I have known a few people who have that same mentality and it's either they are fatalists or believe they will have some sort of tactical superiority if it did happen. The former is sad and the latter is stupid.
It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortable for Russia's (almost) inevitable escalation to nukes.
For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready.
The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging and empowering the dictator who is threatening it.
It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging those who would seek nuclear weapons, by letting Russia throw its weight around because it has them.
And it is not possible to avoid nuclear war by discouraging those who, like Ukraine, would disarm, by letting Ukraine be overrun.
The situation in Ukraine is an operational challenge. We cannot let its resolution undermine strategic goals.
Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States.
At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.
> The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasionss, possibly to a NATO ally.
Does it? Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Russia is doing this because they don't want Ukraine to be a NATO ally (and other reasons).
Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement. We shouldn't go to war beforehand because "maybe our allies might be attacked in the future" that doesn't make any sense.
None of this is in support of Russia, but in support of relative world peace.
But yes you should be prepared for anything as an individual. The US is always in constant readiness to fight wars (2 to be specific) as a policy..
I've always prepped, but I don't want WW3 nor do I think we should escalate due to the Ukraine invasion.
> Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement.
We had an agreement with Ukraine as well.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons
Presumably if Ukraine still had those nuclear weapons they wouldn't be facing an invasion right now. If we fail to defend them, the lesson for every country is "Don't give up your nukes, because you're going to need them when you get invaded. And if you don't have nukes now, get them as soon as you can."
1) In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you think that action A should be prefered to action B if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a of a declaration of war by Russia.
2) If Russia was to invade Sweden - for example - I imagine that you'll find that action A2 should be prefered to action B2 if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a declaration of war by Russia.
3) If there is Russian attack on a NATO country you see war as a consequence.
Some people think that taking action B now may actually decrease the probability of finding ourselves in scenarios 2 or 3 later. Maybe you don't, or you think that it increase the total risk.
But at least we may all agree that to minimize the probablility of war you have to consider the whole sequence of potential events.
