Russia floods Ukraine, and tankies flood Twitter
With such destruction, what need for nuclear weapons?
It remains true that a conflict between nuclear powers would be beyond foolish. So how should NATO react?
The New York Times has weighed in: "A deliberate explosion inside the Kakhovka dam, on the front line of the war in Ukraine, most likely caused its collapse on Tuesday, according to engineering and munitions experts, who said that structural failure or an attack from outside the dam were possible but less plausible explanations." – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-russia.html (paywall)
I'm done. It's time for NATO to declare WAR on Russian and end this atrocity. This is equal, if not worse, than a tactical nuke.
Snyder’s point that advancing armies in history don’t blow up dams right in front of themselves, has to be the most commonsense argument as to why Ukraine didn’t do it, even if one knew none of the other info about Russia’s plans to blow it up. Every news outlet should lead with that. I would like to see what theoretical gymnastics Tucker Carlson would resort to, to counter it. So so stupid and so incredibly insulting
Yuk. The Russian destruction (on steroids) of Ukraine suggests to me that Russians are losing the war. How does that effect Russian psyche? I ask because I do not want Russia to become even more cuckoo. Years ago, a friend went cuckoo and engaged in harm to his own reputation by acting cruel towards others. Among Russia’s allies, I imagine some are “Changing the locks at home”, so to speak- because of Russian performance in Ukraine.
On Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk; politicized perspectives on both the left and right lock people into rigid “opposition to political enemy at home” mindset. If you asked many “off-camera”, and independent of any political consequence at home, you would encounter greater honesty, and empathy for Ukraine.
Claire- thank you for attention to Russia-Ukraine war.
The Russians have just committed a major escalation in this war.
Will the West react aggressively, as it should, or passively stay the course? I hope it is the former.
The only acceptable way for this war to end is with Ukraine in full control of all its territory, including Crimea and the Eastern provinces.
As Claire and others pointed out very early in the conflict, Russia is running a similar playbook to the one they used in Chechnya and Syria - do whatever it takes to gain an advantage. Their willingness to break every convention and rule of civilised conduct makes them, in Putin's view, superior.
I see that some strategic commentators are suggesting that Putin is now moving to a mode of maximum destruction - achieve "victory" by deliberately making Ukraine untenable as a functioning state and creating a massive disaster area that causes long term problems for western europe and their Ukraine-adjacent allies. There's some logic to that, and if it's true then the west has to find a way of reacting that will change the perspective of Putin and other key Russians.
Otherwise, as Claire says, this is going to escalate further, and if nuclear weapons seem like a useful option, then Russia will use them.
However, I don't think we should fixate on just the nukes - there are other dams under Russian control, and other ways to cause further environmental disasters for Ukraine.
Here’s what we can conclude; Putin is a monster and Joe Biden and his neoconservative allies in America’s Uniparty got the war that they yearned for.
"The destruction of the dam was, among other things, a way for Putin to test how the West would react to the detonation of a nuclear weapon."
And this is the key.
If Putin can use a weapon of mass destruction like the dam with no consequences, he has conditioned us for the next escalation.
Better said, Putin apologists in the west have conditioned us.
Many Americans are like Neville Chamberlain, expressing distaste for "a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing."
Well, we know where ignorance leads.