War, what is it good for?

[learnedSloth]

The all time high seems to be due to the helicopter crash. The other cases seem relatively insignificant too.

[Octavious]

Relative to what?

[learnedSloth]

To the helicopter crash where the leaders of the latest nuclear power died.

[Jamiet99uk]

Israel is now bombing the refugee camps around Rafah where they *told* civilians yo move to.

At least 35 civilians were killed in the most recent Israeli attack, some being BURNED ALIVE IN THEIR TENTS.

The genocidal horror Israel is willing to inflict knows no end. The entire Israeli government should be in jail.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The UK is allowing Ukraine to use the weapons it provided to strike targets inside Russia. Biden is under pressure to do the same and has hinted that this could happen without prior warning. This seems to reflect developments on the battlefield that have made missile strikes from Russia proper more relevant to its war effort.

I want Ukraine to win, I want Putin to lose, but I'm a little spooked by this.

The consensus seems to be that Russia is unlikely to escalate under nearly any circumstance and that it's important to call their nuclear bluff or else we'll be subject to a policy of appeasement indefinitely. I think this probably is a reasonable assessment of the situation, but even it's most vocal boosters must not believe it fully or they'd be pushing for NATO boots on the ground.

And even though disastrous escalation might not be likely, I find myself grappling with how huge the consequences would be if this sanguine view re: escalation proved to be wrong. An incensed Kremlin and Russian public really might do something foolish and the logic of "they won't escalate" goes in both directions — are we (NATO) really going to start WW3 in response to a tactical nuke or other Russian provocation? The Russians would have good reasons to think we wouldn't, which could embolden them.

All this to say I'm feeling cowardly today. I don't know if the "Chamberlain was wrong" mentality really holds in the nuclear age. I find myself constantly revising upwards the chance of nuclear conflict in my lifetime and it feels intolerable.

[Octavious]

It is bloody ridiculous. Our enthusiasm for risking destruction is terrifying. Sure, the odds are in favour of the end of the world not happening, but once we get into the habit of gambling with 1/100 chances of doomsday the idea of humanity surviving to the next millennium suddenly starts to look a bit far fetched.

We have spent countless billions and the sum of our achievements thus far can be counted in 100,000s of deaths, millions of refugees, and scores of leveled towns and cities. When a negotiated peace is achieved and Russia ends up with pretty much all the territory they said they wanted in the first place I hope the people responsible for this monumental diplomatic cock-up are strung up

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There have been some achievements. Russia's offensive capacity has been degraded — not that they were going to strike NATO, but Moldova and others in their situation must be cheering this. Ukraine's bargaining position in a potential settlement is much better than if they hadn't recieved support. After the fumble in Afghanistan some sort of NATO resolve over its red lines really may have tempered (or at least delayed) China's military adventurism.

But I agree entirely that we're being extremely cavalier with unacceptable risks. A small increase in the chance of ending most life on earth needs to be regarded as unacceptable. Our adversaries have recognized that some 20th century geopolitical compromises (Ukraine, Taiwan) are up for grabs, mainly because the West really doesn't have the resolve to fight for them. it's amazing to me how far we're willing to go in terms of reciprocated military and nuclear brinkmanship with Russia and China while, at the same time, maintaining deep economic ties with them (the EU is still buying Russian energy lol). It's deeply unserious and very scary.

[orathaic]

Striking troops as the build up to cross the border is a valid defence of Ukraine. Shooting down Russian bombers are they fly towards Ukraine (but are still in Russian airspace) about to drop glide bombs which will likewise cross over and blow up Ukrainians is a valid defensive.

There are already boots on the ground, mostly in a co-ordination capacity, but that is likely to expand to a training role as France and Lithuania (I think) have already offer to send trainers (France also wants their trainers to learn about drone warfare and all the advances which have happened in this war).

Every 'red line' which the Western power have crossed so far has resulted in Russia not using Nukes, so long as the defensive strikes into Russia territory (shelling, missile and drone strikes) are local and close to the border, I think this will not result in escalation.

The US has allowed limited use around the Kharkiev area to protect the city from Russian shelling. A NATO enforced no fly-zone is still off the table, but Ukraine may end up with their own F-16s effectively managing to enforce the same before the end of the year.

[Jamiet99uk]

Its still pretty frightening.

[orathaic]

Its still pretty frightening.

Which part?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

A direct NATO-Russia conflict could rapidly devolve into nuclear conflict. We're not there yet but we seem to be inching closer every day with no endgame in mind, other than maybe Trump winning the election and haphazardly cutting support to Ukraine (also a terrible scenario IMO).

Financial support for Ukraine didn't cross the line. Arming and training Ukrainian soldiers didn't cross the line. Now we're testing whether giving them missiles and jet planes to strike targets inside Russia will cross the line. I agree if probably won't, but I'm seeing a pattern that looks like we're keen to find the line and cross it as the war gets more desperate.

We can't use a Bayesian approach here. The evidence about what actions didn't constitute a Russian red line don't tell us about where the real line is or when we'll cross it. We'll only know that once something disastrous and irreversible happens.

Maybe we'll keep gambling and winning, in which case many will be glad we stayed the course and won this game of chicken. But we're going to do it all over again for Taiwan sometime in the next couple decades. And likely several times more in great power conflicts over my lifetime. Getting as close as possible to nuclear red lines seems like it will be the defining logic of 21st century warfare. It's nauseating and dreadful.

[Octavious]

Every 'red line' which the Western power have crossed so far has resulted in Russia not using Nukes

You're using the observation that everyone isn't dead yet as a yardstick for success? Thank you, ora, for giving me a new insight into the mentality of 19th century railway safety officials .

The biggest motivation for Russia not using nukes is that they're winning with the status quo, so why change it?

The Russian military in some respects has taken a beating. Its Black Sea fleet has been neutered, and a lot of its state of the art equipment has been found wanting. But this has effectively trimmed the deadwood, bells and whistles and left behind a far uglier but more effective, battle hardened and realistic military. On paper it may have fewer capabilities, but it is a considerably tougher opponent than it was. If the Russian military of today had launched the invasion of a few years ago then Ukraine wouldn't have stood a chance.

The Russian economy is holding up far better than anyone had any right to expect. Putin's political position looks as secure as ever. The political situation in Europe and the Americas is looking rather shaky.

[Jamiet99uk]

Over 120 Palestinan corpses discovered after Israeli troops move out of Jabalia refugee camp:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240602-over-120-palestinian-bodies-recovered-2-days-after-israeli-forces-left-jabalia-camp/