Given that each side is rational, the doctrine of mutual assured destruction says neither side will start a nuclear war. During the cold war, the US and the USSR opposed each other with nuclear arsenals, and even engaged in flare-ups here and there. But, there was no nuclear war because each side was rational.
Each side was confident in its ultimate victory. The democrats believed in democracy, and the communists believed in communism. Khrushchev famously said, we will bury you (meaning with kitchen appliances, family homes, health clinics, etc.) Nixon engaged him in “the kitchen debate.” Why would either side gamble a sure victory with peace by getting into a nuclear war?
Well, when the Berlin Wall fell, it was your side that collapsed. Democracy won, not communism.
For a time it looked as though Russia would join with the west as a democratic country. But, no. I’m sorry. Yeltsin was weak and the Chechens were (and still are) crazy. Russia needed a strong leader, and that person turned out to be Putin. Putin and his party were actually the best at the time for Russia. But, the corruption was too ingrained. And, instead of evolving into a multi-party democracy, Russia evolved into a dictatorship. Eventually Putin and his party succumbed to corruption.
Nowadays, Russia is a kleptocracy with nuclear weapons. It has become a big version of North Korea. It is not clear that Russia is rational.
Certainly Iran isn’t rational. They have the idea they can usher in the battle of Armageddon and the coming of the 12th Imam. They are religious fanatics and there’s no telling what they will do.
China, on the other hand, appears to be confident in their system. They say the west is corrupt by materialism. That we are lazy, stupid and fat. That crime and sexual perversion is growing. They think their system, in which the state controls the media and education, is better, because it maintains the ethics of hard work and saving.
Xi is therefore like Khrushchev. He believes his system will win with peace. Why would he risk victory by getting into a war with us? As long as we are reasonable, we can work with that guy. Let’s wait until the next time something like the Berlin Wall falls, and one of the two sides collapses. Then, we will find out whether Chinese communism or western democracy prevails.
Yoou make interesting points in commen #144. Perhaps we should have smothered Russia with toilets and washing machines. Then the Russian soldiers would have had less enthusiasm for invading Ukraine to loot their toilets and washing machines for home use.
Since Iran is crazy we definitely don’t want them to have nuclear capability. For China it makes sense to project a sense of our strength so they don’t think war will gain them much. As to Russia, it certainly has its crazies, but the current moves against a number of military figures and corruption are well worth watching and analyzing. Is the goal here to increase the capacity of Russia to conquer Ukraine, or is it setting up an opportunity for Putin to say this war (oops, NOT war) is no longer worth fighting, time to end it and provide butter not guns? Certainly a nice thought for the Russian people, but time will tell. Meanwhile with yesterday’s report of Russia’s human losses passing one half million, many Russians will be questioning the current fighting, and perhaps Putin will listen.
We rejected the Russians even as they were trying to near, even align, themselves with the West in all aspects: politically, militarily, economically.
Specifically, there were some European nations which opened up to the Russians.
However, eventually it became apparent that the US in particular was more interested in expanding into the Russian sphere of influence, expanding the size and scope of its military alliance, in complete disregard of Russian interests.
We broke promises (NATO East expansion), withdrew from treaties (Ballistic Missile Treaty), violated treaties and conventions made by others (Minsk, Montreux), and were trying to get our fingers into literally every oil and gas producing nation aligned or even formally allied with Russia (Libya, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela), trying to expand our military alliance to their border and build bases there.
Russian disarmament (post Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union) simply became a weakness we can exploit. That is a reality Russia woke up to with Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia in 2004. They weren’t going to let that happen again as evidenced by the Republic of Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 or now Ukraine 2022.
Since we care so much about democracy, human rights and sovereignty, maybe we should build a military base on Taiwan! I wonder why we won’t do that. We won’t do that because the PRC is powerful, we respect power, and we saw Russia as weak. It’s “us” that is the big shark.
Try thinking and making arguments, and use less emotional words that really are no argument. Are we a kleptocracy? Are you telling me that most of our Congress who become rich in some cases even worth billions are doing so on their “public servant” salaries? Are you telling me the Biden’s are clean? Are you telling me most governors of states are clean? Stop it with the dumb word-feelings associations. That’s for dummies.
Is Russia corrupt? Sure. So are we. One of my former governors: https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/15/opinion/krumholz-beckel-perry-pharmaceutical/index.html
The US is an oligarchy, no different than Russia: www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdfhttps://www.cnn.com/2011/09/15/opinion/krumholz-beckel-perry-pharmaceutical/index.html
A few rich and very powerful people basically influence the elections, laws, government regulations, and their enforcement disproportionately. These people and the corporations/banks/NGO’s they steer, simply change the laws if they do not like them, literally: https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/how-disney-routinely-exerted-influence-on-the-us-copyright-law-to-keep-its-greatest-asset-mickey-mouse-549141 This is true if you’re talking about pharma, agra, big tech today... On MOST issues where the public interest and opinion stands in conflict with the interests of our oligarchs, the interests of the oligarchs are served.
But here are some facts regards the nuclear issue you address: Russia never used a nuke on someone. Russia conducted less atmospheric tests. Russia conducted less space tests. And MOST the radiation floating out there today from these tests is from us since the Russians even went as far as using lead tamping to reduce the radiation yield by >90%, while we just lit them off one after the other in the Pacific. Because we’re so rational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests