Forum menu
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd5myvyrjzo
Jean-Noël Barrot said that Ukraine could fire French long-range missiles into Russia "in the logics of self defence", but would not confirm if French weapons had already been used.
And Russia is suffering the heaviest casualties of the war so far, similar to the bloodbath around Bahkmut in 2023.
Putins in a hurry and his troops are paying the price.
Ukraines best hope of victory remains inflicting so many casualties that the Russian home front collapses and falling back to minimise thier own losses is a requisite for keeping the grim mathematics on their side.
Ukraines best hope of victory remains inflicting so many casualties that the Russian home front collapses and falling back to minimise thier own losses is a requisite for keeping the grim mathematics on their side.
By the time Ukraine got their "victory" there will only be a few young men around.
Then when the Ukrainians look back, they will realise that they have been taken for a ride
So they should have just rolled over and let Putin's goons butcher their men (Remember Bucha) rape their women and ship thier children off to Siberia?
Whilst there are many questions and discussions to have, I think we can be fairly confident asserting that it was Ukraine's decision to resist and at the end of this there will still be an independent Ukrainian state, which there wouldn't have been if they hadn't.
Edit
I took Daz meaning that it would create an escalation in which a nuclear exchange was possible.
Of course that's what I meant. It's amusing that the very people on this thread who think Putin is a ruthless murderer and gangster (I have no argument with that) also think he's sensible and rational enough to not escalate a nuclear exchange. Yes, NATO may well sink his navy and destroy his air force if he uses a tactical nuke, but why does anyone think he would stop there and say 'ok lads, lets call it a draw'. Of course he wouldn't, he'd respond with more nukes against Western bases and probably Ukrainian cities. Anyone who thinks Putin using a nuke in Ukraine wouldn't escalate into a wider nuclear war is living in fantasyland.
I’m with Daz, I don’t think Putin - or for that matter Kim Jong - is rational or compassionate enough not to push the button on the basis of the rest of the world continuing on without him. Very much “If I can’t have it, why should they…”.
I don't think Putin sits in a room alone with a big red button.
I've never thought Putin was mad or unhinged. Whilst he is undeniably ruthless and ambitious, I do think he is intelligent, cunning and (from an extreme Russian nationalist viewpoint) rational.
He sees himself as Peter the Great incarnate, the ultimate Russian patriot and patriarch. He feels humiliated by what he sees as the loss of Russia's rightful place in the world since the fall of the Soviet empire. In a very distorted way, I'm sure he 'loves' his country.
Starting an exchange which he knows will result in the destruction of it, is not in his game plan IMV. Regular sabre rattling to advance his imperial aims very much is.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world Putin has made a huge mess politically and was not stopped years ago. He is definitely emboldened by the lack of resistance by the EU block, The UK especially has been shown to be week by its lack of attention or willfully being ignorant of his covert influence within the UK political system and we are playing catch up rapidly London wasn't called the Russian washing machine for nothing.
It genuinely would not surprise me if he has been funding both fundamentals and the ultra far right in this country.
Austria and Germany are political banana skins waiting to happen and he will almost certainly have a hand in that. Then Iran and north Korea added to the mix who have thought that China would be second fiddle in influence over north Korea right now the Chinese didn't that's for sure. (The west needs to have a very frank conversation with itself over how the Internet and social media has been hijacked by state sponsors spreading misinformation.)
He is a menace and needs to be removed by his own people not only for Russians but the rest of the globe I'm not sure they have the apatite for it as those surrounding Putin don't look too moderate.
This is what happens when despots are left unchecked.
A shit sandwich for Ukraine and it's people.
Starting an exchange which he knows will result in the destruction of it, is not in his game plan IMV. Regular sabre rattling to advance his imperial aims very much is.
Don't disagree. My whole point above was about what would happen if he did use a nuke in Ukraine. Some on here seem to think it wouldn't escalate and presumably we don't need to put as much effort into preventing it. I think we need to do everything possible to prevent it, and if that means not crossing some red lines which might hinder Ukraine's defence then so be it. It's an extremely delicate balancing act that some posters here would like to abandon by going all in and attacking Russia directly.
The likely escalation we will see, well, it's not truly an escalation as it's been going on for years it's just we didn't really see it for what it was, is an even more concerted effort to instigate cyber attacks on the UK and our allies.
Given the far, far harsher price being paid by Ukraine, if the UK were to back down in any way, we are doing Ukraine no favours nor ourselves.
Backing Ukraine is the right thing to do but it's not all altruistic, Russia has been at war with us for many years, it's just not a conventionally conducted one.
Every single time Putin has been allowed to have what he wanted, it didn't stop him, it emboldened him. I find it astonishing that when we look at the news and the problems we now face that anyone can still think that appeasement (call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing) has worked with Putin. It hasn't and it never will.
Can anyone make a reasonable case for placating Putin based on his "foreign policy"? Can someone with a better memory even remind me how many countries have been invaded by Putin and had lands seized to "protect Russian speakers" and the like?
Those that have let Putin nibble away at countries and not backed a far harsher response have got us to where we are now. They've done us and "peace" absolutely no favours at all.
and if that means not crossing some red lines which might hinder Poland/Czech/Austria/France defence then so be it.
At what point do you think it's acceptable to stand up to Putin? Or would you rather just roll over and ask for a belly rub before wandering off to queue for bread and potatoes?
chewkw
Then when the Ukrainians look back, they will realise that they have been taken for a ride
Saddens me to read that, chew. Ukraine have begged for help to fight for their own country. No-ones taken them for a ride. The betrayal is not what you allude to, it's expecting them to fight one of the largest militaries in the world with one arm tied behind their back. That's the betrayal.
Have we already forgotten seeing women with their children coming together in parks to prepare Molotov cocktails? It was goddamned humbling to watch and it deeply saddens me to hear some people are so willing to sell them out for some illusionary threat avoidance.
They’ve done us and “peace” absolutely no favours at all.
Theres no good options available, but appeasement will lead us to Russian tanks rolling into a, possibly NATO Baltic, SMO to protect Russian speakers at some point. Or spilling over into NATO from a Moldova SMO.
I'd love to think theres a way to achieve a long standing, respectful peace, but Russias leadership would need a radical shift of ambitions first. (Plenty of other governments with proper ***** foreign policies, but this thread is about Ukraine and Russias invasion, so no what about needed)
Heard on news that "drones" have been seen over a couple of US bases in UK. And Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now. Media hyperbole or actual threat?
Ruble is 0.015 to $1 AUD at the mo.
I don't think he'll nuke anyone. But I am hugely surprised he's not been taken out yet by a drone or some other long-range effort.
aphex_2k
Free Member
Heard on news that “drones” have been seen over a couple of US bases in UK. And Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now. Media hyperbole or actual threat?
One of Putin's well known tactics has been to pay criminals or sympathisers a few hundred dollars/euros to get them to set a warehouse on fire etc. If these drone incursions are real, they are very much of the bought on Amazon variety and the "threat", such as it is, it to sow fear and division in the population of allied states. It's absolutely classic Putin, hybrid warfare shenanigans.
China actively encourages (by sctively I mean, it makes zero attempts to stop it and it absolutely could if it wished) it's citizens to fly drones over Taiwan's military bases for the same reasons.
Anyone who thinks Putin using a nuke in Ukraine wouldn’t escalate into a wider nuclear war is living in fantasyland.
There are two points here:
There's no reason for him to use nuclear weapons of any sort
If there isn't a reason, there won't be an escalation into nuclear war
Let's take a step back and look at why there isn't a reason for him to use nuclear weapons of any sort.
Russia has been struggling to take more than 20% of Ukraine since 2014. Russia unceremoniously retreated from an attempt on the other 80% following the August 2022 Kherson counter-offensive and the Sept 2022 Kharkiv offensive. Why didn't he use them then?
Russia is making more progress now than it has for some time; it didn't use nuclear weapons when retreating, so why now that it's on the offensive?
Nothing that the west has done has been serious enough on a strategic game-changing level to promote nuclear war. Storm Shadow/SCALP/ATACMS have been used to attack Russian targets for between 12 months (ATACMS) and 18 months (Storm Shadow/SCALP) and nuclear weapons haven't been used.
Arguably, because Russia has been making the first escalations, eventually they will escalate to nuclear weapons and I won't be able to convince you otherwise. The problem with that argument is that you are only thinking of Russia and President Putin, which is the media POV amplified by sources such as Kim Jong Un, Alexander Lukashenko and Viktor Orban.
Of countries more closely allied with Russia, China is openly against nuclear weapon use and is observing international sanctions while Iran has stepped back from wider conflict with Israel; don't discount their influence and that of others.
Finally, "Ukraine and the states in the region not bought and paid for by Putin such as Hungary and Slovakia, are supporting Ukraine in its campaign for ranged attacks. If they are not worried, maybe those further away can stop losing their heads." https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-108-ukrainian-ranged
Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now.
Putin's target audience is mostly the Russian public, he's posturing as a tough guy for a domestic audience. He's been issuing threats like that for years but has not carried out any direct attacks, including against Sweden and Finland who both joined NATO despite Putin saying that he would not tolerate NATO countries on Russia's border.
Germany's Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius: is quite switched on about Putin.
“He proved in this war that he (Putin) never needed a provocation to escalate. Rather, he escalated when he thought an escalation was the right thing to do for tactical reasons.”
Worth watching the full excerpt
https://bsky.app/profile/jacy1892.bsky.social/post/3lbmzoivdyk2g
There is no scenario where using Nukes gives Putin a tactical advantage
Putin’s target audience is mostly the Russian public, he’s posturing as a tough guy for a domestic audience. He’s been issuing threats like that for years but has not carried out any direct attacks
This has been the American line too. How many times have you heard them use the phrase "No option is off the table"
Just as they say, 'Sabre rattling'
How many times have you heard them use the phrase “No option is off the table”
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Can you give some examples?
There is no scenario where using Nukes gives Putin a tactical advantage
Maybe not right now but there are scenarios which move Putin closer to thinking he has nothing left to lose. The reality is that if the risk of Putin using nuclear arms is to be kept to a minimum (and it must be kept to a minimum), then he needs to be able to save face and get something out of the current situation. It's all very well shouting 'nothing but all out defeat will do' but the reality will be very different. As has always been the case since the start of the cold war, prevention is the only cure to the nuclear problem.
Worse case scenario question.
If the worse does happen, and the northern part of the planet is turned into radioactive rubble, and those who survive the blasts inevitably succumb to sickness or starvation.
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
China is the worlds largest food/agricultural products importer and has a long and painful history with food security and when that goes wrong. I know they, quite sensibly have ambitions to reduce their reliance on food imports but that will take a long time to achieve.
Long read here https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-food-security-key-challenges-and-emerging-policy-responses
The UK would be double ******
Went down a rabbit hole of yt shorts Joe Rogan taking about Ukraine.
Wow. But not in a good way.
His is the most listened to podcast.
The guy's a ****.
e-machine
Free Member
Worse case scenario question.If the worse does happen, and the northern part of the planet is turned into radioactive rubble, and those who survive the blasts inevitably succumb to sickness or starvation.
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
Hypothetically speaking here. I'm not stock piling beans, this isn't a man that looks ready to die of covid or radiation poisoning.
Anyway...
If the whole theory of nukes triggering a nuclear winter turns out to be true, I doubt there will be any country in a position to be a world power. Of anything.
I suspect though, if we wanted to think in the terms of which regions/ countries might be least effected, it could well be the least "sophisticated" societies that fair the best.
They don't need Google as they are still used to hunter gathering or living directly off the land via simple, non intensive horticulture.
The rest of us are way, way too reliant on technology to survive imo. Once the tinned food run out its basically a pretty fast decline to The Road and beyond.
All the above said, I still think that pastural societies are still buggered, turn the sun off, via a nuclear winter and not much survives, however good it is at living off the land
Not even touched on tainted drinking water, the death of the oceans and all the other things we can't even imagine as a nuclear war has never happened.
That said, X will be gone. It's not all bad.
x/space Karen be in his teslabunka planning the next phase which ends with him eating his own feet.
It's widely reported today that Andrey Rudenko, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (not the boxer from Ukraine), has warned South Korea not to send weapons to Ukraine "and will respond in any way deemed necessary" (exact translations vary) and any such exports will destroy relations between the two countries.
SKorea is technically at war with NKorea and has a strong arms industry; they've been considering supply more strongly since NKorean troops began training in Russia last month, "Officials agreed to take phased countermeasures, linking the level of their responses to progress in Russian-North Korean military cooperation, according to the statement." https://www.itv.com/news/2024-10-23/south-korea-warns-it-could-send-weapons-to-ukraine
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
In the event of full scale nuke, Northern hemisphere will have severe dark radioactive winter while Southern hemisphere will have gloomy days with something (little) to eat.
Dominant world power? Everyone (the whole world) will be starving and dominating the world is the last thing on their minds.
Putin isn’t going to launch a nuke because of a fear of MAD.
So which of Putins previous red lines should not have been crossed? Any, all, none?
The current situation is tense especially if NATO (I mean Biden's administration) still thinks they have the upper hand even after Russia showcased their hazel nuts flower (Oreshnik).
Red line? Why not NATO send their Tomahawk to test it out after Stormshadow? I wonder if the Iron Dome can catch any of the Mach 10 Hazel Nuts flower as they rain down from the sky with their kinetic force.
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
I want some of what you’re smoking Chewy, do you ever read over your posts before hitting send or is it just a stream of (un)conscious thought?
Yes but away from Gardener's World the Russian actions may well prompt South Korea to send a couple more shells to Ukraine.
I want some of what you’re smoking Chewy, do you ever read over your posts before hitting send or is it just a stream of (un)conscious thought?
Russia has given all the warning but somehow many in the west still think it is a good idea to escalate already hopeless situation.
Yes but away from Gardener’s World the Russian actions may well prompt South Korea to send a couple more shells to Ukraine.
South Korea's action is simply futile.
Chew...
Sometimes your posts (on the Ukrainian thread) sadden me a little, sometimes they confuse the sod out of me then:
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
And I remember that, all things considered, I'm glad you are on the forum! 🙂
Edit: Nobody saw that right, right! I swear to God, predictive will get me punched one day! 😀
If, and it's a big if, Putin is ever going to use a nuclear weapon my guess is that it will be when he's on his deathbed, when he personally has nothing to lose.
Probably just in Ukraine (if I can't have it no one will) but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK is a target. We are very much at the top of the list of countries which annoy him and might be the one he chooses to make an example of.
It's sufficiently unlikely, and there's nothing I can do about it anyway, so I'm not going to worry.
As an aside, how worried is Putin about MAD? If he decides to flatten Ukraine, the UK, or everyone else will we retaliate? We've seen, even before Ukraine, that he has no problem attacking civilians (Allepo for instance) so we have to assume that he would use his on big cities. The west are generally more concerned with not killing civilians, does that make the threat/deterrent effect less? Ours would probably be launched at their silos, launch sites, naval bases etc rather than Moscow and St Petersburg, whereas he's just as likely to go for London as he is for Faslane. Anyway, is our detterant less because of this?
Sorry, not "bit quoting" you in what can be the very STW way of nitpicking your post apart in a bid to somehow say my opinion must be right! Lol I'm just doing it to give my own thoughts on what are perfectly valid points and anyway.. what do I know at the end of the day? 🙂
andrewh
Free Member
If, and it’s a big if, Putin is ever going to use a nuclear weapon my guess is that it will be when he’s on his deathbed, when he personally has nothing to lose.
True but when he's at that point, there will already be the other big players he has suppressed for decades lining up their own succession bids. They won't want to reign over an irradiated desert. I suspect when the other players smell his weakness and get wind of a possible, "nuke the world" scenario, Putin's control of the levers of power will erode incredibly quickly. Now, possible successors may well not be better than Putin but they are likely younger, wealthy and have families and will get to rule their own country. Having all that means nothing of you are dead. They also likely think Putin is mad to risk what he has to try and establish a new Soviet empire. The are likely just as nasty but far more pragmatic and likely have no love for the old Empire. Sod the risks of building a new one, Russia is huge and for many despots it'll be plenty large enough.
Probably just in Ukraine (if I can’t have it no one will) but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK is a target. We are very much at the top of the list of countries which annoy him and might be the one he chooses to make an example of.
We've been a target for years, assassinations, literal use of a WMD on our soil, numerous hacks on government and civil institutions etc. We just chose to bury our heads and not to see it for what it was, a new way of waging war. If he he turned it into a conventional war he knows full well there is NATO and he is buggered. His use of waves of meat charging enemy positions won't work against a modern military with a far better air force. If he went nuclear, ignoring the rest of the world and what they would do, the captain's of our nuclear deterrent subs will have sealed orders from the PM to open and I don't see them being, "it's ok guys, live and let live." I used to be pretty sceptical of us having nukes, in an ideal world I still would be, but now? Having seen what happened to Ukraine after giving up it's nuclear arsenal? Sod that.
As an aside, how worried is Putin about MAD? If he decides to flatten Ukraine, the UK, or everyone else will we retaliate?
He *is* flattening Ukraine, when you see the towns he has liberated/conquered his standard way of achieving that is to absolutely obliterate everything that's there, every building and every man, woman and child that hasn't cleared out first. If you look at the before and after pics of the places Russia has gained control of, it's appalling. Ptetty much medieval. He doesnt need nukes to do what he's doing, it's far, far less risky for him to carry on doing it with conventional arms.
Anyway, just my thoughts on it all. 🙂