‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin & Nukes...Putin is trying to take down the entire world order. And It Was Trump who emboldened him!, Fiona claims

[there4eyeM]

Using nukes is nihilistic. Nihilism is a strong human trait, even if we judge it "sick". It is the perfect excuse for the use of such weapons, and why they should never been at the disposal of less than human minds.

 

[Rigby5]

Using nukes is nihilistic. Nihilism is a strong human trait, even if we judge it "sick". It is the perfect excuse for the use of such weapons, and why they should never been at the disposal of less than human minds.

No, nukes are not nihilistic at all.
Nukes are just bad, but when things could be even worse if you do not use them, then they are the best option available.
If one looks at Putin's alternatives, nukes likely are the best way out.

Either Putin accepts the US bribing the Ukraine military into the 2014 coup, stealing Russian oil, violating treaties and being able to annihilate Russia at will from NATO nukes being put in Russia's border, OR Russia prevents all that by using nukes right away.
Clearly then nukes right away are the best option, because then at least most of Russia would survive.
If Russia waits until AFTER the US puts NATO nukes on Russia's border, then none of Russia will survive.

 

[Rigby5]

nothing justifies the use of nuclear weapons. NOTHING!

Lots of things justify the use of nuclear weapons.
If you are sure that the enemy is going to attack you with nukes, like Russia can be sure the US intends to put NATO nukes on Russia's border for a deliberate first strike capability, then of course Russia is justified in a first strike, in order to reduce Russia's losses.

 

[Rigby5]

from the NYT:

CIA Director Williams Burns on Tuesday said Russian President Vladimir Putin went to war on a number of faulty assumptions fueled by his "stewing in a combustible combination of grievance and ambition" and poor advice from aides afraid to question or challenge his judgement.

Director Burns said President Putin thought Ukraine was "weak and easily intimidated," that Europeans were distracted by elections and risk averse, that his economy was "sanctions-proofed" after stockpiling foreign currency reserves, and that his military was capable of a quick, decisive victory at minimal cost.

"He's been proven wrong on every count," the CIA director told the House Intelligence Committee.

This if a far bigger win for Putin than he could possibly have imagined.
The US and Russia have been trying to bankrupt each other for decades, like Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., but you would think they would both be smart enough to not get sucked in any more.
But clearly Russia is not spending anything on this Ukraine invasion, with old 1970 tanks that are no more than movie props.
And yet the US is spending hundreds of billions on the latest missiles.
The US then will clearly soon go bankrupt or lose, while Russia can easily afford to keep this ruse going forever.

 

[Rigby5]

Putin is no Joseph Stalin, he is not nearly as ruthless as Stalin was. To go through with Nukes he would have to be more like Stalin and I don't Putin has it in him to go through using Nukes. I don't think he has it in him to kill millions like Stalin did.

I am becoming convinced he has no plans to use Nukes, his talks are just intimidation to get the west to pull sanctions and their support for Ukraine, which he has failed miserably at.

This war is becoming the biggest embarassment for Putin. All this effort, money, resources only to lose in Ukraine and drag your country into depression. It is obvious this war was very poor plaining and not well thought out which is costing him dearly.

I disagree.
The US goal is NATO nukes on Russia's border, which would allow a US first strike, without retaliation.
That can never be allowed, so Russia will have no choice except the use of nukes, if the US keeps sending illegal weapons to Kyiv.

And if one does not understand why it is illegal for the US to send weapons to Kyiv, it is because Kyiv committed crimes by violating treaties, such as murdering ethnic Russians, stealing Russian oil, trying to join alliances hostile to Russia, etc.
So when the US arms someone who committed criminal acts of war, the US becomes complicit.

 

[Rigby5]

Even notoriously neutral Sweden is sending weapons to Ukraine. Putin has turned the whole world against Russia

All that means is that the US has either a greater network of bribes and extortion, or the US has the best PR.
Because clearly it was the US who deliberately started this in 2014 and it is entirely the Ukraine what committed crimes.
Russia has no choice but to punish these obvious crimes by Kyiv.