How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Copernicus]

I know one guy who was a chauffeur for a firetruck

Point of information: In English, "chauffeur" is a very specific kind of "driver" - one who drives luxury passenger vehicles for wealthy people who don't want to drive themselves.

A person operating a firetruck would just be called a "driver"; "Chauffeur" sounds weird in this context.

The problem with bilingual dictionaries is that they give you synonyms for words that aren't synonyms in every context. Machine translation programs ran into this problem a long time ago and produced some hilarious translations of foreign texts. The more modern sophisticated programs are trained up on associating words with other words in the text that help resolve such ambiguities, but they still make some errors. For example, Russian шофёр [sho-FYOR] means "driver" or "chauffeur" and "chauffage" is French for 'heating'. So there is a path whereby a poorly trained AI-based machine translation might prefer to think of drivers of firetrucks as "chauffeurs".

As a matter of fact, my mother tongue is Swedish and in Swedish the word is 'chaufför'.
On the other hand, I am always a little bit confused with languages. It depends always on which language(s) I have studied a subject. I haven't been writing in English for ten years, so I should read a dozen of books and everything would be fine again - almost fine.

Do you author texts in Swedish and then pass them through a translation program before editing? Just curious whether you are writing in English without machine assistance. I myself can read some Swedish, but I would only try to write in Swedish after using a translator. And then I would still miss a lot of errors, because I wouldn't know Swedish well enough to catch them.

It depends on the subject. Here in IIDB it goes like this:
- I write 90% directly in English and a program corrects/tries to correct me when I write something wrong.
- I write about 10 % in Finnish, if the subject is very complicated or I am very tired - and then I use ChatGTP.

- When I write short stories or such (not IIDB-stuff) I usually use Finnish, sometimes Swedish and sometimes English. This is because if I write some story for a publicum in a certain language, then I have to write in that language. This is because the culture etc. is so different eg. between Finnish and English, that I can't get the same feeling into the text if I begin to translate it later with AI or try to translate it by myself.
As an example; I have a court case that I should write about and all documents are in Finnish, so naturally I write all about it in Finnish.
I have a "fairy tale for children and adults" that I will try to expand and what not. That book I will try to make with the help of AI. And the best "AI-language" is English. I do not know yet how it will be, maybe I have to skip the project.

I am multilingual, but not in the sense that your are. You are a natural multilingual. The difference is that your mind will tend to contextualize your language use. Linguists call the compartmentalization "register"--the particular language that you use in a given context. The act of shifting between languages is called "code switching". If you watch bilingual films, e.g. a Hindi film, you will notice the speakers switching between Hindi and English without any apparent reasoning. Sociolinguists do research on what factors trigger the code switching. So it is not unusual for a change of topic or level of formality to affect which language (or register) feels most comfortable for you in a given situation.

I am a natural English monolingual, but I might code switch across English dialects rather than languages. Although I've studied dozens of languages in connection with my profession, very few of them are internalized enough to produce the same effect. When you study a language formally and don't pick it up naturally, you tend to have just one register when using the non-native one.

 

[Henry-Finland]

Russian army officer admits that troops tortured Ukrainian soldiers - BBC News​

Looting, torture, murder...

 

[Henry-Finland]

 

[pood]

View attachment 47619

Germany didn’t have nukes. You’re taking a big gamble that Russia wouldn’t use nukes in this scenario. I think there is a very good chance they would use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and may even do so yet without U.S. weapons being fired into their territory.

 

[pood]

Of course, this being Russia, none of their nukes may actually work, so, there is that …

 

[TV and credit cards]

Reuters reports the US is close to authorizing JASSMs for use by Ukrainian forces. With this it is a fair assumption strikes deep within Russia will come along with them along with similar authorization from other western nations. It's about time. While not the stealthiest of missile, Russian radar has proven ineffective against them in Syria. Even still, JASSMs are programmable for a circuitous and low altitude route around air defenses. There are 230 mile and 575 mile versions available. This should push Russian staging areas further back. They'll probably have Ukraine use up the now out of production shorter range version to clear out closer military targets.
US close to agreeing on long-range missiles for Ukraine; delivery to take months
Poland and Finland both have them and Poland is really loading up.

Something else to nosh on:
They can also be loaded on a pallet in box tubes, dropped out the back of a cargo plane, at which point the JASSMs will fall out, light-off and off they go to their targets. Devious fucks.
Rapid Dragon

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You’re taking a big gamble that Russia wouldn’t use nukes in this scenario.

And if they did that they would be more of a world pariah than they are now.

 

[bilby]

You’re taking a big gamble that Russia wouldn’t use nukes in this scenario.

And if they did that they would be more of a world pariah than they are now.

It's difficult to be a pariah when you are radioactive dust.

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

And Vlad Utin should be fully aware of this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's difficult to be a pariah when you are radioactive dust.

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

And Vlad Utin should be fully aware of this.

Correct. It's impossible for you or me to know exactly what plans the U.S. and its allies have given this eventuality. The likelihood of such a scenario is vanishingly remote but Russian Hitler and the FSB are playing their cards very well. It's all a bluff but we're just being stupid and afraid. We can end this war in months if we simply stopped paying attention to these idle threats and gave Ukraine the weapons it needs to make the Russians hate the war.

 

[Politesse]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

The Russian trolls have you scared is all. That's why they issue threat after threat after threat after threat...

 

[TomC]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

Really this.
I'm not at all confident that if Putin knew that not only his throne but his life were on the edge he wouldn't use nukes.
In fact, I'm confident that he would.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

The Russian trolls have you scared is all. That's why they issue threat after threat after threat after threat...

It's more about how I think the US would react than about whether I think Russia would do it. They can't afford to lose Chinese support, and China can't abandon its publically admitted policy on nukes, so it probably won't. But I don't think the US would go to war over a "tactical nuke" being deployed in Ukraine. We are not in an interventionist mood, this decade.

If it were one of our cities that got bombed, that would be another matter.

 

[Tigers!]

View attachment 47619

UK had the Lancaster. Didn't need US weapons to hit Germany.

So not really relevant

 

[bilby]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

It needs to not only be true, but to be emphasised repeatedly on every diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow.

Nuclear deterrence depends entirely on the certainty that any first use will provoke an overwhelming retaliatory response.

 

[steve_bank]

It came close in the Cuban Crisis.

Khrushchev was facing a potential military coup for making any kind of a deal.

When the JFK White House tapes were released in the 90s General Curtis Le May who created the Strategic Air Command wanted to invade Cuba and 'settle the question'. Hawks were willing in the day to fight a nuclear war.

Early in the war Putin and spokespersons threatened the use of nuclear weapons. We have not heard anything since. From what was reported NATO made it clear to Putin through channels what the consequence would be.

Part of Russia is occupied and no threats of nukes.

Putyin and China are trying to create an economic sphere separate form the wets and the USA. Using nukes could tank that. It could cause a global economic crash, fear.

 

[Politesse]

Russia using nukes on anyone would be the last thing Russia would do. Assuming the POTUS isn't a paid Russian stooge at the time.

I think this was absolutely, certainly true in 1965.

Are you entirely certain that it is true now? Because I am not. I think a lot of hand-wringing would ensue.

It needs to not only be true, but to be emphasised repeatedly on every diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow.

Nuclear deterrence depends entirely on the certainty that any first use will provoke an overwhelming retaliatory response.

And fascism needs to be rejected as a conceivable option, and climate change is a global threat in need of a global response. But, here we all are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Early in the war Putin and spokespersons threatened the use of nuclear weapons. We have not heard anything since. From what was reported NATO made it clear to Putin through channels what the consequence would be.

This is precisely why Russian Hitler will not use nukes. But he doesn't have to because the propaganda is working so well. We're afraid and that's just what he wants so he can have his way with Ukraine.

 

[TomC]

Early in the war Putin and spokespersons threatened the use of nuclear weapons. We have not heard anything since. From what was reported NATO made it clear to Putin through channels what the consequence would be.

This is precisely why Russian Hitler will not use nukes. But he doesn't have to because the propaganda is working so well. We're afraid and that's just what he wants so he can have his way with Ukraine.

Hasn't yet.
That's not the same as won't, if the threats stop working and Ukraine's allies start delivering long range weapons and permission to use them at will.

Imagine what would happen if Ukrainian defense hit Moscow, hard. As hard as Putin has hit Kiev.
Putin would be on the ropes and I believe he'd resort to nukes rather than lose that badly.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Early in the war Putin and spokespersons threatened the use of nuclear weapons. We have not heard anything since. From what was reported NATO made it clear to Putin through channels what the consequence would be.

This is precisely why Russian Hitler will not use nukes. But he doesn't have to because the propaganda is working so well. We're afraid and that's just what he wants so he can have his way with Ukraine.

Hasn't yet.
That's not the same as won't, if the threats stop working and Ukraine's allies start delivering long range weapons and permission to use them at will.

Imagine what would happen if Ukrainian defense hit Moscow, hard. As hard as Putin has hit Kiev.
Putin would be on the ropes and I believe he'd resort to nukes rather than lose that badly.
Tom

Russian Hitler will never resort to nukes. And he doesn't have to because you believe he will. Is he going to nuke Kiev? Do you really think he would do that? That's ludicrous. Before he ever thinks of doing that he'll sabotage transatlantic cables or do something similar but he isn't going to nuke anything over Ukraine.