Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 366. (Read 78223 times)

As I said on a previous post, a long ugly and costly draw, sucking Putin's foreign currency stores, showing the world that he can be if not beaten, clearly stopped by an army thought inferior (more on this below), an united West and a progressive expulsion from the richest trading countries (yeah, I know... China)... all that is up to a certain point a win for Ukraine.

An major strategic victory for Ukraine would be keeping its access to the Black Sea a large. A decisive strategic victory would be to keep the Donbas, their democratic government, their independence and Putin withdrawing the troops stating it as a "victory" of course.

The Ukrainian army is not small and is not as unprepared as it may look. Defensive positions typically require the attacker to have between 3 to 10 times more resources than the defender. Can Putin divest that amount of men, money and influence without compromising other borders?

Apart from propaganda, my strategic analysis remains: Ukraine can only be defeated as a whole if Ukrainians decide so. My take is that decision would require several years of conventional fighting and then guerrilla fighting. Costly and unpopular... not a despots dream certainly.

Edited to add: On the rhetoric that justifies the war of aggression, quoting myself in another post


Putin's arguments are old as sand.

Yeah my logic was the same, i thought I was in the bizarro world, everyone was talking as if Ukraine was defeating Russia, all objectivity and critical thinking was gone, blatant propaganda was rampant, only positive coverage of Ukraine, fact checking was non-existent, Russian news/propaganda was getting censored everywhere, echo chambers, and fakes were running wild ("Russian warship, go f*ck yourself" was proven to be fake but I still see people using it). Nothing made sense until i realized it was all psyops. Militarily Ukraine stands no chance, its the poorest, and most corrupt country in Europe (Russia is more corrupt). It appears, best chance Ukraine has is psyops, demoralize Russians to a point where Putin is either taken out, or people revolt and remove him from office. Now i don't say anything on social medias, but i hold this place in higher regard.

Supposing that Putin did launch a nuclear nuke, USA and NATO wouldn't simply ignore such a situation, just because Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. It would be a disastrous turn, since it would launch a series of nuking from both parties, leading to thousands if not millions of deaths, while leaving an uninhabited earth.

I do get your point, the less Putin has to lose, the more dangerous he becomes, I don't think that there are any more sanctions to implement, the condition is already a mess, he has already lost, that's what makes him threatening, he doesn't have anything else to lose, so he might as well take humanity with him.

I thought it was universally accepted that it was a bad idea and the main reason that lead to a much bigger WW2?

Putin is not mad in the usual sense, he is just falling into a Russian Maximalism and a neo-colonialism. This is a game old as humanity - under the rules of the "Big Game", the invasion of Ukraine, that was looking to tighten the ties with the west and was about to join a different "sphere of influence", allows him to maintain the status quo of Russia, perhaps even to enhance it.

Even with a limited success in the south by capturing Odessa, Mariupol and the access to the Black Sea, he, under his inhuman view, would have achieved a major strategic victory.

The old game... money, ego, power, ... all that brought Europe to WWI and WWII with millions of dead. That how Europe learnt the price of nationalism and despotism and that is why European governments in which people have a say do not want to hear anything about waging war in Europe. This is often confused with weakness, as the democratic rivalry is often confused with chaos.

Justice is being served - what is it, a foot of yacht for every killed civilian? Oligarchs must be furious, first they were forced to use foreign-registered private jets, now this...

You are wrong: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-spacex-crew-3-astronauts-headed-to-international-space-station
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbB2-CCrzO0

-Dave

I view the stated "goals" of Putin to "denazify" Ukraine more as propaganda, and not necessarily something that Putin actually believes. I see these "goals" as a pretext to invade. Putin wanting to expand Russia's territory is not something that will be accepted by his people, or the rest of the world, and even his current supporters would likely oppose his actions.


I think nukes serve more as a deterrent than an actual weapon of war. In other words, the threat of using nukes is going to be more effective in winning a war than the actual use of nukes.

There are many risks to using nukes against Ukraine.

You mentioned that (trying to) using nukes may result in Putin's subordinates ousting him from power. I think this is a very real threat. There are many reports that most Russian soldiers do not really want to be fighting Ukraine, and were misled when they were initially deployed. Using nukes against Ukraine would remove any potential pretext that Putin is trying to save innocent lives, and those who allow Putin to remain in power may decide that Putin staying in power is too dangerous.

Depending on how the nuke is delivered, other countries may detect that a nuclear attack is about to take place, and it may not be clear who the attack is against. Putin has vaguely threatened nuclear repercussions to those who interfere with his war, and much of the West is supplying Ukraine with weapons. It would not be outside the realm of possibility that Putin could prepare to nuke Ukraine (or actually do so) as a means to hide the fact that he is (also) about to launch a nuclear attack against another country (or countries). If a country makes a (mis)calculation that they are about to be hit with a nuclear attack, they may launch a nuclear attack against Russia. Alliances have been betrayed in world wars, so even China may reach the conclusion they are about to be hit with nukes.

Russia's last real trading partner is China. Currently, China is supporting Russia, in large part because they want to take Taiwan. I don't know if China is comfortable continuing to support Russia if Russia starts using nukes. There would be the potential that China could face sanctions if Russia were to use nukes and China were to abstain from imposing sanctions against Russia. China facing strong sanctions would risk an uprising by the Chinese people, and I don't know if China is willing to take that risk for a war that they don't stand to benefit from. China's economy is already in a bad position due to its housing bubble popping. China does not need to take Taiwan immediately, and China knows how to play the long game to get what they want without going to war (see what China has done to US colleges, and how that has negatively affected the US).

The war is already unpopular in Russia. Using nukes against Ukraine would result in many innocent lives being lost. Currently, there have been a fairly small number of civilian deaths in Ukraine. There is the risk that the destruction from a nuclear attack would be sufficiently bad that the Russian people would oppose Putin in large enough numbers that it would be impossible for him to stay in power.

edit:

If the sanctions are sufficiently painful, those in power in Russia may be willing to negotiate to have the sanctions lifted, and may be willing to give concessions in exchange for the rest of the world trading with what is now Russia again. I do think what af_newbie is probably a stretch, at least as long as China is willing to trade with Russia.

Only if you fire against someone who can fire back. Ukraine has no nukes, and doesn't have a mutual defense alliance with anyone with nukes. There is zero chance that NATO would fire nukes against Russia in retaliation, just as they didn't send in ground troops in response to the ground invasion. (If Russia nuked eg. Poland, then we'd have full-scale global nuclear war.)

On your other points, I hope you're right, but I'm worried that Putin may actually be mad. I can't see how any part of this Ukraine invasion is rational from any perspective.


I agree that there is a probably-wrong perception that Ukraine is on a path to defeating Russia within the next few years, though things have clearly been going much worse for the Russians than they expected. It's hard not to focus on this little speck of justice in this tragic, unjust situation.


Who's going break them up? Whoever controls Russia's nuclear weapons can stop any effort like that by threatening to nuke the aggressor, so you'd have to have the leader of Russia (Putin or his successors) voluntarily give up their nukes, etc.

NATO selling a few jets to Ukraine isn't enough.



If the propaganda is to be believed, Russia will surrender themselves, withdraw all their troops from the country, and Ukraine will magically be isolated from any future military aggression.

The reality, of course, just involves Putin slaughtering as many civilians as possible until Ukraine eventually concedes, or until Putin is able to assassinate most of the Ukrainian government and install his puppets. Surely Ukraine should fight back, what else could they do? But I only mention this to dispel the false beliefs that war is a one or two month event. It will lasts years, and many more people will die unfortunately. The large crowd of people with Ukrainian flags on their social media profiles are in for a disappointment.

I am interested in knowing what would people who think that the US should send ships or troops to Ukraine think that could happen in that case? I certainly have my own theory.

For those who think that Trump would do so, I am interested in knowing what would they think Trump would do, what would tweet and what consequences do they think that would result. (e.g. nuclear war, Putin cancelling the war impressed by Trumps hairstyle, Putin forgetting about the war and simply tweeting back until he chokes....)


Firstly, there is and there will be abundant "Input" from NATO. Ukraine is not short on experienced soldiers with the ability and the willingness to fight and there is no legal impediment for any neutral country (e.g. NATO countries) to sell weapons (or give then away) to Ukraine's army.

Ukraine is not wining Putin's war in the sense of preserving the territory or entering Russia to decapitate their government. How does an Ukrainian "victory" look like (sorry for being brutally honest):

- Impossibility of Putin preserving his army as it is today. Loosing so much material and troops that it does not recover ever again and, eventually, looses its stance in the world (and perhaps Putin is "retired").
- Getting into a stalemate that Putin simply cannot afford in terms of reputation and in terms of the economy.
- For a total victory, after a massive loss of Russian lives and an economic meltdown, Putin is somehow "retired" by a military junta.

Sadly, none of this happens with Ukraine still being a place to live, nor without anger and hate for generations, nor without an economic shock across the world. The alternative is reaching an agreement. Unfortunately, that cannot be done before a war takes place because it has been proven that giving away territory or accepting aggressions to have peace (e.g. Austria with Hitler) does not work.

Ukraine has no option but to fight and never give up or accept that they will be ruled by Putin - who obviously has zero regard for their future.

U.S. officials believe Kyiv will fall in 4-6 weeks, with Russia/Ukraine war lasting over a decade.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-kyiv-war-putin-invasion-talks-today/#post-update-8de46653

With the amount of Ukrainian propaganda floating around, there is this notion that Ukraine is winning this war or even has the potential to win this war. It simply is not true. The Russian military has too many resources to throw away and the economic ramifications does not effect Putin directly. His fragile ego will put his political ambitions over his constituency. So without any input from NATO, this is prolonged losing battle for Ukraine. It seems like Russia has been targeting civilian areas over the last few days, and there are some reports that it might ramp up within the coming weeks. A 10-20 year time line sounds reasonable, and at the end Ukraine might end up being a wasteland like Afghanistan.

These odd-looking cannonballs are not missiles as you claim. Although I'm not sure what kind of guidance system they use, which could explain why they fall on playgrounds and apartment buildings.

(I bet that the Russian media will claim either that the Ukrainians put them there or that the photos are fake.)

I know it sounds ridiculously premature, but I think the only thing worse than full defeat and occupation of Ukraine would be if Ukrainians win and go on a vengeful rampage into Russia, shooting retreating Russian soldiers in the back. Fingers crossed that this ends at Ukraine's borders, sooner rather than later.


I think a coup is getting more and more tempting for some of Putin's generals and/or oligarchs. Imagine the personal wealth and worldwide fame one could reap from this. Whoever knocks Putin off would be a hero in the West, and could get away with many things that would otherwise be heavily frowned up. Russian public opinion could be swayed too, what with the massive propaganda machine.

You forgot the obvious


What the Media Is HIDING About Ukraine/Russia
https://rumble.com/vw4t0e-what-the-media-is-hiding-about-ukrainerussia.html


Correct me if i wrong, but is't Russia the only gateway to the international spacestation and NASA / ESA lost access to it, or pay extra ?

Yes, the worst thing you can do to someone who has nuclear weapons is to put them in a situation where they have nothing left to lose. I'm sure a major reason for the sanctions on Putin-associates is to destabilise his allies sufficiently for them to want to remove him. It's difficult to imagine him backing down voluntarily or due to Western pressure.

As for him winning Ukraine, there's a huge difference between taking control and holding control. He can certainly capture the key cities and assume command of the country, but the longer this goes on and the bloodier it gets, the more the Ukranians unite against the common foe. I read an interesting article by Yuval Noah Harari (author of the excellent 'Sapiens') the other day, where he argues that by effectively uniting Ukraine against him, Putin is ensuring that he can never retain control of the country in the longer-term.

While nothing is impossible there are a few reasons why I think that is not likely possibility as of now:

- Insofar as military uses, there are conventional fuel-air bombs that can do a small Nuke's job leaving no radiation.. nor anything else.

- Nuclear weapons are to dissuade, not to be used. He who fires a Nuke has the certainty that he will be equally fired upon. There is no way that US, UK or France can ignore a nuclear strike without responding as this would void the nuclear deterrent.  Getting hit by a Nuke on your territory is likely to end with you being assassinated by your own people.

- It is extremely difficult to de-escalate after a nuclear attack. Relations may be broken for decades, economy would collapse (Putin's army is costly for a small PIB like Russia's)

- Putin is not mad in the usual sense, he understand the consequences of his actions. On Ukraine, I think he has miscalculated the costs and the international reaction, but it was not madness, he simply based his strategy on a divided and slow Europe, a nearly unconditional support from China and a calculated non-intervention by the US.

What is an scenario in which Putin would use a Nuke:

- Direct intervention of NATO troops (e.g. the Black Sea)
- Threat of other using Nukes.
- The war goes so wrong that he is at serious personal risk.
- NATO setting-up Nukes in the Baltic republics.

Overall, once more Europe has a War, we all loose and US (and this time also China) come out stronger.

Imagine this scenario: Putins nukes an Ukranian city. US states that they will nuke a Belorussian city in 24 hours. Can you imagine the chaos?

On Putin having some personal gain... well I do not think that Ukraine will recover the Donbas in any case, so Putin can sell it as a victory.



Yes! that's it!, here's my proposal:

Russian will rename to their old name "Russians of Kiev", Turkey will become the Ottoman Empire or even better, Byzantium and go back to from naming Istanbul to Constantinople. We will look for people to be the new Mongols and threaten Europe (they did a much better job than Putin) and we will mix that with the Brigands, Goths, Celtic tribes, Normans, the Teutonic Order... we can even have a Crusade! Oh, I forgot... we have to revive the Cossack cavalry or Europe would just not be the same.

Oh Lord Wellington where are thou!

I am such a diplomacy genius... Putin, are you there!?

Nobody believed him that he would attack Ukraine and bombard it with missiles. Now no one wants to believe that he can use nuclear weapons, but such a possibility cannot be ruled out, we see that he is capable of anything, especially now when he is cornered. It’s scary to even think that this could happen, I do not know where it will be possible to run from such a catastrophe. I really hope that this will not happen and I will be able to live on my free land.

At least 136 people, including 13 children, have been killed in Ukraine since Thursday, February 24, the UN said Tuesday. Day 6 of the conflict, how does that compare with other operations with bombings?

Since Putin is apparently now a crazy old man with a Napoleon complex, this horrifying thought occurred to me: If Ukraine resists for many weeks, why wouldn't Putin use a nuclear weapon against them? It'd be like the situation with Japan and the US in WWII: Putin can nuke a couple of Ukrainian cities (probably in the western half) and say, "Surrender unconditionally or I'll nuke a couple more." And he could just continue nuking cities until Ukraine capitulated. NATO wouldn't respond with direct military action, Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons of its own, and sanctions are already nearly maxed out. I don't see how Putin has much to lose with this strategy (except that it might horrify his direct subordinates or population enough for them to oust him), and it's a sure-fire way to win Ukraine.

You might think that Putin wouldn't want to get a radioactive wasteland as a prize, but that'd be a misunderstanding of the effects of nuclear weapons. Using appropriately-sized nukes, Putin could destroy dozens of cities without making Ukraine generally uninhabitable. The radioactive fallout would cause serious issues (worse in Ukraine and extending worldwide), but it wouldn't kill that many people in most areas, and it would decay in weeks.

To try to prevent this, the West urgently needs to find some way of giving Putin some sort of hope that he personally can improve his situation without conquering Ukraine. As things stand now, there seems to be zero hope of the sanctions ever being lifted as long as Putin is alive, so Putin sees that his only two options are to give up and become an iron-fisted dictator of a poor country, like North Korea, or continue pursuing his dream of restoring the Russian empire at all costs. The West might offer Russia a series of steps that would lead to progressively removing the sanctions, and it might even be worth offering Putin safe personal exile (like Napoleon) so he can retire in peace. He probably wouldn't take a quiet retirement, but it doesn't hurt to offer it.

---

If you're within about 250km of Ukraine, it'd be a good idea to:
 - Put important files onto optical media, since a nuclear EMP may destroy hard drives and SSDs.
 - Buy potassium iodide tablets. In case of nuclear fallout, adults take 130mg/day. This will help your long-term survival, but will absolutely not make you immune to radiation.
 - If possible, prepare 2 weeks of food and water in case you have to shelter from fallout. An appropriate shelter will put as much matter between you and the outside world as possible, without any direct airflow. Air filtration isn't necessary, but air should not be able to flow freely in from the outside. Fallout will especially accumulate on the ground outside and on roofs, so you want your shelter to be far from those. A basement is good if it's deep enough, but a shallow basement isn't ideal because you're too close to the ground outside. A subway would probably have too much air flowing from outside. The middle floors of a very tall building can be used, staying as far as possible from the exterior walls.