Justin Bronk (Senior Research Fellow for Combat Airpower and Technology at RUSI) on Russian nuclear threats:

Good overview of the nuclear threat element. The breakdown of how multiple tactical nukes would turn into a strategic threat makes sense.

I was particularly struck by the observation that threatening Ukraine with the loss of entire cities is something that has already happened in places like Mariupol.

Putin at a summit in Astana: "2.5 million people live in Crimea. They [Ukrainians] cut off the water [from the Dnieper to the peninsula] just like that - so the [Russian] troops had to go in and open the water to Crimea. Just as an example of the logic of our actions."

Simple as that :roll:

Putin at a summit in Astana: "2.5 million people live in Crimea. They [Ukrainians] cut off the water [from the Dnieper to the peninsula] just like that - so the [Russian] troops had to go in and open the water to Crimea. Just as an example of the logic of our actions."

Simple as that :roll: — SophistiCat

How do you think the war is most likely to play out?

My guess is as good as anyone's.

I don't think the war will formally end any time soon, if ever, in the sense of signing a formal peace treaty or even an armistice. But Russia will probably seek to freeze the conflict for a time while holding on to as much territory as it can. If they stop with the suicidal offensive pushes and seriously dig in along defensible positions, they can hold out for a while, even if Ukrainians try to stay on the offensive. (It looks like they may have already resigned to losing Kherson.) The urgency of stopping the invading hordes from the East gone, Western support will slacken and, willing or not, Ukraine will have to go along with the new status quo. But how long that status quo can hold is hard to predict - too many variables are in play.

(I should add that this fairly pessimistic prognosis is entirely at odds with how the future prospects are perceived from inside Ukraine.)

I don't think it's hard really. The more humiliation Russia suffers, the more they missiles they will use to flatten Ukraine. It's not the "actual opposite" of what I'm saying, it's what's happening.

If you don't know the difference between defensive and offensive, you can look it up. I've been polite with you till now, but you've been insulting one too many times.

It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have.

So keep on dreaming about Ukraine defeating Russia, "helping" the Ukrainians get slaughtered, which is what you are advocating for. — Manuel

Look, I could perhaps discuss with you what helping or abandoning the Ukrainians could mean for them, but I don't see the point. Your response to me has nothing to do with what I wrote, which is indicative of someone whose mind is not on the actual conversation.

You are afraid that the conflict may escalate into a full-scale nuclear war - you've said as much many times. You might be unhappy about the damage that it does to your country's economy and energy security. And perhaps you are uncomfortable with your country getting embroiled in the conflict, however indirectly, which makes it kind of your business, whereas you would have preferred it to be something distant that doesn't lose you any sleep, like so many other awful things going on elsewhere in the world.

I get it. But then say what you think and quit with this fake concern for Ukrainians' wellbeing.

Interesting survey. I was struck by how many times "none of the above" was the largest portion of responses. Looks like they need to add some more questions to the survey.

It is also interesting how territorial stability and reduction of corruption scored so much higher than other concerns.

June was several light years away. I wonder what the survey would show now.

It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have. — Manuel

This is simply nonsense.

1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument.

3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrasment for Russia. It's totally possible.

Some things mentioned earlier in the thread, apologies for the repeat...

• Putin's Russia goes (increasingly) autocratic non-democratic authoritarian oppressive
• the Donbas has been an organized staging area for some time
• grabs Crimea
• flaunts nuclear weaponry and delivery systems
• rolls out the submission-machine, bombing killing ruining shamming
• annexes four more Ukrainian regions (anti-NATO rhetoric still applicable)

Putin's (supposed) NATO-phobia thing has run low on hot air.

• the Ukrainians look elsewhere than Putin's Russia, Putin's actions might be creating a lot of Ukrainian Russo-haters (bad, and almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy)
• there's already a strip free of nuclear weapons in the north, Canada and the Nordic countries (as far as we know at least, and Putin apparently believes so)
• NATO would instead limit Kremlin's free movements/actions (with or without nuclear weapons in Ukraine pointing at Moscow)
• in retrospect, Ukraine seeking NATO membership has proved understandable, defense alone

Net result as of typing: by fire and sham, Putin has declared a fifth of Ukraine part of Russia.
, there you have some "strategic interests", happily married to domination, control, nationalism.

Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine — Tzeentch

The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before — Tzeentch

Or perhaps Putin's aggressive tendencies reached a threshold in 2004 when his guy lost (to be ousted in 2014).
Putin has elaborated on his ambition for Ukraine to be Russian, standard procedures in progress.
What do you think could get in the way of Putin's "make Russia great again" mission?

Anyway, nothing new here, for which I apologize.

:up:

Good to know you care so deeply about Ukrainians. But I did start the thread, way before we had any idea it could reach this level of magnitude. I don't live next to Ukraine and I don't like the invasion, it's a straight out war crime. That's clear.

Yes, you are quite right that are several conflicts going on all over the world, many of them quite horrible, but it appears we don't give a crap. So it must be that for some reason Ukrainians matter more than other people? I don't think so, I doubt you do either.

I very much doubt a fraction of the news would be given if Russia did not have nukes. I think nuclear war is an important topic. On the other hand, people dying right now and getting land stolen, is not good. I think we can discuss both at the same time as they are closely connected.

I've also started a pretty big thread on Israel, what, I need to do one in every conflict that is going on?

There are not too many options on the table: 1) Russia gives up, which is what you want and I think is extremely unrealistic, but would be the most just scenario. I don't think we live in that world. 2) Ukraine gives up, they get land stolen from them, it's very ugly. 3) Maybe there is a negotiation in which both sides lose as little as possible, given that they obviously wouldn't like to give away much, if anything. 4) Nuclear war.

Is your principle here that we must defeat an evil dictator using a brutal army? That's fine. The way it could possibly happen involves the most amount of Ukranian lives lost, or maybe you think they have some secret weapon or something that could turn them into victors.

1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare. — ssu

Correct. Nevertheless, Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. Nor was it for the United States.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.

According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. You are correct that they aren't magic, it's not as if Russia bombing a city in Ukraine would make them win. It would prompt a reply though, of that we've been assured.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu

They managed to push back the Russians quite a bit in the annexed territories, look at the reply. Of course Ukraine cannot possibly invade Russia. The question is whether Russia has enough missiles left to continue this assault, in case Ukraine does another push. I think Russia could flatten all the major cities, but it would be of no benefit to them, for now.

3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrassment for Russia. It's totally possible. — ssu

The thing is, this argument takes a massive, massive gamble, that Putin will just bow out of Ukraine and just handle getting embarrassed - this is after all these sanctions, poor military results and so on. I don't see Putin as the type of person who would just not react. One must measure how likely that gamble is to succeed and it's extremely risky, in my view.

:up:

Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. — Manuel

Probably true, at least in the sense that Putin would like to straight up annex the entire country, which is to say, restore it to its rightful status as part of Russia. He doesn't consider its current status as a sovereign nation legitimate, does he? (I may be misinformed.)

But then the US was in Afghanistan a long damn time, and in Vietnam a long damn time. And there was no military victory for the US at the end of either engagement. The US had reasons, and Russia presumably has reasons something like those for what they're doing. (Geopolitics. Perception. Hubris. Etc.) The question then is whether it's those reasons or the historical-territorial stuff that counts more. If it's not the homeland stuff, then we have clear examples of a small nation fighting for its life overcoming those sorts of reasons. (In fact, I think Putin have the greenlight when he saw Biden accept the humiliation of leaving Afghanistan in disarray.)

He doesn't consider its current status as a sovereign nation legitimate, does he? — Srap Tasmaner

Probably not. I mean, the Russian army was basically walking into Ukraine thinking they would be welcomed in many cases.

If it's not the homeland stuff, then we have clear examples of a small nation fighting for its life overcoming those sorts of reasons. — Srap Tasmaner

It plays a big part, no doubt. The other examples of Vietnam and Afghanistan, as far as I know, did not resemble this one in that sanctions of this scale, followed by constant coverage of a humiliating retreat right after annextion, were put into play.

The way I see it, is that a person like him, say Erdogan, Modi and others with dictatorial and or quite right-wing views would do something similar in the same place. I don't see why Putin is uniquely different in this respect, other than he put himself in this situation. It's not clear to me that, had the exact same situation been brought on another dictatorial person, they wouldn't act in a very similar manner.

Of course, it would be nice it Ukraine could defeat Russia and expel them completely. We'll see.

A bit of the here-and-there regarding culture Mar-May:

^{• Putin lashes out at Russians with Western mentality (CNN; Mar 17, 2022)
• Putin Lashes Out at 'National Traitors' with Pro-Western Views (The Moscow Times; Mar 18, 2022)
• Putin lashes out at West ‘cancelling’ Russian culture, says it reeks of Hitler’s Germany (TASS; Mar 25, 2022)
• We should all be concerned that Putin is trying to destroy Ukrainian culture (The Conversation; Mar 22, 2022)
• A Kremlin paper justifies erasing the Ukrainian identity, as Russia is accused of war crimes (CBC; Apr 5, 2022)
• Why is Ukraine trying to cancel Russian culture? (Al Jazeera; May 6, 2022)}

Not pretty. Control, domination, self-power. Bears peripheral resemblance to:

^{• Canadian Indian residential school system (Wikipedia)
• Uyghur genocide (Wikipedia)}

:/

Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations (Oct 7, 2022)

^{• illegal so-called referendums
• unlawful actions of the Russian Federation
• have no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine
• not to recognise any alteration by the Russian Federation of the status of any or all of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk or Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine
• immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine
• a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine}

Votes:

78% of UN tells Putin to go home. 5% tells him to go ahead.
Would it be strange if Russia had voted for? :)

Nicaragua — jorndoe

Oh Nicaragua! I remember when you were cool...

The other examples of Vietnam and Afghanistan, as far as I know, did not resemble this one in that sanctions of this scale, followed by constant coverage of a humiliating retreat right after annexation, were put into play. — Manuel

So you're saying Putin has more at stake than other major powers have had when failing to conquer little countries they thought they could steamroll, so while maybe the US half-assed it in Vietnam, Putin will really go all in and get the job done? (I don't know how many Americans still feel this way, but something like that used to be a common opinion of our conduct of the war in Vietnam, usually blaming protesting hippies for Washington pulling its punches. I believe Kissinger wanted to nuke Hanoi, so maybe there's something to that.)

I get your position, I think. When I heard that Russia had invaded, I just assumed Ukraine didn't stand a chance. When that starts to look wrong, there's a fallback fear that Putin, for all sorts of reasons, will not accept defeat, will do whatever it takes to achieve at the very least a strong enough military position that he can demand whatever he wants at negotiations, should he decide not to bother trying to subdue the entire country. (I mean, he can't occupy Ukraine, that was never an option. But puppet government and some invited guests in Russian uniforms, you figure that's what he was shooting for.) His fate, we fear, is irrevocably tied to success in Ukraine. His ships lie burned on the shore; it's win or die, and that makes him a more dangerous foe than the US in Vietnam or the USSR in Afghanistan. That may be. It is a serious concern. Didn't Sun Tzu counsel always leaving your enemy an escape route precisely so they wouldn't fight to the death?

Anyway, nothing new here, ... — jorndoe

This isn't a response to what I said, so I don't know why you even bothered to repeat it.

You pretty much nailed it, spot on, and very astute observation with Sun Tsu. I think we have good reason to believe that Putin actually feels this way, based on what he is currently saying. Even Biden has been saying to his donor class, behind closed doors, that "Putin is serious" and this is the closest we've been to "Armageddon", since the Cuban Missile Crisis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOJ4NEYs1gU&t=499s

So faced with such prospects, I think prolonging this war will surely mean more deaths on both sides, and ever-increasing desperate measures. Putin and his gang have cornered themselves in such a manner, that if they aren't offered a way out - via some mediating state, maybe Turkey, whatever, then the worst side of nationalism will come into play.

Surely this is not worth the death of thousands of more civilians and perhaps the entire world. That's why I insist negotiations, however disgusting they may be, should be a priority.

I think in addition to the points you've both mentioned, we shouldn't ignore the very thing we're doing here. Putin is an autocrat, which means his power is maintained by his image of power. He can't actually fight down the entire population, he can only appear to do so for any individual group that might consider revolting. One thing that differentiates this war from any that have preceded it is the degree of control over the narrative globally - globalised social media platforms. This obviously means that it's much harder for the autocrat to control the narrative within his country (unless he is in control of those platforms - but I'll not go there).

There are two strong narratives on social media - 'Russia is evil and must be stopped at all costs' and 'Russia is useless'. Putting aside for now the fact that these two narratives aren't even coherent (who cares about that anymore), the first is actually of no concern to Putin because his ultra-nationalist support base expect other nations to think of them as evil. they thrive on the conflict with other nations. But the second... It is antithetical to the image Putin needs to maintain to retain his power.

In addition, social media is a very fragile tool. It is extremely vulnerable to emergent features (being mildly chaotic) so 'setting off' some concept on it is a bit like throwing a pebble onto an scree slope in an attempt to block the road below - a significant force multiplier, but you can't always predict where it's going to go.

Both the West (via democracy) and Russia (via fear of revolution) will have their actions guided by the opinion of social media and yet that opinion is vulnerable to extremes which none of the actual participants would rationally want.

We're in a different place. One in which the threat of escalation needs to be taken much more seriously. @ssu's rather lazy historicism here would be a grave error. The world changes and we're living the consequences of a failure to realise that.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia?

'Russia is evil and must be stopped at all costs' and 'Russia is useless'. Putting aside for now the fact that these two narratives aren't even coherent (who cares about that anymore) — Isaac

Show the incoherence.

The world changes and we're living the consequences of a failure to realise that. — Isaac

At any point of history one can claim that bot that the world is changing and that we are living the consequences of a failure to realise that for anybody by anybody. You included. Now what?

Show the incoherence. — neomac

There's nothing complicated to it. If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised?

At any point of history one can claim that bot that the world is changing and that we are living the consequences of a failure to realise that for anybody by anybody. You included. Now what? — neomac

We make judgments based on the details of the circumstances we find ourselves in rather than sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past.

Correct. Nevertheless, Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. Nor was it for the United States.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen. — Manuel

No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. It's not about regime change when you have already tried to annex one-fifth of the state. Likely the objective was one forth of the territories and a puppet regime in rest of Ukraine, or something like that. NATO expansion is an convenient excuse and a propaganda argument (like Russia isn't fighting Ukraine, but the West).

According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. — Manuel

It's already a full-scale war. Russia has thrown everything in plus the kitchen sink. The mobilization, which Putin promised wouldn't happen, is a clear indicator of this.

The thing is, this argument takes a massive, massive gamble, that Putin will just bow out of Ukraine and just handle getting embarrassed - this is after all these sanctions, poor military results and so on. I don't see Putin as the type of person who would just not react. One must measure how likely that gamble is to succeed and it's extremely risky, in my view. — Manuel

Let's have a thought experiment: Assume that during the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi armed forces would have had high fighting moral and similar combat capabilities as Israeli Defence Forces has and the US lead coalition would have suffered similar defeats as Russia has now. What do you think would have happened? Would it have been better then for the US to make the bluff of using nukes? How much weight to you give this embarrasment issue? Didn't the US just have an enormous embarrasment of losing a war in Afghanistan? How much did that shake Biden's administration? Hell, IT'S BEEN FORGOTTEN! Who is whining about it? Nobody. The longest war in US history...and basically nothing said about it.

Fact: if you are defeated on the battlefield, then you are defeated on the battlefield. If you don't call it quits and try to prolong the defeat, good luck with that.

Putin can stop this war and then just face the consequences and continue. It is actually THAT EASY. Saddam Hussein had two disastrous wars and he was not toppled by Iraqis. That took a full invasion from the US army. Hence Putin can a) have this war end (or be stopped) as an embarrasment and b) continue on ruling Russia until he dies. That is totally a possibility, which I wonder is so difficult to understand.

There's a simple answer to this war: as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, the West should continue to send aid to Ukraine.

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia? — Isaac

When have I said anything like that? Or when has anybody here said that? There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. I think the examples of Napoleon and Hitler tell how that will end.

Do notice that Ukrainian troops have stopped their advance to their borders and are quite limited in their attacks to Russia proper.

There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. — ssu

I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia.

I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia. — Isaac

I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? I think Ukraine has made a good effort in stopping Russia.

So what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:

1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict.

There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end.

I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. — ssu

You said...

For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu

I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win.

And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? — ssu

Who said Russia cannot be stopped?

what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:

1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict. — ssu

Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. No-one is claiming your view is ridiculous so you've no cause to be so defensive about it. I'm quite content in the plausibility of the view you hold, I'm interested in why.

The point is that this view being plausible is not suffient reason to believe it because other contrary views are also plausible.

...but this is treading old ground. I'm most interested here in why you think Ukraine couldn't successfully invade Russia (not why you think they wouldn't, why you think they couldn't)

There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end. — ssu

More historicist crap.

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end.

History is useless at the scale you're attempting to apply it. We can find examples from history of things playing out just about every way imaginable. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick.

.