Was a very nice event anyway.

I just saw some pictures re SS-X-30’s silo construction work. So possibly really Satan II

I think this is why it is communicated this way in advance, the feedback loop in Russia is far from perfect (after all, it was probably one of the reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine) so they are trying to prepare information environment in advance (as just responding in kind may not be sufficient)

In general, I don't prefer it, but in this case there's a conviction that sth must be done, since any actions aimed at defensive measures are ineffective and RU actions in the gray zone against Europe are cumulative in nature. We need to prevent future costs, the risk of miscalculation is too great.

I do not really understand cyber warfare, so take it with a grain of salt but my understanding is that most of the Russian cyber offensive operations against NATO states aren’t carried from Russia. Otherwise it could be done immediately, we provide some intel and targeting data.

Otherwise this is apparently also a reaction to the Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan being a shared security issue and the US diplomatic stance. That’s why Xi reached DJT and this is also likely part of the framework used to mitigate the perceived risks stemming from hardening the anti-China alliance

But yeah, I get that it's not entirely fair of me until I read the book, so. But in any case, I make no secret of the fact that I don't really like this highly Marxist view of the world, which explains (reduces) motivations for action to power relations (tbh it is essentially a circular argument).

Honestly, I consider the claim that "they were not independent" to be a fallacy. The author authoritatively asserts something from a normative point of view that he considers correct (which cannot be easily verified-ie that disarmament was alternative) and retroactively argues with a confirming bias

I just did, yeah

Incidentally,this applies to MIC and state apparatuses as well,nukes are not a special case.Perhaps Im in a special position because my work (part of what I do) directly concerns policy work,but I know very well why I do what I do and that my goal is to contribute to the mil dominance over the enemy

Goes both ways, R&D is directly tied to planning—you address future threats, plan operations 30+ years down the road.

Yes, the strategy is based on military and political principles and assumptions. But it is not the case that people who are involved in a sort of policy work do not think about strategy and motivations.

The vast majority of things that are reflected in planning are in fact technical in nature. Planning effects, trajectories, etc is technical work that is difficult for someone without a background in natural sciences and technology. These people absolutely think about the strategy.