Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 370. (Read 79122 times)

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.

I would suggest 15th century, because it gets better. I found evidence that Ukraine is actually ancient NATO land:

Ancient Kievan lands... 1000 years ago, since before Moscow even existed.

So it's a good thing that NATO membership doesn't allow that? Is that your point?

I understand how you feel, so just posting facts from wiki without comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia

Any country that boarders a current nuclear power that decides to join a pact which would allow 3rd country to put its nukes on that country's land, would most definitely move the doomsday clock hands in the wrong direction. And that's for the better, this is not a precedent that you want to set. It would allow poor countries to offer their land to (possible) nukes for the right incentives. How would you feel about Mexico joining a pact with Russia for free oil that would allow Russian nukes on Mexico/US border? Or how much do you think would China need to offer to Albania for the rights to place Chinese nukes on Albanian soil?*

*Of course it wouldn't just be for the nukes. It'd be packed in a nice pact with other very lucrative trade deals, single currency, and lending terms, with an option for nukes, so that country could prosper.

In last day Russian attacks end with much more deaths of civilians. They shooting at houses and apartments of people, hospitals, kindergartens, Kharkiv city municipality and Kyiv TV tower. They are still say that Russia attack only military objects, but it's rude lie. If they're doing such things, seems that they have no limits...
It's very likely that Belarus army is going to join Russian forces in attacks. And from what I read, Ukraine would respon with rockets attack towards Belarus.
I'm not sure why you're talking about brinngin nukes. Poland and Baltic states is NATO members and there is no nukes there. How Ukraine would be different? What if Finland will decide to join NATO? Russia will start war against them too?

You are assuming that NATO would require Ukraine to have nukes. That is not the case with many other countries even those close to Russia, so there is no real argument.

The purpose of the sanctions is to cripple the Russian economy, so Russia does not have the ability to continue its war effort. Wars are not won with weapons that each side had at the beginning of the war, they are won with weapons produced during the war. So if Russia is unable to continue to produce tanks, planes, and bombs, they will be unable to continue to fight the war.

Another purpose of the sanctions is to incentivize the people of Russia to overthrow/change their government. Russia is no democracy, and there are risks to speaking out/protesting, however, if these types of things happen in large enough numbers, the Russian government will be unable to suppress the protests.

The gas pipelines from Russia provides Russia with money to finance its war in Ukraine. Russia's only real trading partner left is China, but China is not going to give away goods for free. If Russia cannot sell its gas, the Russian government will stop having the ability to buy things. Russia receives approximately 40% of its receipts from sales of gas.

I don't think this is a good solution, just as it is a bad solution to violent places in Central America.

When people being oppressed can simply leave the control of an oppressive/bad government, there is less pressure on other governments to pursue change because the people being oppressed can simply seek refuge. This also gives the people of these bad governments less of an incentive to try to change their government. Unhappy citizens will try to leave instead of changing their government.

Russia is no democracy, and when citizens dissent in smallish numbers they will be punished. However, if enough of Russia's population resists its government, the government will collapse. Allowing people to immigrate from Russia will reduce the incentive for people to resist their government. It is also something that will take a very long time to have a meaningful impact.

Not sure how much clearer i can be. US will never allow Cuba to enter into any defensive pacts (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Cuba) that would allow other countries to bring nukes into Cuba. China will never allow Taiwan to enter into any pact (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Taiwan) that will allow 3rd country to bring nukes into Taiwan. Now you can argue whether it is right/ethical/lawful etc... but it'd be silly to argue the fact itself.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/us-officials-fear-putins-government-may-arrest-americans-russia-rcna18088

Some days ago, the U.S. issued to their citizens a message to get out of Russia. Other countries might have done the same. U.S. officials questioning whether Putin is planning on jailing private U.S. citizens in order to use as leverage. Would Putin be so foolish as to directly force U.S. involvement by holding American citizens hostage? Perhaps he is so desperate, seeing his army is failing to capture a country so ill-equipped for war.

Still not making any sense. Sneaky about what? That some countries want to share defensive capabilities? Unlike e.g. Russia and Belarus? That some of those countries don't want to trust Russia and rather turn westward? I wonder why.


Actually that was the status quo for decades before the Soviet Union collapsed. So your point is still not quite clear here.

So the solution is to pack the nukes inside a package where its unilaterally optional to one side, after mutual collective defense is established? Now that makes all the difference and not sneaky at all. Ok, so China offering Cuba a pact where Cuba is free to enter into the most beneficial agreements they can choose within their possibilities, and China is obligated to declare war on anyone attacking or blockading Cuba (with an option for China to later bring in nukes to Cuba anytime they wish after that pact is  accepted) Now you'd be silly not to take up that great offer!

What are you on about... there are no nukes to the east of the "old" NATO in Europe... other than Russian nukes in Kaliningrad, in Russia proper, and now apparently soon in Belarus. None of the new NATO members are getting nukes.

We've been through this before in the 60s. Russia tries to bring nukes to US borders. US blockades Cuba, disregarding its rights as a sovereign nation as well as all international laws. Logic was that nuclear weapons close to US borders is unacceptable risk and is an existential threat to the country, which overrules everything else.  World got together, cooler heads prevailed, and world agreed that sneaky Russians tried to sneak nukes too close to US borders, nuke nations have right to feel threatened, and its better that nuke states each stay away from each other in their own rooms. MAD was born. Now, fast forwards few decades. Concept of "existential thread" is being challenged once again, nukes are getting brought to a border but this time with a side of more democracy, favorable trade agreements, monetary policy, and cookies. If this is successful, rinse repeat, offer great trading terms with a side of nukes to Taiwan (offer Taiwan to join NATO), before China decides to bring great monitory policy, fortune cookies with a side of nukes to Cuba again (offer Cuba to join ChinaWarsawPact).

While I agree that all Russians cannot be blamed for Putin's decisions, as they mostly do not get either a say on it or any means of opposing these without an immense risk to their lives and livelihoods, as a citizen of a Democracy, I do feel I am much more responsible for what my country does than people on authoritarian regimes are. I do feel I need to do something if my government does not have at least a morally acceptable conduct.

In other words, when you live in a Democracy (imperfect or not), you do not get to blame others - such is the burden of freedom and so heavy that many choose to discharge it and accept dictators.

On this I have to agree and add that Europe has risen its voice and started acting on the economic front only when Putin threatened directly everything that is dear to the EU and the US - democracies (even if imperfect), their ability to strengthen their relations to other countries if they wish to do so and to be free to enter into the most beneficial agreements they can choose within their possibilities.

In other words, Ukraine does not have less rights to reach agreements with others than Putin or than any other country. Forcing them into neutrality, hindering their rights to associate or extend their diplomacy is something that Western Europe just cannot accept. Putin setting terms on what the NATO can do or not do in terms of accepting members is not acceptable. Putin giving himself the Tzardom or all that surrounds him because "he would not feel safe otherwise" feels too much like the old USSR regime.

And do not get me wrong, I am no happier about the US intervening in Latin America than I am with Putin.