Ukraine

if he got them he probably wouldn’t have invaded

No one believes that, do they? Still?

I’m I the only one that thinks Putin’s tables are a pretty good piece of political theatre? :lol:

He clearly wants to project the Mad Vlad image, that’s most definitely by design.

No, he really is a terrifyingly paranoid delusional, psychotic madman

Maybe ask the families of all the people he’s killed in the last two weeks if they think it’s all just political theatre? Maybe ask the millions desperately fleeing his blitzkrieg

He’s the real deal… a full on genocidal lunatic

He’s definitely on the madman scale, but he could be a lot higher. Probably a 3 or 4 out of 10 for me at the minute. Daft enough to be a bully, but not daft enough to pick a real fight.

CIA putting Russias losses at up to 4000 troops

That’s a lot but a tiny fraction of what he’s got to there already.

The polish Mig plan was always going to be tricky, would they even be delivered in time to be useful?

Air defence along the 40mile convoy now pretty well set up

I’m sure losses will be heavy but I dunt see how Kyiv can withstand what’s about to cone: days of artillery and missile strikes followed by a ground assault

I’m pretty certain Putin was playing brinkmanship, he clearly wanted certain things and if he got them he probably wouldn’t have invaded. Problem with brinkmanship is you need to be willing to follow through with your threats.

@seasamh77 the problem with your logic is that Nukes are also brinkmanship for Putin, so he’d need to be prepared to take the first armageddon move if Nato was to piss on his chips. Currently the thing stopping him doing that is the restraint of Nato.

What would it take for Nato to get involved? I think the biggest threat is probably a (rogue?) pilot entering Sweden or Finland and rather than being shoed away exchanging fire, but a small nuclear power incident in Ukraine with fall out blowing West, or a massive cyberattack on a western state (say on NHS, or total blackouts in Germany, or taking the internet down for hours for most of Europe) or a novochok type attack targetted on someone “western” and significant rather than a “defector” and I think things would change.

Sending the polish planes to Ukraine would only lead to either escalation or prolongation and I’m not sure they’d significantly contribute to any sort of resolution.

Wether it was an overambitious plan that the polish and Ukranians came up with and went public with it in order to put pressure on the US, Or the US military got a back channel call from someone in the Russian military who said “you really don’t want to do that”, It’s the first concession from the West and I think pulls us back from the edge. Putin may be mad but the West doesn’t need to be stupid.

poly
Free Member

@seasamh77 the problem with your logic is that Nukes are also brinkmanship for Putin, so he’d need to be prepared to take the first armageddon move if Nato was to piss on his chips. Currently the thing stopping him doing that is the restraint of Nato.

Which was guaranteed, an absolute banker.

I’m not a Trump fan, very far from it, but you think Putin would be threatening nukes if that mad bastard was still in office? NATOs current leaders are very predictable in that regard.

For a country’s own security, there is something to be said for telling the whole world that their nuclear weapons are under the control of a complete throbbing lunatic who just wants to be a big name in history. But ideally in reality the big red button in front of the lunatic would actually be wired up to self-administer an electric shock.

I reality, I think that it would take a credible invasion attempt, not just a stray wandering aircraft or few shells, into Russian or NATO territory for WW3 to truly kick off, and I don’t see that happening. It’s incredibly depressing for Ukraine, but I think all the west can do is make it hurt Russia economically as much as possible, and help Ukrainians in either fleeing or fighting as they wish. And hope that Putin shuffles off one way or another asap and whoever replaces him is willing to be more reasonable in order to get sanctions lifted.

It’ll be a long slog and weaning ourselves off Russian oil and gas will be vital even it it takes a couple of years.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a man that is evidently terrified of catching Covid (therefore causing huge deforestation in order to make his furniture…) is not going to launch nukes which will end in his own death too.

Id bet £100 on it, any takers?😉

(If I’m wrong I’ll get back to you with the cash or tins of baked beans asap.)

Nukes end a geopolitical “game” he evidently enjoys. Not to mention his life.

He never expected the West to be as unified or as fast in its response. He’s as weak as we are likely to ever see him and if we don’t draw a line at Ukraine we will just be in a never ending perma crisis.

The Times reporting a thaw between Russia and China on their recent “pact” btw. Its obvious China was assured of a quick victory by Putin. Now they are likely eyeing up Russia’s ineptitude for when the inevitable conflict occurs between them at some point.

This analysis suggests it’s going to be a long slog. I guess that for Ukraine it means not losing but Russia just doesn’t seem to have much left except to pound the cities out of frustration. Russia can’t win but they can’t afford to back down.

9/25 Most sources agree Russia arrayed up to 190K troops around Ukraine before the invasion. Open sources note that the size of the Russian ground forces sits at 340K (incl paratroops). Therefore, Russian committed around 55% of their total ground forces to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/BBJvQNdFdP

— Major General (just retired!) Mick Ryan (@WarintheFuture) March 9, 2022

14/25 In military operations, casualties & fatigue, as well as equipment losses, wear & tear, will decrease force strength over time. Rotation of forces is necessary for any missions of even medium length duration. Humans can only fight for so long before becoming non-effective.

— Major General (just retired!) Mick Ryan (@WarintheFuture) March 9, 2022

21/25 First, they need a theatre level reserve in the north if they are to complete encirclement of Kyiv & follow-on attack on the city. The size of Russian forces currently in the north is likely to be insufficient for both tasks. They may have to pause other ops to do so.

— Major General (just retired!) Mick Ryan (@WarintheFuture) March 9, 2022

23/25 Third, Russia must look at other military commitments both within & beyond its borders. Does the importance of their strategic goals in Ukraine justify stripping more Russian troops from other missions and garrisons to reinforce a combat weary and degraded force in Ukraine?

— Major General (just retired!) Mick Ryan (@WarintheFuture) March 9, 2022

Interesting theory about Russia’s economic weakness. It’s run like the mafia but the mafia can’t manage complex technology based businesses. Technology requires nerds, but the mafia bosses will not hand power over to nerds.

Z-guys are not that different from Jalisco cartel. Putin's moves make more sense if you consider that Russia is run by a mafia. By a criminal group which extracts tradable export goods through violence or threats. Violent image is Kremlin's means of production and must be kept pic.twitter.com/IGBxZ8ZSFu

— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) March 9, 2022

Why old oil and gas tycoons were expropriated, while metallurgy oligarchs were spared and largely remained rich through the entire Putin's era? Because metallurgy is too complicated for Putin's friends to control it directly. They spared it, because they are too mafia to run it pic.twitter.com/s9qjP6kNQP

— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) March 9, 2022

Not suggesting they’re not valid assessments (I know nothing), but where do the Russian cyber-crime / troll farms fit in with this analysis?

where do the Russian cyber-crime / troll farms fit in with this analysis?

Those don’t require coordination of complex industrial processes. Cyber-crime just requires a bright teenager and an internet connection. Becoming self-sufficient in tractors, for example, requires making all the components in Russia – bearings, engines, fuel systems, hydraulics, tyres, etc. But, to be truly self-sufficient, you also need to produce the factory equipment to supply all those factories – CNC machines, forging equipment, etc. Managing something that complex requires nerd skills, not mafia skills. To the mafia guys, they are better to buy stuff from outside Russia than to source it from a rival within Russia because that would make their murderous rivals more powerful. They are all afraid of each other and the lack of trust makes it impossible to build the complex supply chains you need for advanced manufactured products.

deleted, wrond thread

Morning everyone and a few moments of catch up reading completed.

BBC broadcasting again from Moscow and RT emerges from the misinformation cesspool of State Controlled Media on FB.

The Guardian are reporting that the US has bottled it regarding the Polish Migs (and it must be true if its in the Guardian🤣)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/poland-mig-29-jets-us-ukraine

Ok then.., Can you give us a comprehensive list of any armed conflicts that even had the remotest potential to rapidly snowball into world war 3 over the last 40 years then?

Knock yourself out, I’d say particular attention to Able Archer ’83 is warranted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Historical_close_calls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Now I realise you specified actual armed conflicts but in nearly all the listed cases there was no direct conflict involved.

This is a shitshow, no doubt, and has potentially serious ramifications but let’s not forget we’ve been closer before now.

The Guardian are reporting that the US has bottled it regarding the Polish Migs (and it must be true if its in the Guardian🤣)

It was on the news when I was driving in to work so I guess it must be. Of course you could always have verified that yourself 🙄

Already mentioned in the thread.

During the 1999 Kargil conflict, foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmad warned that Pakistan was prepared to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. Then came reports that Pakistan had alerted its nuclear forces. International pressure on Pakistan managed to de-escalate the situation, and the war ended without nuclear conflict.

But in 2001, nuclear weapons were back on the table. Terrorists based in Pakistan had attacked the Indian parliament, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, fearing Indian retribution against Pakistan, considered a preemptive nuclear strike. Luckily, the standoff did not escalate into an armed conflict.

The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed.
Shamshad Ahmad, Pakistan’s Senate Leader, May 31, 1999

The two sides reached a ceasefire in 2003, but from time to time violence still breaks out along the border. And things seem to be getting worse. The two nations broke off talks in 2014 and have yet to return to the table. Unless they can somehow resolve their differences, more violence is likely. The looming threat of another war—potentially a nuclear one—is always there.

No one is denying the seriousness of this situation but hysteria serves no-one.

The Guardian are reporting that the US has bottled it regarding the Polish Migs

It’s impossible to know what is going on with all that but it was obvious from the beginning that a lot of people let their imaginations get the better of them.

As I understand it, the NATO Migs have had avionic upgrades to allow them to operate alongside NATO aircraft. Depending on how different they are, it probably won’t be as simple as Ukrainian pilots just popping across the border and flying them out. The idea that NATO would let them operate on combat missions out of NATO countries was always a fantasy.

I’m really struggling to see the problem with Nato being involved. What chance does Russia have against the combined forces of Nato? Does Russia have a similar alliance with other countries?

I’m really struggling to see the problem with Nato being involved

Because it expands the violence across an entire continent?

Because it expands the violence across an entire continent?

Can’t see how it does. Russia do not have the resources to fight across such a wide area.

The fighting would still be concentrated in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

I’m really struggling to see the problem with Nato being involved

Because it expands the violence across an entire continent?

Presumably Nato know exactly where Russia’s nuke launch sites are by now? A co-ordinated simultaneous attack to destroy all of these in one strike – Nato could take the Russian nuclear threat off the table and the Russians to heal.

Does Russia have a similar alliance with other countries?

China at least. It becomes and escalatory world war.

Presumably Nato know exactly where Russia’s nuke launch sites are by now? A co-ordinated simultaneous attack to destroy all of these in one strike – Nato could take the Russian nuclear threat off the table and the Russians to heal.

And the ones under the sea?

Presumably Nato know exactly where Russia’s nuke launch sites are by now?

except the submarines which are hidden for exactly that reason!

FWIW I don’t think we are close at all to nuclear war, but all the while the Ukrainians can hold the Russians off then NATO is content to play it “softly softly” and merely supply weapons (even if this is at huge cost to the Ukrainian people/cities). Putins logistical ability will ultimately see his invasion attempt thwarted.

China at least.

China are sitting on the fence, neither approving nor condemning Russia. AFAIK they do not have a pact between them offering military assistance if either is attacked.

They have publically reiterated an alliance albeit not specifically military with Russia recently. Would you risk attacking Russia on the basis they “might” not get involved? It’s a big risk.

Russia do not have the resources to fight across such a wide area.

which surely increases the likelihood of Putin using nuclear weapons much sooner. AFAIK the Russian doctrine for using both conventional and nuclear weaponry is not the same as NATOs, and means that the option to use nuclear is not seen as a weapon of last resort.

Presumably Nato know exactly where Russia’s nuke launch sites are by now? A co-ordinated simultaneous attack to destroy all of these in one strike – Nato could take the Russian nuclear threat off the table and the Russians to heal.

You do realise that Russia has RADAR right? Any pre-emptive force would be detected and a first strike launched.

To say nothing for the subs and mobile launchers *facepalm*

What chance does Russia have against the combined forces of Nato?

Nukes. Lots of them.

What chance does Russia have against the combined forces of Nato?

Nukes. Lots of them.

I’d have thought this was pretty obvious by now…..

So here’s a thought, not all nuclear warheads will be WMD’s, i expect some could be quite small and fit on a shell, used for specific reasons, and with relatively limited fallout, but not on the destructive scale of an A bomb. Would the use of smaller scale nuclear weapons trigger the ‘start of nuclear war’, or a war crime? Is there use a binary thing or relative?

As an aside, I’m all for resolving things diplomatically, but there must be an immense pressure for NATO to fly in a load of F-22s/35s and take out a load of Military sites in Russia as an overwhleming display of force, calling Putin’s bluff, however its a pretty big gamble if he’s not bluffing.

As I’ve said only 1 needs to go up. NATO would have to respond that’s how the horrible things work. or the destruction of us all works.
It’s way off that I hope.
If they keep shelling schools and hospitals something in the west will snap.
Wait until Russian companys default on the loans/bonds next week and the week after no wages make a very unhappy population.

Would the use of smaller scale nuclear weapons trigger the ‘start of nuclear war’, or a war crime? Is there use a binary thing or relative?

An isolated “small” event in Ukraine would be a war crime. But may force China etc to finally pick a side.

Anything anywhere else would be WW3.

I’m really struggling to see the problem with Nato being involved. What chance does Russia have against the combined forces of Nato? Does Russia have a similar alliance with other countries?

The USSR had the Warsaw Pact. After the USSR disintegrated, the Warsaw Pact countries applied to join NATO. Russia blames that on NATO “aggression”, not on East Europeans being terrified of Russian repression. Invading Ukraine seems to be unpopular among a lot of the Russian population but NATO joining in would confirm Russia’s imagined grievances that NATO was an aggressive alliance intended to destroy Russia. Putin fighting NATO would be much more popular than fighting Ukraine. Russia would net be able to repel a NATO invasion using conventional weapons so they would quite likely use tactical nuclear weapons if NATO sent troops into Ukraine. If NATO tried to invade Russia, that would probably escalate to strategic nuclear weapons.

So, NATO getting involved is not a good idea at all. Really, really bad idea.

So here’s a thought, not all nuclear warheads will be WMD’s, i expect some could be quite small and fit on a shell, used for specific reasons, …

…Would the use of smaller scale nuclear weapons trigger the ‘start of nuclear war’,

I asked this earlier in the thread. There was a BBC piece a few days ago looking at a massive piece of Russian truck mounted artillery that in addition to conventional shells, could fire nuclear shells (apparently with twice the yield per shell of the Beirut explosion).

I’m wondering whether tactical battlefield nuclear weapons are a line in the sand.

@pieface they could but hope they won’t I think the US have them as well but dropping small nukes then making your troops drive into the area is madness. But then so is war

estimated 230 American and 1,000 to 2,000 Russian Federation warheads of 2021

they could but hope they won’t I think the US have them as well but dropping small nukes then making your troops drive into the area is madness. But then so is war