Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Todd_is_God]

16 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

 

These are the heads of government of two former Russian colonies. Sanna Marin of Finland on the left and Zelenskyy or Ukraine on the right. They are also at the opposite ends of the Human Development Index for Europe. I do not support Ukraine because they are some blemishless country who are world paragons in human rights. I do so because they deserve the same chance that Latvia, Czechia and East Germany got, to get the f**k out of the Russian heal and build a decent country for themselves and their people. 

There is a reason Eastern and Northern Europe is so solidly behind Ukraine. 

Kunt above me is giving it the big one about nuclear risks. Ukrainians want to join the European Union because it has meant economic growth for so many East European countries. This and not NATO is at the beating heart of 2014 and this crisis. The EU is not invading Ukraine to force them to join us, Russia is doing that to prevent it. 

What the f**k has this birthday caird pish got to do with my post about there being no end game other than a Russian nuclear strike if NATO forces get directly involved in this war?

[welshbairn]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

Lolwut? NATO forces would easily annihilate Russian forces in a conventional war. Given the Russian Nuclear doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons when there is an existential threat to Russia, which part of the post you have quoted do you disagree with?

Your certainty. Your post was a reply to someone suggesting that a conventional response from Nato to Russian assets in Ukraine to a tactical nuclear strike by Russia in Ukraine would be sufficient rather than responding with nukes. You're saying that if NATO responded conventionally Russia would escalate to a full scale nuclear exchange immediately. How can you know?

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Your certainty. Your post was a reply to someone suggesting that a conventional response from Nato to Russian assets in Ukraine to a tactical nuclear strike by Russia in Ukraine would be sufficient rather than responding with nukes. You're saying that if NATO responded conventionally Russia would escalate to a full scale nuclear exchange immediately. How can you know?

If you can point to where I said (or even implied) "immediately" i'll respond.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

If you can point to where I said "immediately" i'll respond.

If you're downgrading the Kremlin response to "mulling over a decapitation strike" then of course that's more nuanced.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

If you're downgrading the Kremlin response to "mulling over a decapitation strike" then of course that's more nuanced.

Right, so now we've established no-one is suggesting that the immediate Russian response to direct NATO involvement would be a nuclear strike we can get into the actual point made in my post.

Given NATO forces would almost certainly crush Russian forces in a conventional war, which part of my suggestion that the end result of any direct NATO involvement would be a Russian nuclear strike do you disagree with?

Remember, also, you stuck your oar in here so I'm expecting you will answer this.

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

.

Given NATO forces would almost certainly crush Russian forces in a conventional war,

Is WW2 non conventional?

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Right, so now we've established no-one is suggesting that the immediate Russian response to direct NATO involvement would be a nuclear strike we can get into the actual point made in my post.

Given NATO forces would almost certainly crush Russian forces in a conventional war, which part of my suggestion that the end result of any direct NATO involvement would be a Russian nuclear strike do you disagree with?

Remember, also, you stuck your oar in here so I'm expecting you will answer this.

God this is dull. If the NATO response to a Russian tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine was a conventional one, limited to Russian assets in Ukraine, I doubt Russia would respond with much at all. But then I don't think Russia would launch a nuke in the first place.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Is WW2 non conventional?

I'm not really sure what you are angling at here, tbh, but I would argue that the events that brought about the end of it were not conventional.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

God this is dull. If the NATO response to a Russian tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine was a conventional one, limited to Russian assets in Ukraine, I doubt Russia would respond with much at all. But then I don't think Russia would launch a nuke in the first place.

I would argue that this is extremely naïve tbh. 

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

What, that Russia won't launch a first use tactical nuke, or that NATO would respond to it?

That any direct NATO involvement could be contained to within Ukraine, and that Russia would not view this as a green light to attack NATO targets outside of Ukraine.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That any direct NATO involvement could be contained to within Ukraine, and that Russia would not view this as a green light to attack NATO targets outside of Ukraine.

What response should there be to Russian use of a tactical nuclear weapon do you think? Not that I think it's going to happen.

[Newbornbairn]

You could equally say Russian use of nukes in Ukraine would lead directly to Moscow being turned into a glass car park.

 

There is one aggressor here, it's not Ukraine and it's not NATO. All the consequences stem from Russian actions. 

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Lolwut? NATO forces would easily annihilate Russian forces in a conventional war. Given the Russian Nuclear doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons when there is an existential threat to Russia, which part of the post you have quoted do you disagree with?

There is a flaw in YOUR analysis here. A Russian nuclear attack anywhere would be an immediate existential threat to Russia and Russian leadership. While the leaders of Russia fear a loss or loosening of their grip on the county, they are also not so stupid as to understand that to be the first country to use nuclear weapons (WW2 was atomic), or even a dirty bomb, would result in their annihilation and the end of Russia as we know it.

China would back away from supporting Putin, and then swoop in to take Siberia…Japan would liberate the Sakhalin Islands plus, Mongolia would nibble some…as would various Stan’s with the tact support of the locals (here comes VT to say this is wrong…meh)…Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, and Norway would all nibble a bit too. A new and smaller CIS, more loosely governed would replace the current regime.

The Russian military is nearly combat ineffective now, as it is, and it isn’t getting any better any time soon. The best units have been gutted by losses and poor leadership, the weapons stocks are depleted, and the troops morale is at rock bottom. Putin understands this, and knows he cannot risk a direct confrontation with the West, so he is trying to buff his way out of this.

[Dev]

38 minutes ago, TxRover said:

There is a flaw in YOUR analysis here. A Russian nuclear attack anywhere would be an immediate existential threat to Russia and Russian leadership. While the leaders of Russia fear a loss or loosening of their grip on the county, they are also not so stupid as to understand that to be the first country to use nuclear weapons (WW2 was atomic), or even a dirty bomb, would result in their annihilation and the end of Russia as we know it.

China would back away from supporting Putin, and then swoop in to take Siberia…Japan would liberate the Sakhalin Islands plus, Mongolia would nibble some…as would various Stan’s with the tact support of the locals (here comes VT to say this is wrong…meh)…Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, and Norway would all nibble a bit too. A new and smaller CIS, more loosely governed would replace the current regime.

The Russian military is nearly combat ineffective now, as it is, and it isn’t getting any better any time soon. The best units have been gutted by losses and poor leadership, the weapons stocks are depleted, and the troops morale is at rock bottom. Putin understands this, and knows he cannot risk a direct confrontation with the West, so he is trying to buff his way out of this.

In the event that Russia should face break up for any reason in the current War there is the potential risk that Putin & Co may go nuclear just because Russia is facing break up. They wouldn't want to lose face and going nuke would fit it with their vengeful approach to life. If they cannot have something then they may make sure that as much as possible is destroyed so no-one else can have it. They are looking at a death sentence anyway so why not go out with a Big Bang? This is the huge risk as I see it. How to deal with that is the issue?

The other thing is that Israel seems to have twigged that Iran building drones in Syria just maybe a problem for it as well as to The Ukraine. If Israel weighs up the risks of supporting The Ukraine or not then a little (justifiable) self-interest about the threat from Iran and its' terrorist allies in Syria should tip the scales in favour of helping out The Ukraine.

There are hints that a drone-laden airplane with plans to set off for Russia has just been destroyed at a Damascus airport or airfield. Couldn't possibly have been done by Israel could it? If Israel does the risk assessment now it may get stuck into Iran/Iranian drones. That could make a dramatic difference to the War in The Ukraine couldn't it?

There are reports starting to emerge on the internet (so they must be accurate!) that some Russian republics may be starting to look around for alternatives to Russia for their future. Mongolia "may be" eying up linking with similar ethnic republics e.g. Buryatia, Tuva and even Sakha (Siberia). The total population would still be very small - in the region of 5.5 million but Mongolia gets by as it is with just 3.2 millions and a huge area to cover. Mongolia is used to such issues. 

I think that China would use puppet state North Korea to do any dirty work in central/eastern Russia.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Dev
.

[TxRover]

14 minutes ago, Dev said:

In the event that Russia should face break up for any reason in the current War there is the potential risk that Putin & Co may go nuclear just because Russia is facing break up. They wouldn't want to lose face and going nuke would fit it with their vengeful approach to life. If they cannot have something then they may make sure that as much as possible is destroyed so no-one else can have it. They are looking at a death sentence anyway so why not go out with a Big Bang? This is the huge risk as I see it. How to deal with that is the issue?

The other thing is that Israel seems to have twigged that Iran building drones in Syria just maybe a problem for it as well as to The Ukraine. If Israel weighs up the risks of supporting The Ukraine or not then a little (justifiable) self-interest about the threat from Iran and its' terrorist allies in Syria should tip the scales in favour of helping out The Ukraine.

There are hints that a drone-laden airplane with plans to set off for Russia has just been destroyed at a Damascus airport or airfield. Couldn't possibly have been done by Israel could it? If Israel does the risk assessment now it may get stuck into Iran/Iranian drones. That could make a dramatic difference to the War in The Ukraine couldn't it?

There are reports starting to emerge on the internet (so they must be accurate!) that some Russian republics may be starting to look around for alternatives to Russia for their future. Mongolia "may be" eying up linking with similar ethnic republics e.g. Buryatia, Tuva and even Sakha (Siberia). The total population would still be very small - in the region of 5.5 million but Mongolia gets by as it is with just 3.2 millions and a huge area to cover. Mongolia is used to such issues. 

I think that China would use puppet state North Korea to do any dirty work in central/eastern Russia.

Don’t forget China is hugely involved in Mongolia right now, and could use them as their proxy.

Not sure I buy the Putin suicide pact angle, better a live leader of a weakened Russia than a radioactive dust mote.

[Todd_is_God]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

There is a flaw in YOUR analysis here. A Russian nuclear attack anywhere would be an immediate existential threat to Russia and Russian leadership. While the leaders of Russia fear a loss or loosening of their grip on the county, they are also not so stupid as to understand that to be the first country to use nuclear weapons (WW2 was atomic), or even a dirty bomb, would result in their annihilation and the end of Russia as we know it.

I don't think that is a flaw in my argument tbh. If NATO forces are already directly involved in the war then, as they edge closer to the Russian border / Moscow, then an immediate existential threat is already very real.

I don't think it is particularly useful to base the predicted response of Vladimir Putin in that situation on someone rational.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[bennett]

 

 

 

[jagfox]

 

[jagfox]

Russian killed now estimated at over 70000 now and a similar number MIA/POW. Probably a larger amount wounded and unable to return. 

Russia lost around 15000 in the whole campaign in Afghanistan in over 10 years. 

[Moomintroll]

12 hours ago, Detournement said:

Is WW2 non conventional?

*Was. You are a fucking idiot, your beloved Russia couldn't even defeat Ukraine in a straight fight, the combined Armies of the NATO would squash them like a bug in a modern, conventional scenario. If it was the Axis & the rest of the Allied forces vs Russia in WW2, who do you think was winning that? That is what we are looking at right now, take your tinfoil hat & f**k off.