This was never about Ukraine, any settlement would be met by further escalation when he felt ready. Probably when the west was more fractured, insular, nationalistic and our democratic institutions more fragile.
The west makes the critical mistake of seeing this conflict as about Ukraine. Putin sees the war as a single front in a much larger pending conflict with the west. He firmly believes this conflict must occur for Russia to have a place in the future geopolitical order 100 years from now. In his mind, there is no distinction, or tactical advantage, between using a nuclear weapon in Poland versus Ukraine. I argue, Putin is far more likely to use a nuclear weapon against a NATO target in a Baltic state than use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. A nuclear attack on a Baltic state would be far more palatable to the Russian people versus using a nuclear weapon against people who are viewed as "Russian". More importantly, he thinks about history in terms of decades and centuries. Using a nuclear weapon within what he considers Russian territory is untenable in the broad historical arc he has created.
Launching a nuke only makes sense if Putin just wants to try and end the world? A tactical nuke isn't likely to change the strategic direction of the war, it's just escalation for the sake of escalation. He's already losing the war. Launching a nuke in Ukraine or NATO does not mean that NATO respond with nukes. They can respond with conventional weapons and end the war within a week.
Plus there's a non-zero chance that the chain of command refuses to carry out the order and undermines all internal authority that Putin has.
I agree, NATO will never respond with nukes, even if a nuke is launched directly into NATO territory. NATO understands this is a 0 sum outcome. And it's not needed.
I think the risk is that those around Putin (regime), and Putin himself to an extent, believe that a world without Russia is not worth having. And to the regime, Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin. The question is, if there is a 100% chance that should he lose this conflict that his regime will collapse and a 99% chance that Russia could survive a nuclear war on equal footing with the west which will he choose?
Even a full scale nuclear war will not end the world, many millions, likely billions will survive. It will just be nothing like the world before.
MAD is there for a reason, anyone who thinks that a nuclear attack within territory of a NATO country or forces within the areas that fall under Article 5 won’t trigger a nuclear response is kidding themselves.
And not only that eroding the threat of MAD makes the world a far dangerous place because it makes a first strike more likely.
That said even if the conflict goes nuclear there are different levels of escalation a targeted nuclear attack on say a military target would likely trigger a proportional response even if it’s a nuclear one.
And outside of NATO the US would very likely respond with a retaliatory nuclear strike against a nuclear strike on its forces where ever they might be.
The point is that they don't "need" to respond with nukes. They can trigger article 5 and start a conventional war and achieve the same or better outcome; possibly without even putting boots on the ground. For example, NATO could (likely) sink the remainder of Russia's Black Sea fleet within a few days of triggering article 5. And/or they could actually establish a no fly zone and be fully justified in doing so.
Responding with a full on nuclear assault because someone first strikes with a Nuke that's smaller then those used in WWII doesn't make sense. You can probably do more damage with chemical, biological, or cyber warfare then a nuke like that (unless targeted at a dense population center).
Not only would they need too but they would must response with nukes because if they don’t it makes the world a much less safe place.
If Russia thinks it can use nukes without a nuclear response they’ll use them, this is literally the entire concept of MAD and any erosion of it brings us closer to a nuclear war.
And if the US thinks it can make a nuclear response without a larger nuclear response...
Remember the mindset of Putin. "What good is a world without Russia?" It's better to have no world than a world where Russia is not a central player.
Just how Putin is losing the war exactly? I'm curious to know since that's the only thing I hear since may. It seems that rather than making Russia back down, they are doubling down. This move is basically saying that we're entering a new phase: nuclear war.
They have lost more land in the last three weeks then they have gained in a some ungodly large amount of time (three months? more?). They look like they are going to lose Kherson in mere weeks at this point.
Additionally older and older equipment is being seen on the frontline every month we are already seeing armoured units in Kherson that have mostly T62s instead of the usual T72z
They pulled back from Kyiv after becoming overly stretched, then their Kharkiv front collapsed, then they lost Lyman, now they're losing Kherson. It's becoming a pattern. They've had no significant gains in a long time, only losses.
But their propaganda tells them that the Ukrainians who are fighting are neo-Nazis. So a nuke that kills the army isn't going to be seen as bad. There could also be changing sentiment towards Ukraine within Russia, I've heard murmurs about that (but no good polling, yet).
The printer space ripe for distruption. I have had really bad experiences with HP Printers, specifically related to force installing software / drivers on PCs. I consider the HP SmartPrint app to be malware as it completely locks down the printer if it detects a non-HP cartridge. Or at least it used to, before they were sued. Now it ensures you are constantly harrassed about buying genuine ink, gives false low toner messages, and flashes various warnings designed to scare consumers into overpaying for toner. I assume the same is true for all brands. I'd like to see a printer that isn't agressively marketing toner to me or at least offers it at a fair price.
> The printer space ripe for distruption. [...] I'd like to see a printer that isn't agressively marketing toner to me or at least offers it at a fair price.
Won't happen. If it does happen, they won't succeed.
The reason being that consumers are short-sighted and price sensitive. If they see two printers with identical features and specs, but one is $100 and the other is $200, they'll buy the $100 one before looking and noticing that the $100 printer requires $75 ink cartridges while the $200 printer can take $25 cartridges.
So printer manufacturers have to sell the hardware at as low a price as possible to compete with other manufacturers and they make up the difference in ink/toner. If someone tried to do what you're asking, they'd have to have a higher price to be profitable and wouldn't make any sales.
Or, if you're HP, you market something that seems like the best of both worlds, and then gouge the value in two years with a firmware update, and/or shenanigans with consumables.
Well I bought TWTR at it's peak... I'm voting my shares against a buyout (won't matter), mostly because it locks in a loss that I feel would have been recoverable in the next 5 years...
I cunningly bought TWTR at the top too and thus was hoisted by mine own petard. basically as a retail investor I have no leverage so all in all I'm happy to just get my money returned.
Right it seems unlikely to believe that Twitter is undervalued but that nothing else is equally undervalued to invest in after getting a small profit off of the Twitter investment.
To be fair, many, if not most, of the failed experiments in California are voter enacted conservative pet projects (Prop 8, Property Tax Cap, Ban on Affirmative Action, Making Uber drivers unable to be considered employees...) Either way, the idea of governing by Constitutional amendment seems like a terrible idea. We ostensibly elect leaders so that they can be deeply informed on public policy and make wise decisions. Personally, I feel uneasy voting on the 20+ propositions each year, since I don't have the time or capacity to fully research and appreciate the public policy implications of my votes. I'd much rather offload this responsibility to an elected Representative (and their staff) who broadly shares my worldview.
Diversity levels at colleges were increasing under the non affirmative action.
Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Uber contractors were able to set their own hours and work when they wanted. Not having to listen to the man on when they wanted to turn on the work sign. I get it, there needs to be a balance, but think about the benefits these laws have had. The Uber situation was great for some, and bad for those who could not do maths.
> Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.
Price controls always distort the market. Property tax cap simply gives earlier residents an advantage versus newer residents for a highly in demand land like California’s. It is a blatant wealth transfer from newer land owners to previous landowners. I guess there could be some benefits from that, but I am not convinced of the long term, societal benefits of it versus the drawbacks.
I've been remote for 5 years. I have been happy to take a 50% reduction in what I could be making. In the past, I would wake up in the morning and find myself willing to pay more money than I would make that day in order to not have to go into work. The economics of that didn't work out. I also work for a mission driven organization that is on a tight budget. I make enough money, but more importantly, I have not had a single day in five years where I didn't want to go to work. That's pretty priceless.
I completely agree. (largely because of covid), I got to see both my children grow up and then go to elementry school. I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world.
Doesn't youtube have an option to allow the copyright holders to monetize the videos in these cases? i.e. Get a cut of the AdSense revenue that would otherwise go to the uploader? Did this user choose not to split that revenue and instead opt to take down the videos, or did the record label force the takedown? It seems to me that it would be interest of the record label to take a cut of the profits off of recordings that would otherwise not make them a dime.
That doesn't fix the issue of the copyright holder being incorrectly identified. A musician uploading their own music should not have to give up their revenue to a company that holds a copyright on a different recording of the same public domain score.
