Forum menu
to a situation as complex, delicate and dangerous as this will result in a catastrophe that we will all suffer from.
As far as I can see, the 'situation' isn't all that complex or delicate. Putin invaded a country and is essentially daring the West to stop by playing the nuclear card at every opportunity. The story from Russia as been consistent: Supply Ukraine with weapons we'll use Nukes, supply Ukraine with tanks; Nukes, Supply Ukraine with F16s: Nukes...
It's my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he'd have backed down by now. As it is, the US strategy of trying to contain it by suppling Ukraine with 'just' enough to keep going, while doing nothing to deter the likes of China Iran and N Korea from escalating the conflict has prolonged it un-necessarily.
I'm not sure Putin can back down now, I think its gone too far. At the outset there was lots of talk about giving Russia an 'off ramp' to save face that they didn't easily overthrow ukraine. I haven't seen much about that being pushed via the press - it now seems to be the press is setting the scene for a 'frozen conflict'.
And in all likelihood a frozen conflict is just one that will allow russia to rearm and go again in a few years time. aka crimea
I'm not sure what diplomatic routes are viable when Putin is stating he will only accept peace if ukraine completely capitulate.
stood their ground as one
Decision making is relatively straightforward and fast as a team of one.
NATO are a bigger team with some probably conflicting opinions and ideas to slow things down or muddy the waters. Then there's Orban and Fico undermining things.... must be like herding cats.
Is the general idea to give way and sit it out until putin dies?
It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now
What does that actually look like?
It’s my belief that if the western powers actually stood their ground as one, and resisted Putin, he’d have backed down by now.
And if he doesn't? You may be right but even if the chance of him not backing down is low, lets say 10% for argument's sake, are you willing to gamble the lives of billions of people and the very existence of western civilisation on a 10:1 bet? Even if it's a 100:1 or 1000:1 bet it's not one anyone could take given the consequences. Lets put it another way, are you willing to die and risk all your friends and family dying and suffering horribly to 'stand up to Putin'?
As I've said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn't seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it's not a chance anyone can rationally take.
A truly hypersonic missile needs to manoeuvre for accuracy at hypersonic speeds
The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.
standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take.
If there's no point in standing up to him, the only other option seems to be letting him do whatever he wants? Whatever his territorial/imperial ambitions? Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?
Maybe it's time the 'west' (whatever that really is) had a JFK moment and called his bluff. It will at some time come to that unless he backs down.
Can we just be clear: standing up to Putin doesn't automatically mean nuclear armageddon. It's not a logical process to say 'defy putin - get nuclear war'. He won't use nukes against the west or Nato because of the mutual deterrent effect - he simply can't in reality. If he tried, everything he holds dear and is fighting for would end. He's also rather boxed in with their use in Ukraine now, and that's where his threats are aimed at, and his bluff has been repeatedly called. China would not accept Russia using them in Ukraine, and Nato has made it clear what they would do if such an event took place (serious non-nuclear response). The fact is, we are and have been standing up to Putin, slowly and steadily, and continuing to do so will provide a better end to the conflict for the west/Nato and Ukraine.
As I’ve said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take
You seem to be ignoring the consequences of not standing up to him, it's a big part of the reason why we're in this current mess. If he's allowed to get away with invading other countries that are posing no military threat to Russia why would he stop after Ukraine, why would he stop at re-uniting the former Soviet Union? If all he needs to do is a bit of nuclear sabre-rattling and NATO/the West turns a blind eye then it just emboldens him.
No one in their right mind wants a nuclear war but it's Putin that's dragging the world closer to one, not the West for refusing to capitulate to his demands.
What frightens me is that any move to munitions using fissile materials will tip the balance irrespective of their yield and subsequent destruction of humans and infrastructures.
A 0.1 kiloton tactical nuclear bomb deployed to obliterate a column of Ukrainian troops and tanks would trigger WW3 even if was far less powerful than the hundreds of munitions used prior.
Or is there another definition / value associated with starting a nuclear war?
Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange. It would instantly put most of the world against Russia, and as explained above, Putin is aware of the military response from Nato (i.e. non nuclear, but serious response, like sinking what remains of the black sea fleet, or some other show of serious capability). This scenario has been planned for, and I would think a non-nuclear response would make him look even more of a pariah to the world, and completely isolate him (including with China), whilst his forces are seriously hit in what would look like a measured response.
It’s not a logical process to say ‘defy putin – get nuclear war’
No but we know he is nowhwere near as rational as NATO leaders are. Assuming he won't launch nukes because he has too much to lose or because we wouldn't do that isn't a safe assumption. He's already on record as saying a world without (presumably a Putin-lead) Russia is not a world worth having. All the hawks on here proposing stronger action seem to assume he's a rational actor who will do what's in his best interests. I don't see any evidence of that and reckon he's far more dangerous and volatile than many of us assume.
Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?
I guess if he attacked a NATO country. The problem with this entire f****-up situation is that Ukraine isn't one.
Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange.
Jeez we're through the looking glass now. If Putin launches any type of nuke against Ukraine it's game over. The west will respond, he'll launch another, and it won't end before the missiles are flying. Naive and wishful thinking like this is what will be the end of us.
I don't think he is irrational or unhinged, he is cold and utterly ruthless. It's not an assumption about nukes, it is explicitly how the deterrent works. He can't just use a first strike against the west because that would end Russia - it's a cold logic he understands. I'd argue that his current behaviour and sabre rattling is proof of his understanding of the logic; he is doing what he can in the envelope of opportunity he currently has, but the ones you fear are closed to him. His current conduct can also be seen as an expression of the limited options at his disposal. He's not Putin the all powerful to be feared when he has bought 10,000 north korean soldiers to die in defence of the bit of Russia they can't remove Ukranian forces from.
Russia's existence isn't being threatened, nor will it be by trying to stop him in Ukraine.
@dazh - i think the naivety is entirely your own i'm afraid. If your critical reasoning is broken and you're not open to other reasoned dialogue, then expect to be challenged on your beliefs on this subject, and your reasoning (or lack) behind them.
have only just picked up on the fact India are buying massive quantities of Russian oil, refining it into diesel, and selling it to the EU.
They are not buying as much Russian oil as Saudi Arabia currently is.
And just as a reminder what a friend and ally to the West the brutal Saudi dictatorship is:
<i>.</i>
Orban’s latest round of shithousery is to invite Netanyahu to visit in defiance of ICC.
Considering what Israel is doing I feel like this should be a surprise for Orban. But it isnt.
What's his rationale? Is he genuinely wanting Hungary to be a safe destination country for Netanyahu?
If your critical reasoning is broken
You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn't be as bad as we all fear. I don't think it's my critical reasoning that's broken. 😉
What’s his rationale?
Well Victor Orban and Benjamin Netanyahu have quite a lot in common. Both are authoritarian far-right racists who hate Muslims and who have been very chummy with Putin for a while.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Viktor_Orban
@dazh Maybe it's just your comprehension then: I was explaining with lots of valid reasoning and examples of how nuclear doctrine works, the reasons why it wasn't necessarily going to lead to the catastrophe you assume. It's the basis of your assumption that I've tried to reasonably contest. Make of it what you have...
You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn’t be as bad as we all fear. I don’t think it’s my critical reasoning that’s broken. ?
Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?
The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.
Yeah, but... not in the context of weapons (e.g. missiles). By that strict definition of speed, a German V2 (1944-1952) was technically hypersonic, however...
What differentiates today’s emerging class of hypersonic capabilities is the use of aerodynamic lift to allow reentry vehicles to maneuver under guided flight within the atmosphere. While ballistic missiles follow a parabolic trajectory to their target, hypersonic missiles can reenter the atmosphere much quicker. After being launched from rocket boosters, these “boost-glide” vehicles reenter the atmosphere and are guided to their target with the ability to undertake evasive maneuvers to overcome defenses. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-hypersonic-weapons/
By that definition, neither Kinzhal* nor R26 Rubezh/Oreshnik are considered weapons-grade hypersonic. They are quick though 🙂
*and I learnt that just now too
Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?
I took Daz meaning that it would create an escalation in which a nuclear exchange was possible.
The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.
If that did occur I believe that NATO countries in Western Europe are likely to be targeted, which would be a step closer to a nuclear exchange.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
I suppose the question for Dazh is, which of Putins red lines should the west/ not have crossed in the past? Every time he comes on here saying don’t risk it, nuclear Armageddon etc
So which red lines then? Was it supplying Javelins? Or Leopards or F16s or attacking Crimea? Or any of the other 20 or so times Russia has threaten nuclear war if you do this or that.
perhaps the initial German aid response of 5000 helmets was the correct one, maybe throw in some socks too, that’s not too risky 😉
And yeah, I’ll stand by my comment - I’m not quaking in my boots - firing a missile without a warhead isn’t much off a threat, after all The Russian nuclear arsenal is already priced in to NATO policy. Firing a dud missile changes nothing.
The Rubble now at 103/$ !
#sanctions not working ;))
I’m not sure Putin can back down now, I think its gone too far
I agree. The west faffed and missed several opportunities to impose meaningful sanctions; Crimea, Donbas, shooting down of flight MH17, etc.
Russia paused at each stage, nothing happened so they resumed.
After the three-day SMO was shown to be highly unlikely and under more extensive sanctions, Russia should have declared Ukraine free of Nazis and turned back.
The war has now caused so many, too public problems that it can't be abandoned by Russia for no benefit.
There's an article here from March that I won't try to paraphrase. Five perspectives on Russia's nuclear diplomacy are outlined by Stephen J. Cimbala and Lawrence J. Korb https://thebulletin.org/2024/03/putins-nuclear-warnings-heightened-risk-or-revolving-door/
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Certainly looks plausible. Must be terrifying if you know these things are headed your way.
(No carnage shown, just the flight of 2 missiles over a farmers field.)
Feel like this is only going to go one way now really. Nothing like some grim Friday evening news.
blokeuptheroadFull Member
Indeedy!
The Ruble has been in steady decline for a while now, mostly due to global sanctions, I guess, but it's really tanked recently in the last day or so...
I wonder what the driver for that is, Ukraine not having to fight with both hands tied behind their backs maybe/ or some other geo-political influence?
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
I thought Storm shadows were quite surgical instruments though, assuming they don't malfunction, they carry quite a small payload and don't cause a huge amount of colatteral damage.. assuming they are aimed at military/infrastructure?
The ten year chart is very interesting.. you can see the ruble tank 'big style' at the start of the war, it became technically worthless, and then boost massivley due to what I guess was some kind of quantative easing/false inflation by the russian government, and now it' just totally FUBAR.
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Broken link, this works https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1859950903295656158
stcolinFree Member
Feel like this is only going to go one way now really. Nothing like some grim Friday evening news.
A year from now there'll likely be something totally different to worry about.
Likely China invading/ blockading Taiwan due to Trump letting Putin off the hook in Ukraine! Lol
Joking aside, there'll be a high price to pay further down the road if Putin is allowed to win the war with Ukraine. It's a weakness, given his growing age, hell want to press home sooner rather than later. Perhaps Oban will invite a Russian force under Hungary to keep put down a protest. So many possibilities.
I sleep far better knowing Ukraine is now using ATACMS/ Storm Shadows. The tragedy is, they should have been using them *years* ago. As much damage needs to be done before Trump comes to power as possible. Trump will be sewing the sets of a far bigger war in the years to come...
bikesandboots
Full Member
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Broken link, this works https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1859950903295656158/blockquote >
Thanks. Now I know how to make the link work at least, even if I can't embed the bloody things. LolCheers again.
Thanks. Now I know how to make the link work at least, even if I can’t embed the bloody things. Lol
Cheers again.
People shouldn't be using twitter anyway given who owns it.. all the cool kids are on Mastadon these days.
Thing about that Storm Shadow over a field and a flock of sheep, is how relatable it is. Looks just like places I go for a ride. It's just different to the middle east where it's just dusty soil, rock, and sand.
Thing about that Storm Shadow over a field and a flock of sheep, is how relatable it is. Looks just like places I go for a ride. It’s just different to the middle east where it’s just dusty soil, rock, and sand.
Yes, it's quite sobering...I felt the same thing too but didn't quite manifest the thought into words until I read what you wrote... It must be a strange feeling seeing something like that for real... a bit like (but conversley) when an Ambulance flies past at 'not messing about' speed.. you know it's going 'somewhere' and you know there's a big problem where it's going... It really does make you think.
And the speed they were going at... it's one thing to film it from the side, but if you were the target, you'd never see or hear it coming... sobering stuff indeed.
The Russian central bank has been buying the Rubble to support it, perhaps they can’t afford it any more ?
Meanwhile, in the real world ...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/23/russia-ukraine-war-live-latest-news-updates
Russia’s defence ministry said that its forces had captured the settlement of Novodmytrivka in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, their latest gain in what defence minister Andrei Belousov described as an accelerated advance.
Ukraine has lost over 40% of the territory in Russia’s Kursk region that it rapidly seized in a surprise incursion in August as Russian forces have mounted waves of counter-assaults, a senior Ukrainian military source told Reuters
Meanwhile, in the real world …
Russia has trumpeted the capture of a village that used to house 200 people, that they've been assaulting for a week or more and murdered two more PoWs https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/20/7485504/
In that week Russia has probably lost 10.5k troops KIA. That's the tragedy of the real world