One shouldn't have delusions. — ssu

Yes, but you don't. I'm asking you why you think it so important that others don't also. What harms do you see their 'delusions' causing, such that they need so urgently to be expunged?

This was supposedly filmed in Tumen (Siberia). Ancient Grads on ZIL-131 gasoline truck bed (1964 vintage), en route to Donbass.

What do you think the US will do if Putin uses nukes?

that NATO expansion isn't a strategic threat because everything Western is totally benign — Benkei

Yes— American exceptionalism. Everything we do is for democracy and freedom. All military action is defensive (department of defense).

There’s little point in arguing with someone who’s already taken that view, I suppose. But it was worth pointing out anyway in the off chance it wasn’t mentioned. I haven’t followed every post on this thread.

Ummm... the BM-21 Grad is quite functional and useful. Nothing wrong with it, does it's job.

I think the most popular multiple rocket system ever. An AK-47 of in the family of MLRS.

What do you think the US will do if Putin uses nukes? — frank

More interesting question is what the Ukrainians will do.

The NATO thing has been done to death... — SophistiCat

Rightfully so. I’m very glad to hear it. I don’t think it can be done to death, though.

It's far more than just a fashion: almost a mandatory opinion, hammered hour after hour, day after day, week after week. — Olivier5

Not that NATO is “evil,” but that agreements were made (alas, informal - not that that matters much either way) and quickly broken. Of course Russian propaganda will embellish the point for their own purposes. Doesn’t make it any less relevant.

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had. — ssu

Was this before or after NATO expanded to Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia (both bordering Russia), etc.?

As I said before— I’m not excusing Putin’s crimes. But to analyze this situation by speculations about his psyche is useless. Whoever is in charge, Russia has good reason to be weary of NATO expansion, and has warned against it for years. It’s only a matter of time before someone does something stupid, given the context.

Point being, nothing you're quoting is remotely new, and so it isn't a very good explanation for the decision to invade. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It wasn’t an explanation of the decision to invade. But it’s one very important factor. You cannot understand this event without this historical context. The statement last September is a crucial piece.

Right. Russian troops didn't just go to Ukraine in 2022. They went into Kazakhstan for "peace keeping" after nationwide riots against the Ex-Soviet Boomer leadership led to at least 250 dead, including many members of the security forces. Obviously this deployment wasn't planned though.

The deployment to Belarus, which seems indefinite, was planned ahead of time. The invasion of Ukraine was timed to coincide with sweeping changes to Belarus's laws, eroding what little token rule of law existed. In this sense, the operation was also about securing Belarus long term.



Terrible analogy because, as I've pointed out, even if NATO's actions were one of the more relevant factors in the decision to invade, there are obviously multiple other major factors.

Calculations about NATO may have shifted when Trump lost and was replaced by a less NATO-skeptical US leader, but plenty of other nations still opposed giving membership to Ukraine, so it hardly seemed membership was immanent.

But the big argument against NATO actions being the deciding factor, aside from the fact that Ukrainian membership did not seem likely, is the fact that Russia clearly did not take Western aid to Ukraine to date to be a serious threat. They clearly thought all that aid amounted to a small speed bump on their path to a three day route and conquest of Ukraine.

So, you have a military command who clearly doesn't take aid to Ukraine seriously, but then Russia felt it had to invade because Ukrainian's military, the same one expected to fold almost instantly under Russian attack, had become too powerful?

Let's zoom out here. Why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014? The main issue was Ukrainian ties to the EU. NATO wasn't signaling it was going to bring Ukraine in any time soon then. The EU, however, was looking more likely to include Ukraine, and offering a route in that direction. This threat to Russia seems way more relevant. EU membership was always more likely than NATO membership, and was gaining steam.

EU membership is probably more of an existential threat for Russia long term. It will mean a huge stream of aid and technical assistance for Ukraine. It will also mean more trade with the West.

Eastern European countries that have entered the EU have seen far better growth than ones that have stayed more aligned with Russia. If Ukraine followed a similar trajectory, it would begin to experience a large uptick in growth and standards of living. Millions of Russians have family in Ukraine. Such a shift would be a powerful reminder of how poorly the Russian system is performing in terms of offering economic opportunity and mobility.







It'd be a more salient headline for the public than some of the others likely to come, such as Kazakhstan surpassing Russia in per capita GDP (China has already done so), or the former Warsaw Pact countries sans Germany surpassing its economy.

Thanks. Not very clear yet what is going on but I wouldn't be surprised if war crimes are committed. We haven't seen a war yet that doesn't have them.

More interesting question is what the Ukrainians will do. — ssu

What are their alternatives?

It would be a total cluster fuck. China has also made nuclear security assurances to Ukraine. China, the EU, the US, India, etc. all have a very large interest in not allowing the use of tactical nuclear weapons to be normalized. It would radically destabilize the situation in Korea and Pakistan/India.

Russia would likely go under a full embargo globally and I doubt Putin would long survive. Obviously if they gear up for a full exchange with Western Europe they are going to get hit with nuclear strategic bombers and nuclear missiles across all their launch and strategic command and control sites, and the two hunters assigned to each nuclear capable Russian submarine would fire on them.

It's sort of unthinkable. At best, Russia would end up at least temporarily like North Korea. At worst it would face nuclear attacks on its arsenal and partition.

Do I think the US would immediately respond with a full nuclear response? Not if Russia's assets weren't mobilizing for an attack on Europe and the US. Nor do I think China would follow through with its assurances, but Russia would be totally cut off from the world economy and it's hard to see the current clique maintaining power.

The suggestion of using nuclear weapons is useful as a propaganda tool, but not much else. If nuclear weapons are used, no amount of pre-deployemt discussion is going to help anyone, maybe some contingency plans and shelters might.

It is precisely the talk of Russia using nuclear weapons ( no-on else will, right) that is vitally useful to Zelenskyy and his allies for several reasons: to demonize Russia, to take all sorts of extreme measures such as expanding NATO to include Mars colonies, to increase defense spending, to increase economic measures and to justify any economic hardship (he said he would use nukes so what are high gas prices) and all sorts of things, in other words to justify the war effort. It will justify the all other measures and the supply of all other weapons. Good cover story.

That is how I see it, anyway. I simply assume President Putin will not use nuclear weapons, and it won't matter if I am wrong will it? It does clear the mind assume the situation will end more conventionally.

I summarily dismiss any stories not confirmed by both sides, for example, if a both sides say a ship sank, then I accept that it sank.

So why does the head of the CIA publicly float the idea that Putin might use tactical nukes? Is he just spouting off? Or is he trying to accomplish something with that statement?

Thanks for the info.

Just a guess, but I think the target audience might be members of Congress who are calling for high end aid to go to Ukraine. The CIA doesn't want the war to escalate. The best outcome in terms of US security is for Russia's army to continue to be worn down and embarrassed, but for Russia to still be able to declare victory in securing Donetsk or something, and a cease fire going into place.

Too much aid to Ukraine runs the risk of them pushing back into Donetsk and Crimea, which could make Putin double down on the war due to the risk to his public image and popularity. Initial Ukrainian victories with better arms could then result in the mobilization of a war economy in Russia, increased conscription, etc. This has the negative effect of prolonging the war and destabilizing Russia.

As much as I'm sure the CIA would love to see Putin go, they'd rather have him around than some sort of chaos in Russia in the form of mutinies, etc.

You have people calling for the US to donate M1s, F-15s, etc. What you don't want for escalation is Ukraine able to carry out air strikes in Russia and shoot down their planes across the border, or tank columns punching holes across the Russian border. Not to mention training time and logistics is infeasible without even more US involvement. At the end of the day, the aid so far is a tiny amount of the NATO budget and not particularly high end hardware. There is an effort not to escalate.

even if NATO's actions were one of the more relevant factors in the decision to invade, there are obviously multiple other major factors. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Something which no one's denying. You said...

nothing you're quoting is remotely new, and so it isn't a very good explanation for the decision to invade. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...which I took issue with. The length of time some factor has been around for has no bearing at all on how important a factor it is, the 'final straw' might have been something trivial.

plenty of other nations still opposed giving membership to Ukraine, so it hardly seemed membership was immanent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did Putin share your assessment?

Russia clearly did not take Western aid to Ukraine to date to be a serious threat. They clearly thought all that aid amounted to a small speed bump on their path to a three day route and conquest of Ukraine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean the (at most) six week old analysis from leaked intelligence reports and hastily put together military analysis that indicate Russia thought this would be a walk in the park? That's your idea of 'clearly'?

So, you have a military command who clearly doesn't take aid to Ukraine seriously, but then Russia felt it had to invade because Ukrainian's military — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would you think it was Ukraine's military. Did you not read Putin's speech? He referred three times to NATO's military infrastrucure. He didn't once mention Ukraine's army.

...moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

...these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us.

He also mentions a lot about NATO's advancing it's member's interests (as opposed to global security).

Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine

First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Then he mentions the threats from political intervention (with or without military support)

We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass

in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia

This is not some obscure speech. It's the speech with with Putin declared his invasion. So if you're going to ignore it completely and then fish around for other reasons than the ones in the actual speech you'll have to provide some pretty compelling reasons to avoid seeming dogmatic. The (NATO-related) reasons given in the speech were infrastructure placement near Russia's borders, willingness to use NATO power to advance national interests, and manipulative involvement of NATO members in foreign politics. Since all three are provably the case, it seems bizarre that you'd scrabble about for other NATO-related reasons such as the size of Ukraine's army to use for your straw-man.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014? The main issue was Ukrainian ties to the EU — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed and I've consistently referred to the US, NATO and Europe in my critiques for that reason, but if you look at Putin's speech, he clearly sees the members of NATO as using the organisation for their own private ends, and the EU are mostly members of NATO. The way his speech is constructed clearly defines non-Russian entities as pretty much the same, so as far as understanding the motivations, the EU and NATO and the US are all lumped into the same basket.

one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

That makes a lot of sense. It looks like Zelensky also doesn't want it to escalate.

Thanks again.

If strategic nuclear weapons were used, and it was Russia vs. Western Europe and America, what would Russia's first salvo look like? Would they launch everything they have at once, or launch their nukes in waves? What kind of defenses do we have? What would our response look like?

Not that NATO is “evil,” but that agreements were made (alas, informal - not that that matters much either way) and quickly broken. Of course Russian propaganda will embellish the point for their own purposes. Doesn’t make it any less relevant. — Xtrix

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made a promise he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge.

What are their alternatives? — frank

If Russia uses one tactical nuclear weapon, that actually isn't an existential threat. Then an Ukrainian unit or part of a city is destroyed. If it would be tens or hundreds of tactical nukes, that would be different, and then even the Russians would be nervous about the radiation effects. The Ukrainian army is so large and dispersed in a large country that one nuke doesn't matter so much. It's impact is far more political and psychological as then the Pandora's box has been opened. Never underestimate what kind of issue the media would make of it.

With the use of nuclear weapons, I think the obvious response would be widespread condemnation of the act and a global cry for imminent cessation of the hostilities. You would see it everywhere, even on this forum, how shocked people would be...and how they would get over it as the "new reality". The Zelensky government would be under immense pressure to accept a ceasefire. But so would be the Putin regime.

Likely China would at least in this case try get a ceasefire. China really wouldn't like that it's new junior ally would go off shooting nukes in Ukraine. I think the response would be that not only Russia would be embargoed, but any country that does have trade with it. So the World could start drifting to separate blocks, which spells the end of the era of globalization.

Of course, I still think the use of nukes is unlikely as Russia can still simply halt the attack and go on the defensive. Since Ukraine obviously cannot invade Russia and end this thing with having their tanks Red Square, it's all about a negotiated settlement... or simply a ceasefire and cessation of large actions and returning to the frozen conflict situation. The one that lead to only 15 000 dead in eight years. That would be a horrible outcome.

In fact, I'm not sure if there was any peace agreement that both sides agreed upon between Russia and Georgia after the Russo-Georgian war of 2008. Just a cease-fire and some attempts on a peace-agreement, I guess. But I can be wrong in this.

One alternative is that it's only Putin's successors that will make a peace-agreement with Ukraine.

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made promises he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge. — Olivier5

I think the sinking of the Moskva and the alleged attacks on Russian towns can result that Putin finally admits this is a war. And he can declare a martial law.

I think the probability of a Russia declaring martial law has gone up.

Russia declaring martial law — ssu

Maybe but not sure what the advantage would be. Allowing conscription?

Maybe but not sure what the advantage would be. Allowing conscription? — Olivier5

Conscription happens normally every year in Russia. With martial law you can call the reserves, those that have already done their conscription service. So basically your pool for potential soldiers jumps to the millions.

But also likely to keep up war mood (the rally around the flag phenomenon) and make things easier to deal with economy or if people have any grumblings about the war.

I should have also noted that, unlike the USSR, Russia doesn't have a policy of "no first use" for nuclear weapons.

Since 2010, they have also had an explicit first use policy of "escalate to descalate," which calls for using tactical nuclear weapons if they begin losing a conventional war, and face existential threats. The question hanging over this is "existential threats to Russia, or existential threats to Putin's rule of Russia?" Putin published a decree reaffirming this doctrine in 2020.

The idea is that the use of a tactical nuke would cause enough fear of a strategic exchange to force adversaries to compromise. It's part of a trend towards a more aggressive nuclear posture that Putin's Russia has continually made as it falls further behind its neighbors technologically and militarily.


For a strategic attack they would have to launch what they can before attacks on their arsenal began. I think the trickier thing is how the order would be given. If you plan it before hand, you risk a leak (and their whole invasion plan just leaked, so intentional, humint leaks and/or signals intelligence leaks could lead to a devestating first strike). If you give the order without prior indication, you risk the response being slow or people refusing to go through with it, which would compromise the strike.

The UR-100N and R-36s they have a good deal of their nuclear weapons on are near retirement date and might not work, so that's a real issue. The US arsenal is a known mess due to underfunding, and it has a budget the size of the entire Russian defense budget, so there is probably some concerns with how well the arsenal would preform, especially given the state of the conventional military in a war that was obviously planned for.

Where's the story that Ukraine was making headway with it's anti-corruption drive? — Benkei

Well, if you took some time actually looking into this you would have seen it, it was pretty much shown in earlier posts of this thread at earlier points of this conflict, not that you care about it but go ahead and do some research.

I did, which is why I find the claim they were making headway incredulous and was asking for clarification, instead you chose to react like a petulant child.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/imf-review-ukraine-debt-gdp-linked-warrants-reform/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-zelensky-putin.html

The idea is that the use of a tactical nuke would cause enough fear of a strategic exchange to force adversaries to compromise. It's part of a trend towards a more aggressive nuclear posture that Putin's Russia has continually made as it falls further behind its neighbors technologically and militarily. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So an embargo would likely lead to the use of strategic missiles.

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made a promise he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge. — Olivier5

It’s not the reason I’m talking about it. I’ve known this for years— long before this crisis. I have no access to Russian propaganda— in fact quite the opposite, I’m surrounded, here in the US, by war hawks and jingoists.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.” It’s far more likely that that statement is a result of propaganda. I hear similar noises in the US media— when it’s mentioned at all (which is rare). That’s telling. I can see why the government would want us to forget. It’s preferable for the public to remain ignorant of the motivations of “foreigners.” They’re just terrorists, barbarians, sub-humans, etc. No sense doing anything except destroy them.

Oh. You are going to enjoy talking here.

A lot of disagreement. Some pretty wild.

I fell behind this thread a while back and it’s too long for me to go through, but I’ve perused. And I see what you mean. I see a lot of people talking past each other. But I think we can all agree this is an awful situation — and exceedingly dangerous.

I can't even keep up. It's way too much.

I mean, IF this war is over, we should breathe a BIG sigh of relief. Cause' this can turn from very ugly to apocalyptical at any moment. It's hard to comprehend - or be scared through all of it either - one shuts down otherwise.

But yes, extremely dangerous. Stupid (and criminal) from Russia, the West ain't helping much either.

With the use of nuclear weapons, I think the obvious response would be widespread condemnation of the act and a global cry for imminent cessation of the hostilities. You would see it everywhere, even on this forum, how shocked people would be...and how they would get over it as the "new reality — ssu

Any use of any nuclear device would lose Russia whatever respect it still has on the world stage, this would be the last straw that every nation in the General Assembly will not fail to condemn.

The general public does not differentiate between 'tactical' nuclear weapons or 'low yield' nuclear weapons. My feeling that Russia would embarrass every single one of its trading partners and it could cost them all the political capital they have just to trade with them. Oil and gas for as compensation - free oil and gas - would be one measure that would satisfy the nations of the world as being at least a partial compensation for a nuclear attack on Ukraine. The images would really be worth looking at.

President Putin might as well pour in all his conventional weapons into the battle first, and that I what I think we have to watch for.

One alternative is that it's only Putin's successors that will make a peace-agreement with Ukraine. — ssu

President Putin did put in a successor before - Medvedev, so it need not involve high drama. It would be a good tactical move. "Putin did it - he is now powerless, deal with me"

Since 2010, they have also had an explicit first use policy of "escalate to descalate," which calls for using tactical nuclear weapons if they begin losing a conventional war, and face existential threats. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Makes sense, if they are going to lose anyway, but it will cost them everything but the land they are standing on. Come to think of it, it may just be to the advantage of NATO to push them into this situation.

Same with China, a 'provocation' that results in an exchange with China, and which China backs down, would be the ideal situation tactically. It worked with Japan.

But I think we can all agree this is an awful situation — and exceedingly dangerous. — Xtrix

Welcome to the human race- by which I mean the race of the powerful in the nations of the world to die with the most toys in their hands.

But yes, extremely dangerous. Stupid (and criminal) from Russia, the West ain't helping much either. — Manuel

I just would go with dangerous, predictable for Russia, and the 1% of the West trying to gobble up all the resources in sight. A sort of real life Pac-Man. Shades of Hitler's attempts to expand his empire for his people no less. That, too, was a small group of fanatics media-manipulating the people, if I remember correctly.