Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: Is anyone else genuinely scared that this is the start of WW3?
159 points by azalemeth on Feb 27, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 347 comments
Russia has invaded Ukraine, and four days on I feel powerless to both do anything (in a country that is neither of those two!) and to look away from the news and social media coverage of it. It's an abhorrent waste of human life.

News and reports today of Russian ICBMs and other nuclear forces being placed on high alert (and moved further towards the west of the country) [1] frankly scares me. While some observers think that this is "overplaying" his hand [2] I know that all of this is deeply concerning. The world does _not_ need another cuban missile crisis; it also does _not_ need to vanish in a pile of radioactive smoke.

I live in Europe. My father sent me a message to essentially ask if I'd had a thought about where my nearest "shelter" would be -- and I had. My partner's family have too. It feels awful, but I can't concentrate effectively -- I'm glued to the news and I need to put it down, convince myself that the world won't end tomorrow, and get back to work.

Am I the only person affected similarly by events? How else have you been coping with it all?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin-puts-russia-nuclear-deterrence-forces-on-high-alert-ukraine

[2] https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/02/25/is-putin-overplaying-his-hand-by-moving-icbms-into-western-russia/




I would argue that you're getting sucked into the news cycle a bit more than is probably healthy, if you're feeling real anxiety.

Maybe turn off the news for a few days to relax? It may seem like Very Important Things are happening right now, but honestly, as someone who does watch the news pretty obsessively, you can construe basically anything into being Very Important.

All of the most likely outcomes for what's happening in Ukraine are not impactful to you in any real way. The very unlikely outcomes are more impactful, but specifically the odds of a nuclear war is vanishingly small. Not zero, and meaningfully larger than a week ago, but still infinitesimally small.

Take a walk outside, pet your dog/cat, hug a loved one, watch a funny movie. That's what I do when I get really wrapped up in the news cycle. :)

We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, hardly any of this matters.


I sort of view it this way too, news media is having a collective orgasm over the bonanza of fear porn they have been hyping up for over a month now. Social media has also taken and ran with it, the front page of reddit is plastered with anecdotes, speculation and armchair geopolitical discussions of people trying to rationalize something they don't quite understand.

At the end of the day, Russia isn't this big bad world power that is capable of starting a war on a global scale, they are a declining power that also happens to have a lot of nukes. So realistically the most they can do is limited to what they are doing now, which won't start a world war and will most likely conclude in a way that causes no change to the lives of most people outside of the affected region. On the extremely small chance that they do go nuclear, worrying about it is pointless since it will change society so dramatically that there simply would be no way to prepare for it. Its like how you don't worry about getting hit by a car and becoming a paraplegic in your day to day life.


> over a month now

I'd argue this started with Corona - regardless of how dangerous you consider that virus to be that's where people's fear tolerance was raised to new heights and needs to be matched now or clicks go down.


Absolutely. As someone with a fair level of subject matter expertise in the area, I've spent much of the last two years disgusted with the distortions/exaggerations of the news media, to the point where I basically don't read or listen to the news anymore. Certainly nothing from the ad-driven media, which is almost universally garbage. It's the same pattern the GP describes for Russia: exaggeration of obscure, tail risks and uncertainty. If you speculate, speculate to the negative outcome and ignore the positive or neutral possibilities. Emphasize scary anecdotes and ignore or downplay any facts that would lead a reasonable person away from panic.

I was regular consumer of NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, and many others. Now I just don't read or listen to them. I skim a few international providers, I have some subscriptions (i.e. paid subscriptions to news providers that don't depend on ads) and podcasts, and that's it. Covid eliminated nearly all of my "news" consumption habits.


This man is correct and the last sentences the conclusion to live by

please enjoy this picture of a much more likely outcome https://i.ibb.co/NCxyWqx/image.png


Normally I would agree with this take. I'm also in Europe and feel similar to the OP though. I recognise that I'm doomscrolling but this feels different to other "bad things in the world that have happened in my lifetime" (I'm in my 40's). I live 12h drive from the border of Ukraine. In addition my outrage at the Russian invasion and what's happening to the Ukrainians, it also feels uncomfortably close.


It is close. Less than a good days driving. But don't let that proximity get to you too much, the dangers are just the same if you live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, to believe otherwise is an illusion. If it remains a conventional war then there is no way that the Russians will manage to do much without being beaten savagely, but at the same time that is exactly why if they decide to press on things could well get out of hand.


I live near the centre of a large city in the UK. I suspect that we here are more likely to be a target if there is a nuclear exchange than people close to Ukraine or Russia.

However, I also think that a nuclear exchange is still very unlikely. Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border.

I'm hoping for/dreading one of those cold war fudges we had back in the bad old days. Some horse trading, perhaps a partition of the Ukraine with attendant population sorting and so on. Negotiations about force reductions and all of that.

It took the US/Alliance army of 180 000 plus air cover a month to render the conscript Iraq army non-operational and to gain some tenuous control of Iraq (or at least the major cities) in 2003. Putin must have had a time-scale of weeks in mind for this operation.

I shall be disconnecting from wall to wall news coverage next week as I do have anxiety issues sometimes. At the end of the day none of us here can do much.


> Putin is also suggesting talks on the Belarus/Ukraine border.

The word is that the Russians will suggest that they unconditionally surrender or Kyiv will get the 'Grozny' treatment. I'm pretty sure of the outcome there, but of course anything could happen.


They already suggested the unconditional surrender but I doubt that the threat of Grozny treatment will be enough for Ukraine to fold. They need something else. Something more convincing and I can't think of anything. Even if they only have the Grozny threat on the table and they go and act on it, in practice it will make the russian position much worse because Ukraine is not Chechnya, it's in a much better position (I could enumerate the differences but I think they are obvious).


Have you forgotten the global pandemic and impending climate disaster?


> I live 12h drive from the border of Ukraine.

The closer you live to Russia the more this conflict matters. The more your country relies on the globalized economy the more this matters. This war is a big wake-up call to Europe, and many developing nations are in big trouble that Russian oil and Russian and Ukrainian wheat might not make it to market. The United States will have to put up with higher commodity prices and we should step up measures to support the poor and deal with less until the market can adjust.


Two weeks ago Ukraine accused the US of being unnecessarily pessimistic, that US analysis of satellite imagery was no match for Ukraine's deeper understanding of Russia's true motivations, that movements of troops and matériel were merely the adversary's negotiating style, that there was little likelihood of an actual invasion.

There's a tendency for smart people to downplay and underestimate legitimate existential threats. Most of us recognize the clear signs of war, of fascism, of catastrophe only in hindsight.

Perhaps the optimists can sketch out how they think this plays out if Ukraine puts up a more effective and tenacious defense than expected.

If supply lines are cut, if fuel, food and ammunition can't reach the front lines, if Russia is globally isolated, if the ruble collapses, if the wealth of oligarchs held abroad is frozen and seized.

Do the optimists believe Russia will just back down and go home in humiliation, tail between their legs?


Ukrainian President said that not because he didn't believe in Russia's invasion, but because he didn't want to provoke panic in his population, which would made war preparations more difficult. Even today he is trying to project calm and optimistic image, because it helps the war effort.


> didn't want to provoke panic in his population

Now he's calling for the West to shoot down Russian planes, and his government is handing out tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles to untrained bakers and school teachers.

If he always believed Russia would invade, surely it would have been better to start a bit earlier with the no-fly zone and training school teachers with weapons and sabotage.


1) Putin was looking for any pretext to attack. He told his people that this war is just a response to Ukraine's aggression (and most of Russian citizens believe that Russian army is protecting innocent children from being killed by Ukrainian Nazis). So Ukraine tried to avoid any aggressive step.

2) They are handling rifles out because they just now arrived from the multiple countries that are helping Ukraine. Before that, they trained with wooden rifles.


Paradoxically the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen. When it comes to predicting the future, the 'media news cycle' clearly overfits the latest data points.

(Please don't make this comment say what it doesn't. What's going on is terrible.)


>> the fact that everyone is talking about WW3 makes me think it is very likely not going to happen

What relationship do the 2 have? The news talking about WW3 or not talking about it doesn't affect whether Russia will use a nuclear weapon.


I mean, when you think about the eventual heat death of the universe, nothing really matters in the end. Embrace nihilism.


Always thought Nihilism was about having the power to choose what has meaning, what matters. That "Nothing matters" or "everything is meaningless" is a common misunderstanding / trope.


"Nothing matters" is a usually cheerful statement coming from a true nihilist, because it's leaving off the implicit "nothing matters [in an objective external sense so meaning is subjectively determined]". They're both halves of the same statement, it's just that edgelords who don't bother to grasp the ethics of nihilism stop understanding at the first 2 words.


I'm not sure about Nihilism, but Nietzsche is certainly often misunderstood in exactly that way.


I am not a philosopher. What I know about nihilism comes from watching the Big Lebowski.


That must be exhausting.


I thought those guys were Nazis?


The problem with nihilism is, despite being logically coherent, it isn't useful. No society is built on meaninglessness. You have to have faith in something that isn't logically provable to provide base assumptions for whatever your value system is.

If Cavemen were nihilists, we'd never have figured out fire.


I think nihilism provides value in the same way that "rock bottom" does for an alcoholic. On a practical basis my life is mostly habit, obligation and pre-framed viewpoints that I accept unreflectively for entirely pragmatic reasons.

Which is fine, otherwise you spend a lot of time wondering what a table is, why do anything, etc, but stripping back your beliefs to as close to nothing as you can is an experience worth going through at least once in your life - there's no way to viscerally understand axioms except to think about why they are there, and why they can't be different.

Yes, nihilism can prompt personal crisis or even suicide. But the experience is fundamental even if we don't name it, so the idea provides utility to society because it gives us a vocabulary and a framework for processing the experience of rejecting and understanding meaning itself. You can't have true agency without understanding that meaning itself is a construct. A culture which recognises crisis of meaning is a deeper culture than one which perhaps recognises that some situations are "sad" or that sometimes things are tactically difficult ,or that some people might have conflicting interests (looking at you Disney).

Personally I think nihilism is a key stage in moral development "for people who think real hard about stuff". Yes, everyone doing this at the same time would have bad outcomes.

The (shared) social utility of nihilism is a kind of "looking in the eyes" of people who are experiencing the absurdity of life, seeing through the words and looking at what is there. The currency of the idea promotes an acceptance of that and therefore I believe that a vigorous society should embrace the experience of nihilism for those people that are ready for it.


It's a tough line to walk. Nihilism might be right, but people who find something to live for seem to have a lot easier time getting out of bed in the morning while they are alive.


Yeah following this to its logical conclusion actually results in a pretty depressing outlook. I used to feel this way when I first graduated college, now I’ve learned that there can definitely be meaning in our experience. Also scientists don’t necessarily agree that heat death is inevitable, there’s still some debate. Basically I’ve become more of an optimist since and it’s made me feel a lot happier in general.


But we don't even know that will be the end of our universe. Could be something else. Who knows, technology might make us truly immortal, even beyond the bounds of this universe.

Point is, absolute certainty in anything, even the end of the universe, is always misguided.


Are you certain of that?


I was thinking about my career and what I should be doing in the next few months, and then reading your comment, I stopped for a minute at "We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, almost none of this matters. ". Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present.


> living fully in the present

But that’s what (other) animals do, humans are different, in that they live in the past (memories), in the future (dreaming, planning, preparing, learning), and consuming fiction and playing games (which, honestly, I wouldn’t call “living in the moment,” either). So, what’s left in the moment is eating, having sex, fighting, talking, being afraid, being sick, feeling cold…


> Then I realized that it doesn't really matter if I get my dream job or make a ton of money, the only thing that matters is living fully in the present.

Yeah, your future self is going to hate you for this.

I mean you (hopefully) don't smoke and drink everyday, because it feels great at the time, but it will shorten and/or reduce your life in a number of significant ways.

A bit of both is probably the best strategy.


It always was like that.


I would normally agree about the news thing; like Taleb recently said [1], the news is 99.9% noise, 0.1% signal. But these past few days it's been all signal. This is the kind of stuff you should be paying attention to.

[1] https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1497943606962839552


Exactly. I was flabbergasted at the sheer number of Ukranians I've seen interviewed by the media that said they didn't believe it would actually happen etc. I followed every development since it started at the end of last year and by the time it was announced that blood supplies had been moved in around a month before the invasion actually happened that led me to believe actually there really is likely to be an invasion as you wouldn't need blood otherwise. Then the next big, big clue was the soldiers sticking around in Belarus after the Olympics ended. That was your first major warning to get out. I can't quite remember the order in which the next few things happened exactly, but certainly when Putin announced he was recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk you could tell his plan was actively underway. The next big tip-off that the invasion was close was when China told its diplomats to leave. My assumption is that Russia would have given China a heads up to avoid surprising China and creating tensions. That would have been my signal to exit the country and my bags would have already been packed and plans firmly made. The next critical signal was that Russia itself told its diplomats to leave. There's only one reason Russia itself would tell its diplomats to leave. After I saw that news I thought to myself... hmm there isn't anything more Putin needs to do to actually be ready to invade, so next comes Z-day. Then they invaded.

If you were paying close attention and could connect the dots you absolutely had ample warning to get the hell out of dodge. I agree, this is the type of news you should be paying attention to.


Taleb is the kind of person who tries very hard to have something insightful to say about every situation. Sometimes he nails it, sometimes he's off the mark.

I don't read this and think, "He's right!" I just read this and think, "Looks like he fell into the media well and is trying to post-hoc justify it."

Admittedly it's a safe bet on my part, because if I'm wrong, we'll all be dead!


I had an argument some time ago with another person about this. People seem obsessed with the news. My view is, news are intentionally made stressing. If you being informed of something doesn't change its outcome in any meaningful way then why bother reading about it?

I try to limit what I read about because of that. If I wouldn't do so, I would fall into an endless tunnel of worrying news around the world.


Uh, yes it matters if we die now vs later. I enjoy my life and intend on keeping it.


Are you in Eastern Europe? Are you a presidential advisor, or advising a large multi-national of some sort?

If not, then there is not only just about zero you can do about the current situation, but worrying about it is actively interfering with the now in that life - and obsessively following the news will likely destroy every now while you do.


If you spend your time anxiety ridden in anticipation of nuclear war... are you enjoying it?


I'm at present not enjoying it. I have decided to buy a spa pool this weekend so I can be both anxiety ridden and at least somewhat enjoying it.


I literally just said "I enjoy my life". Does it sound like I'm too worried to enjoy it?


Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are?


This post was at the top of HN a few days ago and does a great job explaining, IMO.

https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-...


Previously, much larger armies of tanks, rotorcraft, and tactical nuclear missiles faced each other across the Iron Curtain for 40 years without anyone blinking.

If anything, this is a return to historical tension levels between the West and Russia.

If poster feels tension, do something to prepare. Whatever that means to them, and whatever gives them comfort.


I think the results will be far less exciting that people envision: it will end with a diplomatic solution after some "peace talk" negotiations.

There are never any true "winners" of a war, it will costs millions, the Russian people have greatly suffered (and will continue to for years as a result of this), many Ukrainians have equally suffered and lost their lives.

It will also have an impact on the worlds economy (to what extent, I don't know, I'm not an expert).

What a waste.

My prayers goes out to all those suffering.


> Has anyone done a decent job explaining what the most likely outcomes actually are?

There is only one outcome here: Ukraine becomes a Russian client state.

Russia then decouples from the West. Other African and Asian countries start thinking in similar terms. You cannot have the US and Europe determine your national security interests by using the threat of sanctions as a Damocles sword all the time.

Russia controls the second most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Ukraine is wishful thinking.


The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking.


Incidentally Russia never did very well in Afghanistan either.

You don't win insurgencies, especially when people are defending their homes and money and material is coming from outside.


> The United States military is the most powerful military on the planet. Any suggestion that they will be defeated in Afghanistan is wishful thinking.

The US is not Russia and Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden is not Putin. While no one can predict what he is thinking, the Second Chechen War could be a template if the Ukrainian leadership does not yield.


Putin is not Yeltsin, Ukraine is not Chechnya, Zelanskyy is not Yandarbiyev, and 1999 is not 2021, so no, the Second Chechen War would not be a valid template.

I, too, can needlessly zoom in to try and refute any comparisons to other situations.

If anything, not being applicable to Afghanistan is even worse for Russia, considering how little international support Afghanistan received, and how much worse at urban warfare the Russian military is compared to the US military.


> comparisons to other situations.

It is not about random comparisons but the will to follow through on what must be done. The US had no real stake in Afghanistan. Russia did in Chechnya and it does in Ukraine.

We will know in a few weeks what his plan is as it is executed on the ground.


Russia has a lot less to gain (hardly anything real) than Ukranians have to lose, which is why the Afghanistan comparison is apt.

And no, we won't have any clue about what "his" plan was, because it's already failed. Now we will see how Russia's military reacts to initial failure.


> Russia then decouples from the West.

Who are they going to sell their oil and gas to, then?


Pakistan PM Khan is in Moscow right after the invasion declaring "it is an exciting time." He's working on a gas pipeline deal with Putin.


> Who are they going to sell their oil and gas to, then?

The world is full of countries who want oil and gas. Even the US and Europe have left open a big hole in their sanctions for oil/gas supplies because they need Russian fossil fuels.


> The world is full of countries who want oil and gas.

So they’re going to replace “selling to the highest bidder” with “selling to the 10th highest bidder”. That’ll do wonders for Russia’s economy, I’m sure.


The US doesn't need Russian oil. It's 7% of the country's total petroleum imports, compared to over 50% for Canadian oil.


full disclosure im 100% sucked into the news cycle.

That said I think the new development of belarus passing a referendum, updating its constitution to allow Russian nukes, and also join the war against Ukraine is serious.

Im not saying this is WW3, but I would feel better it Putin had just overtaken Ukraine quickly.

Who knows what the reality is, but if youre following western media it seems like Russia is losing.

This leaves Putin few options,

1. Continue conventional warfare and hope things get better, while sanctions bleed Russia out economically, and Ukraine receives more weapons and overall support.

2. Back out with his tail between his legs. This was supposed to be a show of force and military might, so it's going to be a tough pill to swallow for his ego.

3. make something up, like nato is supporting Ukraine too much and he has no choice but to use the nukes...


What worries me is that there is a situation here where Russia benefits from launching nukes beyond just having no option / nothing to lose.

If Russia nukes the West and China remains neutral avoiding an attack, then they would almost certainly take the US's place as the global superpower. Russia would obviously be nuked in retaliation, but Putin himself likely wouldn't die in the attack and could probably strike a deal with Xi to rebuild Russia and Russia's empire with China's aid.

Obviously it wouldn't be good news for China if all their main trading partners suddenly got wiped of the face of the Earth, but they'd get through it after several years and would no longer need to worry about the West.

My concern is what if nuclear war actually benefits Xi & Putin at this moment in time? During the cold war the USSR was a super power -- they had everything to lose. Now they have very little and we have a lot... The calculation is completely different today. The cost of nuclear war for Russia is dramatically lower than it ever was for the USSR.


> We're all going to die in 40-60 years anyway, hardly any of this matters.

On the bright side, Putin will be dead in 10-20

This too shall pass


I felt the same way over the first two days, and still do to an extent, but somewhat found a way out.

We live in pretty much central Europe. My wife is Ukrainian and that language is one of three commonly spoken in our household. As I'm not from Europe either, I feel like I have integrated quite a lot into the Ukrainian community. We have family and friends directly imperilled by the war.

After "doom scrolling" through various Telegram groups for the first couple of days, I'm now actually doing something. The local Ukrainian community is collecting food and medicines. These will be driven to the border and used to assist arriving refugees. I'm talking to local people and businesses about donations. I'm signed up to be a driver in the next days.

I don't want to look back in five years time and realise all I did was follow events online, when I have a genuine opportunity to help people. Our son is also old enough to understand what's happening to his family (grandmother, cousins etc). I'd like him to look back in later years and realise his father did something to try and make a difference.

My point is, if you can't log off and checkout as has been very validly suggested by other people on this thread, at least try to find a way to be involved and assist. Even if you're the other side of the world, contact your local Ukrainian community group and see what they need in terms of assistance.


This is a heartwarming comment.


I think he's bluffing with the nukes. He knows that if he launched one, 3-4 other countries would launch theirs at him. It's also been made exceedingly clear that the moment the Russian army sets foot outside of Ukraine, the full weight of the western world will come crashing down on it. His forces are struggling enough fighting just Ukraine, whose army is dramatically smaller and less-equipped. I don't think they could hope to take on the U.S. army, much less the entire rest of Europe, especially if still meeting resistance in Ukraine. And I don't think China wants to get involved.

I would be worried about Ukraine. I'm not really worried about this spreading to the rest of the world.


China doesn't want to get involved in Europe, but Taiwan is sure looking tasty right now for them. They've been wanting it for decades, and now the world is preoccupied with Europe.


AFAIK China lacks sufficient military resources to actually take Taiwan. You can't just drive tanks and people across the strait.


China needs Russia's support vs. Taiwan. It seems like this is would be a horrible time to try something


> China needs Russia's support

When Russia gets kicked out of UN, they won’t.


Tawain is being handed back anyway. China is patient


I'm sorry, when did the US Navy withdraw from SE Asia?

Plus right now the US is making a show of strength against invasions by authoritarian dictators, and Biden has stated that we have "obligations" to Taiwan, although he was intentionally vague he basically said the silent part out loud. It would be political suicide to not respond to a Chinese invasion, and we could respond quite decisively from a military perspective.

China will wait for a more opportune moment.


When everyone thinks American military spending is ridiculous, the fact that we maintain a two-ocean Navy (with parity to potential adversaries) is a key component of that. By law and design, the expectation is that the US should be able to fight a major war in the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time.


Everyone's military spending is ridiculous. As someone who's more of an isolationist, I have to concede that having a large military is very important, or else our country and its freedoms are toast. The real problem is the people in charge of said military. Not the size. The difficulty is in maintaining and responsibly controlling that force.


I'm not sure it would be political suicide, since although Taiwan is becoming more popular with Americans, does that translate to a stomach for WW3?


Americans in general are stubborn to a fault and full of ourselves internationally. It would be less altruism to save Taiwan and more "fuck China". The sanctions on Russia are predicted to make gasoline prices soar, especially on the West Coast, and it's anecdotal but the conversations I'm hearing are less polite versions of "fine, I'm willing to pay a little more at the pump to stick it to Putin". Although I'm not on the west coast I'd agree with the sentiment.

Then you have Republicans, right now they're deriding Biden for going soft on Putin and blaming him for this crisis (not sure how many are buying it outside of Trump's base, but that's the line). So going soft on a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would play right into that message. No way Biden could do it for that reason alone, let alone the myriad of other motivations.


It's not a "fuck China" thing. It would be a severe short-term tactical blunder to lose Taiwan, not even considering the moral perspective. Modern military cannot function without semiconductors. And yes, we could (and are starting to) move those facilities to the US, but that takes a lot of time to complete. Not only to complete, but to get up to speed and running efficiently. If Taiwan is lost, our enemies bolster their semiconductor supply, and we lose the majority of ours.


>I think he's bluffing with the nukes.

I read this a lot but I also read some historical analysis about the Cuban Missile Crisis that a lot of the escalation stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding about their opponent's strategy. It might be a huge oversimplification but it goes something like this:

Americans are playing poker (with all its specific tactics like bluffing) and are judging their opponents based on that, while Russians are playing chess and therefore assume "the bluff" is in fact their opponent's next escalation move.


At that time the Russians had more sane leaders.


Not really, the whole security apparatus was run be insanely paranoid men who were convinced that capitalist imperialist forces were secretly plotting to destroy the Soviet Union despite never finding real evidence of such a plot.


> He knows that if he launched one, 3-4 other countries would launch theirs at him.

Would they, though? And even if we take it as given that they would, do we believe that he believes that? The West, and especially USA, has made a number of empty threats over the past couple of decades it's not hard to see why he may not consider this one credible.


What would be the tell tales of actual nuclear war? Surely he'd go then for baltics, USA, whole of europe. He'd also place his military in predictable locations to have best chances of protecting Russia after - something that is easily tracked via sats.


Launching a nuke to Kiev in the current situation is very much within the realm of possibilities, if unlikely. No other country would intervene with military force even if they did, because nobody wants a two-sided nuclear war.


> No other country would intervene with military force even if they did, because nobody wants a two-sided nuclear war.

That is a serious underestimation.


No, it's a fact. The West is not going to risk the Apocalypse for Ukraine. Unless Russia directly attacks a NATO country, there is practically nothing they can do to trigger a war between NATO and Russia.


I mean NATO is already involved with NATO countries supplying arms. The UK foreign secretary has even said that people have her full support if they want to go and fight for Ukraine (which is beyond irresponsible).


> if they want to go and fight for Ukraine (which is beyond irresponsible)

Why irresponsible? My take on it was that message was aimed at Ukrainians living in the UK who wanted to go and fight. Your average Brit isn't even going to humour that idea.


> The West is not going to risk the Apocalypse for Ukraine.

If Putin is launching nukes, it has nothing to do with Ukraine anymore. The choices are “do we let a madman play with nukes or not?" I think the answer is pretty obvious.


Could sanctions get bad enough for Russia to retaliate?


The next move will be a tactical nuke. Maybe targeting the black sea, any target not causing real casualties.


Just the radioactive fallout.


They can do a clean detonation if they detonate high enough in the atmosphere for the blast to not kick up and irradiate any dust. For a while now I've been convinced that a show of force like this is part of his plan in order to force a change in the calculus of his adversaries and get them on the back foot.


You can't reason with a madman. There are rumours that Putin has a terminal illness and is trying to finish what he started while he can. If he doesn't get what he wants, who knows what he's capable of. I said he was bluffing when amassing troops on the border and I was totally wrong.

I'm also not convinced that his forces in Ukraine are failing. I hope they are. But it's more likely Russia is only sending in the bare minimum they think will be necessary to minimise losses. They might have underestimated but Russia can win if they're playing the long game.


He has children. Does he not care about them? They are adults, perhaps he has grandchildren even. Is he really so deranged that he is willing to give up the world? I don't know. It is very puzzling.


Narcissists don't really care about other people. They only care about themselves.

Think 'Jim Jones', not 'Elder statesman with children'.


Stalin had a wife and kids, and there were times he appeared to care about them, such as his efforts to keep Beria away from his young daughter. But otherwise, Stalin clearly cared nothing for human life in general. He stopped the Great Purge of his own people in 1937 only after it became clear that it was starting to drag down the economy.

Putin has given no indication that he's any different from Stalin in this regard.


Stalin refused Germans' offer to exchange his captured son for one of their field marshals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Dzhugashvili


Who knows, maybe he doesn't. Psychopaths have children. Maybe he will find himself backed into a corner and will want to go out with a bang so he at least goes into the history books. Megalomania is not to be underestimated.

Getting some flak for my OP. Not sure why, did I say something controversial?


I think being optimistic in this situation is actually harmful. It really is worth considering looking for a shelter because Putin has already proven with this war he does not care about anyone's life from any side. And if he is to lose this, to him it may even be as good as being dead. The optimism reminds me of the time we first found out about the Coronavirus and we went on with our head in the sand until it hit hard.


He's bluffing with Crimea.

Oh wait!

He's bluffing with separatist regions.

Oh wait!

He's bluffing with invading Ukraine.

Oh wait!

He's bluffing with actual war.

Oh wait!

... TL;DR: Putin thinks a nuclear war is winnable. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

NB: do you really think Putin cares how you feel?


Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? I'm sure you have good reasons for feeling strongly but the site guidelines don't stop applying when bad things are happening—actually that's just when they should apply the most.

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Even though there's a war going on and it's scary and activating, it's possible to discuss the topic without breaking those guidelines. Plenty of other users are demonstrating that in this very thread.


> He's bluffing with Crimea.

> Oh wait!

> He's bluffing with separatist regions.

> Oh wait!

> He's bluffing with invading Ukraine.

> Oh wait!

These are all straw men. I don't know any serious analysts who thought he was bluffing in any of those areas, primarily because they all understood the Western response would be muted.

He knows, as the rest of the world does, that launching nuclear war will require an all-out response from Western powers.


They're not strawmen, especially the last. There were quite a few intelligent ppl who seriously thought there's no way he was going to war with Ukraine.


Were those "quite a few intelligent people" not watching the news? The US has been explicit about the intelligence for weeks/months now. Even if you wanted to discount the US intelligence, the military buildup surrounding Ukraine was unmistakable.

Biden was quoted as saying the Russian attack had unfolded "largely as predicted". Pretending the invasion was some sort of great shocker is a rewrite of history.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-24/biden-...


The linked article is very informative; it includes things I'd not read elsewhere.

For instance, it talks about Putin's willingness to use "battlefield" nukes rather than "strategic" city-destroying nukes – betting that the West would immediately concede any war where a smaller nuke were deployed in the interest of avoiding escalation.


My bet several weeks before he invaded was that he'd deploy a tactical nuke against the Ukranian military (not necessarily against civilians causing mass casualty) to remove the ability of the West to call his bluff on using nukes and hence affect their calculus. This has the effect of making it crystal clear to NATO that they absolutely cannot put boots on the ground in Ukraine under any circumstances, and secondly it is a massive psychological blow to the Ukranian people themselves. The pundits and talking heads are always saying "I don't get his end-game here, he can't hold these people down, they will resist!" and my suspicion has been he may attempt to frighten the shit out of them into obeying. The other effect such a move may be intended to have is change the calculus of any further non-NATO former soviet countries he may try to go into next if he is successful in Ukraine, as he could essentially win without having to fight potentially.

My guess would be that if he deployed tactical nukes in Ukraine in some capacity NATO would not respond by launching a retaliatory nuclear attack as that would be MAD. Rather they would take the other nuclear option of completely cutting 100% of the banks out of SWIFT and freezing all oil and gas exports in an attempt to completely cripple Russia while eating the pain of those sanctions on their own territories, as I think the people would support it. Secondly I think it would be enough to galvanise millions of Russians to take to the streets and march against Putin to end his reign. This is the scenario I'm currently betting on playing out.


Nuclear war is a HUGE step up from any of the previous steps. Like you could build a binary system based on those principles, with Nuclear War being 1 and the rest being noise that's equivalent to 0.

The only way he'd entertain it is if he's truly lost his marbles, and if that's the case then this timeline just got a whole lot shittier regardless of whether we capitulate to the madman with the nukes or not. I sincerely doubt western institutions are going to show their bellies because of Putin's nuclear threats, so we'll see if he's bluffing one way or another.


You are assuming a rational actor. Putin may not be a rational actor.


And if he isn't?

Then we have nuclear war. Or we let Putin dictate international politics for however long he has left, and tell China/North Korea/every other bad actor that gets nukes for the rest of time that the game is "be serious about launching nukes offensively and you'll get whatever you want". How do you think that'll work long term?

It's that, or Putin at least maintains a shred of rationality. Or his inner circle takes him out before he pushes the button.


That's normally my comment.

For those that still insist that Putin is rational, there's one way to model his current behaviour: his utility function prioritises "make Russia great again", or at the very least, geopolitical concerns. He's willing to take whatever hit he needs to take, whether economically or in the lives of soldiers and civilians, to achieve this goal.


Go for it. I took care of my family, ~50miles away from the next big city, rivers, farmland and enough supplies around us. I'd rather laugh on my stupidity later on.


Sorry, but unless you got a deep bunker with years of supplies, you probably won't survive a large scale nuclear war.


There are US security experts who also argue that limited nuclear war can be waged (Edit: and won). It's an idea from the 80s and it's not something that planners have disregarded.


Also, while this conflict seems to be about Russia vs the west / NATO, other influencial parts of the world have absolutely no interest in a nuclear exchange. China for example. What roles are they currently playing? Can they moderate Putin's temper? And Saudi Arabia? India? And so forth. He must have powerful allies that can bring him down from his own paranoia and delusions. Time for some geopolitical therapy sessions for him.


Yeah. To be honest I think the greatest risk to the rest of the world - if there is a risk - would be Putin acting irrationally (due to temper, or mental health, or desperation). I see no remotely rational course that could lead him to launch nukes or to move troops past Ukraine.

As an aside, I'm really very glad this didn't happen a couple years ago when we had our own mad-man with the launch codes.


It has precedent with Nixon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

If the opposite side believes you completely rational, it limits the actions they believe you'll take. On the other hand, if they believe you're impulsive, there are fewer limits on what they believe you'd do.

... Unfortunately, if they believe you're too irrational, it ends badly.


> As an aside, I'm really very glad this didn't happen a couple years ago when we had our own mad-man with the launch codes

Completely agree. It would have been a nightmare.


He's been acting quite irrationally already in the recent past.

> As an aside, I'm really very glad this didn't happen a couple years ago when we had our own mad-man with the launch codes.

Weirdly enough: the risk of spillover would be lower, the danger to Ukraine much higher. But that is also why we are where we are today: without Trump undermining the whole situation in Ukraine would be quite different and Putin would not have embarked on this thing in the first place.


"without Trump undermining..."

What are you talking about?

There was the controversy about his talk with Zelenski of course, but the end result is described here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-an...

And delay in sending weapons to Ukraine is not unknown for the Biden administration:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/18/white-house-ukraine...

So maybe your point is that sending weapons to Ukraine was a bad idea that just annoyed Putin, and that's why it's Trump's fault?

Looking at broader economic issues, how could you possibly think that Trump's support for energy development in the West helped Russia, which relies on high oil prices to support its economy, as compared to Biden's shutting down of energy development?


Trump emboldened Putin by increasing US dependence on foreign oil. Privately met with him, without record or press.

In 2017, the first Congressional Delegation to Russia (all Republicans) had a private meeting with Putin on July 4th - Independence Day!

Trump recently praised Putin and called his tactic “genius” and just today Tom Cotton(R) refused to denounce Trumps support of Putin.

Ad nausem…

Trumps indirect support of Putin and Kim Jong Un was also particularly unnerving.


"Trump emboldened Putin by increasing US dependence on foreign oil."

This statement seems detached from reality, unless by "foreign" you mean "Canadian".


Same here, living in Berlin and the most frigthend signal was the move from Germany to up their budget for military operations. No one seems to recognize what a massive shift this is. Something you would just do if immediate and long-term danger is next door. Means, they see something which is definetely not in the news.

My partner is not from Germany and we are considering leaving the EU for now to sit this one out. At least go to a country where you can drive away and look for shelter in case of a radioactive blast.

It's difficult, since the few who forsee things stay alive, but if you actually prepare and nothing happens, you look dumb as fuck. I don't know what to do. If you don't have family and the means, look for a smaller EU island or maybe even the US or Canada for 6 months and work from there. At least there, you can find natural resources and water to survive.

Keep the MOEX tab open and see how hard Russia is getting hit in a few hours or all next week: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/stock-market

With these sanctions, Putin might actually have nothing left but send a warning shot. He can't go back to his country, trying and maybe failed to invade a neighbour, just to return empty handed and with the stock market close to 0, inflation and the Rubel basically worthless.

EDIT: I think this goes into the wrong direction: https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/27/ukraine-is-one-of-us-and...

So Putin is so angry and feels threatend that he wants to overthrough Ukraine, and the answer is to make them a member of the EU? This screams like more aggressives answers from Putin. I personally expect a smaller nuclear warning shot over the ocean from Putin next week.


If you are worried, maybe you should move. Closer to a primary target. You don't want to be alive for the aftermath.

And yes, it's been on all of our minds and we all worry to some extent. But this is the one thing that none of us can preempt with the means of our small lives. There's nowhere to hide from it.

Watch a nice movie and let others worry about it. Oh and welcome to the 80s.


My wife and I have talked about this before. How would we feel and what would we do if we knew nukes were incoming to our urban area dotted with military and government targets. We tentatively agreed we'd be in our backyard eating crepes and reading psalms, rather than hiding in the basement with respirators. But maybe that's just big talk. Reality might not be so clear cut.


> No one seems to recognize what a massive shift this is.

It is recognized loud and clear all over Europe.


I think the reality is that where exactly you were when the nukes started flying wouldn't matter - you'd be very likely to die of starvation or other causes in the days and weeks afterwords unless you were already prepared with a clean source of water and stockpiled food in a remote location.

That said, I think it's extremely unlikely this will escalate to a nuclear exchange. Nobody wants that, and I think it's likelier that Putin is deposed before he (successfully) orders a nuclear launch. The rumor is that Putin has given the order to take Kyiv by the end of Monday, and that's going to involve use of artillery and rockets indiscriminately against an urban environment, resulting in tons of civilian deaths. The nuclear readiness alert is to signal to the west not to interfere even amidst the carnage.


Nuclear war is surprisingly survivable if you aren't unlucky and know what you're doing. See Nuclear War Survival Skills, a free PDF put out by Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://oism.org/nwss/nwss.pdf

Basically - you're only toast if you're within the fireball, radiation, and moderate blast damage radius. If you're inside the thermal radiation or light blast damage radius, you should immediately take shelter away from windows and face away from the flash, much as you would in an earthquake. Hiroshima is filled with anecdotes of people being vaporized and casting shadows on the wall behind them, while people in the next room over survived with only minor cuts and burns. You have about 5-20 seconds between seeing the flash and the blast wave getting to you; the thermal pulse itself can last for up to 40 seconds, so the less time you spend in it the less badly you'll be burned.

You can view the blast radius for common warheads on NukeMap:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Topol ICBMs are 800kt and Bulava SLBMs are 100-150kt; you can expect Russia to use SLBMs on strategic military targets and ICBMs on cities. A hypothetical attack on the Bay Area that targets SFO, OAK, Moffett, Alameda NAS, and the Port of Oakland with Bulavas and downtown San Francisco and San Jose with Topols would leave basically all of the East Bay intact, along with the Sunset/Richmond, San Jose south of 280, and the Peninsula from Mountain View to Hillsborough. It's survivable at the Googleplex, despite being basically in sight of Moffett, as long as you're not near an east-facing window when the blast hits.

In NYC, assuming a Topol on Manhattan and Bulavas on JFK/LGA/EWR, it'd take out most of lower Manhattan but large portions of Queens and virtually all of the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island would survive.

You do need to prep for an interruption of utilities, but you should do that anyway for hurricane/earthquake/etc preparedness. If you've got ~3 days of water and ~2 weeks of food and are outside a blast radius, there's a good chance of you being fine. Given the large amounts of suburbia that are not in the blast radius of a likely target, food supply chains likely wouldn't be more damaged than they were in the pandemic, and you could go to a local Walmart for food. Depending on how centralized your local water supply is and whether they have backup generators (the electrical grid is a likely casualty), you may keep municipal water as well.


>You do need to prep for an interruption of utilities, but you should do that anyway for hurricane/earthquake/etc preparedness. If you've got ~3 days of water and ~2 weeks of food and are outside a blast radius, there's a good chance of you being fine. Given the large amounts of suburbia that are not in the blast radius of a likely target, food supply chains likely wouldn't be more damaged than they were in the pandemic, and you could go to a local Walmart for food. Depending on how centralized your local water supply is and whether they have backup generators (the electrical grid is a likely casualty), you may keep municipal water as well.

I think you're incredibly optimistic about the robustness of logistic networks in the aftermath of the complete destruction of all of the major cities in the United States. You think people are going to bother coming into work to stock food on shelves, deliver it, etc in the immediate aftermath of a large-scale nuclear exchange? This isn't even getting into the immediate effects of say, all of the forests in the western US turning into firestorms.


Again, this is dramatically overestimating the initial effects of a nuclear blasts. There will be no major wildfires from nuclear war, for the simple reasons that a.) you don't aim a nuke at the wilderness and b.) the blast wave of a nuclear explosion tends to put out the fires that the thermal pulse ignites. Nukes have specific strategic purposes: the vast majority of them will be aimed at U.S. missile silos, airports or airbases with long runways, ports, refineries, and military shipyards. Those left over will likely be aimed at areas of high population density, specifically the downtown cores of cities.

It's not 1945 anymore, when there was a sharp divide between urban areas and rural areas. The majority of the U.S. population lives in suburbs, and many only go into cities for cultural events. The suburbs are already wired into the U.S. logistic network - that's where are Walmarts and Amazon warehouses are - and are decentralized enough that they're not likely to get taken out by an initial strike.

Coronavirus (particularly Omicron) was much more devastating to our logistic network than nuclear war would be, because it affected essentially all truckers and port workers at once.

I'd encourage you to read the pamphlet; it's put out by scientists whose full-time job was to plan for the continuation American society in the aftermath of a nuclear war.


There is a terribly scary drama called Threads depicting the outcome of a nuclear attack on the UK. I did not stand to see the full length of it. I don't think it is worthwhile to speculate about the survivability of the blast, there is no future to look forward to in case it happens.


I watched it; there was a time in high school where I wanted to write a novel about the aftermath of nuclear war, and did a bunch of research on the topic.

It's terribly scientifically inaccurate, though. Airburst nukes (the type that would generally be used on cities) do not generally spread large amounts of fallout into the atmosphere; they do not generally spread large amounts of fallout at all, because the fireball doesn't reach the ground. We'd likely get the sort of massive urban blast damage from the first half of the movie, but wouldn't get the nuclear winter, collapse of crop harvests, and widespread starvation from the second half of the movie. And we should expect to see local government spring up in areas undamaged by the blast - if the national government falls, state/provincial or local government will step into that void, because power abhors a vacuum.


Humans have survived on Earth without infrastructure or farming for most of our existence, so even if the worst happens I can see some people surviving if there are enough natural resources left. It would of course depend on hunter / gatherer skills, which most people do not have, but are totally learnable.

In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari - he even suggested that hunter gatherers had a far better quality of life compared to someone living in a farming society. Obviously what we have now is far better than either.


Russia could nuke some deserted island to show business without triggering a nuclear war.

I don't think they are desperate enought yet though? Supposedly they argue they are winning.


That would accomplish nothing other than making Russia even more of an international pariah than it already is. They don't need to demonstrate that they can use nuclear weapons if they want to - the world already knows that.


The launch would almost certainly trigger a nuclear war.

The most likely use that wouldn't is to employ tactical nukes in Ukraine itself. On the other hand what would that achieve? There's no logistic hub or massed armour formation.


Nuke Kiev and Lviv for unconditional surrender. Worked in WW2 for the US. Personally not sure if it would work this time.


> That said, I think it's extremely unlikely this will escalate to a nuclear exchange.

Tail risk is real. No one thought Trump would be president. No one saw the pandemic changing the world. No one thought there’d be conventional land war in Europe again. I hope nothing happens but I’ll withhold assigning likelihood for now.


> No one thought Trump would be president.

Anyone who thought through the whole thing saw it as obvious he was. Republicans were thinking Democrats were going to show up in droves. Democrats thought no one would vote for Trump, so why vote?


s/No one/most people/


I'm relying on the fact that even though Putin seems to be completely unhinged and detached from reality, the people responsible for keeping Russian nukes working and managing their launch aren't.


That depends on how the system is organized. If there is a briefcase with a large red button, and the people in the silos don't know whether the launch is real or training, Putin's decision is literally the only factor.


Well basically it just means Germany is meeting its obligations under NATO to spend 2% on military - which they haven’t done for a very long time.


Yes, so that they now choose to follow that guideline still constitutes a considerable shift.


You really think that he would launch a nuclear strike? Have you not heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? Sure, the consequences for the rest of us would be terrible but the moment he launches a strike then he's going to be on the receiving end of one too, and that would be disastrous for his country. The chance of this actually turning nuclear is infinitesimally small.


If he cares only about himself, and knows that he hasn't got that much time left on this earth, then he won't care about a possible atomic war.


He's already said that he's trying to build a legacy; it won't be much of a legacy if Russia is a nuclear wasteland. He's clearly living in an alternate reality to the rest of us, but I very much doubt that's how he wants to be remembered.


In my opinion "infinitesimal" is too small. I think at this point a nuke strike is a bigger risk than covid, for most.


As long as nuclear weapons exist then there's always going to be an infinitesimally small chance that they will be used, so you must live your life in perpetual fear.


> or maybe even the US or Canada for 6 months and work from there.

As an American in the EU, my entire family has been calling me for days to move back. Personally, I think its unlikely that Russia would nuke anyone in the EU. If anything, they would nuke the US. Plus, it's much more likely to die from some random shooting in the US than by a nuke any day of the week.


They have enough nukes to nuke every city in NATO. Under no situation would they just nuke the US.


Russian first strike capability with land + sea based missiles is at most 1000 warheads. Clearly not enough.


And that is assuming they work, which estimates are very much varied about. Obviously Russia isn't going to help with verification here.


> I personally expect a smaller nuclear warning shot over the ocean from Putin next week.

That would be an escalation so phenomenal it would completely overshadow everything that has happened in the past week. By a huge margin.


The amount of nonsense in these comments is genuinely astounding. The change in nuclear readiness from Putin is posturing; it's light years away from him actually pulling the trigger on MAD.


Not if it's framed as a training excercise.


It would put Putin squarely in Kim Jong-Un territory, which seems like an odd choice on his part. Nobody doubts that he has functional nukes.


> So Putin is so angry and feels threatend that he wants to overthrough Ukraine, and the answer is to make them a member of the EU? This screams like more aggressives answers from Putin. I personally expect a smaller nuclear warning shot over the ocean from Putin next week.

There is an option: attack first. If Russian nuclear C&C is taken down, I doubt any of officers in the bunker would dare to launch. Even if they will, these would be uncoordinated launches, and nowhere near the size of a coordinated attack.


Pretty sure the Perimeter is still alive & well, quietly waiting for this exact situation. Don’t think it’s a bluff.


> Something you would just do if immediate and long-term danger is next door.

Yep, it's called Russia, at least as long as Putin rules it.


- "Am I the only person affected similarly by events? How else have you been coping with it all?"

No one successfully coping is going to be clicking on a 'WW3' thread in HN's 'new' queue and telling you about how they're successfully coping.


I’m pretty chill. It’s unlikely that nuclear war will break out, but it could happen. I think it’s still less likely than during the Cold War.


In my mind it's bit more concerning than the day to day of the cold war and closer to the last days of the Soviet Union in risk. Russia in its current form is in its end days. Do they go with a bang or a whimper?


This is where I am too. I'm thinking Putin is doing this as his last stand for his legacy. I expect that if he had done this swiftly he would have headed to the Poland border and maybe taken a right and headed up the Baltic (if he beat the Nato forces there).

I suspect he's surprised, if not stunned, by the difficulty that his forces are facing. So (while I would prefer he not risk it) I suspect his nukes won't work as expected either. I say that as someone who lives in the Boston suburbs, which I suspect is a high priority target for his subs.

Most importantly, perhaps, is that if it is WW3, it's going to be the world against Russia. Iran may try to help if they feel an obligation; I don't think China will because they're smart enough to see it's a lot cause.


I do not think there's a way to assign probability to this situation.

If we assume Putin is mad, there's no reason why he wouldn't throw a nuke. Due to downside being inevitable, WW3 is a logical outcome. Otherwise we are just letting him throw nukes.


We have to hope their system is not setup such that Putin can unilaterally launch. Is there not some military officer or guard in the way who could decide to save the world?


Personally I like to think that if I had the means then I would be in a well stocked bunker deep underground. Possibly until the Mars colony is ready.

But I am kind of poor so I have an excuse for ignoring it. I do think that most people are just in denial. The same way most Ukrainians were about the possibility of a war.


If it is the start of WWIII, just goes to show how stupid the rationale for the end of the world will be.

I mean, in the whole buildup to the Ukraine invasion, I just keep thinking "what is the purpose of this?" I've read tons of background articles about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and I have a pretty good understanding of Russian-Ukrainian history that is not often presented in Western media (e.g. the history of Crimea in the 20th century). But literally none of that points to a logical reason for this invasion, of this scope, now:

1. Russia is upset about the expansion of NATO. A very fair point, but the last expansion of Nato that Russia really had a reason to be mad about happened in 2004. Ukraine isn't really any closer to being a NATO member now than 10 years ago.

2. Protection of separatists in the Donbas region. Even if you did buy all of the Russian propaganda about what's going on in Donbas, in that case I could at least see an argument for annexing Luhansk and Donetsk, but not invading the whole country.

3. Keeping Ukraine within the Russian "sphere of influence". Again, I can understand the rationale for Russia wanting to do this, but I see invasion as extremely counterproductive to that goal.

Honestly, I see a ton of parallels with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 at least made sense to me from the perspective of having a purpose; I remember the rush to war in Iraq in 2003 and the whole thing just seemed really stupid to me, like "well, we attacked one country, we're not done yet, so we have to find another country to invade." Similarly, while perhaps an unpopular viewpoint in the West, I understood the rationale behind annexing Crimea, but the invasion of Ukraine just leads me to believe "all outcomes will be bad, for Russia".

It's just good to remember that many times war happens for really, really dumb reasons.


You missed what I think is the big one:

4. Continued access to the Black Sea. Russia needs a warm-water port, so their navy doesn't get stranded in the winter. Geographically, both Crimea and Ukraine are critical for that purpose. If those countries turned NATO, and NATO went aggro then Russia would lose that access. So it is critical for them that they secure it. And securing it after Ukraine joins NATO is an invitation for WW3.

You may be thinking "NATO is a defensive pact, they will never aggress." That may seem self-evident to you, but it's a lot harder to accept on faith for the country that happens to be NATO's raison detre.


Doesn't Russia already have access to the Black Sea ?


A toehold on the eastern-most edge of the Black Sea, yes. They clearly want more. They tried for Georgia in 2008, succeeded with Crimea a few years later, and now are attempting Ukraine.

Each of the above increases (or would increase) their contiguous coastline.


All geopolitical goals are just an optional cherry on top of the main internal objective which is deliberately put Russians into besieged fortress survival mode to keep Putin in power.

Or as George Orwell wrote in 1984 about perpetual war in the totalitarian state: “The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”


Yes. This is an incredibly stupid aggressive blunder. Totally seems like Iraq to me too. Except here nukes could be involved.

Honestly, I wish the world had reacted to Iraq the way they are to Ukraine. A million people died in Iraq for nothing. It's totally unacceptable and highly dangerous.


Does of any of this make sense? We have all the general plebe outlets claiming Russia is losing badly. Over at CFR's publication, Foreign Affairs, they are impressed with the efficiency of the Russian operation.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2022-02-26/man-behin...

In another thought-space by a former Indian diplomat, we read about how Germany is dropping the peacenik facade and assuming its role on the world stage:

https://www.indianpunchline.com/germany-can-no-longer-be-put...

--

One thing we can be 100% certain about is that we plebes are not fully informed and we have 0 clue as to what precisely is going on. The question that is begging to be asked is why now? Why not a year ago, or next year? The mad Putin narrative asks us to believe that the entire Russian stakeholders are shaking in their booties because of fear? The army is clearly on board. Lavrov is on board.

And for an 'interesting' twist on all this, please note:

"[Sergei] Shoigu was awarded the highest award of the Order of Malta. July 7 2012. The Governor of the Moscow Region, former Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, was awarded the highest award of the Order of Malta - the Knight's Military Cross for mercy, salvation and help. The award ceremony took place today at the Italian Embassy in Moscow."

[p.s. make a mental of note of "2012" if you read the first cite]


Putin likes to play poker and bluff his way into advantageous situations, but he overplayed his hand. He bet that Ukraine would fold quickly to avoid major military conflict and loss of life allowing him to install a pro-Russian government. This obviously did not happen.

Worse, for Putin, the Russian military is under performing against what should be an over-matched Ukraine.

His favorite tool is to threaten others, but he just lost the ability to threaten traditional military action because if he can't easily take Ukraine how would he take Finland or Sweden, let alone a NATO country? That leaves only one remaining bluff and that is the use of nuclear weapons. He might be desperate enough to use it, but I think his own inner-circle would overthrow him to prevent it. Look at the faces of his high command in recent videos. They are demoralized. I would be surprised if he survives this.


Exactly. Putin personally seems to only have bad choices right now. He is probably hoping that Russia will take Kiev quickly, which could alleviate some of the pressure.

If the losses mount, he might be facing the fate of the Romanoffs pretty soon.


There was no bluffing here. Can we get over this false idea that Putin is some calm strategist.


I never said he was a calm strategist. He is a gambler. It has worked for him in the past, but eventually when you gamble you lose. I associate gambling with a problem, not with strategic genius.

Clearly a calm strategist would never have put themselves in such a disadvantaged situation.


Did you read regular press, or professionals? As in military experts, intelligence, ...

Because I've seen quite a few experts warn since at least December that an invasion will happen. The main reason being the one you didn't list:

4. Putin hates democracy and fears that a successful democracy next to his door will trigger his fall. He also has an obsession that Ukraine is not a real country and that it's essentially a part of Russia.


To be clear, I am not surprised the invasion took place, just like I wasn't surprised the invasion of Iraq took place, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's any less dumb. Taking in pieces:

> Putin hates democracy and fears that a successful democracy next to his door will trigger his fall.

That sounds ridiculously simplistic and caricature-esque. Besides, the Baltic states and Poland have been fairly successful democracies since the end of the Cold War, they all directly border Russia, and Putin hasn't done much about that for the past 20+ years.

> He also has an obsession that Ukraine is not a real country and that it's essentially a part of Russia.

Yes, I fully understand the history of Kyivan Rus and the shared Slavic history of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. But again, "we all used to be the same people 800 years ago" seems like even more of a really stupid reason to invade.

To put my argument in a different context, since the end of the WWII large powers have at least tried to put up a semblance of a noble argument when invading another country. In the US in Iraq in 2003, WMDs may have been bullshit, but it was at least proposed that "we are invading to defend ourselves". I don't even feel like Russia is trying very hard to make that argument - they're doing it a little with the false propaganda of genocide against Russian speakers in the east, but in general it's like Putin's not even trying to hide his "Tough shit, we're a bigger country that can take over a smaller country if we want to" rationale.


The largest threat to any autocrat is the success of a breakaway now-democratic state. Autocrats need their people to think that they are hopeless without them. Otherwise why allow them to have all of the power?

The quality of life of many breakaway former soviet states has been rising rapidly and that makes Putin look bad. The same applies to China and Xi: Taiwan makes Xi look bad. The more successful Taiwan is the more Xi will feel he must gain control. However, Russia's failing here will give him pause. It is a good example of how to lose complete control.


Ukraine isn't one of the former soviet states that are doing well and making Putin look bad though. That would be the Baltic states (Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia). Ukraine has a substantially lower GDP per capita than Russia, whether you look at nominal or PPP.


Estonia, Lithuania, and Lativia are all members of NATO making them untouchable. And each are too small geographically and from a GDP perspective to really be a threat. Ukraine has strategic positioning and natural resources to one day be a relatively large economy.


Ironically there's talk of the invasion triggering regime change. But... if he's going to lose everything, why not blow up the world?


Precisely. The other reasons are simply buying into Russian propaganda.


I'm glued to the news and I need to put it down, convince myself that the world won't end tomorrow, and get back to work.

I don't believe you need to convince yourself of anything other than one should not stress over things they can not control. If ICBM's are the eventuality then survivors will all have to adapt, improvise and overcome as best they can. That would affect everyone and you would not be alone.

In my opinion people should only concern themselves with that which they can control like building up a supply of water, food, hygiene products, medical supplies, armaments, portable battery/solar backup, sleeping bags, blankets, fuel, cash, LED lighting and some good books. Help your family do the same. Create contingency plans with your family ahead of time and store important documents and family heirlooms somewhere safe. That can keep the mind occupied doing something useful and create a feeling of accomplishment.


> I don't believe you need to convince yourself of anything other than one should not stress over things they can not control.

Anxiety is not a rational thing but I understand a rational response to expressed anxiety.


I think he'll be assasinated by his comrades way before situation escalates to the level of nuclear buttons.

He assured his oligarchs that Russia is a part of global economy.

And global economy is currently in the process of excluding Russia at unprecedented pace.

The world just needs to convince Russian oligarchs that it won't buy a single drop of Russian oil until there's Putin's body floating in it.


On the other hand, even his Minister of Defense in times of war speaks to him from 10 or 15 meters away. Putin is paranoid and only select few ever come close to him. He had 23 years to select the most loyal people.

I bet Putin did consider possible coup scenarios.

If anything, I think it's more likely that people of Russia change their mind. Soldiers can surrender. Ordinary people can sabotage what they're doing. State officials and riot police can resign. All of that is unlikely, it requires to undo years of propaganda, and it has never happened in 23 years of Putin reign, but the situation is not ordinary either.


Whether it is or it isn't, individually we're powerless to change anything. Don't worry about things you can't change.


I was going to write something similar.

If you're near Ukraine and there's a plausible escalation to where you live, maybe work on an evacuation plan. Anywhere else, if you don't have 3-7 days of emergency food and water, now is as good a time as any to set that up (which is basic emergency prep that ideally everyone would have at all times). It sounds like the OP knows where to shelter if needed, which is good to know too.


> maybe work on an evacuation plan.

Bug out bag, copies of all relevant documents sent to your own email address and maybe one or two backups of friends or relatives, have your car fueled up and ready to go, have some cash on hand, make sure that everybody that is coming with you knows exactly what to do if you decide to move and have everything that you plan to take with you (essentials only) in the vehicle you plan to use. Make sure you don't get caught in long lines, better decide to leave early and then to come back later than to decide to leave too late.

Had a long discussion with a friend right on the edge of the conflict last night.

Anything else that might be useful?


It may be obvious, but since it wasn't stated, a planned destination and route options would be good to have, and maybe communicated to trusted family in safe locations.

You can always change them, but writing down your exit criteria may help in case you have trouble deciding, but I agree that it's most likely better to leave early and come back having not needed to leave than to decide to leave too late and not be able to leave.


Extra cannisters of diesel (or petrol if that's what your car uses). I have 100L in five cannisters stashed under my stairs. It'll be useful to give me extra range, but I also imagine that it might end up as some form of currency.

Also think about a gas bottle and burner. You need to cook on something.

Sleeping bag? Tent? Basic medical supplies?


This is the most sane attitude.


I live in Norway, we have been one of the few NATO countries with borders to russia and would likely be hit by nukes from both sides if the shit hits the fan.

But personally I think there are enough people high up in the russian government that do not want to annihilate the world to save the face of one man to prevent something like that.

So while it is a concern I think that is an unlikely outcome.


I'm also from Norway - I think the likely scenario, IF Russia decided to say "fuck it - let's invade more countries" (and force NATO to take the ultimate decision), they'd probably first and foremost take over, or secondly, bomb some of the strategic installations we have up in northern (East Finnmark) Norway - were they to get involved with us, directly.

Intelligence gathering plays a huge role, and taking out those would probably harm the eyes and ears of Norway and NATO. IF Russia were to start firing ICBMs and similar, they'd at least want some element of surprise.

I also recently read through a Masters thesis on this, from a Colonel at our military academy, and his take was that if Russia were to invade us, then the likely scenario would be to invade East-Finnmark by sea, air, and land. Take control over the military intelligence installations, as well as airports.


I am pretty sure that NATO won't nuke Norway.


No offense, but there is not much to hit in Norway :) No reason to waste nukes there.


gas facilities are pretty essential for rest of the Europe


Ukraine was supposed to be low-hanging fruit. Should it turn into a prolonged and costly slog I don't think we will have to worry about Russia taking on the likes of NATO any time soon. Not only are the arms and munitions flowing in to the resistance but undoubtedly numerous "advisors" with special "talents" are scampering about as well. And Russia will deserve every bit of it...


I think it's wise to prepare and keep an eye on the news to know when to trigger your fight (or flight) plan. Panicking won't help.

As far as I'm concerned, it has reinforced my priorities, altered them slightly too. I think it's a good opportunity to reassess your objectives in life, if anything.

Anyway, off to bed early today, so I have more time to do what matters to me tomorrow. Can't wait to see my favourite muddy poney again :)


Also, remember that news only appear every 12hrs, for two reasons: Individual advances are not relevant; and media agencies (govts, presidents, etc) know that news don’t penetrate if there are more than 1 lesson per 12hrs.

So, let that phone down.


Yes. Not necessarily a nuclear war. A wider conventional war is all too possible.

Poland could easily be drawn into this war by accident. Military supplies are being shipped into Ukraine from Poland and Germany. Soon, from the entire EU. Russian attempts to stop those might spill over the border into Poland, possibly by accident. An air attack overrunning the Polish border and being shot down by the Polish air force could happen very easily.

Poland is a NATO country. An attack on Poland within its borders activates NATO's mutual defense agreement.

Review how WWI started.


I will note that article 5 states that member states must consider an attack on one as an attack on all. This does not say that member states must respond in kind, only that they must consider it as if it was an attack on themselves. This distinction is extremely meaningful.


Exactly, people are treating NATO like it's some kind of robotic smart contract that cannot be stopped. If an article 5 attack occurs, the USA could (and in the case of some NATO countries, probably would) simply sanction and yell about it and do nothing actual.

Of course, that may shake NATO itself, so the response will vary depending on what happens. Poland invading Lithuania wouldn't cause the US to nuke everything.


I'm not sure that an accidental border incursion would be an "attack" within the meaning of Article 5.

But Russia could deliberately try to attack the supplies while they are on the Polish side of the border. That would be enough to trigger Article 5.


Just adding information as I understand this is hard to follow (especially if you're not from Europe) but there were supplies from many countries delivered already. For example Czech Republic already sent a third shipment of weapons of all kind. Danish government allowed Danish to fight for Ukraine if they choose to. The support is coming from all directions.

I would personally think next ones would be non NATO or non EU countries like Moldova. Then countries that are on Russia's list up high like Lithuania.


No, let's be honest, rich West won't go into (nuclear) war with Russia over poor Ukraine which does not have gas/oil (see previous US invasions) and is neither NATO/EU member. As it was proven numerous times West can't agree even on strict sanctions, so to think they would do anything which could potentially lead to direct war with Russia is pure sci-fi. They would Putin take whole Ukraine, Moldova and other former soviet (non NATO) countries before antyhing close to war would happen, there is still plenty of countries to take before stakes are higher.

I highly recommend watching Norwegian TV show Occupied which I finished just days ago (3rd season not worth anymore), which describes pretty accurately European politics and what would happen if Russians "attacked" rich country.

But yeah, as fan of Threads (1984) I thought about nearest shelter, whether I would risk our own building nuclear shelter which is quite deep or try somehow put whole family in our small basement (I think no direct window outside) or hide in our top floor concrete apartment in case of attack, but in the end especially in case of nuclear attack seems quite pointless trying to hide from it. I wish I would have basement as my father (living in west of Slovakia) which is pretty huge like living room in building with 50+ cm thick walls, so all you need to do is cover the windows.


I'm not scared but I'm alarmed that this is even a remote possibility. A few months ago the sheer idea that we would see an old school invasion by a major power in Europe would have seemed impossible to me. I never contemplated that this was possible in the current world order yet here we are. Not that it could never happen again, but not now or in the foreseeable future. So we were very wrong about this collectively, what other delusions about what is possible are we harbouring?

I am very concerned about Putin's state of mind. This does not appear to be a rational course of action so he's either badly miscalculated, or worse, he's living in an alternate reality. Furthermore, because nukes are part of the equation we must make Putin feel that there is a path to de-escalation. If he gets backed into a corner, and feels like he can't retreat, this could become existential for all of us. I think it's a fairly remote possibility but we cannot rule out the use of WMDs. Either battlefield nukes and chemical weapons in Ukraine or, utter worst case, full blown nuclear war against the West if we confront him head on.

I don't want go be alarmist, the last point is pretty unlikely at this point, but there must be an escape hatch for Putin here. However, if he feels that despite whatever ways out we give him he can't back down as it would end his regime, that could be a worst case scenario. We can't control the political situation in Russia. Could he become "all in" at this point?


> A few months ago the sheer idea that we would see an old school invasion by a major power in Europe would have seemed impossible to me.

I think you are not alone in that. But that only serves to illustrate that we tend to collectively forget the lessons from history way too easily. I grew up at a time when this was pretty much a continuous concern and it never left me so I'm a lot less surprised. But around me I see people - younger people, mostly - go around like the bottom just fell out of their whole worldview.


That's all true for many younger people no doubt. However, as a history graduate it wasn't like I lacked the context. It was more that the necessary preconditions seemed absent in the present era.

With regards to a wider global conflict, my expectation was that it could happen in the coming decades, possibly as a second order effect of climate change. It just seemed that, right now, the variables in the equation were wrong. We didn't reckon with Putin being this way though. He seemed like a difficult thorn in the side of the west, a belligerent and cunning autocrat, but I never saw him confronting Europe in this way. I think he's actually changed. This might be premeditated but I don't think this was his plan 20 years ago whatever anger he harboured towards the west back then.


Dictators rarely go quietly.


WW3 will require the involvement of atleast China and USA and then these countries pull in their allies because the battle ground is Eurasia. So countries like Germany, France, England, India because of resources and man power. At this point, the world is too fragile to afford an all-out war. One hidden agenda of war is to increase debt. US already has the reason for it, COVID. EU is sensible enough to not nuke it's own economy at this time. It's just resources at stake, Fossil fuels and earth resources which Russia controls but there are alternatives to it.

China could get into the war, it may even be in it's interest, fend of US and open doors for it's invasion in Taiwan because US/EU both support Taiwan. India and Pakistan getting in because then India will need to protect it's borders.

There is a very delicate balance between countries which we just can't afford to break. If that happens, UN goes into dumps and then it will be all Nuclear without any regards because at that point earth will have given up. So no more land to rule.

None of the above is based on facts, current political status, secret hidden families or anything. Just a random thought.


Well... You have had those fears for at most four days. At the same time, millions of people around the world has had to live with those fears constantly for years. Many have had their homes bombed and their relatives killed. Some of those have fled to Europe and the US because they want what we have; freedom, security, and dignity. They have not come to steal what we have, but to share it with us.

We have not been treating them nice. We have labelled them as security threats or "demographic" threats and turned them away at our borders. In many cases we have armed the same regimes that have brutalized them and branded those who fought back "terrorists". Just days before the Russian invasion popular politicians were screaming about how refugees had "destroyed" my country.

I hope if anything good comes out of this crisis people would learn how to sympathize with others. People who have felt the threat and fears themselves maybe better understand the fears of those who have fled their homes, regardless of skin color, eye color or religion?


With COVID improving I thought I’d finally leave my job and travel for a bit as I figure out what I’m doing in life but at the moment I’m monitoring the situation in Ukraine to understand whether quitting my job and traveling is the right choice.

My sister worries about me being unemployed in my home country and getting drafted.

Any fellow almost about to quit people? Is this stopping you?


Previous pertinent remarks by me if anyone desperately needs to know for some reason:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19843507

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22619932


I try not to worry about things which I have no control over. If I lived in Ukraine, I would either leave immediately or have clear plans to enact at certain escalation points. I don’t see why this conflict would escalate beyond Ukraine’s borders. The west would need to poke the bear, but that looks unlikely based on the response so far.


It's always good to have a plan and be prepared in case of emergencies, but OP needs to think about the business model of the news industry and take that into account before panicking.

The news business is in the business of shilling fear-porn and outrage-porn because those are the types of emotions that go viral fastest and get them the most clicks and shares. This is probably why you're glued to the screen.

Not to say that Russia and Ukraine aren't big and important issues, particularly to the people caught in the middle, but this is only globe-shattering if the media brainwashes enough people into panicking about it. Russia has had plenty of dumb conflicts in recent years. If you weren't panicking about Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014, you shouldn't be absolutely hyperventilating about Ukraine now. Yes, it's a serious issue, but please don't succumb to fear porn and panic.


What happens if China and Russia form a NATO-esq agreement while Russia takes old USSR countries and China takes Taiwan?


Then they still have to take them. Russia's having trouble with the first step. Some of the other steps are going to require facing off with all of NATO. That's going to be harder.

China may be able to take Taiwan. First they have to get enough stuff across the straight. That's not easy. To do it, they have to own the sea and the air, which means that they have to have disabled most of the American assets within hundreds of miles. That's not easy either.

They can form the agreement (the Moscow-Beijing Axis) if they want. "Taking" is harder.


Well, we have always been at war with Eurasia and East Asia.


> while Russia takes old USSR countries

Given that several of those are NATO countries, WWIII if they even try.


that sounds like pretty bad deal for China, I would assume at very least China taking at least Mongolia as well together with Taiwan


I'm in the same boat. I genuinely feel like the west and russia are in more danger than at almost any point in the cold war.

The problem is that Russia's nuclear doctrine was 'updated' to use 'tactical nukes' if they are threatened by conventional NATO forces. That's supposed to be in the situation where there's a NATO tank column rolling towards Moscow, but it's easy to see how lines could get blurred.

This creates a really plausible chain of events where NATO crosses a red line that was assumed to be bluff, then ends up getting dragged into a conventional NATO-vs-Russia conflict which leads to a nuclear exchange.

There is a silver lining to this scenario: you know the conditions in which Russia would use nukes: i.e. if they felt existentially threatened by NATO forces. That would give everybody a few days of warning in which you can evacuate.


There will be a coup in Russia before the nukes fly


Let's hope so.


That's what I've been wondering. If this drags on for too long and becomes too costly for the Russians, what are the odds that Putin gets rolled?


This might be relevant: https://twitter.com/RihoTerras/status/1497537193346220038


Good question. I wonder what discussions are had in his inner circle when he is absent. It requires someone with guts and means.

It took several years before there was a serious attempt at Hitler. On the other hand, those closer to him may have seen it coming for longer than we have.


Thunder sounds. Australians assembling sandbags against their walls and doors for flash flooding. Snakes swimming down the road.

Yes, as Australians we’re deeply concerned that Russia may eventually nuke us because they want our country.


I found an article about Russia's military logistics problems very reassuring. https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-...

The author claims that Russia would be very slow to go beyond the borders of the former USSR because (1) Russia's forces are completely reliant on railroads and (2) the railroads in former-soviet states are a different track width from elsewhere in Europe.


We should be more sceptical about news more and more. This is what brings chaos in public. Last two years was perfect example. Scared public is ideal ground for new rules and simple solutions.


People thought cooler heads would prevail leading up to the Cuban missile crisis, "nuclear war isn't rational". It didn't play out that way and instead we came wayyy too close.

A few world leaders have a button. If any of them press it, the world ends. Our job is to make sure they don't. Probably makes sense to get rid of the button too...

It's rational to be worried about such a situation.


There are two issues here:

1. The threat of war

2. Anxiety about the threat of war

The first relates to the actual facts of the situation, whereas the second relates to your thoughts and feelings about it. The range of answers in this thread should tell you that different people can have different reactions to the same events. This should give you the idea that your reactions could be changed. After all "what one man can do, another can do"

The key to understanding anxiety is to realise that it involves thought-looping -- ruminating on the same negative ideas in an escalating spiral. The answer to overcoming anxiety is to find a way to break out of the loop. The actual thoughts themselves are not as interesting as you think they are. You are caught on your thoughts and feelings.

If you have the time, a great way to overcome anxiety is to do a sort of body-scan meditation.

Lie on the floor with a book under the back of your head for a little support, knees up or flat to the ground as you prefer. Pick an area of your body that feels tense, stiff, painful or just uncomfortable. Focus your attention on the area for as long as possible. The feelings there may start to change. If it starts to feel relaxed, move to the next most tense area.

The aim of the exercise is to focus your attention on the internal muscular sensations of your body, rather than your thoughts. If you aren't used to relaxing, you may find that this increases your anxiety at first, but that is all part of the response. If you can keep on returning your thoughts to whatever muscular sensations you are aware of, over and over for half an hour, you will find yourself becoming much more relaxed. Once you are relaxed, you will find that anxiety doesn't really make sense anymore.

People don't just respnd anxiously to stressful events out of the blue. I bet this isn't the first time in your life you have found something overwhelming and it has taken over your mind. Did you feel in control of your life before this started, or were you already on edge? Did you feel like you were succeeding, like all your relationships were going well?

These things tend to come in clusters. People who are happy and relaxed are not easily perturbed by events that don't immediately affect them.

The threat is real, and I wouldn't like to say what the probabilities of different outcomes are. I'm worried, but then I know that a part of me just enjoys worrying a bit. I easily get anxious if I let myself, but I have learned to control it with the technique I outlined above.


Yeah maybe. Better than 0.1%, but there's nothing you can do except become a prepper and live out in the woods with a starlink dish and a solar panel and pretend to get some work done remotely. Question is, is it better to be at ground zero, or a survivor? :)

Other than fleeing, I reckon the only thing to do is to eat some CBD gummies and hang out with friends, and check he news once a day only. And, donate some money to help the refugees with whatever you didn't spend on the pot gummies.


Having grown up in an era where we worried about such things, I don't envy millenials (and later) learning what it's like to wonder if nukes are going to fly.


I have zero concern until Russia messes with a NATO country which I find highly unlikely to happen. Obviously still heartbreaking what's happening though


After fighting a pandemic for 2 years we now have to deal with a super-power that can start a potential ww3.

I do not really care at this point. I live live through my day regardless and whatever happens is way out of my control.

If there is one take-away from this all, it is that we have never had the tools we have today to spread correct information in the battle against the haze of miss-information.


There was some speculation that COVID derailed the timetable for this invasion.


I have come to the conclusion that this outcome is best to not think about. Perhaps easier said than done. I am trying to push it away from my mind, although not completely successfully.

It is probably also best to limit time following the events. I am struggling with this myself. I think very important with time outdoors, time away from news, and time to enjoy something.


I am not scared, but I do think it is the start of WW3. There are Ukranians fighting tooth and nail for their country right now. I think Russia will eventually push further west than Ukraine and NATO countries will have to defend themselves.

Think about it: they're already committed. There's no coming back from what they have started.


Sure there is. Might just be a coup and done.


That is a nice hope.

I'll caveat my statement: if Putin remains in charge he isn't turning back.


This is as far as I can see accurate. He's gone full Jim Jones 'if you're with me we go down together' mode now and I don't think he cares at all about the lives of the people that will be lost on account of that.


This will be an all-out war, 3 days max. Fuck downvotes, prepare - if predictions are wrong, laugh, shrug it off and have fun, if not, profit.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war


Indeed, whether or not you watch the news will not change the outcome or help anyone. Perhaps a weekly check-in and a call to your political representatives might be in order, if you want to maximize your influence.

The choice then is to be anxious before the outcome of the war, or happy before the same outcome of the war.


Depends on where you are. I watch the news a lot and knew Russian invasion of Ukraine was a strong possibility. If I lived in Ukraine that would've been useful to know.


I'm hoping the CIA has in some way sabotaged Russia's nuclear misstles so they don't work. I have no confidence Russia wouldn't use them as a first strike, but their habitat of listing ships as working until they sink makes me hopeful that maybe they won't work if launched.


Has the CIA ever done anything remotely as useful and successful as that?


Hard to say as they don't talk. It would be bad for the US for them to admit success in cases like this. Not to mention admitting success puts attention on finding their spys.


"If I've done my job right, you won't be able to tell I've done anything at all."


Here's a really good, no-nonsense guide to how to survive, should the worst happen. It comes down to avoiding fallout, exercising patience, and some simple actions.

https://youtu.be/ox8ZDbCNTCE


I remember Cold War as a child. Upon hearing the sound of an approaching aircraft, I was always worrying that maybe this is the nuclear bomber carrying my death. I tried to calm myself reckoning that death will be probably quick and painless.


Nope, I feel this too. Dutchie here. I was looking at the map where there is the least likelihood of radio active fallout, assuming that at least Russia and Europe will be attacked.

While I think the chance is very slim, I simply don’t want to be here if it would happen at all.


What turned out to be a suitable place?


Still in the research phase. A week ago, I knew nothing about nuclear weapons. Since today, I’ve realized I need to learn about it.

My initial guess is New Zealand.


Did you think it was going to happen when russia was invading georgia a decade ago too? How about the 6 million dead in the congo or the current active yemen bombings or the syrian war where russia and the usa had some spats?


Quitting the news might help. Do read this (it was on HN a few days ago). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30430041


What are the odds that you wake up tomorrow and the world's gone to ash? Probably really unlikely. Compared to 5 days ago they're a million times more likely, sure. But a million times a really really really really and I mean really small number isn't that much.

I'm afraid. I'm searching the news for any new information I can and feel overwhelmed. I'm not doing too well through all this and I'm safe and sound in North America!

But. I'm not. At all. Even a tiny bit. Worried that randomly tomorrow I'll wake up and the world has literally ended. There may be war. And there may be bombs. And I may need to find shelter and reevaluate my odds. But. I think there's a much larger chance I'll eat too much due to stress than there will be nukes used. And I can do something about the over eating.


The nuclear stuff is posturing on Putin's part. The biggest reason nobody's sending troops to help Ukraine is to avoid the risk of nuclear escalation in the first place. To my understanding, fighting on the ground or establishing a no-fly zone in eastern Ukraine would require strikes into Russian territory using weapons like cruise missiles that could be loaded with nuclear warheads. So we're not doing that.

Neither widening the war beyond Ukraine nor randomly launching nukes at NATO would benefit Putin. And this is not even close to the tensest moments of the Cold War. So I'm not worried about World War 3 starting. The most likely outcome right now is that Russia is able to conquer Ukraine and ends up fighting a bloody insurgency while suffering under heavy sanctions. I don't know where that goes, but the rest of Europe will survive to find out.

All that being said, I don't want to downplay the significance of a major power starting a war to effectively redraw borders in Europe. That is a huge and terrible step away from the post-WW2 norm.


Why are you assuming Putin is a rational actor. Can we please drop this assumption, his actions over the last week show the opposite.


amazing that you can judge whats rational for Putin to do and what not. quite an arm chair strategist you are, arent you?


It might be the first movements towards a nuclear weapon being used —and I guess that's all that matters in some respects— but I don't think Putin has the ability to take any EU or NATO member, and trying would be a quick suicide.

It's hard to get an unbiased viewpoint but it seems like Putin has few allies at home, let alone abroad. The West wouldn't forgive China and they can't afford to lose the support of their shiny new middle class. Belarus can barely suppress its own population. Iran and North Korea aren't mobile armies capable of moving any further than their neighbours and I'm not sure they'd want to die on this hill for their weapons supplier.

So I guess, maybe, but the way things are going, a coup seems more likely.

But having Armageddon plans isn't bad. Many components will be transferrable concepts for severe weather events, which do seem likely over our lifetime.


Although... We're seeing serious financial ramifications for Russia here. The currency is worth nothing on the open market, its financial institutions have little ability to borrow externally, they can forcibly isolate themselves but any imports are only going to be available to Russians at massively inflated prices.

The hyperinflation caused by defeat and reparations from WW1, and the propaganda over the next two decades were key motivating factors to get the German (and Italian, and Japanese) people to want to go to war with the rich empires that surrounded it.

Eerily enough, we're almost exactly 100 years on from that point. History could repeat itself with America and the EU playing the parts of the British and French empires. I think supporting the people of Russia is going to be a critical part of the next decade's diplomacy. It's not their fault this dictator has power.


I call on us all to force our own leaders to the negotiating table. This needs to be worked out immediately. No good can come from this war.


It's very unlikely given US and UK made it explicit that they won't land troops in Ukraine.

Russia and US both know what their respective red lines are now, and recognize MAD when they see one.


No, not worried, but probably because as an older people we've been through this before. As kids we lived through the Cold War and had nuclear missile drills in school. I did a school project on how to build and stock an underground bomb shelter. Nuclear annihilation seemed imminent and the threat seemed very real.

Here we are 50 years later and the threat seems LESS real because there are so many ways to send a message to Russia without using weaponry. A lot of this war will be 'fought' on social media as well as legacy media. So much easier to rally and organize people and set up citizen constructed defences. There are sanctions, banking seizures, asset freezing, refusal of services, air space restrictions, punting ambassadors, sending citizens back to Russia... its not like Putin hasnt already gotten the message that this war is a bad idea.


In the old days. the Soviet Union was a authoritarian state ruled by the leader of the Communist party. But he was, after Stalin at least, not a despot who controlled everyone around him. There were some checks and balances I believe. With Putin I don't think there are any. That is what scares me.


I am worried, both about the situation unfolding, and the fact that a lot of people are almost in classical denial. It’s like watching “Don’t look up” in real life.


we have been here before, a number of times, what we really need to pay attention to is how much putin has to lose. if he has nothing left then he is free to act impulsively inline with whatever his moral standing may be.

if he has some skin in the game then he will hesitate to play mumblty-peg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumblety-peg


I don't know how much absolute power Putin has. Can he successfully launch a first strike attack? Would his circle and the chain of command follow the order promptly or is there a decent chance of a coup? I'd assume that at least some powerful oligarchs wouldn't be in favor of a nuclear war.


They probably can’t even find the keys to their missiles in the first place.

“Damn it, they’re supposed to be on the hook next to the fridge - I told you never to move those!”

“Did you check the junk drawer honey? What about in the garage with your fishing stuff?”


In the USSR era, the Premier did not have the authority to start a nuclear war. That required either the permission of the Politburo or the detection of the destruction of Moscow with nuclear weapons.

The USSR, post-Stalin, tried to avoid giving the Premier unlimited power. They'd had that with Stalin, and it didn't end well. That may not have persisted into the Putin era.


So you still see Putin as a rational person?

I wish I could see reasons to think like that. All I can see is a psychopathic megalomaniac.


i see putin as a person that has motivations. the quality or origin of those motivations are instrumental.

i am assuming he is motivated to not die; im assuming that he must feel as if others believe he is powerful.

i am assuming that if he cant actualize these motivations, or enjoy the spoils of his efforts, he will lash out irrationally.


Everyone is rational from their own perspective. Putin doesn't see this as a world conflict, he sees it as Russia against the West.


Take a vacantion to Bora Bora. Unless there is full world-wide nuclear exchange you'll be safe there, end enjoy the sun. Win-win.


This was every day life as a Cold War Kid. The threat of nuclear annihilation hung over us every day.

Here's the thing - I don't think all-out nuclear war needs to be feared. I recall an exercise the USAF did several years ago where they prepared to launch the entire fleet of land-based missiles. Only 10% of the silos were able to open adequately enough to allow a launch. Of those able to launch, only a fraction would be able to launch due to the age of the launch vehicles. Of those able to launch only a fraction will be able to detonate - again due to aging issues. Of those actually capable of launching, several will be taken out by anti-missile defense systems. Only a fraction of a percentage of the missiles would be able to launch, not be destroyed during transit, and be able to detonate. Yes, things would be horrible for the folks where the bombs actually detonated, but it's not the civilization-ending event as once feared.

Since I'm a Cold War Kid, I hail from the era where nuclear arms were viewed as strategic weapons - they were a threat, a deterrence. They were never seen as an offensive weapon. Now as the decades have passed we don't even see them as much of a deterrence any longer - especially since the country using them will be exiled from the rest of the civilized world for the foreseeable future.

Bottom line? Don't worry about it. If Putin decides to launch then that will be the last you see or hear from the Russian Federation for a long, long time.


I am only concerned because Ukraine is so close to central EU countries. I don’t think anyone wants to go to war or needs it right now, apart from Russia of course.

I will say that I am more annoyed by the fact that we are being bombarded with a lot of weird stuff lately. From Covid straight to potential War outbreak. This is very taxing on peoples mental health.

These events completely overshadow day to day problems because “look at them, they have it much worse”.

Very, very strange.


> I don’t think anyone wants to go to war or needs it right now, apart from Russia of course.

Unlike dancing, it only takes one to start a war. To quote the Two Towers:

  Theoden: I will not risk open war.
  Aragorn: Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.


Putin has basically lied to his people about what is going on with Ukraine. But most people know what's really happening and, more importantly, the higher ups know.

Putin won't be able to launch a nuclear attack because nobody would believe that the integrity of Russia is on danger. More importantly, Russia political system is very corrupt, and they won't allow Putin to make the world a wasteland and lose their privileged life.

I predict, when all the economic restrictions unravel, Putin will step down. Either that or he'll have an accident with a bullet. Multiple times.


At the start, I was scared, having grown up with nightmares of seeing a flash outside my window, and knowing death would come 10 seconds later. I can very much relate to your fear.

I've spent the past few days doomscrolling. I've watched the NATO flights of AWACS and StratoTankers. I know something is being refueled, but not what. I'm very sure the Russians know this as well. They know that it would be fatal to make any incursion into a NATO country, no matter how slight.

I'm now to the point of anxiety fatigue. I'm back into the land of logical thinking, now that the emotional edge is gone.

We've seen the Russian offensive getting bogged down. We've seen the unity that this invasion is causing in Europe. Germany stopped fence sitting, and is starting to make practical decisions, considering bringing it's Nuclear Power Plants back on line to make up for the lost source of energy from Russia. They've also decided to send weapons to Ukraine.

I'm quite hopeful, actually. The fence sitting is over in quite a few other places as well. No matter what happens, the world is uniting against this ill-conceived invasion. It also seems fairly certain that many of the people of Russia also oppose this act. It is reasonable to hope that enough sane people sit between Putin and any actual launching of those weapons to prevent their use, as was done during the cold war.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best. If you can, talk to friends and family who remember the cold war. They can relate to your fears, and give you comfort.


Short answer, no.

Personal opinion, Putin is looking to create a buffer zone between Russia and the rest of Europe by annexing parts of Ukraine.

As he's stated, he doesn't want Ukraine joining NATO, and it's likely, at least partly, due to Ukraine gov warming up to other western govs and likely allowing them to currently setup/operate listening posts for intel operations and the sorts within their territory.

To avoid this kind of activity happening there, Putin is looking to annex at least part of Ukraine and install a puppet gov there to handle managing things and keep western operations further away from Russia.

Best case outcome in this shitty situation, Russia annexes Donetsk + Luhansk. Mid case(?), Russian gov gets everything east of Kyiv. Worst case Russian gov takes all of Ukraine, but that doesn't seem very likely.

A compromise will probably come to fruition in the coming days/weeks. It's already being said that Putin also wants Ukraine to give up its military, but that's possibly a throw away demand in negotiations that he's open to taking off the table in order to get what he really wants, annexation/buffer zone.

It seems highly unlikely that the Russian gov would do this for resources (they've got enough), expanding an empire (that's just more shit to manage), or for ego sake (that's just stupid and Putin's too calculated for that being the reason). It's purely for political/strategic reasons, and it's ugly that lives civilian and military are the cost for something like this.


Invade a country to persuade them to give up their military? In what world would anyone expect that to work?


For the Ukrainians, Chechens, Belarusian and Russian people it has effectively already started, with the countries bordering those all holding their breath.

Anybody that isn't scared at all hasn't really been paying attention. This is a pretty dicey situation that can change rapidly and will only end with Putin gone. Until then all bets are off, there are many paths to escalation and only very few to de-escalation and none of those are under control of stable players. Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and if and when tomorrows negotiations fail - which I think is a fairly safe assumption but of course I'm hoping for the opposite - then things will get a lot more dangerous. I certainly do not expect them to 'capitulate for our sake'. Warcrimes have already been committed, Putin has in the most literal sense made Russia the pariah of the world in sofar as it already wasn't. Nothing more dangerous than a cornered dictator with nukes, we all have to hope that cooler heads in the Kremlin will prevail. But Putin is walking dead at this point, either at the hand of his mates or by going full Jim Jones.

For the rest of us: circle of concern, circle of influence. If you can't change it don't fret about it. Things will happen as they will.


Russia would need to attack a NATO country. No US forces will defend Ukraine in Ukraine.


Yes. This situation is dangerous. It's moving quickly and getting out of hand. The comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis is apt.

The US and Russia have already been fighting hot proxy wars for a decade. US arms have already been killing Russian soldiers. A lot of weapons were pumped into Syria. In turn Russia ramped up tactics used. No one won. The Syrian people lost, badly.

If this doesn't end quickly, best case is another Syria or Iraq.. Just horrible mass devastation. Worst case is the end of the world.

I was glad to see the Americans finally put in a red line on escalation. They didn't agree to a "no fly zone" (what perfect Orwellian doublespeak), or ratchet up rhetoric in response to Putin mentioning nukes.


Nah, no one cares enough about Ukraine to escalate this to WWIII.


I'm annoyed that not a single person at work has even brought it up. Other than that, nah, I've lived an interesting life and don't really care whether it's the end of the world.

I don't think it'll come to that, because for all of Putin's control, everyone around him knows that nukes will be the end of the world. So those around him can't let it happen.

Or I'm wrong, and they can. We'll find out.

I have a mirror of one of Ben Marking's WW3 videos. I should reupload it. It pretty much predicted all of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/8mlori/what_happen...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508078

They're gone now though.


There’s a bunch of reuploads on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHLU0Uej1WA


Heck yes! Thank you!

/me proceeds to tell literally everyone about it


I’d love to see it.


Thanks to HN user eswat, you can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHLU0Uej1WA&ab_channel=Tooth

I recommend waiting till nighttime and turning up the volume for extra effect.


Thanks. That was terrifying.


I have been prepping for another a disaster or war most of my adult life. It's always good to be prepared. Can't count on the US being a superpower forever. This is why I'm happy I guns and ammo where I was born. I have MRE's for a long, an extended time. The ability and knowledge to garden & hunt for food. As well as trapping. I have a bunker, and an isolated cabin available to me and my family. There wouldn't be many if any survivors in a nuclear war between superpowers. If we are ever invaded, at least I can give myself and family a fighting chance of staying alive for a bit. I would rather die fighting than to be a prisoner of any sorts. I know a land invasion of the US is a very slim chance, but there's always a chance in life. I should also have no problems surviving more or less forever without internet (laugh at this one but our world runs on the Internet at this point as most of you should know.) or power. I can survive without running water, sewer. I am able to garden and hunt if it were to come to it. Likewise, I feel bad for those in cities. You're the ones that are going to have the toughest go at it if anything major were to happen. Hope nothing happens, I hope the Ukraine survives this. I feel horrible for any of the people that have no training that were forced to be canon fodder for their government. It's a shit situation. I'm not a praying man, but my thoughts go out to all their families. I hope there's something NATO can do to step in and stop this soon. Standing by shouldn't be an option. Just to be clear, I do not believe in war, I also don't believe in being bullied either. Sometimes it may be the only option left. I may have prepared more than others, but I seriously hope nothing happens. Putin is a dangerous man, and I'm not sure Joe Biden has the mental capacity left at this stage in his life to make the right decisions. I have no issues with the man, just worried. I would Kamala Harris in power over Biden in this situation. He's aging quick. Peace & Love to everyone, except for Putin!


Yes, most probably it is begin of WW3.

No, it won't be nuclear war.


Yes, I am Czech and I am worried about it. Putin is plausibly irrational, as his invasion in Ukraine (and other behavior) has shown, and the MAD doctrine only works with rational actors (which is its biggest, but not the only, flaw).

I wish that especially US (but other nuclear powers as well) stands aside of this conflict as much as possible (militarily), especially avoiding any further nuclear escalation, since we cannot ensure that Putin is acting rationally (and not on paranoia, like the famous character of Jack D. Ripper). The Ukraine can be supported to deflect Russian attack within European countries only.

And whatever happens, I hope MAD doctrine will be finally considered, in the light of these events, to be the stupidest idea ever. And we will do instead some serious effort in denuclearization and establish a zero-nuke policy.


That assumes that Putin will accept any kind of loss in this conflict, which may not be the case. He'd go down as the man that ruined the remains of Russia rather than as a victor.


"That assumes"

I don't know what are you referring to?

However, many European countries are pretty resolved to help defend Ukraine, because we all remember WW2. Whether that by itself will lead to nuclear escalation remains to be seen, if so, then God help us all...

Personally, I think World War has already started, and it was started by European people, not their governments. It is a bit different than the other two. The first was started by aristocrats, without hesitation. The second was started by democratic and hesitant elites, as a necessary reaction. This time, thanks to the Internet, the general public reacts much more quicker now and demands that government elites are involved, not so much with direct military action, but in the sense of economic sanctions and help towards Ukraine to defend itself against Russia.


I live in Russia, and I am really worried. De-professionalization of the defence and foreign affairs ministries are obvious to anyone with a bit of critical thinking. Just look at our negotiators: it's led by the ex-minister of Culture, a "historian" with a fraudulent PhD thesis, and manager of the military history society, which invents it's own reality.

The foreign affairs speaker constantly uses insults, just as the minister Lavrov.

Russian space agency is run by a PR and foreign relations guy, who never managed anything more substatial than a modest political party, and now is just doing freak show on Twitter.

My major hope is that the elites alliance will start to rattle and falls apart, and maybe they dispose Putin, like Khruschov in 1964.


There is a lot of focus on criticizing news media and accusing those worried of consuming the bad ones, but I think that's kind of unreasonable to apply broadly. The fact, regardless, is that Putin and the Russian state news are threatening very explicitly to kill the world for confusingly-described reasons only semi-related to what's actually happening (sanctioning Russia, supplying Ukraine). It's reasonable to believe they are just trying to scare people and nothing will happen, but it's also reasonable to be worried. That said - you should indeed not worry about WW3 (at least not the nuclear kind we assume it would be), but not because of the general hatred for much of news media.


To avoid war, it is better not to be a hypocrite.


Yes. Definitely. At the start of the war Biden promised to stay out, now NATO countries (with implicit approval from D.C.) are scrambling to supply arms and fighters to Ukraine. This is an escalation and will be answered by Russian nukes. Hope I'm proven wrong, though, and hotheads from Brussels manage to back down gracefully.

To anyone delusional enough to call Putin irrational/bluffing/terminally ill: this is not about Putin. Beltway policy wonks have been talking about this for a decade - Russian army went through a _doctrinal_ shift that drew the lines Putin was talking about and simultaneously offered a possible solution in terms of nuclear demonstrative actions.


If global thermonuclear war is the outcome, there’s nothing I can do about it. There is no gain in worrying about something you can’t control.

In terms of what is within my control, my family is already as well-prepared as is reasonably possible after the COVID panic(s). Any further “prepping” would hurt us economically to the point that it wouldn’t be rational.

FWIW, I don’t think that’s going to happen. The worst case that I see as likely is a limited nuclear exchange, contained within Eastern Europe. I think that would be extremely unlikely, and would result in Putin’s death and drastic changes in Russian politics.


Yes, you're overreacting.

I'm Russian-Canadian. I have no love for Putin. He's an evil monster that would blow up hundreds of his own citizens to justify invading Chechnya and killing hundreds more.

But he's also not Hitler in the 30s. OK, I don't know what's in his heart. And I'm sure if you tried to describe the final extension of the Holocaust in 1936, people would laugh at you and say you're overreacting. Probably even German leadership itself in 1942 had no appetite for the details of The Final Solution. (There is a truly tremendous film about this from 2001 called Conspiracy [0])

But even if he had the ambition and drive and hatred of Hitler, he doesn't have the means. Germany was the 3rd largest economy throughout the 1930s. The military was in the same range, and it was arguably the most technologically innovative in tanks, submarines, and rockets until the rest of the world struggled to catch up throughout the war.

Russia isn't anywhere close, so it couldn't support or succeed in a land invasion even if tried.

The only fear might be if it actually launched ICBMs, but such actions cannot be done by the whims of one madman, and I believe there is enough reasonable people to stop Putin from doing so.

That's not to say things can't get much worse before they get better. The only thing that will stop Putin now is an internal coup, and while the protests are rising, the majority of the civilians still support him. The new sanctions look like they're helping, but there could still be tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Ukraine before this ends.

I also wouldn't put it past Putin to commit wholely to attempting to punish any non-NATO countries now via invasion. I think Finland has every reason to be EXTREMELY worried.

But i ultimately think the dominoes are falling. Russia can't survive being cut off from the rest of the world the way they have been. We're going to look back and remember this as the first step in Putin's fall. But whether it will take 2 weeks or 2 years remains to be seen.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(2001_film)


I'm not gonna lie I'm terrified because the eagerness people cheer for one side reminds me of the stories about how soldiers went blue eyed into WWI. The most dangerous time is still ahead of us if Ukraine wins this and if Putin and his inner circle sees they have nothing left to lose.

If there is something like a collective psyche then it certainly isn't its healthy usual self (if it ever was) considering how many of us are isolated due to the pandemic. It's a very strange situation.


Russian is here. I am sorry everything that happens because of the regime, we also feel powerless. In my case, it is not even possible to protest, since I am a student and the government won't let me receive any education afterwards. I know many people in Ukraine, so looking at the situation is even worse. Regarding nuclear weapons, Putin is just showing off.


You gotta remember that we've fought conventional wars before via proxy and it has never led to nukes. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

We've essentially been playing this game for the past 70 years or so where its acceptable to send arms to nations and lend them support in conventional wars against one of the superpowers, without suffering nuclear retaliation.

And there's a lot of powerful and wealthy people in Russia who don't want WWIII since nobody wins that and they want to preserve as much of their wealth as possible.

If Putin himself feels like he's at the end of his own timeline and goes nuts there is likely to be a lot of people around him who would prefer to throw him to the wolves to try to save themselves as much as possible.

Russian generals who would need to agree to glass the planet probably aren't on the same kinds of lists that Putin and his inner circle are on.

Having grown up during the actual cold war when we were pretty terrified that Reagan and the USSR would stumble into nuclear holocaust by not backing down, this doesn't look that concerning to me.

I'm worried about escalation and indiscriminate killing within Ukraine, but with conventional weapons, and even that will be restrained due to instant video being posted over the Internet. I don't think he can firebomb Kyiv. I can't imagine Putin survives that politically. If he starts trying to launch nukes at someone his own military has to depose him, they can't not act in that situation (maybe he could use tactical battlefield nukes against targets in Ukraine, but I probably can't fathom the levels of outrage that you'd see at that point, and I think his regime falls within hours).

And there's Russians with a lot of wealth and power right now like Roman Abramovich who have to be very unhappy with how this is happening. If it gets any worse, they will throw their weight behind deposing Putin (if they haven't started already). Because at some point Putin could do something so horrible that the rest of the world would go after all the people like him, freeze all their assets, take everything away from them, and throw them in jail until their connections to Putin were investigated. Billionaires with very comfortable lives outside Russia ultimately aren't going to sit by idle while Putin fucks up their lives, and there are Russian generals who will take their phone calls.


Yes. I'd argue that it already is a world war... we're just in this Czechoslovakia stage where people are pretending we can stop this without more war.

There is only one way this ends, and that's with Putin dead. He knows this. And he's exactly the sort of psychopath that is willing to nuke people in order to not lose. It's not a good position to be in.


Is Putin still of sound mind and acting rationally? If so, I'm not much worried about a wider conflict or nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it's not clear he is acting rationally, and if things continue to turn against his favor (which almost every one here is rooting for) we could be facing a desperate madman with nothing to lose.


Honestly, the answer is no here. Putin can make as many threats as he likes, but he is surrounded by fabulously wealthy insiders who have absolutely no interest in being fried to a crisp. They’re more worried about losing their reservations at Dorsia right now, and push comes to shove they’ll take the old man out back and pop him.


I'd sign for that in a heartbeat.


This isn't meant to sound trite but if it weren't for the media would you even know anything was happening?

Notice how all the anti-vaccine mandates protests have disappeared from coverage. This is just the latest news cycle.

If you're not directly affected then just ignore it.


There are people in Ukraine going about their daily business, so no you should not be worried.

Putin is just flexing as he needs some small concession to save face for the eventual withdrawal from central Ukraine.


The other day my son and I were debating if it would be cost-effective for allied nations to simply put a multi-billion dollar price on Putin's head.


Allied nations don't want to be seen as formally participating in assassination markets.


I agree there are plenty of reasons they won't do it. Our thought experiment simply assumed that it did happen.


No, I am only waiting for news that Putin is dead. I wonder who will be the one to do it, shouldn't take long after monday though.


Not yet.


—


You and Joy Behar. https://toofab.com/2022/02/25/joy-behar-worries-russia-ukrai...


No.


Yes


West is too scared of nuclear war. Putin might actually launch some tactic nukes on NATO bases near Russia to scare the West and force it to move out. But it won't turn into world war. So far Putin successfully played every card and is on its way to restore Russian Empire given enough time. And every time was underestimated by its opponents. If comments in this topic reflect west politician heads, it'll repeat over and over again.


> But it won't turn into world war.

Yes, as if NATO countries literally being nuked somehow isn't world war already.


I am. There is a real danger of going WW3.

Putin lives in another universe, he doesn't live in reality anymore.

He gambled before and won (Georgia, Syria, Chechnya).

If he gains something out of this gamble he will only bet heavier and more dangerously the next time. Gangsters never have enough.

OTOH, if he sees he will loose this gamble he will probably go full ballistic, in a nuke way, because will have nothing to loose.

There's no nice outcome out of this disgrace. The guy is a megalomaniac psychopath.


I call FUD.


And I call IRA.

(Internet Research Agency is the Russian office for spreading misinformation abroad).


[flagged]


I'll take that you live in Russia, therefore you do need some enlightenment.

If Russia weren't obsessed with imperial domination then NATO wouldn't even have a reason to exist. NATO is an expensive enterprise that needs a reason to exist. Russia's repeated violation of other countries sovereignty (Syria, Georgia, Crimea) are not "valid security concerns", they are actually validating NATO's reason to exist.

The West never invited Ukraine into NATO. Russia is the one that gave Ukraine real strong reasons to do so.

> In reality, the American political elite wanted this conflict to happen because it will make Europe dependent on American oil and gas.

And I am "pedestrian"? Please, go lighter on vodka.


I'm an American actually. It's pretty ironic that you're saying that Russia is obsessed with imperial domination when you're comparing it to the United States which has over 800 military bases spread across dozens of countries all around the world, is literally occupying multiple countries with tens of thousands of troops right now including Japan, Germany and Australia, has overthrown dozens of regimes it didn't like all around the world and has completely destroyed two entire countries on the opposite side of the planet in the last two decades. If that's not imperial hegemony, I'm not sure what is.

Also, the West never explicitly invited Ukraine into NATO but they repeatedly refused to say the door was closed for two decades.


> United States which has over 800 military bases spread across dozens of countries all around the world, is literally occupying multiple countries with tens of thousands of troops right now including Japan, Germany and Australia

Having soldiers and military bases in foreign countries isn't occupation when their governments invited you.


I never said that the US was "occupying" all countries it has bases in. For the countries mentioned, they are definitely occupied. The governments are okay with it because they are subordinate to the US. Also, two of the three countries mentioned the United States defeated in war and has been occupying ever since.


For some reason I can't reply to the other comment so I am replying to my own comment.

Just because they said it's over doesn't mean it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_US_military_presen...

Same thing for Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_ins...


That's verifiably false. US occupation of most of Germany ended in 1955, and of Berlin in 1990. US occupation of most of Japan ended in 1952, and of the Ryukyu Islands in 1972.


NATO was created as a defensive pact to combat Stalin's explicit intentions to conquer the parts of Europe he didn't manage to get at Jałta (his diplomats in late fourties openly said "Jewropa nasza" - "Europe is ours"). It never had any offensive intentions. Nobody in the West wants to conquer Moscow, that would seem like a pointless excercise in XXI century, in which power is made through economic forces and there's no more need to use violence.


It doesn't matter whether the West is going to attack or not. No country wants an adversary at on their boarder, let alone at the single weakest point of entry to the country


No need to imagine, there already were enemy rockets on Cuba and it was not solved in such a moronic way as Putin does.

Also, Ukraine alone wouldn't be sufficient to make Russians feel safe. That would require forcing whole middle third of Europe neutral, the whole swath of land from Belarus down to Yugoslavia with hundred million people, and expecting that to work is very naive. Would be problematic even with both Americans and Russians avoiding any heavy handed moves which is also naive expectation.


> No need to imagine, there already were enemy rockets on Cuba and it was not solved in such a moronic way as Putin does

What is the bay of pigs? United States tried to invade Cuban overthrow their government in the '60s as well. How did that go? The United States also weighed more extreme options like all out military invasion instead of a tactical invasion. We can thank JFK for not doing that.

I am not trying to defend Putins war or tactics, I am just pushing back on the notion that he is a mad man with no reason behind his actions other than his ego, greed, and glory. This is the simple narrative the American media wants you to believe so you don't notice that they actually wanted this war to happen.

Almost third of Europe is already neutral. Also I never said that, I was just referring to Ukraine, which is clearly of the most geostrategic significance to Russia.


Say I would like to believe something other than the "simple narrative"... then what is it, where is the actual strategy? All I see Putin doing last decade is alienating neighbors.


Strategy and narrative are not the same thing. I talked about my options regarding narrative vs reality in my other comments.

But yeah, I agree that pissing off your neighbors seems like a bad strategy. Though, if you look at recent history when Russia did the same thing to other neighboring countries like chechenya, Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014, Russia handily got away with this kind of aggression, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to think that Russian leaders bet they can do it again.


yes :(


Years in the making, Putin's bluff is finally called. He vastly underestimated the sanctions and overestimated the resilience of his "Fortress economy".

In particular, he did not expect the "toothless" EU to apply the most extreme of financial sanctions. And whilst NATO does not step in in any military way, they actually do, as many countries are shipping weapons to Ukraine.

Normally, you could consider that none of this is enough to withstand the military force of Russia, but Russia is about to fall apart...fast.

The currency will tank, there's already footage of a bank run. Several hundreds of billions of $ are frozen. Big scale business transactions blocked. Air travel blocked. The import of critical (technical) components blocked.

The ordinary Russian person, whom you'll usually never hear, was already very distrustful of government. Tomorrow they'll wake up in a dysfunctional "pariah" country to the likes of North Korea. Not only will the economy sink, they will also be culturally isolated. People laugh when Russia is banned from the meme-like "Eurovision song festival", but this does matter. They're also banned from sports, tournament hosting is cancelled, it all adds up into your nationality turning into a source of shame.

And for what? All of this suffering could have been sold and justified to the public by an actual threat, like Germany invading Russia. But no such thing is even remotely the case. The threat only exists in the warped mind of a KGB officer longing back to days...that were terrible to ordinary people.

Imagine being a Russian soldier. Asked to give your life to invade a country of people that look like you, talk like you, and never did anything to you or your country. For a shit pay and for no glory, rather for shame. Morale must be great.

Putin also just betrayed his very own insiders. Imagine being one of those oligarchs right now. A few days ago, all was just fine. Filthy rich and no limits in what you could do. Now they're put in a golden prison. The future is very insecure. Your assets at risk, your movement restricted, rather than a success story you're now a persona non grata, and your very own people may be sharpening guillotines.

Whatever the outcome, Putin accelerated it.

He's beyond saving his own face now, so somebody will have to step in. His inner circle or the Russian people themselves.

As for the nuke threat, it shows desperation. It's the only leverage left. You already lost when you use this as a threat. You never threaten with nukes, that's now how nukes work. It shows you shouldn't have them in the first place.

Anyway, they won't be used. It's bluff. The Russian administration are masters of deceit, denial and manipulation, it's all in the game. Every word is carefully chosen "put in a ready state" so that it can both be interpreted as a threat and fully denied afterwards.

That's how Russia plays its games and now it's about to win some very stupid prizes. Long overdue I'd say.


> I feel powerless to both do anything (in a country that is neither of those two!) and to look away from the news and social media

I'd personally advise you to start looking away from social media and stop "doomscrolling". It's a negative feedback loop, where you're worried about the war, and you end up looking for information, which in turn worries you more about the war. I'm not telling you not to stay informed on current events, just to avoid compulsive information gathering and reinforcing that feedback loop.

I'd especially recommend avoiding social media for information, unless you have a reason to do so (family or friends in the region). Most information on social media is unreliable at best, and a lot of it serves as a way to spread disinformation and propaganda, and by design it also tends to amplify certain feelings. To give you an example, one of the posts on reddit that trended in r/all last week providing information on the war in Ukraine was from a car news site. Few people bothered to read more than the (altered) headline, and immediately jumped down into the comments section to cheer on their favorite team. If there was a social media bingo card, I'd've been a winner: unreliable source, unverified information, appeal to emotion, nobody read the content, enormous amount of engagement.

I'd honestly recommend to stick to a few reliable news sources you trust, and spread your intake of the news across a few fixed moments in the day. Turn off notifications, don't stay on top of a situation you can't affect change in. Be aware of the bias your news sources will have, and be aware that the media wants you to come back for more news and will also gladly ramp up the anxiety levels for that. Try to read the news as dispassionate as you can, and opt for long form rather than reactionary short form articles.

While there's nothing you can do about the war, perhaps there are ways you can do something positive in another place. Stay on top of situations where you can affect a change.

> News and reports today of Russian ICBMs and other nuclear forces being placed on high alert

While I'm not going to argue that this isn't a serious threat, the world today is no more at threat of global nuclear annihilation than it was yesterday or the day before. The actors have remained the same, the stockpiles have remained the same, and there is no real change in mutually assured destruction either. The best use of nuclear weapons in this conflict is to not use them at all, but remind everyone that you have them. Anything else will escalate the situation far more out of control than it already is. Unless someone has gone completely unhinged, they're well aware of this.

> Am I the only person affected similarly by events? How else have you been coping with it all?

A few years ago I came to the conclusion that the way I consumed news had drastically changed compared to how I did before. There's various technological and social reasons for it. For one, the decline of RSS has contributed to it, but more importantly the rise of social media, ubiquitous smartphones and constant internet connectivity contributed greatly to this.

There is a battle on your smartphone over your free time, with notifications, reminders and alerts. The web itself (even traditional news sites) is geared towards maximizing engagement, and to compete with various apps and other sites they too play on your sentiments, or entice you via clickbait. Social networks similarly will play on your sentiments in order to maximize the amount of time you spend on them.

By the end of the 2016 election and the years that followed, I got the feeling that everyone had dived in some terrible rabbit hole. While out for a drink, friends would be busy scrolling on their phones rather than having a conversation. I noticed that people around me who were far more contemplative in the past started to act far more reactionary than they would have in the past. The years in that period were a constant barrage of shitstorms, from one controversy to the next, I found it to be an assault on the senses. If there wasn't a controversy to be stirred, some nontroversy would fill the gap. I noticed myself and everyone doomscrolling, and noticed that the feeling of dread I had been experiencing was strongly linked to it.

I found it all so incredibly tiresome, so I tuned out from the daily churn. I put the smartphone away and started looking at the sources I was consuming and how I wasted my time by letting traditional and social media appeal to my sentiments. Just tune out of the continuous stream of updates and reactions, and start consuming long term and long form again. I don't mean by this that you should stay uninformed, or that you should become completely apathetic, but reduce the amount of time you spend in the immediate reactionary news cycle.

The situation in Ukraine is indeed concerning, but focusing less on the now, the fast react quotes, the immediate developments, in a situation you have no control over will remove a lot of the feeling of impending doom and dread.


There is a difference between justified anxiety, general butterflies, and anxiety disorders. I'm not your therapist so I cannot say but absolutely. This is a major world event with major consequences to people's lives.

The reality is that Russia invaded a sovereign nation. However, that nation never joined any military alliances. So we are not going to defend them.

What seems evident however, Russian special forces are getting their ass kicked in Ukraine and the general troops coming in behind are going to get wiped. Russia is about to come up against general mobilization of highly motivated VERY well supplied freedom fighters.

I'm also pretty convinced there's massive degree of proxy war going on. Everyone's special forces are in ukraine wiping Russians off the map. Everyone has basically declassified Russian troop movements. The Russians can't win.

When a country starts a war like this and after only a few days of losing spectacularly... they call for peace talks. They know they screwed up pretty big time. Russia will be paying for this for a long time.


Tell your representatives that America doesn't need to be, and should not be involved.


WW3 won't happen until N. Korea invades S. Korea forcing the US to respond with tactical nukes, triggering nuclear escalation. Probably won't be until 2027 or so. I always get blasted when I mention joel skousen's site, but he's literally been talking about this since at least 2005. https://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/


That sounds sufficient but not necessary. Just because that's one potential trigger, doesn't mean there aren't others.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: