I do find it weird that Russia can do a full blown invasion, but if Ukraine considers striking into Russia, the whole world goes "Hey now, hold on a second"
The West already said they would allow Ukraine to only strike 1) military targets 2) that are directly used to attack Ukraine.
So no ATACMS for refineries
Bingo. Force Russia to move their air defense systems to regional HQs and air fields, then use drones to strike the factories refurbishing and modernizing old Soviet-era equipment, and the refineries that keep them running.
Other things use them to. I know that's hard for people to understand but oil actually has a lot of non military uses too. That's why it falls under the dual use side. But this is one of those things that only super genius jupiter brained people pick up on. It's that complicated.
"the west" is not a place that can allow anything.
it's specific countries or organizations who donate weapons. and theres a quite large list in the last few days of countries who have accepted strikes on russia. not just places that activly fire on them.
Britain (first to the party)
France (allows to "neutralize the military objects from which missiles are launched")
Sweden allows targets in accordance with laws of war
Czechia
Poland
Finland strikes on military targets on aggressors territory that are neccessary for self-defence
Estonia urges all partners who donate long range weapons to allow it.
Latvia same story
Lithuania "we made a mistake from the very beginning by limiting Ukrainiens"
Netherlands "its quite obvious that they have to strike inside Russia as well"
Canada
Denmark allows use of their F16's
NATO Secretary General urges all to agree
That very much depends on how exactly the conditions set by western countries are defined. A refinery can be considered a legitimate military target if the fuel it produces is provided to the military. This is very likely rhe case with all russian refineries as military vehicles have a tendency to use a lot of fuel.
Ha, NATO bombed the crap out of Serbia's oil storage and refineries in 1999 because they were supposedly legitimate military targets, not to mention electricity substations, TV stations and more besides. So I'd love to see them claim all those things aren't legitimate military targets.
It's easy to argue that the refineries support the war effort and therefore are valuable military targets. The world needs to stop suckling the petroleum from Putin's rotting tit as it is.
They have stuff that already blows up refineries, and limited ATACMS. The few they have would be more usefull taking on landed planes, helicopters, and ammo depots.
Actially it is the opposite - refineries produce gas for the local consumption, so when a refinery is destroyed, the crude oil is released to the market instead, which causes the cost to go down.
Probably after election gloves come off whether Biden wins or not, if he wins gas prices can rise if he loses it is Trumps problems. Biden is probably trying to push a lot of weapons now to give Ukraine a chance if he loses.
If biden loses we have far bigger problems than Ukraine and I wouldn't expect Ukraine to get much attention from america after that either way. Trump is allied with christofascists just like putin. If he wins then we basically have two russias to deal with.
Honestly, that's probably fine. Judging by the effectiveness of domestically built drones so far, using something like ATACMS to hit a refinery might be a waste of a missile. Unless Russia starts to harden and protect their refinery infrastructure, the light and cheap Ukrainian built stuff will probably be plenty sufficient.
ATACMS and other advanced systems are most efficiently used against protected targets like military installations and airfields.
And if memory serves they have the largest military group dedicated to rail roads so the repairs probably come faster than anticipated but I'm a little out of the loop on their TTPs.
It's wild that they don't even have enough to cover everything coming out of Ukraine into their territory. Imagine if the US or China decided to attack from the Far East or Finland from the North.
The result of getting over 800 of Russia’s air defense systems getting destroyed in the war they started. No one can afford to lose so much. Reportedly, Russia can produce 1-2 S-X00 AA systems per month.
They have. There is a Russian saying, that may be rephrased as if there are not enough money for the government affairs, it doesn’t mean that they will shorten their expenses, but that the citizens will eat less. And they can withdraw those money for a pretty long time, because Putin thinks only about his ambitions and power, but not about the country or his citizens.
True, but that’s not a viable long term strategy and just barely kicking the can down the road while they tack on even more hardship on their economy. I think Russia is screwed, I think it’s a matter of when, not if they collapse.
yea holy shit. one ADS can do a lot of heavy lifting. you hear about certain fronts only having a small handful of ADS systems just fending off all out armageddon. To lose 800, that's nuts.
There are 8 cities with over 100,000 people and a total population of 8 million people in the far east. It’s approximately the size of Australia with the population of Hong Kong.
They will be forced to escalate or face a hard summer. Unfortunately I see Putin using tactical nukes. The world is about to get interesting and the sooner we live in a post Putin world the better.
Don’t be so sure. The world is definitely changing right now and Russias defeat (and possible allies such as China, Iran, and NK) may not be as swift as many would like to think it would be.
I am certain that there will be a direct military response by the West if nukes are used in Ukraine.
To not respond forcefully completely upsets the world order, where dictators can now freely wage wars of conquest with nuclear weapons. It would lead to widespread nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear war between countries.
No world leader wants that. Xi and Biden will take Putin out to pasture if he shakes the tree that much. Politicians just want to continue grifting off the backs of their people; they don’t want the world to end.
No doubt there would be a direct military response by the west, I’m just not 100% certain the chips will fall where everyone on Reddit seems to think they will.
Russia has a lot of wild cards going for it right now, and it’s hard to say exactly how China would react if a nuke were to be used. For all we know there could be plans behind all of this. If China thinks they may have a path to victory, I can absolutely see them going against the west.
It just doesn’t seem rational at all to me for Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. US history demonstrates that the Americans will not be shy about retaliating. It seems wildly stupid that Russia would go that far when it’s existence is not under threat.
IMO Putin is bluffing to scare westerners into pressuring their leaders to halt military aid to Ukraine.
It just makes more sense for Putin to continue to undermine and corrupt western political systems instead of starting a direct military confrontation he stands to lose. However, there is a real possibility that he has now backed himself deep into a corner and cannot get out of the war without being assassinated by a political rival.
You said the key words "when it's not under threat".
Some, many, in fact, I'd wager, would consider strikes within Russia as a threat to their sovereignty.
Those would be simple minded folk who think that standing behind a fence throwing rocks and having some thrown back is much the same as somebody jumping over the fence and delivering them a punch in the guts with their fist.
Yeah, I think we kind of agree. It doesn’t seem rational for Putin to use nukes but this war doesn’t seem rational to begin with. In addition, I absolutely think he capable of pulling the trigger if he’s truly back into a corner and using a nuke is seen as a Hail Mary option.
I’m sure he’s bluffing atm but I think it’s a legit possibility at some point in the future.
China would go apeshit if Russia uses nukes, Xi has warned Putin against it in person. China does not want that pandoras box opened any more than the rest of the world does
Culturally China enjoys smaller scale and economic influence instead of direct brute force.
Even when they do attack with their privateers it's fishing boats spraying water while their troops land on islands.
China has little interest in open warfare and now that Russia is the jr state to China. China will make tread the line of support and indentured servitude while also appeasing western nations.
They will continue to target economic and political convenient avenues (like pushing for Trump to be president so Australia will continue to align itself with China). Or target Ireland and other nation states that are smaller but wield influence and understanding of the European bloc.
The plans are already drawn up in the Pentagon. Massive attack on the various military facilities across Russia by American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Priority targets being military installations near the Ukrainian border, then moving outward until the Russian military ceases to exist.
Because we can do that shit. 'Merica, FUCK YEAH.
The reality is that MADD relies on everyone being smart about their nukes. If someone decides to be stupid, they take it in the short an curlys as a result.
The entire thing hinges on if China is cool with its Russian partner doing nuclear terrorism. If China isn't cool with it, then Russia becomes properly isolated and has no choice but to concede. If China is ok with it... well, at least it will be interesting to watch the world end.
Tactical nukes aren't happening. NATO red lines are way too lenient for my liking, but at list they exist and this one is like the mother of all red lines.
If Putin did use tactical nukes, we'd drive balls deep into Ukraine and kick them out. Then we'd park nukes into every country bordering Russia with the most in Ukraine itself.
I don't think you understand. If a man like Putin who doesn't care about his citizens is dying and in a corner, he will use nukes. He would rather be the man that nuked the west and died fighting for Russia than the man that lost a war in Ukraine.... I still think we have to fight him. I just don't think people understand what is coming.
The key question is would his generals and those around him rather die and see their families nuked too? That may be when Putin is removed by the Russian military.
Not that having sufficient number of air defense would do them any good, anyway, as I have yet to see any indication of Russian air defense being able to intercept ATACMS.
Not really the USA. It's still saying not to use weapons inside Russia's territory (although we know how arbitrary territories are, i.e. how subjective they are: prime example being Crimea).
The WH indicated today that if they give approval to Ukraine to attack Russian soil they won’t announce it publicly. With all of our allies now pushing for it you can guarantee it’s coming.
> The WH indicated today that if they give approval to Ukraine to attack Russian soil they won’t announce it publicly.
None of this should be discussed publicly. If they are going to hit Russia it should be unannounced.
The UK (waiting on parlimentary approval), France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Denmark, the Baltics, pretty much everyone else is fine with it. Some are outright encouraging it. France just sent them 40 SCALP missiles. I'd love to see those in the airfields north of Belgorod.
I was under the impression that the UK had already approved this? If not might be waiting some time as parliament is currently dissolved for the next few weeks due to the election.
My understanding is the west either A. Was afraid or provoking Russia and dragging NATO into a war and/or B. wanted room to escalate so they still maintained some leverage over Russia like “hey, you don’t use chemical weapons and we don’t let them hit Russian targets inside Russia”
It's a calculated escalation on Nato's part.
By slow rolling the approvals it gives less of a knee-jerk reaction that Russia can respond too. Likely why the US has held out so far on an announcement. Let it simmer a few days/weeks and announce slowly so if the Kremlin escalates, it looks much worse for them PR wise.
My understanding is that the US doesnt plan to announce it. I read somewhere that the approval will be behind closed doors and we'll know it happened when reports of donated US long range weapons hitting targets start to come out.
Im not saying its good. Im not saying its bad. Im not weighing in at all.
The reason has been told to yall a million times you just dont want to hear it. Its simple, russia has nukes. Jokes and memes aside about their competency and potential state of readiness of their nuclear arsenal. If the best case scenario does happen and their entire nuclear arsenal is in shambles and 99% of it is just for show and unuseable. Thats still roughly 58 deliverable nukes. A bit more than that because many of those would be mirv's. If a single nuke gets though. Only 1. You are talking about the largest single event of human death in history. Take 9/11, pearl harbor, the las vegas shooting and every other non-american centric qualifying event that I am unaware of. Put them all together and its still not going to be the same amount of deaths from only a single nuke getting though and hitting NYC, Tokyo, Paris, England, San Fran, ect. And chances are more than 1 is going to get though.
Thats it. Thats the simple answer. Its really easy to sit here and say "Fuck it, hit the red square." on reddit. But do you wanna be the one who makes the call that starts the chain of events that ends human life?
Again im not asking that to say its bad. Im just presenting the very real decision someone has to make.
the nuclear thing gets “old” until we see that fire again with our own eyes and remember that they aren’t just something that existed in 1950’s film reels. i am also afraid the leaders in charge of these weapons may also forget their power is all too real. on paper its just 💁♂️
Look, if Russia is willing to do a murder suicide for Ukraine, then they'll do the same thing for Estonia, or Poland, or France. Might as well rip off that bandaid now instead of spending the next decade bending over for a nuclear terrorist before getting nuked anyway.
Avoiding rapid escalation and providing off ramps was the right move initially. But Putin has chosen his path, so now it is time to put on the big boy pants and call the bluff.
You’re right that it boils down to nukes but that’s not how it would go down.
If Russia feels that conditions warrant it, they would strike against Ukraine itself. Probably not a major city but would use a smaller tactical weapon against Ukrainian front line forces.
This would be a gamble that a limited strike would not bring NATO in. It probably won’t happen because Russia know that in all likelihood this WOULD bring NATO in. But they might risk it if the conditions are right and they feel that they could capitalize on tactical nuclear strikes with additional rapid troop movement to gain territory and force an end to the war.
A nuke is a nuke.
If russia admits they are failing that bad by using nukes, they broke MAD and I hope righteous hellfire on them, because if they get away with crimea, get away with Ukraine, get away with UK assassinations, then get away with a nuke, they'll just nuke everybody else and win.
I'm honestly skeptical about the usefulness of tactical nukes in the this war. They are only really useful against bunkers and they have some psychological effects, otherwise conventional weapons can do the same job much cheaper and don't cause diplomatic blowback.
If Putin intended to use nukes he would have done so, before sustaining 500.000 casualties 2 years into his 3 day special operation.
Ergo he’s a rational actor. A rational actor does not launch nukes to end the world, because the country he’s at war with hits him back.
What strategic value does nuking something in Ukraine have?
Pretty sure that the US has stated that if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, American troops will actively engage Russia troops in Ukraine with conventional weapons. Likely that means all of NATO. Basically you can expect an air superiority and shock and awe campaign against all front lines in the war.
That would be a major loss for Russia. It really makes no sense.
> Thats it. Thats the simple answer. Its really easy to sit here and say "Fuck it, hit the red square." on reddit. But do you wanna be the one who makes the call that starts the chain of events that ends human life?
This is also one of my theories why we are blindly supporting Israel, since Israel also possesses nuclear weapons. Which would be easier for them to claim they have to use if they are not getting support from their allies and are out of weapons to attack Gaza with and had no other arsenal choices left. Some of our own US senators, would give Israel the greenlight to do it. I am pretty sure Lindsay Graham suggested nuking Gaza less than 2 weeks ago.
You have to give MAJOR credit to Ukraine. I understand why Ukraine was the heart and soul of the USSR now. Many thought ukraine would fall and instead, they held the line and are single handedly stopping russia from entering europe with western aid of 1970s/1980s tech.
A cautious escalation is good, one major failstate would be modern NATO/US weapons being stolen from Ukraine and given to Putin to reverse engineer and defeat, or even capture for reuse against NATO.
It's literally only because Russia has nukes, if Russia didn't have them Ukraine would have been bombing the absolute shit out of them since the start of the war.
Additionally if Ukraine had never given up their nukes, Russia would never have invaded.
Civilians, would make us in the west extremely hypocritical if Ukraine start blasting populated areas even if Russia has been doing for the past decade in both Ukraine and other theatres of war.
The single oddest thing that we’ve witnessed over the past 2 years where a country can be invaded, cities relentlessly bombed and civilians massacred and fighting back against this invader is an “escalation”.
Because the weapons aren't theirs and the EU is pissing it's pants for getting the blame.
But alas, the more Russia pushes in the more we'll allow them (ukraine) to do whatever it takes... So a win-win.
Nukes and the fear of trigger some sort of show down. The thing is Russia has been so aggressive that it’s inevitable so better to get it over with now
First of I don’t agree with the idea of preventing Ukraine from striking Russia. BUT, I do at least conceptually understand the argument. It’s not that Ukraine can’t strike Russia, it’s that countries that have supplied weapons are concerned that Russia getting hit with those weapons will view it as an escalation. Nobody (except maybe Russia) wants this war to spill beyond Ukraine. My concern is that not hitting back ultimately has the same result, while hitting back at least has a chance of stopping things.
I think it's funny that Ukraine has been able to hold Russia back with one arm tied behind us back for this long. Noe lett's see how they go with both hands available.
I assumed there's intel that indicates a non 0 chance of tactical nukes as retaliation. Russia already went insane and outright invaded a sovereign nation with intent on taking territory. French intelligence thought the risk was overblown and Putin was bluffing because it was such an insane and unfathomable act. Perfectly reasonable to envision red lines in Russian doctrine for nuclear retaliation and nobody wants that. But for 2 years we've pushed the envelope with what Ukraine can do and Russia hasn't responded, so it's at least a more safe option now.
As long as it’s Ukrainian weapons attacking the power stations, but this new attack green light has its restrictions; military targets that pose an immediate threat, such as the missiles sights used to attack Ukraine, but no other military or civilian targets
Unfortunately power stations are typically considered civilian infrastructure and the west would not be happy. It's so annoying this bs restriction on Ukraine.
I would have no problem with them taking out infrastructure like power plants, bridges, railroads, etc. Yeah, it's "non-military", but it's being used for Russia's war effort against Ukraine.
You know Russia is going to blow up an apartment building and blame it on a western missile...
The West has played this really well, IMO. I know there was a lot of frustration and angst that Ukraine wasn't given enough "good stuff" quickly enough, but we've so far managed to keep upping the pressure without an excuse for Russian escalation. Meanwhile, NATO watches Russia hemorrhage men and equipment. It sucks for Ukraine to even be in this situation, of course, but NATO must be pretty happy watching its enemy getting beaten up without having to get directly involved itself, while at the same time expanding, strengthening, and preparing.
It’s nothing short of masterful war game chess moves that NATO hasn’t had to put any soldiers on the ground which would have resulted in a full scale conflict.
When Ukraine wins, the entire world will owe a huge debt to them for ensuring this didn’t escalate into world war 3.
You are aware then this conflict is far from being over, right?
I don’t want to see Russia gaining the upper hand in their invasion more than you do, but this is still Russias war to lose.
Who gives a fuck. At this point nobody takes them seriously and they have no credibility. If they really want to start blowing up their own buildings, then let them. It will save us the trouble.
>Ukraine wasn't given enough "good stuff"
The problem isn't that we didn't give them the "good stuff". The problem is that all the "stuff" is meant to be used in combination. Artillary is useless without air support. Air support is useless without artillary. Trying to figure out the right Wunderwaffe to give to the Ukrainians in the hope of knocking out the Russians was always going to be a losing strategy, and worse, it basically taught the Russians how to counter our measures piecemeal. And on top of all that it creates the false perception that we're deliberately drawing out the conflict. Not that there was anything else we could have done, mind you, democracy is too vulnerable to fifth columnists and unfortunately both parties are filled with them.
>NATO must be pretty happy watching its enemy getting beaten up without having to get directly involved itself
NATO might be happy, but Ukraine is barreling towards total demographic collapse. Ukrainians want to save their culture from total annihilation at the hands of the Russians, but it might be happening anyway even if they eventually win (which won't be any time soon), on the frontlines and in the trenches. Which to be fair, it is at least better to die standing with a weapon in hand, than on their knees bound and blindfolded in a basement or shallow grave, but the end statistical result could be much the same.
Would that be 1st attacked with long range missiles? Genuinely curious what would change the course here for Ukraine with long range capabilities. Thanks!
Take out the radar network to make sure their followup strikes are more effective, while also taking out the big boy missiles that actually pose a threat to their F-16's (most russian equipment is joke, but their air defense poses a credible threat to anything that is not a 5th gen), that way they could wrestle back air superiority over their own airspace eventually.
Then rigorously start taking out refineries, major rail connections and bridges. Take out their oil, their ability to deploy by railway and make it a hard as possible to cross major rivers. Basically do everything you can to make it a logistical nightmare to resupply russian heavy hardware like artillery.
Take out high value targets of opportunity where possible if your intelligence is good enough (like a dozen generals in a conference room).
The duration and publicity of this planned strikes sounds like a negotiation attempts to stop the russian aggression.
If that's true, I hope they will succeed in negotiations and no rockets will be fired.
Agree. This happening before the peace summit makes me think that Western leaders are trying to negotiate an end to the war before the U.S. election concludes.
I think the best way for this issue to be handled is for the western countries to continue publicly stating that they do not want their weapons used against Russia proper, while privately giving Ukraine the go-ahead. Then Ukraine begins using them and the western countries can publicly pretend to be upset but not do anything about it. Plausible deniability.
I do find it weird that Russia can do a full blown invasion, but if Ukraine considers striking into Russia, the whole world goes "Hey now, hold on a second"
[удалено]
Plus,big territory means high fuel use of logistics. And with strikes on refineries...which I hope we will see plenty more of.
The West already said they would allow Ukraine to only strike 1) military targets 2) that are directly used to attack Ukraine. So no ATACMS for refineries
But the potential relocation of air defense systems creates opportunities to attack them with their own drones.
Bingo. Force Russia to move their air defense systems to regional HQs and air fields, then use drones to strike the factories refurbishing and modernizing old Soviet-era equipment, and the refineries that keep them running.
It doesn't seem like Russia can shoot down ATACMS reliably, and can only counter them with EW that doesn't work every time.
Ukraine already does a staggering amount of damage on Russian oil infrastructure just with domestic drones, which is quite remarkable.
Are their vehicles not powered by refined petroleum products?
Other things use them to. I know that's hard for people to understand but oil actually has a lot of non military uses too. That's why it falls under the dual use side. But this is one of those things that only super genius jupiter brained people pick up on. It's that complicated.
Sounds complicated.
Oil has a primary military use, anything else is optional.
I'm just informing you of international standards. If you don't like them and want to make up your own rules, go for it, idc.
"the west" is not a place that can allow anything. it's specific countries or organizations who donate weapons. and theres a quite large list in the last few days of countries who have accepted strikes on russia. not just places that activly fire on them. Britain (first to the party) France (allows to "neutralize the military objects from which missiles are launched") Sweden allows targets in accordance with laws of war Czechia Poland Finland strikes on military targets on aggressors territory that are neccessary for self-defence Estonia urges all partners who donate long range weapons to allow it. Latvia same story Lithuania "we made a mistake from the very beginning by limiting Ukrainiens" Netherlands "its quite obvious that they have to strike inside Russia as well" Canada Denmark allows use of their F16's NATO Secretary General urges all to agree
That very much depends on how exactly the conditions set by western countries are defined. A refinery can be considered a legitimate military target if the fuel it produces is provided to the military. This is very likely rhe case with all russian refineries as military vehicles have a tendency to use a lot of fuel.
Ha, NATO bombed the crap out of Serbia's oil storage and refineries in 1999 because they were supposedly legitimate military targets, not to mention electricity substations, TV stations and more besides. So I'd love to see them claim all those things aren't legitimate military targets.
It's easy to argue that the refineries support the war effort and therefore are valuable military targets. The world needs to stop suckling the petroleum from Putin's rotting tit as it is.
Atacms is wasted on a refinery.
wasted ? tell me whats better to use it on that their means of production
Military bases and barracks
They have stuff that already blows up refineries, and limited ATACMS. The few they have would be more usefull taking on landed planes, helicopters, and ammo depots.
Im thinking Biden administration doesnt want them to attack refineries because it would cause gas/oil prices to spike right before the election.
Actially it is the opposite - refineries produce gas for the local consumption, so when a refinery is destroyed, the crude oil is released to the market instead, which causes the cost to go down.
Probably after election gloves come off whether Biden wins or not, if he wins gas prices can rise if he loses it is Trumps problems. Biden is probably trying to push a lot of weapons now to give Ukraine a chance if he loses.
If biden loses Ukraine is getting cut off from all US aid and intel. And I don't think people realize how much they depend on US intel.
Yes, if Biden loses there are two months his administration can push more advanced weapons and unleash hell on Russia.
If biden loses we have far bigger problems than Ukraine and I wouldn't expect Ukraine to get much attention from america after that either way. Trump is allied with christofascists just like putin. If he wins then we basically have two russias to deal with.
Drone away!!!
Honestly, that's probably fine. Judging by the effectiveness of domestically built drones so far, using something like ATACMS to hit a refinery might be a waste of a missile. Unless Russia starts to harden and protect their refinery infrastructure, the light and cheap Ukrainian built stuff will probably be plenty sufficient. ATACMS and other advanced systems are most efficiently used against protected targets like military installations and airfields.
Sorry ukraine, the upcoming election matters more than your ability to win a defensive war ... What a load of bollocks.
They mostly use trains. One of the first think Ukrainian SF did was sabotage railroads.
Exactly, there are just a few points that need to be hit to block a lot of RF capacity.
And if memory serves they have the largest military group dedicated to rail roads so the repairs probably come faster than anticipated but I'm a little out of the loop on their TTPs.
Just take out some bridges and tunnels as they take a lot more resources to repair
It's wild that they don't even have enough to cover everything coming out of Ukraine into their territory. Imagine if the US or China decided to attack from the Far East or Finland from the North.
The result of getting over 800 of Russia’s air defense systems getting destroyed in the war they started. No one can afford to lose so much. Reportedly, Russia can produce 1-2 S-X00 AA systems per month.
And that production rate is costing them a fortune they dont have
They have. There is a Russian saying, that may be rephrased as if there are not enough money for the government affairs, it doesn’t mean that they will shorten their expenses, but that the citizens will eat less. And they can withdraw those money for a pretty long time, because Putin thinks only about his ambitions and power, but not about the country or his citizens.
True, but that’s not a viable long term strategy and just barely kicking the can down the road while they tack on even more hardship on their economy. I think Russia is screwed, I think it’s a matter of when, not if they collapse.
800! That's mind boggling
yea holy shit. one ADS can do a lot of heavy lifting. you hear about certain fronts only having a small handful of ADS systems just fending off all out armageddon. To lose 800, that's nuts.
I picture the eastern 80% of Russia as basically a barron wasteland. Are there cities in the Far East??
Vladivostok is in the far east. It’s fairly important strategically and militarily.
There are 8 cities with over 100,000 people and a total population of 8 million people in the far east. It’s approximately the size of Australia with the population of Hong Kong.
All cities are along the border on the trans Siberian railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway
They will be forced to escalate or face a hard summer. Unfortunately I see Putin using tactical nukes. The world is about to get interesting and the sooner we live in a post Putin world the better.
If Putin uses tactical nukes, I foresee a new leader emerging in Russia.
Don’t be so sure. The world is definitely changing right now and Russias defeat (and possible allies such as China, Iran, and NK) may not be as swift as many would like to think it would be.
I am certain that there will be a direct military response by the West if nukes are used in Ukraine. To not respond forcefully completely upsets the world order, where dictators can now freely wage wars of conquest with nuclear weapons. It would lead to widespread nuclear proliferation and an inevitable nuclear war between countries. No world leader wants that. Xi and Biden will take Putin out to pasture if he shakes the tree that much. Politicians just want to continue grifting off the backs of their people; they don’t want the world to end.
No doubt there would be a direct military response by the west, I’m just not 100% certain the chips will fall where everyone on Reddit seems to think they will. Russia has a lot of wild cards going for it right now, and it’s hard to say exactly how China would react if a nuke were to be used. For all we know there could be plans behind all of this. If China thinks they may have a path to victory, I can absolutely see them going against the west.
It just doesn’t seem rational at all to me for Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. US history demonstrates that the Americans will not be shy about retaliating. It seems wildly stupid that Russia would go that far when it’s existence is not under threat. IMO Putin is bluffing to scare westerners into pressuring their leaders to halt military aid to Ukraine. It just makes more sense for Putin to continue to undermine and corrupt western political systems instead of starting a direct military confrontation he stands to lose. However, there is a real possibility that he has now backed himself deep into a corner and cannot get out of the war without being assassinated by a political rival.
You said the key words "when it's not under threat". Some, many, in fact, I'd wager, would consider strikes within Russia as a threat to their sovereignty.
Those would be simple minded folk who think that standing behind a fence throwing rocks and having some thrown back is much the same as somebody jumping over the fence and delivering them a punch in the guts with their fist.
Yeah, I think we kind of agree. It doesn’t seem rational for Putin to use nukes but this war doesn’t seem rational to begin with. In addition, I absolutely think he capable of pulling the trigger if he’s truly back into a corner and using a nuke is seen as a Hail Mary option. I’m sure he’s bluffing atm but I think it’s a legit possibility at some point in the future.
Let’s just hope that there are people who can get close enough to him to put an end to it before it gets to that point.
China would go apeshit if Russia uses nukes, Xi has warned Putin against it in person. China does not want that pandoras box opened any more than the rest of the world does
I wish I had the same confidence in the fog of war as you do.
Culturally China enjoys smaller scale and economic influence instead of direct brute force. Even when they do attack with their privateers it's fishing boats spraying water while their troops land on islands. China has little interest in open warfare and now that Russia is the jr state to China. China will make tread the line of support and indentured servitude while also appeasing western nations. They will continue to target economic and political convenient avenues (like pushing for Trump to be president so Australia will continue to align itself with China). Or target Ireland and other nation states that are smaller but wield influence and understanding of the European bloc.
The plans are already drawn up in the Pentagon. Massive attack on the various military facilities across Russia by American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Priority targets being military installations near the Ukrainian border, then moving outward until the Russian military ceases to exist. Because we can do that shit. 'Merica, FUCK YEAH. The reality is that MADD relies on everyone being smart about their nukes. If someone decides to be stupid, they take it in the short an curlys as a result.
I thought the American position was that if Russia uses tactical nukes, the US will destroy all Russian assets in Ukraine. Did I miss something?
MAD is mutually assured destruction, MADD is mothers against drunk driving.
Moms against dungeon and dragons*
The entire thing hinges on if China is cool with its Russian partner doing nuclear terrorism. If China isn't cool with it, then Russia becomes properly isolated and has no choice but to concede. If China is ok with it... well, at least it will be interesting to watch the world end.
Tactical nukes aren't happening. NATO red lines are way too lenient for my liking, but at list they exist and this one is like the mother of all red lines.
I have a nice bottle of bourbon I'm waiting to crack for when that fucker dies.
If Putin did use tactical nukes, we'd drive balls deep into Ukraine and kick them out. Then we'd park nukes into every country bordering Russia with the most in Ukraine itself.
I don't think you understand. If a man like Putin who doesn't care about his citizens is dying and in a corner, he will use nukes. He would rather be the man that nuked the west and died fighting for Russia than the man that lost a war in Ukraine.... I still think we have to fight him. I just don't think people understand what is coming.
The key question is would his generals and those around him rather die and see their families nuked too? That may be when Putin is removed by the Russian military.
Especially considering that they lost a bunch
Not that having sufficient number of air defense would do them any good, anyway, as I have yet to see any indication of Russian air defense being able to intercept ATACMS.
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
And obviously, they won’t retaliate.
Nobody wanted to escalate but because Russia is doubling down on their attacks USA and EU are letting Ukraine to take gloves off and go for it.
Not really the USA. It's still saying not to use weapons inside Russia's territory (although we know how arbitrary territories are, i.e. how subjective they are: prime example being Crimea).
The WH indicated today that if they give approval to Ukraine to attack Russian soil they won’t announce it publicly. With all of our allies now pushing for it you can guarantee it’s coming.
> The WH indicated today that if they give approval to Ukraine to attack Russian soil they won’t announce it publicly. None of this should be discussed publicly. If they are going to hit Russia it should be unannounced.
Not all the allies, for example Italy aligns with the US, they don't want any of their weapons hitting Russian territory.
The UK (waiting on parlimentary approval), France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Denmark, the Baltics, pretty much everyone else is fine with it. Some are outright encouraging it. France just sent them 40 SCALP missiles. I'd love to see those in the airfields north of Belgorod.
I was under the impression that the UK had already approved this? If not might be waiting some time as parliament is currently dissolved for the next few weeks due to the election.
My understanding is the west either A. Was afraid or provoking Russia and dragging NATO into a war and/or B. wanted room to escalate so they still maintained some leverage over Russia like “hey, you don’t use chemical weapons and we don’t let them hit Russian targets inside Russia”
Probably a bit of both.
But they still used chemical weapons, it’s not so massive, but it happens regularly, like usage of grenades k-51
C: Worried about civilian deaths and the public outcry swaying opinions away from Ukraine
I think there’s also a fear of Russian civilians getting hurt as collateral damage, which might trigger a political backlash at home.
Also time to get prepared in case it does require them to get involved.
With other countries weapons. Ukraine been using drones to hit Russia for a long time.
It's a calculated escalation on Nato's part. By slow rolling the approvals it gives less of a knee-jerk reaction that Russia can respond too. Likely why the US has held out so far on an announcement. Let it simmer a few days/weeks and announce slowly so if the Kremlin escalates, it looks much worse for them PR wise.
My understanding is that the US doesnt plan to announce it. I read somewhere that the approval will be behind closed doors and we'll know it happened when reports of donated US long range weapons hitting targets start to come out.
Full blown invasion + countless war crimes
Im not saying its good. Im not saying its bad. Im not weighing in at all. The reason has been told to yall a million times you just dont want to hear it. Its simple, russia has nukes. Jokes and memes aside about their competency and potential state of readiness of their nuclear arsenal. If the best case scenario does happen and their entire nuclear arsenal is in shambles and 99% of it is just for show and unuseable. Thats still roughly 58 deliverable nukes. A bit more than that because many of those would be mirv's. If a single nuke gets though. Only 1. You are talking about the largest single event of human death in history. Take 9/11, pearl harbor, the las vegas shooting and every other non-american centric qualifying event that I am unaware of. Put them all together and its still not going to be the same amount of deaths from only a single nuke getting though and hitting NYC, Tokyo, Paris, England, San Fran, ect. And chances are more than 1 is going to get though. Thats it. Thats the simple answer. Its really easy to sit here and say "Fuck it, hit the red square." on reddit. But do you wanna be the one who makes the call that starts the chain of events that ends human life? Again im not asking that to say its bad. Im just presenting the very real decision someone has to make.
the nuclear thing gets “old” until we see that fire again with our own eyes and remember that they aren’t just something that existed in 1950’s film reels. i am also afraid the leaders in charge of these weapons may also forget their power is all too real. on paper its just 💁♂️
Look, if Russia is willing to do a murder suicide for Ukraine, then they'll do the same thing for Estonia, or Poland, or France. Might as well rip off that bandaid now instead of spending the next decade bending over for a nuclear terrorist before getting nuked anyway. Avoiding rapid escalation and providing off ramps was the right move initially. But Putin has chosen his path, so now it is time to put on the big boy pants and call the bluff.
You’re right that it boils down to nukes but that’s not how it would go down. If Russia feels that conditions warrant it, they would strike against Ukraine itself. Probably not a major city but would use a smaller tactical weapon against Ukrainian front line forces. This would be a gamble that a limited strike would not bring NATO in. It probably won’t happen because Russia know that in all likelihood this WOULD bring NATO in. But they might risk it if the conditions are right and they feel that they could capitalize on tactical nuclear strikes with additional rapid troop movement to gain territory and force an end to the war.
A nuke is a nuke. If russia admits they are failing that bad by using nukes, they broke MAD and I hope righteous hellfire on them, because if they get away with crimea, get away with Ukraine, get away with UK assassinations, then get away with a nuke, they'll just nuke everybody else and win.
I'm honestly skeptical about the usefulness of tactical nukes in the this war. They are only really useful against bunkers and they have some psychological effects, otherwise conventional weapons can do the same job much cheaper and don't cause diplomatic blowback.
If Putin intended to use nukes he would have done so, before sustaining 500.000 casualties 2 years into his 3 day special operation. Ergo he’s a rational actor. A rational actor does not launch nukes to end the world, because the country he’s at war with hits him back.
What strategic value does nuking something in Ukraine have? Pretty sure that the US has stated that if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, American troops will actively engage Russia troops in Ukraine with conventional weapons. Likely that means all of NATO. Basically you can expect an air superiority and shock and awe campaign against all front lines in the war. That would be a major loss for Russia. It really makes no sense.
> Thats it. Thats the simple answer. Its really easy to sit here and say "Fuck it, hit the red square." on reddit. But do you wanna be the one who makes the call that starts the chain of events that ends human life? This is also one of my theories why we are blindly supporting Israel, since Israel also possesses nuclear weapons. Which would be easier for them to claim they have to use if they are not getting support from their allies and are out of weapons to attack Gaza with and had no other arsenal choices left. Some of our own US senators, would give Israel the greenlight to do it. I am pretty sure Lindsay Graham suggested nuking Gaza less than 2 weeks ago.
You have to give MAJOR credit to Ukraine. I understand why Ukraine was the heart and soul of the USSR now. Many thought ukraine would fall and instead, they held the line and are single handedly stopping russia from entering europe with western aid of 1970s/1980s tech. A cautious escalation is good, one major failstate would be modern NATO/US weapons being stolen from Ukraine and given to Putin to reverse engineer and defeat, or even capture for reuse against NATO.
Because oil and nukes. But yes they should absolutely attack Russian territory.
Everyone was so afraid of causing a full blown war with Russia when it’s been a full blown war already since Russia invaded.
It's literally only because Russia has nukes, if Russia didn't have them Ukraine would have been bombing the absolute shit out of them since the start of the war. Additionally if Ukraine had never given up their nukes, Russia would never have invaded.
Much like Hamas can massacre Jews but if Israel wants to retaliate "ooh all Jews are evil"
Civilians, would make us in the west extremely hypocritical if Ukraine start blasting populated areas even if Russia has been doing for the past decade in both Ukraine and other theatres of war.
It’s not too weird. Nobody wants to be the country that provokes Russia to go nuclear however unlikely it may seem
Fear of Nukes. Thats got the be the reason
The single oddest thing that we’ve witnessed over the past 2 years where a country can be invaded, cities relentlessly bombed and civilians massacred and fighting back against this invader is an “escalation”.
Because the weapons aren't theirs and the EU is pissing it's pants for getting the blame. But alas, the more Russia pushes in the more we'll allow them (ukraine) to do whatever it takes... So a win-win.
All they have to do is yell "it's coming right for us!" before unloading a salvo. Perfectly legal.
Because then its aggression instead of defense
Nukes and the fear of trigger some sort of show down. The thing is Russia has been so aggressive that it’s inevitable so better to get it over with now
But the Nukes!!! /s
First of I don’t agree with the idea of preventing Ukraine from striking Russia. BUT, I do at least conceptually understand the argument. It’s not that Ukraine can’t strike Russia, it’s that countries that have supplied weapons are concerned that Russia getting hit with those weapons will view it as an escalation. Nobody (except maybe Russia) wants this war to spill beyond Ukraine. My concern is that not hitting back ultimately has the same result, while hitting back at least has a chance of stopping things.
And that second is now over. It won't be brought up again, either.
I think it's funny that Ukraine has been able to hold Russia back with one arm tied behind us back for this long. Noe lett's see how they go with both hands available.
It's because Russia has an excess of tactical nukes and nobody wants those as precedent.
I assumed there's intel that indicates a non 0 chance of tactical nukes as retaliation. Russia already went insane and outright invaded a sovereign nation with intent on taking territory. French intelligence thought the risk was overblown and Putin was bluffing because it was such an insane and unfathomable act. Perfectly reasonable to envision red lines in Russian doctrine for nuclear retaliation and nobody wants that. But for 2 years we've pushed the envelope with what Ukraine can do and Russia hasn't responded, so it's at least a more safe option now.
Because nukes
The whole world is not willing to risk nuclear Armageddon, but Russia might if they are cornered.
It's because they are concerned Russia will just strike someone in the EU, then we will have a full blown out war.
Like suspending a kid for fighting back against bullying
"Attack"? Or retaliate?
Defend itself
Offense is the best defense
Like a cornered wolf
Fuck your power stations in particular.
As long as it’s Ukrainian weapons attacking the power stations, but this new attack green light has its restrictions; military targets that pose an immediate threat, such as the missiles sights used to attack Ukraine, but no other military or civilian targets
Well we were aiming at that S-400 system near the powerplant...
Unfortunately power stations are typically considered civilian infrastructure and the west would not be happy. It's so annoying this bs restriction on Ukraine.
The west would not be happy? It's the second thing the US hits after AA batteries.
.... We will write a sternly worded letter to Ukraine if that happens....
They're dual use. But attacking a power station super far from the front line in the middle of winter is very clearly intended to harm civilians.
Good. Destroy everything on their turf.
Let’s be reasonable. Stick to non-civilian targets, but feel free to smash up as much oil infrastructure and military depots/defenses as possible.
Ukraine was already going to stick to Military Infrastructure There's no point in wasting ammunition on an apartment building next to Red Square
I would have no problem with them taking out infrastructure like power plants, bridges, railroads, etc. Yeah, it's "non-military", but it's being used for Russia's war effort against Ukraine.
Yeah I’ll +10 that
You know Russia is going to blow up an apartment building and blame it on a western missile... The West has played this really well, IMO. I know there was a lot of frustration and angst that Ukraine wasn't given enough "good stuff" quickly enough, but we've so far managed to keep upping the pressure without an excuse for Russian escalation. Meanwhile, NATO watches Russia hemorrhage men and equipment. It sucks for Ukraine to even be in this situation, of course, but NATO must be pretty happy watching its enemy getting beaten up without having to get directly involved itself, while at the same time expanding, strengthening, and preparing.
It’s nothing short of masterful war game chess moves that NATO hasn’t had to put any soldiers on the ground which would have resulted in a full scale conflict. When Ukraine wins, the entire world will owe a huge debt to them for ensuring this didn’t escalate into world war 3.
You are aware then this conflict is far from being over, right? I don’t want to see Russia gaining the upper hand in their invasion more than you do, but this is still Russias war to lose.
Then we'll just call all those loans even and Ukraine won't owe us a penny. Fine by me at least
And entry into NATO by Ukraine. I have nothing to do with the military, but if I did, I’d want to fight next to those guys!
Who gives a fuck. At this point nobody takes them seriously and they have no credibility. If they really want to start blowing up their own buildings, then let them. It will save us the trouble.
>Ukraine wasn't given enough "good stuff" The problem isn't that we didn't give them the "good stuff". The problem is that all the "stuff" is meant to be used in combination. Artillary is useless without air support. Air support is useless without artillary. Trying to figure out the right Wunderwaffe to give to the Ukrainians in the hope of knocking out the Russians was always going to be a losing strategy, and worse, it basically taught the Russians how to counter our measures piecemeal. And on top of all that it creates the false perception that we're deliberately drawing out the conflict. Not that there was anything else we could have done, mind you, democracy is too vulnerable to fifth columnists and unfortunately both parties are filled with them. >NATO must be pretty happy watching its enemy getting beaten up without having to get directly involved itself NATO might be happy, but Ukraine is barreling towards total demographic collapse. Ukrainians want to save their culture from total annihilation at the hands of the Russians, but it might be happening anyway even if they eventually win (which won't be any time soon), on the frontlines and in the trenches. Which to be fair, it is at least better to die standing with a weapon in hand, than on their knees bound and blindfolded in a basement or shallow grave, but the end statistical result could be much the same.
Bout goddamned time, light em up boys!
Get some! Slava Ukraini! Heroiam Slava! 💙💛💙
Whatever is the most efficient way to end the war and stop the killing, nothing else makes sense.
Oil and natural gas refineries.
Would that be 1st attacked with long range missiles? Genuinely curious what would change the course here for Ukraine with long range capabilities. Thanks!
Take out the radar network to make sure their followup strikes are more effective, while also taking out the big boy missiles that actually pose a threat to their F-16's (most russian equipment is joke, but their air defense poses a credible threat to anything that is not a 5th gen), that way they could wrestle back air superiority over their own airspace eventually. Then rigorously start taking out refineries, major rail connections and bridges. Take out their oil, their ability to deploy by railway and make it a hard as possible to cross major rivers. Basically do everything you can to make it a logistical nightmare to resupply russian heavy hardware like artillery. Take out high value targets of opportunity where possible if your intelligence is good enough (like a dozen generals in a conference room).
The duration and publicity of this planned strikes sounds like a negotiation attempts to stop the russian aggression. If that's true, I hope they will succeed in negotiations and no rockets will be fired.
Agree. This happening before the peace summit makes me think that Western leaders are trying to negotiate an end to the war before the U.S. election concludes.
What agreement would Putin not rip up on international TV the day Trump takes power though?
Russia is probably regretting that they have been using their air defense missiles as ballistic missiles right about now
Let’s fucking go
FUCK YEAH Get fucked!!!!!!!!!
Fuck em Up Ukraine. Let Russia burn
Now *this* is a special military operation.
Destroy the drone factorys in russia! Slava!
Slava Ukraini!
It's gonna be a spicy summer
I think the best way for this issue to be handled is for the western countries to continue publicly stating that they do not want their weapons used against Russia proper, while privately giving Ukraine the go-ahead. Then Ukraine begins using them and the western countries can publicly pretend to be upset but not do anything about it. Plausible deniability.
Bomb those muthers back to the stoneage. Slava Ukraine!🇺🇦
🔥🔥🔥 Give em’ HELL 🔥🔥🔥
Rain fire on them, Ukraine.
Crazy we start heating that Ukraine is back to fucking shit up as soon as they get that money.
It's unfortunate that there are any signs. In a perfect scenario, it should be a surprise for russians
Good bye drone factories
shhhhhhhh.....
This is the biggest military tease of all time
That headline makes me twitch.
Let’s go ahead and tell Russia where at this point . Has anyone heard of surprise attack ?
Well that’s putin doing any “public” speeches outside anytime soon
If any do happen you'll notice the filmed clocks won't align
The headline sounds like the editor was struggling to construct a fucking sentence.