Glenn Diesen hosted a discussion on the likely use of nuclear weapons against Europe to restore deterrence. He clarifies the argument is predictive rather than normative. European leaders have become directly involved in attacks on Russia through weapons supplies, targeting, NATO territory use, and contractors. Russia will first respond conventionally against facilities and logistics centers. Diesen assesses that further European escalation makes a limited tactical nuclear strike by Russia more likely than not. He points to the absence of any defined NATO victory, the sabotage of the Minsk and Istanbul agreements, and four years without diplomacy. Leaders continue to claim the conflict remains only between Russia and Ukraine despite mass production of deeper-strike weapons and open dates for direct European attacks. Diesen contrasts this with Biden's earlier warnings on F-16s and notes that crossing from proxy to direct war will trigger nuclear response. The piece rejects the label of pro-Russian for simply identifying the escalation path.
There is a blurring of lines - the division between nuclear war and peace. The Russians have long said that nuclear weapons, as a last resort, bring peace, only because people will keep it as a last resort. However, as soon as one starts using them, we have an extinction-level series of events.
That's what we used them for in World War II. Don't kid yourself. The Russians do not play chicken. They have warned the West (meaning Europe) many times that they will use nuclear weapons against any "existential threat." One can view their development of hypersonic missiles as a means of extending conventional technology so as to defer the use of nuclear weapons.
Europe is still thinking that by striking first as NATO, it can sucker the United States into a conflict over Article 5 obligations. Except that Article 5 does not cover situations where NATO has struck the first blow. I'm sure that Lavrov et al. are discussing these matters continually with the U.S. back channels.
LOL, in so-and-so's opinion. You don't have to agree with anything you listen to, but that does mean one has to listen first, before disagreeing with it.
Kind of how like free speech works. So, censorship says more about the yanker than the depositor, or the author.
Glenn Diesen hosted a discussion on the likely use of nuclear weapons against Europe to restore deterrence. He clarifies the argument is predictive rather than normative. European leaders have become directly involved in attacks on Russia through weapons supplies, targeting, NATO territory use, and contractors. Russia will first respond conventionally against facilities and logistics centers. Diesen assesses that further European escalation makes a limited tactical nuclear strike by Russia more likely than not. He points to the absence of any defined NATO victory, the sabotage of the Minsk and Istanbul agreements, and four years without diplomacy. Leaders continue to claim the conflict remains only between Russia and Ukraine despite mass production of deeper-strike weapons and open dates for direct European attacks. Diesen contrasts this with Biden's earlier warnings on F-16s and notes that crossing from proxy to direct war will trigger nuclear response. The piece rejects the label of pro-Russian for simply identifying the escalation path.
SOURCE: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2066053453332258986 SOURCE (mirror): https://xcancel.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2066053453332258986
These people aren't thinking rationally. In my opinion, weapons like that aren't used just to "restore deterrence."
I think that is the point Diesen is making.
There is a blurring of lines - the division between nuclear war and peace. The Russians have long said that nuclear weapons, as a last resort, bring peace, only because people will keep it as a last resort. However, as soon as one starts using them, we have an extinction-level series of events.
That's what we used them for in World War II. Don't kid yourself. The Russians do not play chicken. They have warned the West (meaning Europe) many times that they will use nuclear weapons against any "existential threat." One can view their development of hypersonic missiles as a means of extending conventional technology so as to defer the use of nuclear weapons.
Europe is still thinking that by striking first as NATO, it can sucker the United States into a conflict over Article 5 obligations. Except that Article 5 does not cover situations where NATO has struck the first blow. I'm sure that Lavrov et al. are discussing these matters continually with the U.S. back channels.
Clear thinking. If only Europe thought so clearly.
...I thought Meirshimermer was a nonperson on GAW...
LOL, no such thing, Ashley.
LOL, no such thing, Ashley.''
...I had a really fine article written by him yanked because, I was told, Meirshimermer was compromised...
LOL, in so-and-so's opinion. You don't have to agree with anything you listen to, but that does mean one has to listen first, before disagreeing with it.
Kind of how like free speech works. So, censorship says more about the yanker than the depositor, or the author.
So, censorship says more about the yanker than the depositor.''
...I have enjoyed and respected his work for a very long time...
metoo