Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 21
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
IIRC there were a lot of Allied plans to kill Hitler, it’s just that none of them got very far. The CIA supposedly did attempt to kill Kruschev. In the second half of the 20th century, I’m not aware of them ever attempting to kill the leader of a major world power. The State Department did make a last minute intervention last year to try and stop a Ukrainian attempt to kill Putin, which is something that makes me think it might not be bullshit.
Regardless of the morals and legality, I think it’s pretty irresponsible to try and kill the leadership of a nuclear state. I don’t think the attitude of Putin’s hypothetical successor would be “hey it got me this nice chair, so all is forgiven!” I think it would be anger and a need to set an example so that kind of thing doesn’t happen again.
I have seen other behaviors by Ukraine attempting to bait the Russians into a limited nuclear strike against Ukraine to try and bring NATO into the conflict.
I believe the 'Ukraine trying to bait Russia into a nuclear strike' is well-worn Russian disinfo, whose main trick the whole war has been nuclear threats. If russians are that weak, and so desperate to nuke Ukraine, let's just go; I'll blame them, obviously, and not the victims of the nuclear strike, for 'baiting' the psychos.
What are they going to do? Continue the war, but angrier? Nuke ukraine? Really? I'm trying to understand a moral framework where killing one murderous dictator is 'irresponsible' but nuclear strikes & risking nuclear annihilation, are justified by the various 'baits' of ukrainians.
Ukraine previously drone striked a radar installation in northern Russia the sole purpose of which is to monitor the North Pole for incoming ICBMs. It had zero utility for any of the Russian military activity in Ukraine. Sure it’s war, Ukraine can hit anything they want, but I fail to see why else they would do that.
Personally I would rather not die of radiation poisoning and end human civilization just because it’s within your moral framework
They also destroyed poor old innocent nuclear-capable bombers with the drone-truck attack.
Why would they not hit anything of value to russia they can? Do you think they need a suicidal reason(let's bait them to nuke us!) to not respect russian property? Why is all the onus of restraint on them, and never on the giant aggressor with nukes?
Blockades are an act of war too. Cuba could have just fired a nuke at the American fleet in ‘62 and been done with it. They had the nukes. They had launch authority. Hell, that’s what Castro wanted to do. Thankfully for all of humanity the Soviet presidium wasn’t taking your advice.
Ukraine does not have nukes, this analogy does not work at all.
Ok but why not? If Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine has zero responsibility to restrain themselves in their defense, why not just give them four hundred hydrogen bombs and let ‘er rip?
I would call for restraint then - in fact, I would simply maintain my 'don't nuke' policy. You have a 'don't do anything that might provoke Russia to nuke' which is completely different. I urge the same restraint in similar circumstances for both - you want more restraint from the weaker, less dangerous, defensive party.
It seems we that agree there should be some amount of restraint. Now we’re just haggling over the degree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link