. European leaders have become so deeply involved in the attacks on Russia that the Kremlin is under great pressure to restore its deterrence.
Once Russia retaliates with conventional weapons against European targets (weapons facilities, logistics centres), the Europeans will more forcefully attack Russia. At this point, I believe that it is more likely than not that Russia could launch a limited nuclear strike (with tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic). This should not be a controversial prediction. NATO countries are doing the war planning; their intelligence agencies are doing the targeting; their contractors are pulling the trigger; they are supplying the long-range weapons; and they are also using NATO territory to strike Russia. This will only escalate as the Europeans are talking about mass-producing long-range weapons for "Ukraine" to strike deeper and deeper inside Russia, and are setting dates for when Europe will directly attack.
Our political leaders are obsessed with defeating the world's largest nuclear power, which considers itself to be fighting in a war for its existence. It should worry us that our political leaders did not define what a NATO victory looks like in this scenario, and we should also be worried that our political leaders have incrementally become so directly involved in attacks on Russia and still pretend it is merely a war between Russia and Ukraine. Our political leaders sabotaged both the Minsk peace agreement and the Istanbul agreement, and then shut down all diplomacy for more than 4 years while declaring that "weapons are the path to peace". It is obligatory in Europe to pretend this is about "helping Ukraine", but this is dangerous self-delusion.
Where exactly did we think this was heading? Is nuclear war not the obvious end? Can anyone imagine it ending in any different ways if we had done this during the Cold War or if Russia were now similarly attacking the US through a proxy? Biden once said that sending F-16s meant World War 3, yet now it has become controversial to point out that NATO clearly crossing the line between proxy war and direct war will trigger a nuclear war. I see no morality in such self-delusion. NATO escalations are now out of control, we are heading to war, and that war will not be limited to conventional weapons. The fact that this is dismissed as a "pro-Russian" argument demonstrates how completely lost we have become in mindless war propaganda.
---
The people living in 1938 are going to kill us all.
---
I received several reactions to the discussion I hosted about how nuclear weapons may be used against Europe to restore deterrence. To be clear, this is not a normative argument about what I think should happen or what I think is just. My argument is what I think will happen. European leaders have become so deeply involved in the attacks on Russia that the Kremlin is under great pressure to restore its deterrence.
Once Russia retaliates with conventional weapons against European targets (weapons facilities, logistics centres), the Europeans will more forcefully attack Russia. At this point, I believe that it is more likely than not that Russia could launch a limited nuclear strike (with tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic). This should not be a controversial prediction. NATO countries are doing the war planning; their intelligence agencies are doing the targeting; their contractors are pulling the trigger; they are supplying the long-range weapons; and they are also using NATO territory to strike Russia. This will only escalate as the Europeans are talking about mass-producing long-range weapons for "Ukraine" to strike deeper and deeper inside Russia, and are setting dates for when Europe will directly attack.
Our political leaders are obsessed with defeating the world's largest nuclear power, which considers itself to be fighting in a war for its existence. It should worry us that our political leaders did not define what a NATO victory looks like in this scenario, and we should also be worried that our political leaders have incrementally become so directly involved in attacks on Russia and still pretend it is merely a war between Russia and Ukraine. Our political leaders sabotaged both the Minsk peace agreement and the Istanbul agreement, and then shut down all diplomacy for more than 4 years while declaring that "weapons are the path to peace". It is obligatory in Europe to pretend this is about "helping Ukraine", but this is dangerous self-delusion.
Where exactly did we think this was heading? Is nuclear war not the obvious end? Can anyone imagine it ending in any different ways if we had done this during the Cold War or if Russia were now similarly attacking the US through a proxy? Biden once said that sending F-16s meant World War 3, yet now it has become controversial to point out that NATO clearly crossing the line between proxy war and direct war will trigger a nuclear war. I see no morality in such self-delusion. NATO escalations are now out of control, we are heading to war, and that war will not be limited to conventional weapons. The fact that this is dismissed as a "pro-Russian" argument demonstrates how completely lost we have become in mindless war propaganda.
---
The people living in 1938 are going to kill us all.
@union At this point, Ukraine doesn't need much help from Europe, they're making far more useful weapons for the current conflict domestically. They've managed to basically shut down all of Russia's logistics in the south and they'll probably get pushed back to just the Luhansk/Donetsk within a reasonable amount of time. The weapons doing the deepest strikes in Russia are all home-built, as far as I know they aren't using any foreign weapons for those strikes.
@kazriko My information is completely different. Ukraine does nothing except pulling the drones from the boxes and assembling them. All the manufacturing is done in Europe.
And the so-called shutting down logistics in the south is just absurd nonsense. They made a few attacks on random trucks and a bus. It's the usual Ukrainian terrorism and has zero effect on logistics of the army.
And the so-called shutting down logistics in the south is just absurd nonsense. They made a few attacks on random trucks and a bus. It's the usual Ukrainian terrorism and has zero effect on logistics of the army.
@union I suppose they don't actually need gasoline to move equipment then. Then them blowing up all of those gasoline tankers won't have any effect at all...
@union Supplied partially by rail, but rails do not run everywhere, Their trucks are getting stomped whenever they unload supplies from the rail then try to take them to the troops. They no longer have rail bridges to Crimea in the north, and because of damage to the Kerch bridge and the weight restrictions caused by such, they've been bringing in most of the supplies on the land bridge instead. They aren't allowing fuel trucks on the Kerch bridge because of the fear that they might have another sabotaged fuel truck take it the rest of the way out.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@kazriko I don't even want to know where you collect such nonsense. Some of it almost sounds like it may be true, but only a small fraction of it - mainly the hazmat restrictions on the bridge. The rest is just absurd bullshit ukroprop.