Ukraine

[Zear0]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

 

You on commission? 

[Dahnsouff]

Don’t like the way this is going at all

[fox_favourite]

17 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Don’t like the way this is going at all

It does seem Russia is doing all it can to provoke a conflict. Now sending farmers for conscription as they get ready to seed, that isn’t a coincidence. annexing parts another country, and so on. It’s almost they are desperate to use world ending weapons. . And when I say them I mean they’re politicians. 

[MPH]

More weapons and more ammo needed by Ukraine. If the morale of the Russian Army  that wants to be there and is somewhat trained can be so low imagine what  the incompetence of badly trained troops with rusty rifles who don’t want to be there will be like..

 

 

 

im astonished that the Russians genuinely believe any good can come from any further escalation. There is absolutely nothing that suggests there can be.

[casablancas]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Don’t like the way this is going at all

Russia absolutely cannot win this war with conventional arms, they just can’t and it’s been proven. That’s what worries me. 
 

seen this ? 

and 

I’m 
 

 

 

Edited 27 September 2022 by casablancas

[Sly]

I’d like to think at this point, if Russia had chosen to you nuclear weapons, they’d have done it, as they’ve m lost so much face. 
 

Are we at the point where a counter offensive is being discussed to liberate the world from a long term bully? 

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, Sly said:

I’d like to think at this point, if Russia had chosen to you nuclear weapons, they’d have done it, as they’ve m lost so much face. 
 

Are we at the point where a counter offensive is being discussed to liberate the world from a long term bully? 

Standard Russian doctrine is to use nuclear weapons in a response to being attacked with nuclear weapons or conventional weapons "where the survival of the state is threatened".

 

The tricky thing is what defines the latter.

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Standard Russian doctrine is to use nuclear weapons in a response to being attacked with nuclear weapons or conventional weapons "where the survival of the state is threatened".

 

The tricky thing is what defines the latter.

The answer to that is easy  Mac ..  what defines it is when Putin says so ..  so if I was you I’d put that saucepan back on your head and get back under your bed sharpish ! ..   

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

The answer to that is easy  Mac ..  what defines it is when Putin says so ..  so if I was you I’d put that saucepan back on your head and get back under your bed sharpish ! ..   

 

I guess we may well find that theory tested soon enough because allowing the status quo where the Donbass and a couple other areas just become parts of Russia is clearly unacceptable.

[Sly]

How close are Ukraine to retaking control? 

[casablancas]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

How close are Ukraine to retaking control? 

Not close enough. I’m guessing you’re meaning the entirety of its sovereign boarders? We are talking years, I mean it’s being going since 2014, the Ukrainians rightly won’t give in. The unrest at home for Russia is a worry for them, they’ve actually apologised (worth less then a Brendan team talk) but i don’t see much optimism for a quick win. I stalk twitter and like @leicsmac am little conscious of the doctrine of nuclear forces, with the illegal annexation Russia sees those areas as their state, they will protect it. It’s just how 

[MPH]

As long as ‘ we’ stay out of it and just keep pumping weapons and munitions into Russia then they won’t use nuclear weapons. They can bleat on about annexing parts of Ukraine all they want but just as long as the Ukraine troops don’t encroach past pre-2014 borders then Nuclear weapons will be kept out of it..

[yorkie1999]

7 hours ago, Sly said:

I’d like to think at this point, if Russia had chosen to you nuclear weapons, they’d have done it, as they’ve m lost so much face. 
 

Are we at the point where a counter offensive is being discussed to liberate the world from a long term bully? 

I don't know how they would use nuclear weapons unless they plan to blow up Kiev or something which is a bit pointless considering the wind blows from west to east in europe, it's not like there are 250,000 Ukrainian troops in one area, they are operating in small groups scattered in hundreds of postions so it's almost impossible to defeat them. I was reading an article the other day about this technique and it was being developed by western militaries as a defensive tactic to overcome a huge force, but Ukraine just went and did it.  

[ian__marshall]

What I don't understand with this whole threat of going nuclear is that it makes absolutely no sense at all (not that I think that Putin is rational for one moment). If Ukraine attacks annexed areas, and Russia responds with a nuclear attack on Ukraine they're going to be left with a huge clear up bill for the land they supposedly seem to want to take so desperately which economically will be very challenging given the state of their economy at the moment. It'll also be a PR disaster, and at that point I can see nations who have abstained from denouncing Putin's actions suddenly taking a very different view on the situation. 

 

If Russia responds by attacking a western nation for supplying weapons it'll be the end of Russia as we know it. There's absolutely no way on this planet they let off nukes and other nations don't respond in kind. Even an attack on a non-nuclear state will force Nato to retaliate as putting treaty commitments to one side there will surely be concerns that they could be next.

 

Furthermore, in some hypothetical fantasy where Putin blindsides Nato nations and wipes out Western Europe, does he honestly think that the remaining leading nations are going to trust him and his regime?

 

For a start I can't imagine China will be too happy with this action considering the vast majority of goods they sell to the West and the subsequent impact that'll have on their economy which without said trade would set them back decades possibly centuries. Russia with it's circa 140m population (most of which barely have a pot to p*ss in) simply don't have the numbers to prop up any lost Chinese trade so that's definitely not a feasible solution and other developing nations don't have the distribution of wealth within their populace to make up the short fall either. 

 

Russia will become very isolated (even more so than now) if he attacks the West and I can't imagine for one moment that he and his cronies don't recognise that fact. It's an interesting situation that they find themselves in and I'm intrigued as to how the situation will be resolved as there's no obvious route out. 

Edited 28 September 2022 by ian__marshall

[westernpark]

I imagine the first use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be somewhere there could be a limit to casualties. Certainly initial casualties, discounting radioactive matter after. Cool heads would need to prevail in the West. I hope the U.S leads any response diplomatically. I have no confidence in our government to change their rhetoric accordingly, the only thing we seem to do is close all doors for Russia and wheel out our involvement in Ukraine as an excuse for those suffering in this country. My comments should not be mistaken for my belief that what is happening is driven by no sense, except pure evil. However, if a nuclear weapon is used, we cannot simply beat our chest at the aggressor. If we were stronger collectively in 2014 and before, Putin and Russia may have not taken so many liberties.

[SpacedX]

56 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't know how they would use nuclear weapons unless they plan to blow up Kiev or something which is a bit pointless considering the wind blows from west to east in europe,

Prevailing winds yes. Remind me how it worked out during days 1 and 2 of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

 

59 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

it's not like there are 250,000 Ukrainian troops in one area, they are operating in small groups scattered in hundreds of postions so it's almost impossible to defeat them. I was reading an article the other day about this technique and it was being developed by western militaries as a defensive tactic to overcome a huge force, but Ukraine just went and did it.  

In the unlikely event of deployment it would be through a tactical strike. 

 

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't know how they would use nuclear weapons unless they plan to blow up Kiev or something which is a bit pointless considering the wind blows from west to east in europe, it's not like there are 250,000 Ukrainian troops in one area, they are operating in small groups scattered in hundreds of postions so it's almost impossible to defeat them. I was reading an article the other day about this technique and it was being developed by western militaries as a defensive tactic to overcome a huge force, but Ukraine just went and did it.  

 

43 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

What I don't understand with this whole threat of going nuclear is that it makes absolutely no sense at all (not that I think that Putin is rational for one moment). If Ukraine attacks annexed areas, and Russia responds with a nuclear attack on Ukraine they're going to be left with a huge clear up bill for the land they supposedly seem to want to take so desperately which economically will be very challenging given the state of their economy at the moment. It'll also be a PR disaster, and at that point I can see nations who have abstained from denouncing Putin's actions suddenly taking a very different view on the situation. 

 

If Russia responds by attacking a western nation for supplying weapons it'll be the end of Russia as we know it. There's absolutely no way on this planet they let off nukes and other nations don't respond in kind. Even an attack on a non-nuclear state will force Nato to retaliate as putting treaty commitments to one side there will surely be concerns that they could be next.

 

Furthermore, in some hypothetical fantasy where Putin blindsides Nato nations and wipes out Western Europe, does he honestly think that the remaining leading nations are going to trust him and his regime?

 

For a start I can't imagine China will be too happy with this action considering the vast majority of goods they sell to the West and the subsequent impact that'll have on their economy which without said trade would set them back decades possibly centuries. Russia with it's circa 140m population (most of which barely have a pot to p*ss in) simply don't have the numbers to prop up any lost Chinese trade so that's definitely not a feasible solution and other developing nations don't have the distribution of wealth within their populace to make up the short fall either. 

 

Russia will become very isolated (even more so than now) if he attacks the West and I can't imagine for one moment that he and his cronies don't recognise that fact. It's an interesting situation that they find themselves in and I'm intrigued as to how the situation will be resolved as there's no obvious route out. 

 

22 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I imagine the first use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be somewhere there could be a limit to casualties. Certainly initial casualties, discounting radioactive matter after. Cool heads would need to prevail in the West. I hope the U.S leads any response diplomatically. I have no confidence in our government to change their rhetoric accordingly, the only thing we seem to do is close all doors for Russia and wheel out our involvement in Ukraine as an excuse for those suffering in this country. My comments should not be mistaken for my belief that what is happening is driven by no sense, except pure evil. However, if a nuclear weapon is used, we cannot simply beat our chest at the aggressor. If we were stronger collectively in 2014 and before, Putin and Russia may have not taken so many liberties.

These are all reasonable arguments.

 

My own viewpoint on it remains the same and is pretty simple; there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, one being used on an armoured column would inevitability end in one thousand being used on cities. The Russians know this as well as anyone.

 

Therefore, they won't use them unless they are used upon them first or the Western nations are foolhardy enough to back them into a corner where its a choice between that and the Russian state ceasing to exist.

 

 However...as per above, what defines a capital threat to the state and therefore justifies the use of such weapons according to Russian doctrine could be open to different interpretations. And that's where the problem really lies - there's not enough to know exactly what kind of action would cause Putin to think that either he's finished or Russia is.

[yorkie1999]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Prevailing winds yes. Remind me how it worked out during days 1 and 2 of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

 

In the unlikely event of deployment it would be through a tactical strike. 

 

West, but right now the wind in Ukraine is blowing east then north up to Moscow.

[Countryfox]

There are a couple of things that may happen here imo ..  one, Russia uses a tactical weapon that might have a major effect on the war (depending on where/how they use it) ..  and hope the west only responds with further sanctions etc .. two, they continue with the recruitment and gear up for a big offensive in the spring ..  or three, Putin is called to a meeting with ‘Big Paulie’ (or whoever runs the oligarch mafia) and is told he has to go ..  all of his goons walk over to the other side of the room, he sighs, then trips over a paper clip, falls headlong through the window down to the pavement six floors below. This would enable a ‘new man’ to broker some sort of peace and blame everything on Putin .. thus not losing face. They then learn from all the mistakes and how the west responded to regroup ..  get their military up to scratch and try again in the future. 
 

My guess is option two, if not then option three ..  and much further down the pecking order, but still (unfortunately) a realistic option .. option one. 

[SpacedX]

38 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

West, but right now the wind in Ukraine is blowing east then north up to Moscow.

It generally does, so your point stands. But like I say, I couldn't see nuclear deployment beyond the remotest possibility of a tactical strike. 

[LiberalFox]

Honestly the most likely scenario is Russia just loses the war and it weakens Putin's political power probably hastening his exit from frontline politics. Officially it will be NATOs fault and a lot of Russians will believe it just like a lot of Serbs blame NATO for what they perceive as an injustice over Kosovo. Meanwhile geopolitical pragmatism will result in some level of restoration of relations with the West because it's not in Russia or the West's interests for Russia to become a satellite of Beijing.  

Edited 28 September 2022 by LiberalFox

[yorkie1999]

Just now, Line-X said:

It generally does, so your point stands. But like I say, I couldn't see nuclear deployment beyond the remotest possibility of a tactical strike. 

The problem with Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine is what the US response would be, somehow i can't imagine that "severe consequences" means a slap on the wrist or a few more sanctions, it probably means a strike on Moscow from Ukraine by whatever means, stuff we don't know about, for example,  they may have already been supplied with tactical nuclear weapons that can be launched from existing platforms but are lacking the activation codes, who knows. So, for Russia, they may as well launch a Tsar bomb and be done with it.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

The problem with Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine is what the US response would be, somehow i can't imagine that "severe consequences" means a slap on the wrist or a few more sanctions, it probably means a strike on Moscow from Ukraine by whatever means, stuff we don't know about, for example,  they may have already been supplied with tactical nuclear weapons that can be launched from existing platforms but are lacking the activation codes, who knows. So, for Russia, they may as well launch a Tsar bomb and be done with it.

That's basically the danger yes. Nuclear deployment would almost certainly result in escalation. 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

Honestly the most likely scenario is Russia just loses the war and it weakens Putin's political power probably hastening his exit from frontline politics. Officially it will be NATOs fault and a lot of Russians will believe it just like a lot of Serbs blame NATO for what they perceive as an injustice over Kosovo. Meanwhile geopolitical pragmatism will result in some level of restoration of relations with the West because it's not in Russia or the West's interests for Russia to become a satellite of Beijing.  

Meanwhile Chinese J-15 fighter jets flew low over a US Destroyer in the Taiwan Strait in a show of force. 

[Dahnsouff]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63072113

 

Always going to happen I guess

 

Seems he is all about calling the West's bluff