Russia

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Too many amateur 'experts' dismiss opinions like yours. Is he really going to walk away licking his wounds if Russia don't gain significant ground after this partial mobilization? I don't see it - his ego and political reputation won't allow it. If he uses a tactical nuke (not a strategic one) will the west really respond in kind? At some point I fear he'll test the west. 

If he uses anything nuclear then the West has to respond. Otherwise once he starts he won’t stop.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If he uses anything nuclear then the West has to respond. Otherwise once he starts he won’t stop.

That's the narrative we all believe Whitey, and it's what's prevented Armageddon for the last almost 80 years. I sincerely hope that the resolve of the west is not tested. 

[Millbrook Saint]

He's basically gone all in, whether he's bluffing or not we'll have to see, I'm not sure he is to be honest, he's been backed into a corner, his mouth pieces have been talking about using nukes for months, now he is, once he's annexed parts of Ukraine he'll have the excuse he wants and will tell people I tried to warn you.  The question we have to ask ourselves is, are there people in Russia willing and able to stop him using them, or have they all been purged.  The West absolutely have to act in kind if he does this, he cannot feel like he's let off any nuke with no consequence.

[bpsaint]

Can’t imagine Ukraine are too worried about these reservists getting called up considering the damage they served their regular troops.

Really hope someone will just put a bullet in the little cunts head and then we can go back to normal.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Too many amateur 'experts' dismiss opinions like yours. Is he really going to walk away licking his wounds if Russia don't gain significant ground after this partial mobilization? I don't see it - his ego and political reputation won't allow it. If he uses a tactical nuke (not a strategic one) will the west really respond in kind? At some point I fear he'll test the west. 

He won’t use nuclear weapons, it is just rhetoric. He’s desperate, sure but he will need the military to launch such weapons and they won’t do that unless the west launches first. As soon as people start doing that we’re into entire cities being vapourised territory. Nobody wants that, they’re just trying to scare the west.

[egg]

39 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

He won’t use nuclear weapons, it is just rhetoric. He’s desperate, sure but he will need the military to launch such weapons and they won’t do that unless the west launches first. As soon as people start doing that we’re into entire cities being vapourised territory. Nobody wants that, they’re just trying to scare the west.

Logic says that's correct. However, let's assume he gets a kicking after this partial mobilization. What then? Walk away and accept defeat? 

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Logic says that's correct. However, let's assume he gets a kicking after this partial mobilization. What then? Walk away and accept defeat? 

Whatever he decides to try when he runs out of meat and metal to throw into the grinder, it wont be nuclear weapons. If he orders that, people will stop him, the military will refuse to launch.

[badgerx16]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

Logic says that's correct. However, let's assume he gets a kicking after this partial mobilization. What then? Walk away and accept defeat? 

 

27 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Whatever he decides to try when he runs out of meat and metal to throw into the grinder, it wont be nuclear weapons. If he orders that, people will stop him, the military will refuse to launch.

People near him may be sycophantic, but they are not suicidal. Plenty of people at the top know how things are really going, even though they maintain the public facade. There will be red lines that they will not cross, and at that point Putin will be defenestrated.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If he uses anything nuclear then the West has to respond. Otherwise once he starts he won’t stop.

How would NATO respond if he used tactical nukes in Ukraine though? 

[whelk]

47 minutes ago, egg said:

Logic says that's correct. However, let's assume he gets a kicking after this partial mobilization. What then? Walk away and accept defeat? 

Brezhnev got a kicking in Afghanistan in height of Cold War. I know not a brilliant parallel but people seem to think nukes are just some trump card easily used. They are not

 

[moonraker]

He will also have to consider Chinas reaction if he were to use a nuclear weapon.  So far they have been passively supportive, I am not sure they would sanction a nuclear strike, even tactical.  China may be building ever bigger and presumably more effective military capability, it’s core strategy is economic dominance any escalation or spread of the war in Ukraine will not serve their interests.  
 

[buctootim]

A couple of days ago I read a claim that the Head of Russia's security council Nikolai Patruschev went to China to Xi on what was happening, telling Xi it had been agreed to replace Putin with his son Dmitri (current Agriculture minister). Separately $25bn had been transferred to Turkey for reasons unkown  

[buctootim]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

How would NATO respond if he used tactical nukes in Ukraine though? 

Saw an interview with a retired US general. He reckoned the US will already have a list of options for the President. That wont include nuclear retaliation but something major like obliterating the Russian Black Sea fleet through US airstrikes.   

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

How would NATO respond if he used tactical nukes in Ukraine though? 

How would the World respond ?

There is a reason why, despite the number of countries with nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, the only 2 ever used in anger were the first 2 deployed.

[whelk]

Was that the best phones they could put up for Putin’s address? Cream coloured shite from the dark ages. Fucking horrible country

Edited 21 September, 2022 by whelk

[egg]

14 minutes ago, whelk said:

Brezhnev got a kicking in Afghanistan in height of Cold War. I know not a brilliant parallel but people seem to think nukes are just some trump card easily used. They are not

 

It's a parallel of sorts though, and we'd all hope that history would repeat itself. This feels altogether different to Afghanistan though, and having thrown the kitchen sink at it, it's hard to see him walking away shrugging his shoulders if he gets a kicking. Interesting times. 

[aintforever]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How would the World respond ?

Good question.

Putin has already flattened cities and killed thousands of people and countries like India and China have just lapped up all that newly available cheap oil and gas.

[Lighthouse]

I think some people have seen too many Tom Clancy novel/movies. Gorbachev even said in his memories that Chernobyl was the biggest trigger in the demise of the Soviet Union and that was an accident. Nuclear holocaust really isn't a popular phrase in any language and unless there's a genuine existential threat to Russia itself, it's not going to happen. It's not possible to be this paranoid about the west AND launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against their allies.

[egg]

21 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I think some people have seen too many Tom Clancy novel/movies. Gorbachev even said in his memories that Chernobyl was the biggest trigger in the demise of the Soviet Union and that was an accident. Nuclear holocaust really isn't a popular phrase in any language and unless there's a genuine existential threat to Russia itself, it's not going to happen. It's not possible to be this paranoid about the west AND launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against their allies.

I think it's naive to believe that we'll never see a nuclear weapon again used in anger. I am also unsure that the use of a tactical nuke against a non NATO country would be met with a nuclear response. And Putin ain't Gorbachev - you're comparing a lion to a kitten. 

[badgerx16]

I suspect that, should Putin use even the smallest tactical nuke, ( or even cause an 'accidental' nuclear incident at an NPP ), NATO's response would be an immediate denial of air space for Russian forces within Ukraine, and operational air support for Ukraine within the pre-2014 borders.

[Jimmy_D]

9 hours ago, egg said:

Logic says that's correct. However, let's assume he gets a kicking after this partial mobilization. What then? Walk away and accept defeat? 

A nuclear deterrent requires constant maintenance. In particular it requires tritium to be replaced every 12 years or so. It’s difficult to produce and Russia hasn’t produced enough to service more than about 200 nukes in that time. On top of that, while western nukes are built with the capability to replace tritium when required, Russian nukes are sealed units where that’s not possible without cracking them open destructively.

Russia has a good enough nuclear deterrent to make any attack on Russia itself infeasible to the point of being impossible, but they don’t have the stockpiles of thousands they claim they do, certainly not that many maintained. It’s nowhere near enough to ‘win’ a nuclear war they started, or to stop the NATO response that would follow.

While Putin has been blaming NATO aggression and the risk of NATO being close to them on their land grab, the fact they’ve been draining air defence from St Petersburg shows that they’re not actually worried about NATO aggression. For a few months now they’ve actually been compromising the defence of Russia itself to fuel this war. Defence that they would need if they were to use nukes, something that would cause NATO countries to be able to justify attacking Russia itself as defensive.

On top of that, Putin’s invasion has already cost Russia all the soft power they had from the perception that their conventional military is strong enough to rival any peer. It’s uncovered a culture of corruption, with corners cut at any turn. Their remaining soft power comes from being nuclear armed, so naturally they’re shouting about it loudly. Does Putin want to risk uncovering similar problems and leaving Russia with no military soft power at all? Bearing in mind that the temptation to cut corners on a nuclear arsenal, literally designed to never actually be used, is magnified to a massive extent, how confident would Putin, and the other military leaders that have to go through with it, be that similar problems seen everywhere else in their military aren’t present in their nuclear arsenal?

On top of that there are other lines that Russia would cross first that they haven’t crossed. Options that wouldn’t risk Russia being turned into a crater such as chemical or biological weapons. Shouting about the very top of their escalation ladder points more at trying to scare the West in a desperate attempt to cut off the supply of arms they have no answer to more than anything else.

Putin might act as if he’ll be in power forever, but reality is that he won’t be, and there will be a point where Putin being in power becomes a bigger problem than Putin not being in power to enough people with the ability to change that.

Edited 21 September, 2022 by Jimmy_D
Typo

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I think it's naive to believe that we'll never see a nuclear weapon again used in anger. I am also unsure that the use of a tactical nuke against a non NATO country would be met with a nuclear response. And Putin ain't Gorbachev - you're comparing a lion to a kitten. 

I’m not comparing Gorbachev to Putin, I’m highlighting the absolutely catastrophic impact nuclear fallout has on the credibility of a regime and the support of its population.

Im not saying there will never be another nuclear strike anywhere In the world, ever. I am saying that it won’t be over the Donbas region against a country backed by NATO.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

I suspect that, should Putin use even the smallest tactical nuke, ( or even cause an 'accidental' nuclear incident at an NPP ), NATO's response would be an immediate denial of air space for Russian forces within Ukraine, and operational air support for Ukraine within the pre-2014 borders.

When you (and others) say NATO, you mean the USA.  Without the USA, everything else is utterly pointless.  

Do the USA have an appetite for significant war in Europe again?  To bail-out Europe's pretty feeble defence strategies/spending?

Maybe.....

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When you (and others) say NATO, you mean the USA.  Without the USA, everything else is utterly pointless.  

Do the USA have an appetite for significant war in Europe again?  To bail-out Europe's pretty feeble defence strategies/spending?

Maybe.....

No, dear Alexei, I mean NATO, ( or OTAN if you speak French ). It is on Europe's doorstep, and Europe, almost in it's entirety has a vested interest in resisting Putin. Of course the US is far and away the biggest contributor, but given the way the SMO is currently going, even without the US there should be more than enough to supplement the Ukrainians successfully. However, the US will not renege on it's article 5 obligations.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

No, dear Alexei, I mean NATO, ( or OTAN if you speak French ). It is on Europe's doorstep, and Europe, almost in it's entirety has a vested interest in resisting Putin. Of course the US is far and away the biggest contributor, but given the way the SMO is currently going, even without the US there should be more than enough to supplement the Ukrainians successfully. However, the US will not renege on it's article 5 obligations.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

More than enough of what?

For NATO to be effective, it requires the USA all-in.  That is the price we on this continent has to pay for disgraceful defence spending for many decades.

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No, dear Alexei, I mean NATO, ( or OTAN if you speak French ). It is on Europe's doorstep, and Europe, almost in it's entirety has a vested interest in resisting Putin. Of course the US is far and away the biggest contributor, but given the way the SMO is currently going, even without the US there should be more than enough to supplement the Ukrainians successfully. However, the US will not renege on it's article 5 obligations.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

Don’t upset бретт, Ukraine is going to collapse any minute now.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

More than enough of what?

For NATO to be effective, it requires the USA all-in.  That is the price we on this continent has to pay for disgraceful defence spending for many decades.

Paper planes and kitchen cutlery could probably beat the Russians.

I know you have a gripe to air, but you need to change the bloody record. We get it, you don't want anybody standing up to your hero.

Edited 21 September, 2022 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Paper planes and kitchen cutlery could probably beat the Russians.

I know you have a gripe to air, but you need to change the bloody record.

It is not a gripe, it is reality. If the balloon goes up, our security largely depends on the appetite of the USA to go to war in Europe (again).

[buctootim]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When you (and others) say NATO, you mean the USA.  Without the USA, everything else is utterly pointless.  

Do the USA have an appetite for significant war in Europe again?  To bail-out Europe's pretty feeble defence strategies/spending?

Maybe.....

It's only Russia, not China. 130 million people, GDP less than Italy. European nations combined far far outgun them   

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is not a gripe, it is reality. If the balloon goes up, our security largely depends on the appetite of the USA to go to war in Europe (again).

How many US troops are currently stationed in the Baltic States and Poland ? How many elsewhere in Europe ? Are they just going to bugger off if things get lairy ?

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is not a gripe, it is reality. If the balloon goes up, our security largely depends on the appetite of the USA to go to war in Europe (again).

So, in your scenario, Russia kicks off, and Europe, having been honing warcraft for millennia, are suddenly helpless against them.

The USA, having put billions in to stop Russia’s current level of escalation, suddenly go, “nah, we’ve done enough, they’re on their own now.”

They break the biggest military treaty they’re in, to abandon people and values they like, and let people they don’t like and values they don’t like prevail.

They don’t see any threat to themselves from Russia kicking off either, apparently.

All this with the background of this being just about the only issue that’s currently enjoying strong bipartisan support in the USA.

[Lighthouse]

From a political POV a large amount of Chinese military hardware is Russian/Soviet stuff which has been copied/sold/built on license. If the Chinese see this tech getting an absolute arse whopping in Ukraine, against western weapons, it severely weakens their confidence and resolve on other issues, like Taiwan.

 

Pretty strong motivation for the USA to win, if you ask me.

[kyle04]

Starting to kick off already :

 

Seems Putins address is not resonating with everyone.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is not a gripe, it is reality. If the balloon goes up, our security largely depends on the appetite of the USA to go to war in Europe (again).

Against a country that can't even hold a third of Ukraine?

We could cut our military funding by a half and still be safe as houses.

[LuckyNumber7]

I got back from the US last week and was surprised at the level of support out there tbh. A lot of Ukrainian flags hanging from houses and buildings both in cities and rural areas, messages of support on trucks etc, floral decorations. I realise that has no bearing on government decisions and the like but for a conflict such a long way away they do genuinely seem to care.

[kyle04]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Against a country that can't even hold a third of Ukraine?

We could cut our military funding by a half and still be safe as houses.

Nukes aside, Russia have all but done their bollocks in Ukraine. Most of their battle ready tanks have either been destroyed or captured, they've taken the begging bowl to North Korea and Iran for shells and drones, stripped Belarus of most of their hardware, and are expending their long range missiles on residential buildings. Their best troops have been severely depleted, included the 1st Guards Tank Regiment. Putins world standing is severely diminished, he's been repeatedly kept waiting for other leaders in recent summits, unthinkable a few months ago.

They are going to use the FAB-500 dumb bombs again soon, a relic from the 1950's, unguided and indiscriminate. Unable to make gains on the battle field they will try and destroy as much of Ukraine as they can.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

They are going to use the FAB-500 dumb bombs again soon, a relic from the 1950's, unguided and indiscriminate.

That would require them to actually fly over Ukrainian held territory. Ukraine's close air support is getting more and better AAA, and is shooting down Russian aircraft consistently.

[Dark Munster]

2 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

So, in your scenario, Russia kicks off, and Europe, having been honing warcraft for millennia, are suddenly helpless against them.

The USA, having put billions in to stop Russia’s current level of escalation, suddenly go, “nah, we’ve done enough, they’re on their own now.”

They break the biggest military treaty they’re in, to abandon people and values they like, and let people they don’t like and values they don’t like prevail.

They don’t see any threat to themselves from Russia kicking off either, apparently.

All this with the background of this being just about the only issue that’s currently enjoying strong bipartisan support in the USA.

All true, but scary to think it wouldn't be if the Orange Turd had managed to steal the last election.

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

All true, but scary to think it wouldn't be if the Orange Turd had managed to steal the last election.

I dread to think what would have happened in Ukraine if the Wotsit skinned man-baby and the anti-NATO, nuclear disarmament pacifist had won their respective elections. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I dread to think what would have happened in Ukraine if the Wotsit skinned man-baby and the anti-NATO, nuclear disarmament pacifist had won their respective elections. 

I suspect it would have been a very short period of 'special operations' if he won.

 

[buctootim]

Arf

[whelk]

Nice to see Batman back on the thread.  I guess Putin’s pathetic address this morning gave him wee boner? Ooh he’s so tough and guess what……he’s not even bluffing. 

[Jimmy_D]

18 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I suspect it would have been a very short period of 'special operations' if he won.

 

I thought that name sounded familiar. He’s one of voices that was coming out in support of the January 6 Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol.

He’s also been going on about China for years. China is a concern, but it’s one that certainly isn’t being ignored. The argument that they should be a priority and focus should be shifted away from Russia, while Russia are literally in the process of attempting genocide and threatening nuclear war, is utterly ridiculous.

[whelk]

Brave people

 

[whelk]

 

[badgerx16]

According to Russian media, anybody arrested at an anti-war protest will be conscripted. They are hardly going to be willing or motivated, what impact would they have on the progress of the war ?

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

According to Russian media, anybody arrested at an anti-war protest will be conscripted. They are hardly going to be willing or motivated, what impact would they have on the progress of the war ?

Probably won’t rape and torture civilians though 

[Lighthouse]

Bloody kids, leaving their Micro Machines at the top of the stairs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11234941/Russian-former-head-Moscow-Aviation-Institute-dies-falling-flights-stairs.html

[whelk]

 

[Jimmy_D]

Oh wow.

I don’t know how that exchange was negotiated, but that feels like a huge diplomatic win for Ukraine.

Some Russian reaction in this tweet and the thread that follows it.