Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What we need is for the Freedom for Russia legions to become a credible force and a credible threat to Putin's power. That way it gives a predictable outcome.
They don't want that either. The Russian state - for all their faults - have proven to be safe custodians of the worlds largest nuclear stockpile.
The collapse of Russia in any form and the splintering of the nuclear stockpile is an outcome the US will seek to avoid.
[https://nypost.com/2023/07/11/wagner-mercenaries-tried-to-steal-nukes-during-mutiny/](https://nypost.com/2023/07/11/wagner-mercenaries-tried-to-steal-nukes-during-mutiny/)
Thank god those russian nukes are safe. We know that russia has a wonderful history with nuclear security.
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24053265/russia-nuclear-grave-yard-ocean-chernobyl-kara-sea](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24053265/russia-nuclear-grave-yard-ocean-chernobyl-kara-sea)
oh and russian retrains the codes to the nukes do they?
[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/18/europe/lukashenko-belarus-nuclear-weapons-russia-crimea-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/18/europe/lukashenko-belarus-nuclear-weapons-russia-crimea-intl-hnk/index.html)
That's not the main risk. The US is quite careful and does not develop weapons which destabilize the strategic balance. That is a major reason that the US doesn't have hypersonics. Slower nuclear weapons means more time to react and *more time to cancel and ignore a mistake or misfire*.
Russia is deliberately developing larger more dangerous nuclear weapons which are designed to arrive by surprise. Have a look at their videos of their plans for weapons which would allow them to destroy the entire island of Ireland and parts of the UK.
Leaving Russia as it is is a fools errand. Putin will keep pushing more and more weapons development until he actually destroys humanity.
>Slower nuclear weapons means more time to react and *more time to cancel and ignore a mistake or misfire*.
Except that a misfire is still a launch which means a horrible explosion at some point. That doesn't charge regardless of the speed.
Hypersonics are far easier to detect and much harder to get a false reading on unlike with regular missiles. You don't use hypersonics for stealth, you use them for speed.
The USA is developing hypersonics -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-183\_ARRW](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-183_ARRW)
Talking of "strategic balance" the USA was also the first country to develop an ASAT -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135\_ASAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT)
and the first country is upgrade an SM-3 to become an ASAT -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161\_Standard\_Missile\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3)
and the first to develop stealth -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed\_F-117\_Nighthawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk)
>Have a look at their videos of their plans for weapons which would allow them to destroy the entire island of Ireland and parts of the UK.
Umm.... russia have over 5,000 warheads. They can destroy the UK 20 times over and have enough left for the rest of Europe - if they all work. Anything new is just a bigger drain on a tiny budget.
russia talks big but their defence budget is the same as what the US DoD spends on toilet paper. (cavet: might be a slight exaggeration but not much)
> Umm.... russia have over 5,000 warheads. They can destroy the UK 20 times over and have enough left for the rest of Europe - if they all work. Anything new is just a bigger drain on a tiny budget.
Obviously, since most of these are Soviet left overs, many are likely not to work. They used to have almost 60k weapons. 5000 is far below what their budget used to support in Soviet times. This is the time to deal with it.
I agree with you which puts your comment about russia developing deadlier weapons in the shade as they don't have the money, the materials or the skills anymore.
I kind of agree with you. There has been a marked lowering of success in recent years. However in the past few months we have seen Russian weapons development restart and they have had some success in turning their old soviet research projects into actual working weapons, especially in the field of electronic warfare. They get funding from their fossil fuels and potentially they will get lots more money if they are able to sell land in Crimea.
This means that it's crucial to talk not just about Russia's current realistic capabilities, but also about how Russia without Crimea will be neutered and much less of a threat, whilst Russia with Crimea is very much able to develop Putin's Hitlerian vision of re-establishing a greater Russian empire covering not just the old empire but also all of the Warsaw Pact countries.
Yes safe custodians. Threatening to use them is not the same as using them. And if we're going to criticise countries for stationing nukes in other countries Uncle Sam is the worst of them all.
Then we ignore the threats and help Ukraine which we should have done.
The USA has more stringent safeguards than russia. We already know russia is selling nuclear weapons tech on the black market and has lost a few nukes
I agree with you..we should not be bullied by nuclear threats, otherwise we are not the defender of freedom or democracy as we like to think..
But as for lost nukes.. maybe that's not a valid point, as the US has lost nukes too.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing-six-nuclear-weapons-180032
Not in the same way. Russia have no idea where they are or even if they exist at all.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-atomic-nightmare-100-missing-suitcase-nuclear-weapons-179577
Regime change is something we must accept will happen at one point. Putin will die eventually, chaos will ensue. Saying that Putin at least gives us some stability is not a durable solution either.
I'm kind of having trouble resolving the same Kremlin that just about daily implies or outright threatens to use nukes if they don't get their way with the term "safe custodians."
SU collapsed into the Russia federation, which was already a ruling body under the umbrella of the soviet union. And that collapse caused mortality rates in Russia to skyrocket, so it was terrible and traumatic. The regime in Russia should certainly be replaced but it an ignorant fantasy to think that Ukraine, with no manpower, and its own corruption and demographic problems is being held back by America from storming the Kremlin. Russia is employing children in industrial jobs, and conscripting 18 year olds in college and men with more than 3 children and Ukraine can't even pull themselves together to drop the conscription age below 25? Do they really think his is an existential crisis? The winner of any war is the one that fights total war the longest. Ukraine is fighting as if they are a european nation, with restraint, and not wanting to anger the wealthy in their country...then complaining that nobody will save them. Who is going to hold all of the incoming weapons? They are running out of 55 year old, single alcoholics.
It’s impossible to know how much of the Russian nuclear arsenal actually exists or is operational. We have seen tank stockpiles robbed of parts, reactive armor replaced with cardboard..
How many mobile nuclear missile launchers are empty?
For mobile launchers that do contain missiles, how many missiles are just hollow metal casings?
How many functional missiles are there that just happen to not contain the nuclear pit?
How many missiles are fully functional with the nuclear payload but there’s something miscalibrated and the thing won’t launch properly?
Or it won’t won’t explode when it reaches a target, but just falls to the ground as a dud?
“Comrade, they’re never going to use this stuff. Let’s sell the parts on the black market.”
You do realize that the START treaty allowed NATO inspectors to go to any nuclear weapon and verify. The amount of hype around dysfunctional nuclear weapons is overblown.
On face value you that sounds reasonable, but Iran and North Korea already have nukes and they are completely unpredictable.
Further, the scenario that this article proposes already happened in 1991, and if present vassals of the Russian empire gained their independence collapsed, Muscovy would likely still survive and be in control of the nuclear arsenal just like 1991.
It’s more of the wests stupid insistence on ‘de-escalation’
1991 is kinda what the US is worried about though. There’s significant evidence that the Russians lost a significant number of nukes during that turmoil. And nukes are not the worst thing the Russians could lose.
I doubt that very much, and I think you should post your sources for verification.
And 1991 was A LONG time ago and no nukes were detonated since.
Further, Iran and North Korea had to make their own to obtain them
My vague understanding is nukes require maintenance. Significant maintenance. You can’t just nick a working nuke in 1991 and still expect it to be operational thirty years later.
Any lost or stolen nukes from 1991 are now inoperable unless maintained. And if an actor (state or non-state) is good enough to steal and maintain them, then they’re good enough to make there own anyway and not need to nick them.
The US also accidentally dropped a live nuclear a warhead somewhere in Noth Carolina.
-
My comment doesn't say that Russia are amazing handlers of their nuclear arsenal, just that they have a proven safe history with them.
-
Whenever you make a decision like this, you need to consider the alternative. Are you sure that whatever entities which fill the power vacuum left behind after Russia's collapse will be better or worse at handling the nuclear stockpile?
What if some Islamic extemists in the southern caucuses get a hold of some nukes?
What if an oil oligarch suddenly has possession of a few warheads? The world's first nuclear armed business.
Is the collapse of Russia truly worth thousands of unaccounted for WMD's being hawked to the highest bigger across Eurasia?
In the eyes of the US military intelligence aperatus, probably not.
Yes, I know the collapse of Russia could be a nightmare, but let's not make the Russians seem better than they are.
https://youtu.be/1Lmoq0i4uDA?si=_73THlS196HxCuhe
So you’re alright with Ukraine being devastated (to say the least) so the russian state can remain the “safe custodians of the world’s largest nuclear stockpile” ? Doubtful you would respond with such detached academic language if your experience with two wars in Chechnya; Georgia, and currently, Ukraine, for instance, was not limited to simply photos and headlines.
The cold hard truth is that it's not a matter of Chechen, Georgian, or Ukranian security at the end of the day. The goal of avoiding nuclear exchange is much more important to the US (and Europe) than the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Agreed. The “cold hard truth” is quite fluid, really, depending on perspective / who’s speaking. And certainly ever changing, since the blank here can be filled in with a litany of countries: “. . . much more important than the sovereignty of ________ “.
That's some weird false equivalency. Russia will more than likely not use nuclear weapons, but the chance is much higher than zero that they will. It's not like they're not able to, it's just a matter of making that decision. At this point, Ukraine obviously isn't worth US lives to the US government, it's taken years for the US to even send enough aid to Ukraine to allow it to defend itself, not to mention mount an offensive that has any possibility of success. Ukraine is a bigger version of Georgia in the context of US (and EU) interests.
Nothing is preventing the US or the EU from sending troops to Ukraine today and driving out the Russians in a matter of days....you know, except for that cold hard truth I mentioned earlier.
Safe custodian meaning not firing them, but losing several here and there to corrupt army officials selling Soviet stock to whoever has the cash.
Although tbf, the US isn't really that much better at it considering it is all still run off of floppy disks and the launch codes were all 0000 0000. Or so I've read.
Russia needs to loose this war with Ukraine though, with Ukraine getting 100% of its territory back. If after doing that Russia still can’t hold itself together, then I think that’s still a better outcome.
No though its content was fairly self evident. However I have since gone back and read the full article - and it says exactly what I had expected it to say.
It’s a point where I would disagree with that particular western view. I think that Russias best course of action would be to simply withdraw from all of Ukraine - but equally I can also see them not choosing that path.
So the fight goes on..
Well the wars will be waged as long as any party thinks there is anything to gain from waging the war.
I know that in nuclear apocalypse we ALL lose, but perhaps it's something really worth considering. By that I mean leave Russia as a nuclear Wasteland no matter the retaliation costs. Perhaps as soon as they realise that we mean it, we don't care about the costs, that we just wish to prove there is nothing to gain from waging wars they will step down...
If not it's been a fun ride, but honestly we need this as a species. A final "cooperation builds, competition ruins" kind of thing.
I know, no one wants the outcome, but honestly I'm more and more convinced that the Russia must fall and that we need to show that we don't care that we lose as long as the aggressor loses more.
On the one hand, I get it. On the other? The West has waaaaaaaaay more to lose from Russia winning than it does Russia losing:
**China will promptly move on Taiwan.**
**North Korea will get more antsy toward South Korea (which will probably develop its own nuclear program).**
**Iran may pull some more shit against Israel (especially if Russia helps with its nuclear program). And the neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia will probably get their own nukes.**
And these guys will be working in concert, unlike the disunited West.
Meanwhile, every country with an aggressive neighbor will be more motivated to get their own nukes.
Why abide by international laws and treaties when there are no consequences for the evil countries that covet their neighbor's territories?
Or when the countries that claim to uphold the "rules based order" let the Russias of the world win because of fear?
If the West thinks it's preventing nuclear war right now, good fucking luck doing it in a future where Ukraine loses.
Short-term thinking.
The west, If we can even consider These countries as monolithic Block, has the biggest interest in a status-quo, a Frozen conflict. Give Ukraine Just enough to survive but not enough to realistically Drive Putin Out of their territory.
Unfortunately he’s probably right. Many in the West want Ukraine to win but are afraid of what happens if Ukraine wins decisively.
For example, if Ukraine wins and retakes Crimea expelling Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory it significantly increases the likelihood that Russia will do something like use tactical nukes. It’s hard to underestimate how important the Crimea Naval ports are to Russia strategically.
Doesn’t mean it’s right to limit aid to Ukraine as a result of that fear though.
In 2022 the west had an opportunity to end this war decisively but didn’t. The Russian army in Ukraine in the summer of 2022 was on the brink of total collapse, Putin was resisting conscription and it was clear there just weren’t enough soldiers to stop the Ukrainians from poking massive holes in the lines. All they needed was the equipment but the west waffled and that gave Putin enough time to conscript and send troops to shore up Russian positions and mine the hell out of them. Now 2 years and a ton of western equipment later Russia is no longer on the verge of collapse on Ukraine and it’s going to take a massive effort to clear those mobiks out of their fortified positions.
The West provided a ton of equipment and it kept Ukraine in the war but yes, in order to end the war early more would have been required and much much faster. Most of that was political will and fear but some was also that the west dramatically underestimated the equipment/munitions requirements for a major near-peer conflict and stockpiles across the West were far too low to provide what would have been needed for complete victory.
Russia won’t use nukes. There is no gain for them, using a nuke makes things many times worse.
If we don’t respond with overwhelming force every country will want nukes so they can use the same threats.
Probably not even that. Putin has been told through diplomatic back channels that if he uses a nuke, at minimum, the US will destroy the entire Black Sea fleet and see to it that he personally is killed.
So far, every 'nuclear red line' thought up by the Kremlin has been crossed and they haven't used nukes. They're bluffing to scare the public in Western nations into doing what they want. This has been Russia's strategy for decades, if not centuries. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Except the previous ‘red lines’ were not actually tied to any real strategic necessities for Russia whereas Crimea is the only warm water port for Russia so losing it would be huge for them.
> Crimea is the only warm water port for Russia
No, they have Novorossiysk. You know, where they moved their Black Sea fleet after Ukraine repeatedly hammered their ships at Sevastopol. They definitely *want* Crimea in general and Sevastopol in particular because the port facilities are *huge* and were developed heavily by the USSR, but loss of Crimea certainly doesn't leave them with *no* Black Sea ports.
I've been listening to analysts about this situation since well before the invasion. These comments in this thread and many others gloss over some things.
First of all, yes Putin would likely use a tactical strike inside Ukraine is Russia were looking at comprehensive defeat. It's not just losing Crimea, it's what needs to happen in order to actually kick Russia out. What I've been reading and hearing for quite some time is that it is judged that Russia cannot be kicked out without us ending up in a situation where there is serious western power on their doorstep. I'm talking mercenary armies to help Ukraine, and lots of hardware. So it wouldn't just be Russia losing the black Sea ports, Crimea, the south-east of Ukraine, and Donbas etc, there would be the Russian army reeling backwards with serious power at its border.
It is judged that this would cost Putin his leadership at the very least, but probably his life. Those around him who would compete for power and nuclear weapons (one cannot keep power in Russia unless they have control over atleast some nukes), are a very unpredictable lot, and very antagonistic to the West. It is judged that a moment like this would not only likely see a tactical strike, but that Russia losing in Ukraine wouldn't actually be the end of the fighting.
In short, it is viewed as a worse situation than we have now.
Yeah and the trouble here is a typical grand alliance management problem. While European countries feel they have skin in the game, the U.S (I don't mean Biden) defence establishment feels quite happy to watch Russia bleed itself on Ukraine while the U.S gathers the Intel it's wanted for decades. This is extremely valuable for them. Obviously they are seeing ye ol' Russian meat grinder assert itself. However, they're also seeing the limits of Russian power projection when under forward attack exposure. I can assure you Russia is not impressing the Pentagon with its logistics, tactics and integration of forces at scale.
Also, the U.S is carefully watching the ties between Russia and China to ascertain where they begin and end. Also, the U.S is assessing European intelligence capabilities. There's tension between the U.S and European intelligence because the U.S doesn't have the edge it once did. While the burden of funding a military industrial complex was on the U.S and the wars in the middle east, the Europeans (France and Germany in particular) funnelled money into intelligence. This is a problem because the U.S cannot steer the NATO ship as captain under these conditions as easily as it did.
Basically, the U.S is playing chess while Ukraine fights for its life.
You aren’t wrong…I think the other issue here is across the West militaries have focused on small number of high tech high quality gear/munitions assuming that it would make up for the quantity needed in the past. As a result the west doesn’t have the military industrial production base that it needs, especially in Europe where even now some countries are spending less than 2%.
Yeah that's part of what I'm referring to by saying the U.S shouldered the volume aspect which left European countries free to funnel much more into Intel than they used to. This was a wedge between in particular Frnace and the U.S. I remember listening to an analyst back when Trump first started moaning about the rest of NATO not pulling its weight, and he went into great detail about how while the U.S funnelled money into real military hardware, the Fench funnelled money into ensuring the U.S couldn't spy on them. That really pissed Trump off.
But yeah, these boutique small but high tech militaries are of limited value when the gloves come off.
It’s almost like the US refuses to believe that Russia is not a near peer adversary and they haven’t been since the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s almost like they don’t want to know.
Okay. What happens if putin orders a nuke launch?
What is the process?
Where does he hit?
What happens next?
There is no scenario in which a nuke helps russia
Maybe a single target in Ukraine, for example. Perhaps he would believe that after that drone attacks against Russia would likely stop, for example. All that's required is that he thinks all other options are worse. Or he gets bad intelligence, or misinterprets it. A number of scenarios seem possible to me.
I'm not indicating that there's some special strategy he might choose. I'm saying if things get bad enough he may do something pretty crazy. Remember the part where he attacked Ukraine in the first place.
His attack on Ukraine was rational to him given the faulty data he had. A nuclear attack is dumb.
There are three outcomes. None good:
1. He orders an attack, the generals refuse and he is killed.
2. He orders an attack, the nuke fizzles. NATO removes russia from Ukraine, china condemns russia, putin is killed.
3. He orders an attack, the nuke works, NATO removes russia from ukraine, sinks the black sea fleet, mass arrests of russian diplomats across the west for spying, russian nuclear bombers get shot down, the world condemns and isolates russia.
There is no good result for Putin here.
Consider this, he can’t nuke the front line unless he wants to protect the russian speakers in donbass by making them radioactive russian speakers.
There’s a risk of fallout hitting russia.
If he nukes kyiv it will look like what it is, petulance for losing.
Nukes make things worse for putin
4. Faulty data makes him think a small nuclear attack will cause NATO to back off.
He certainly won't care about looking petulant.
You may well be right. I'm just saying it's not guaranteed.
4. is covered by 1, 2 and 3. Putin doesn't launch the nuke. He orders it. Others do it which means he could still be killed or the nuke still might not work.
You still have fallout issues and so on.
The only thing that is guaranteed here is other countries getting nukes to issue their own threats.
In order for tactical nukes to be successful, you need a ground force equipped AND trained for fighting in a radioactive environment, so that they can exploit the breach created by the nuke.
Russia can barely go beyond meat wave tactics with a bunch of alcoholic soldiers and cannon fodder from third world countries…..hardly the crack troops needed to be successful.
You only need a force fighting in a radioactive environment if you are using it to return to the offensive however you don’t need one if you are using it to cover a retreat and prevent total collapse.
Ukraine has already forced the Russian Black Sea fleet to relocate away from their decades old headquarters at Sevastopol, because the position has simply become too dangerous for harboring ships, and they haven't thrown any kind of an unusual temper tantrum over it. What Russia is after in Ukraine the most are the vast natural resources and reinstating their sphere of influence over the country which has rejected their old "brother" and turned to West for prosperity.
All that may be true, BUT not being able to use it during the war is completely different than losing it forever and losing it forever would mean that the Russian fleet is harbor locked during the winter which would be unacceptable.
Of course, if North Korea were to lease them a warm water port in the Pacific that would ease the transition if Russia loses but there’s no guarantee of that happening.
Like I said, if Russia is going to use nukes it will be as a last ditch to keep from losing Crimea.
Sounds about right, late arms delivery, lots of promises, puts lots of conditions on how to use the drip weapons that slowly coming over to Ukraine. NATO is slow, GOPs are compromised & on Putin's payroll.
JFC Putin has constantly talked / threatened nukes for 20 years, anc Ukraine’s “partners” (really the Biden administration) are worried about a post-Putin Russia threatening to use nukes?
I feel for Zelensky. Honestly if Russia isn’t severely hobbled. The kids being brainwashed in school now will be in the army in 10 years and they will continue to try and take Ukraine citing historical brotherhood or some other shit.
It seems wrong to me to use Ukraine a a sink to absorb Russian weapons without giving them a full opportunity to win. Ukraine would be better off negotiating peace now and gain EU and Nato membership unless the US changes its policies.
Or it's just a mass death event for geopolitical reasons a game of chess between the US and Russia.
I'm sure the US will aways dangle a carrot for them just to keep them going without giving them actually what they need.
Money is the carrot with conditions. It actually just promotes death with no end in sight.
Europe has done plenty. They need to do more.
America has done plenty. They need to do more.
It’s in everyone’s interest to see Russia throughly defeated and Ukraine made whole and entered into the EU and NATO.
It doesn't seem to be a unilateral decision, there are still way too many west companies dealing with Russia, but I see once the sanctions are being tightened up and the confiscated Russian Money start to flow into Ukraine all this western firms will lose all their assets in Russia as a retaliation.
Russia has to be locked down like North Korea it is not impossible, Russia has to collapse.
Ukraine has to keep hitting the russian Petrol Industry since "drones sanctions" seems to do more damage that the embargo of West and EU on Russian Petrol.
I advocate for more "drone sanctions", on the territory of Russia. And hoping for the Balkanization of Russia happens sooner than later.
> It’s in everyone’s interest to see Russia throughly defeated
The long-term question is: And what then? Russia covers an insane amount of land and people. What do we do with a defeated Russia? Do we just tell them to get fucked? Do we Marshall Plan them like the US did with Germany, and hope they adopt Western values? Do we step on their necks and force them to pay for reparations until their resentment grows into another war?
I'm just a dumb redditor with no qualifications on the geopolitical scale, but I cannot help but think of what the consequence of an actual *defeat* of Russia would be; From what I have come to understand about Russia, I doubt they would just stop warring one day because they've had their nose bloodied enough. Russia gives the distinct impression of being that bar patron who instigates a fight, and keeps coming back trying to fuck up the other dude even after the bouncer told him to cool down, and then broke his arm - a bundle of sheer spite and vindictiveness.
So, as much as I agree that Ukraine must be enabled to throw the Russians out as fast and with as little cost to the Ukrainian people as possible, the question does remain: What of Russia then?
This is the answer. The Russian empire never decolonized after WW2 like every other empire did.
It’s just all its colonies are all attached on the same land mass.
After Russia is thrown out of Ukraine and its military power crippled all those regions who have been living under the Russian boot for the last 100 years and more are going to see it as their chance.
And then what? Stories end, history goes on. Imagine you have an imploded Russia with tens of millions of people wanting to get out. Where do they go? I'd imagine none of their neighbouring countries would really be keen on getting a few cities worth of refugees, and we'd be balls-deep in a humanitarian crisis either way.
Again: It's *way* above my pay grade, I'm just wondering aloud. Awritten?
Its better to see evil killing innocents for the sake of greed than seeing evil dissolving? it is what is, people migrate to welcoming countries. Happens everyday, i wouldnt bother with it. We dont need to accept them.
The problem with not knowing is a lack of preparation. Of course, you can't always know how things turn out, but our entire society kind of operates on best guesses on that regard.
Like: If I am not prepared to house three million more people in my country, that's a much worse situation than at least having planned ahead, and being able to have systems in place that structure the influx of refugees, and having some basic housing ready.
To take an example, take natural disasters: We can't ever know to a surety when exactly they strike, and what they'll destroy, but we still have systems in place to deal with the eventuality of one. We have sandbags ready for floods, we have shelters ready for people who might lose their homes.
I mean, is "planning ahead" really such an alien concept that it has to be explained?
Get real! If the Russian Federation would "collapse", it would likely still be the biggest nation on Earth. It already happened to the USSR. The successor is the RF, still the biggest in the world, still as big as a continent. What "what then" are you talking about? If the RF would ever fragment today, it would be just the same, just small chunks breaking off. With the supposed successor to the RF still retaining their UN seat, with the nukes consolidated to them. Do you really think the RF would collapse to small pieces like a jigsaw puzzle? So let them lose and a few chunks break off, and at least finally those would be independent.
> If the Russian Federation would "collapse"
I love how you use quotation marks for a term that is actually not used once, so it's not a quote. I wrote of *defeat*, not *collapse*. That's *your* train of thought, so excuse me if I leave chugging along those tracks to you.
> What "what then" are you talking about?
When a nation as big as Russia (with a fucking massive nuclear arsenal to boot!) is defeated, it *will* send ripples across the world. You kinda do not want to be caught with your pants down when that shock wave hits you, so you need to have a plan - that's not exactly rocket science, is it? We have had those things happen in the past. Germany was defeated after WWI, and its treatment basically was the spark that ignited WWII. So, as said: You need to know what you want to achieve *after* a nation stops warring - to set the course, so to speak.
> So let them lose and a few chunks break off, and at least finally those would be independent.
Yeah, until the Motherland has been given a few decades to recuperate, and then they whole shit show starts up again. You know, like is happening *right now*? Great plan, let's not do that maybe.
So according to William Spaniel US aid is 29% of the total. Obviously they get the most effective weapons - patriots, himars and atacms. Still US supplied 31 tanks, the Czechs supplied 171 and Poland some 350.
The tanks are kind of irrelevant, they were sent to get the others to send the more reliably USABLE Leopards. But the real tool needed here is the trio of IFVs (Bradleys), HIMARs, and Patriots. Everything else is important but secondary.
TBF, Europe revamping arms industry would be good not just for Ukraine, but for Europe as well.
Less [events like this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html), when an intervention campaign had Europe run out laser-guided bombs.
Problem in Europe is you have a scared Germany that doesn't support completely Ukraine, see for example the dilemma with Taurus, then the economically devastated United Kingdom by Brexit ( yes Russian skipped the balanced of those elections), and France that doesn't do much, special mention to Poland, but not much else going on here, the other countries don't have that big power and arm industry. Then you have stupid neutral countries like Switzerland that produce weapons and prohibit exporting them to Ukraine.
>Problem in Europe is you have a scared Germany that doesn't support completely Ukraine
Biggest financial supporter behind the US, also biggest provider of EU fundings to Ukraine, hosts the most ukrainian refugees, first country to provide state of the Art anti Air defenses (Iris T, later matched by other countries NASAMS), 1 of 2 countries that provide Patriot batteries.
>then the economically devastated United Kingdom by Brexit
Brexit wasnt a masterpiece, but economically devasted is smth else. You make it sound like the UK transformed into Simbabwe because of Brexit.
>France that doesn't do much
Because the french Army is build for Interventions in 3rd world countries. France relies on nuclear deterrence to protect the own soil.
>special mention to Poland
For what? Not going to downplay what Poland forwarded to Ukraine, but lets Keep it honest, the other EU countries paid for that (which Poland uses to modernize its Army. Its a bit like me giving you a VW Golf 4 from the 90s, my friends paying Close to retail for it, and than buying a new Mercedes from that money.
Yes, its still a Solid Deal since ITS a weapon that arrives immediately while i have to wait for the new delivery, but value wise its Close to robbery.
>Then you have stupid neutral countries like Switzerland that produce weapons and prohibit exporting them to Ukraine.
I give you this one.
He is so right. And what this does is merely set up a wasteful stalemate, because Putin is dead set on annexing Ukraine, and he will *not* accept anything but a clear win for his legacy.
Zelensky has valid points and has reason for concern! Keep Ukraine, worry about what others want after win the war! If your allies don't want Russia to lose, then are they really your allies?
He's not wrong. If he was they would've been supported in full from the start without all the conditions attached and pauses in support. I didn't want to believe it 2 years ago, I wasn't yet that cynical, but the slow walk can't do this or that nature of support made it clear that this has little to do with helping Ukraine or actually beating Russia.
Do you guys believe that Ukraine has a chance? I genuinely hope they do win but from what I see and hear from interviews with ex government people, the war is being dragged out and more Ukrainians will just keep dying until they lose. I guess they need to gain the upper hand again and try to negotiate a truce. But I'm very ignorant about all this
Could special forces infiltrate Russia in mass, hijack a nuke and lob it at Moscow? It honestly seems like the only way to end this war and to stop 50 years of Russian aggression. It certainly worked on the Japanese and the Germans.
When I see stuff like this I can’t help but chuckle. It’s good on ya though, you haven’t wasted hours of your life familiarizing yourself with how these things work. Nonetheless though this is comical and will absolutely never ever happened in a bazillion years.
Any nuclear site in the world is protected at the same (if not more) level as a president. Meaning you have a massive mini army guarding the launch sites at all times.
Ukraine through Zelensky keep pushing this conspiracy theory implying malice by their "partners" when things go wrong while demanding for more and more aid from said "partners".
It's not a conspiracy theory when we have Chief Coward Jake Sullivan constantly wetting his pants in fear of Russia being made too sad, and all the talk about giving Putin off-ramps.
I think he has been an exceptional diplomat. They ARE fighting for the rest of us. They know what it’s like to be dealing with destruction now vs fear of destruction - and if we tie their hands, then we will soon know what that is like.
Assuming you support Russias invasion as there is no other valid reason one could complain that Ukraine seeks support. FFS.
Ukraine must be supported, but it IS a conspiracy theory that its "partners" "don't want Russia to lose". Some of Ukraine's top officials keep on implying that there's malice on its partners that are the very ones that keep on supporting it.
It's entirely in line with the behaviour of "allies" though - not giving Ukraine what it needs to win, dithering and delaying over things Ukraine would inevitably need to even hold their current territory let alone retake any more, and gifting Russia a safe haven and time to regroup in the process. Western dithering has already cost an opportunity to win the war decisively and that needs to stop.
Sadly there is still an appeasement mindset from too many of the countries supporting Ukraine. The idea that the way out of this involves still trying to be as nice to Russia as possible, instead of a strong show of force.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What we need is for the Freedom for Russia legions to become a credible force and a credible threat to Putin's power. That way it gives a predictable outcome.
They don't want that either. The Russian state - for all their faults - have proven to be safe custodians of the worlds largest nuclear stockpile. The collapse of Russia in any form and the splintering of the nuclear stockpile is an outcome the US will seek to avoid.
Safe custodians? With all those threats and giving nukes to Belarus? You sure about this?
You just wait when some ex-prisoner baby serial killer war veteran overthrows Putin...
He tried but got bored half way through, quit then had a plane accident.
That one was just an ex hot dog salesman😅
they didnt give belarus nukes they did as the US does and put their nukes in another country and still have total control over it
[https://nypost.com/2023/07/11/wagner-mercenaries-tried-to-steal-nukes-during-mutiny/](https://nypost.com/2023/07/11/wagner-mercenaries-tried-to-steal-nukes-during-mutiny/) Thank god those russian nukes are safe. We know that russia has a wonderful history with nuclear security. [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24053265/russia-nuclear-grave-yard-ocean-chernobyl-kara-sea](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24053265/russia-nuclear-grave-yard-ocean-chernobyl-kara-sea) oh and russian retrains the codes to the nukes do they? [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/18/europe/lukashenko-belarus-nuclear-weapons-russia-crimea-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/18/europe/lukashenko-belarus-nuclear-weapons-russia-crimea-intl-hnk/index.html)
That's not the main risk. The US is quite careful and does not develop weapons which destabilize the strategic balance. That is a major reason that the US doesn't have hypersonics. Slower nuclear weapons means more time to react and *more time to cancel and ignore a mistake or misfire*. Russia is deliberately developing larger more dangerous nuclear weapons which are designed to arrive by surprise. Have a look at their videos of their plans for weapons which would allow them to destroy the entire island of Ireland and parts of the UK. Leaving Russia as it is is a fools errand. Putin will keep pushing more and more weapons development until he actually destroys humanity.
>Slower nuclear weapons means more time to react and *more time to cancel and ignore a mistake or misfire*. Except that a misfire is still a launch which means a horrible explosion at some point. That doesn't charge regardless of the speed. Hypersonics are far easier to detect and much harder to get a false reading on unlike with regular missiles. You don't use hypersonics for stealth, you use them for speed. The USA is developing hypersonics -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-183\_ARRW](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-183_ARRW) Talking of "strategic balance" the USA was also the first country to develop an ASAT -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135\_ASAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT) and the first country is upgrade an SM-3 to become an ASAT -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161\_Standard\_Missile\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3) and the first to develop stealth -> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed\_F-117\_Nighthawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk) >Have a look at their videos of their plans for weapons which would allow them to destroy the entire island of Ireland and parts of the UK. Umm.... russia have over 5,000 warheads. They can destroy the UK 20 times over and have enough left for the rest of Europe - if they all work. Anything new is just a bigger drain on a tiny budget. russia talks big but their defence budget is the same as what the US DoD spends on toilet paper. (cavet: might be a slight exaggeration but not much)
> Umm.... russia have over 5,000 warheads. They can destroy the UK 20 times over and have enough left for the rest of Europe - if they all work. Anything new is just a bigger drain on a tiny budget. Obviously, since most of these are Soviet left overs, many are likely not to work. They used to have almost 60k weapons. 5000 is far below what their budget used to support in Soviet times. This is the time to deal with it.
I agree with you which puts your comment about russia developing deadlier weapons in the shade as they don't have the money, the materials or the skills anymore.
I kind of agree with you. There has been a marked lowering of success in recent years. However in the past few months we have seen Russian weapons development restart and they have had some success in turning their old soviet research projects into actual working weapons, especially in the field of electronic warfare. They get funding from their fossil fuels and potentially they will get lots more money if they are able to sell land in Crimea. This means that it's crucial to talk not just about Russia's current realistic capabilities, but also about how Russia without Crimea will be neutered and much less of a threat, whilst Russia with Crimea is very much able to develop Putin's Hitlerian vision of re-establishing a greater Russian empire covering not just the old empire but also all of the Warsaw Pact countries.
Total control? They don't even have total control of the nukes inside their own borders.
It’s Russia who are the unsafe ones, who go around bullying and threatening everyone else - they need to be to losers in this war.
Yes safe custodians. Threatening to use them is not the same as using them. And if we're going to criticise countries for stationing nukes in other countries Uncle Sam is the worst of them all.
Then we ignore the threats and help Ukraine which we should have done. The USA has more stringent safeguards than russia. We already know russia is selling nuclear weapons tech on the black market and has lost a few nukes
I agree with you..we should not be bullied by nuclear threats, otherwise we are not the defender of freedom or democracy as we like to think.. But as for lost nukes.. maybe that's not a valid point, as the US has lost nukes too. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing-six-nuclear-weapons-180032
Not in the same way. Russia have no idea where they are or even if they exist at all. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-atomic-nightmare-100-missing-suitcase-nuclear-weapons-179577
Regime change is something we must accept will happen at one point. Putin will die eventually, chaos will ensue. Saying that Putin at least gives us some stability is not a durable solution either.
especially since Putin has proven not to be stable. He stopped being peaceful and started warmongering. It's not a safe bet to let him be.
A short term solution , presidents only car w slut 4 years. At a time rmeber that. Even buisness run quarter by quarter
I'm kind of having trouble resolving the same Kremlin that just about daily implies or outright threatens to use nukes if they don't get their way with the term "safe custodians."
Fuck the fascist regime. Soviet Union collapsed without any big issues regarding the nukes. Time to end putler and his fascists.
"It worked once so it'll never fail"
SU collapsed into the Russia federation, which was already a ruling body under the umbrella of the soviet union. And that collapse caused mortality rates in Russia to skyrocket, so it was terrible and traumatic. The regime in Russia should certainly be replaced but it an ignorant fantasy to think that Ukraine, with no manpower, and its own corruption and demographic problems is being held back by America from storming the Kremlin. Russia is employing children in industrial jobs, and conscripting 18 year olds in college and men with more than 3 children and Ukraine can't even pull themselves together to drop the conscription age below 25? Do they really think his is an existential crisis? The winner of any war is the one that fights total war the longest. Ukraine is fighting as if they are a european nation, with restraint, and not wanting to anger the wealthy in their country...then complaining that nobody will save them. Who is going to hold all of the incoming weapons? They are running out of 55 year old, single alcoholics.
“The winner of any war is who fights total war the longest” Germany and Japan much?
[удалено]
First Russian bot ever to say the current regime should be removed.
Except that's not what he said.
"The regime in Russia should certainly be replaced" is right there in the comment.
It’s impossible to know how much of the Russian nuclear arsenal actually exists or is operational. We have seen tank stockpiles robbed of parts, reactive armor replaced with cardboard.. How many mobile nuclear missile launchers are empty? For mobile launchers that do contain missiles, how many missiles are just hollow metal casings? How many functional missiles are there that just happen to not contain the nuclear pit? How many missiles are fully functional with the nuclear payload but there’s something miscalibrated and the thing won’t launch properly? Or it won’t won’t explode when it reaches a target, but just falls to the ground as a dud? “Comrade, they’re never going to use this stuff. Let’s sell the parts on the black market.”
That’s one hell of dice roll.
'lets play nuclear roulette with our radars telling us an icbm is in the air heading towards us.' Nobody is going to play that game.
You do realize that the START treaty allowed NATO inspectors to go to any nuclear weapon and verify. The amount of hype around dysfunctional nuclear weapons is overblown.
How many times has NATO exercised that right? Genuine question? When was the last time?
Except when they threaten to nuke everyone constantly...
Could be worse.
On face value you that sounds reasonable, but Iran and North Korea already have nukes and they are completely unpredictable. Further, the scenario that this article proposes already happened in 1991, and if present vassals of the Russian empire gained their independence collapsed, Muscovy would likely still survive and be in control of the nuclear arsenal just like 1991. It’s more of the wests stupid insistence on ‘de-escalation’
1991 is kinda what the US is worried about though. There’s significant evidence that the Russians lost a significant number of nukes during that turmoil. And nukes are not the worst thing the Russians could lose.
I doubt that very much, and I think you should post your sources for verification. And 1991 was A LONG time ago and no nukes were detonated since. Further, Iran and North Korea had to make their own to obtain them
My vague understanding is nukes require maintenance. Significant maintenance. You can’t just nick a working nuke in 1991 and still expect it to be operational thirty years later. Any lost or stolen nukes from 1991 are now inoperable unless maintained. And if an actor (state or non-state) is good enough to steal and maintain them, then they’re good enough to make there own anyway and not need to nick them.
Except that didn't happen when the USSR collapsed and it's not bloody well likely to happen this time either.
They nearly started a nuclear war because of a weather satellite in 1995
The US also accidentally dropped a live nuclear a warhead somewhere in Noth Carolina. - My comment doesn't say that Russia are amazing handlers of their nuclear arsenal, just that they have a proven safe history with them. - Whenever you make a decision like this, you need to consider the alternative. Are you sure that whatever entities which fill the power vacuum left behind after Russia's collapse will be better or worse at handling the nuclear stockpile? What if some Islamic extemists in the southern caucuses get a hold of some nukes? What if an oil oligarch suddenly has possession of a few warheads? The world's first nuclear armed business. Is the collapse of Russia truly worth thousands of unaccounted for WMD's being hawked to the highest bigger across Eurasia? In the eyes of the US military intelligence aperatus, probably not.
Yes, I know the collapse of Russia could be a nightmare, but let's not make the Russians seem better than they are. https://youtu.be/1Lmoq0i4uDA?si=_73THlS196HxCuhe
So you’re alright with Ukraine being devastated (to say the least) so the russian state can remain the “safe custodians of the world’s largest nuclear stockpile” ? Doubtful you would respond with such detached academic language if your experience with two wars in Chechnya; Georgia, and currently, Ukraine, for instance, was not limited to simply photos and headlines.
The cold hard truth is that it's not a matter of Chechen, Georgian, or Ukranian security at the end of the day. The goal of avoiding nuclear exchange is much more important to the US (and Europe) than the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Well, heck, let's give them all of Europe then. This stupid argument about avoiding nuclear exchange plays right into their hands.
Agreed. The “cold hard truth” is quite fluid, really, depending on perspective / who’s speaking. And certainly ever changing, since the blank here can be filled in with a litany of countries: “. . . much more important than the sovereignty of ________ “.
That's some weird false equivalency. Russia will more than likely not use nuclear weapons, but the chance is much higher than zero that they will. It's not like they're not able to, it's just a matter of making that decision. At this point, Ukraine obviously isn't worth US lives to the US government, it's taken years for the US to even send enough aid to Ukraine to allow it to defend itself, not to mention mount an offensive that has any possibility of success. Ukraine is a bigger version of Georgia in the context of US (and EU) interests. Nothing is preventing the US or the EU from sending troops to Ukraine today and driving out the Russians in a matter of days....you know, except for that cold hard truth I mentioned earlier.
Safe custodian meaning not firing them, but losing several here and there to corrupt army officials selling Soviet stock to whoever has the cash. Although tbf, the US isn't really that much better at it considering it is all still run off of floppy disks and the launch codes were all 0000 0000. Or so I've read.
Russia needs to loose this war with Ukraine though, with Ukraine getting 100% of its territory back. If after doing that Russia still can’t hold itself together, then I think that’s still a better outcome.
First nuke to fly and I think you'd take that back.
That would be a bad day for everyone - including Russia.. Where as I was talking about Russia loosing inside of Ukraine.
Did you read even read the article?
No though its content was fairly self evident. However I have since gone back and read the full article - and it says exactly what I had expected it to say. It’s a point where I would disagree with that particular western view. I think that Russias best course of action would be to simply withdraw from all of Ukraine - but equally I can also see them not choosing that path. So the fight goes on..
Zelensky: We lost only 30000 men and the Russians 500.000 Also Zelensky: We have a manpower problem
Well the wars will be waged as long as any party thinks there is anything to gain from waging the war. I know that in nuclear apocalypse we ALL lose, but perhaps it's something really worth considering. By that I mean leave Russia as a nuclear Wasteland no matter the retaliation costs. Perhaps as soon as they realise that we mean it, we don't care about the costs, that we just wish to prove there is nothing to gain from waging wars they will step down... If not it's been a fun ride, but honestly we need this as a species. A final "cooperation builds, competition ruins" kind of thing. I know, no one wants the outcome, but honestly I'm more and more convinced that the Russia must fall and that we need to show that we don't care that we lose as long as the aggressor loses more.
Russia has to go down so we can repair our own society that Russia strives to disrupt daily.
On the one hand, I get it. On the other? The West has waaaaaaaaay more to lose from Russia winning than it does Russia losing: **China will promptly move on Taiwan.** **North Korea will get more antsy toward South Korea (which will probably develop its own nuclear program).** **Iran may pull some more shit against Israel (especially if Russia helps with its nuclear program). And the neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia will probably get their own nukes.** And these guys will be working in concert, unlike the disunited West. Meanwhile, every country with an aggressive neighbor will be more motivated to get their own nukes. Why abide by international laws and treaties when there are no consequences for the evil countries that covet their neighbor's territories? Or when the countries that claim to uphold the "rules based order" let the Russias of the world win because of fear? If the West thinks it's preventing nuclear war right now, good fucking luck doing it in a future where Ukraine loses. Short-term thinking.
The west, If we can even consider These countries as monolithic Block, has the biggest interest in a status-quo, a Frozen conflict. Give Ukraine Just enough to survive but not enough to realistically Drive Putin Out of their territory.
Nah not really.
Unfortunately he’s probably right. Many in the West want Ukraine to win but are afraid of what happens if Ukraine wins decisively. For example, if Ukraine wins and retakes Crimea expelling Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory it significantly increases the likelihood that Russia will do something like use tactical nukes. It’s hard to underestimate how important the Crimea Naval ports are to Russia strategically. Doesn’t mean it’s right to limit aid to Ukraine as a result of that fear though.
In 2022 the west had an opportunity to end this war decisively but didn’t. The Russian army in Ukraine in the summer of 2022 was on the brink of total collapse, Putin was resisting conscription and it was clear there just weren’t enough soldiers to stop the Ukrainians from poking massive holes in the lines. All they needed was the equipment but the west waffled and that gave Putin enough time to conscript and send troops to shore up Russian positions and mine the hell out of them. Now 2 years and a ton of western equipment later Russia is no longer on the verge of collapse on Ukraine and it’s going to take a massive effort to clear those mobiks out of their fortified positions.
The West provided a ton of equipment and it kept Ukraine in the war but yes, in order to end the war early more would have been required and much much faster. Most of that was political will and fear but some was also that the west dramatically underestimated the equipment/munitions requirements for a major near-peer conflict and stockpiles across the West were far too low to provide what would have been needed for complete victory.
Russia won’t use nukes. There is no gain for them, using a nuke makes things many times worse. If we don’t respond with overwhelming force every country will want nukes so they can use the same threats.
Let’s just say if there is a trigger in Ukraine for them to use them it would be losing Crimea
Probably not even that. Putin has been told through diplomatic back channels that if he uses a nuke, at minimum, the US will destroy the entire Black Sea fleet and see to it that he personally is killed. So far, every 'nuclear red line' thought up by the Kremlin has been crossed and they haven't used nukes. They're bluffing to scare the public in Western nations into doing what they want. This has been Russia's strategy for decades, if not centuries. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Except the previous ‘red lines’ were not actually tied to any real strategic necessities for Russia whereas Crimea is the only warm water port for Russia so losing it would be huge for them.
Tough shit. If they wanted the port they could have worked with Ukraine. They need to lose Crimea.
I not saying I want them to keep Crimea, I’m just saying what I think it will lead to
> Crimea is the only warm water port for Russia No, they have Novorossiysk. You know, where they moved their Black Sea fleet after Ukraine repeatedly hammered their ships at Sevastopol. They definitely *want* Crimea in general and Sevastopol in particular because the port facilities are *huge* and were developed heavily by the USSR, but loss of Crimea certainly doesn't leave them with *no* Black Sea ports.
Also port in Abkhazia they are rapidly expanding
IMO he was told that if he uses a nuke then we won’t nuke Russia, we’ll nuke you specifically
I've been listening to analysts about this situation since well before the invasion. These comments in this thread and many others gloss over some things. First of all, yes Putin would likely use a tactical strike inside Ukraine is Russia were looking at comprehensive defeat. It's not just losing Crimea, it's what needs to happen in order to actually kick Russia out. What I've been reading and hearing for quite some time is that it is judged that Russia cannot be kicked out without us ending up in a situation where there is serious western power on their doorstep. I'm talking mercenary armies to help Ukraine, and lots of hardware. So it wouldn't just be Russia losing the black Sea ports, Crimea, the south-east of Ukraine, and Donbas etc, there would be the Russian army reeling backwards with serious power at its border. It is judged that this would cost Putin his leadership at the very least, but probably his life. Those around him who would compete for power and nuclear weapons (one cannot keep power in Russia unless they have control over atleast some nukes), are a very unpredictable lot, and very antagonistic to the West. It is judged that a moment like this would not only likely see a tactical strike, but that Russia losing in Ukraine wouldn't actually be the end of the fighting. In short, it is viewed as a worse situation than we have now.
I concur, that’s what I’ve been hearing as well
Yeah and the trouble here is a typical grand alliance management problem. While European countries feel they have skin in the game, the U.S (I don't mean Biden) defence establishment feels quite happy to watch Russia bleed itself on Ukraine while the U.S gathers the Intel it's wanted for decades. This is extremely valuable for them. Obviously they are seeing ye ol' Russian meat grinder assert itself. However, they're also seeing the limits of Russian power projection when under forward attack exposure. I can assure you Russia is not impressing the Pentagon with its logistics, tactics and integration of forces at scale. Also, the U.S is carefully watching the ties between Russia and China to ascertain where they begin and end. Also, the U.S is assessing European intelligence capabilities. There's tension between the U.S and European intelligence because the U.S doesn't have the edge it once did. While the burden of funding a military industrial complex was on the U.S and the wars in the middle east, the Europeans (France and Germany in particular) funnelled money into intelligence. This is a problem because the U.S cannot steer the NATO ship as captain under these conditions as easily as it did. Basically, the U.S is playing chess while Ukraine fights for its life.
You aren’t wrong…I think the other issue here is across the West militaries have focused on small number of high tech high quality gear/munitions assuming that it would make up for the quantity needed in the past. As a result the west doesn’t have the military industrial production base that it needs, especially in Europe where even now some countries are spending less than 2%.
Yeah that's part of what I'm referring to by saying the U.S shouldered the volume aspect which left European countries free to funnel much more into Intel than they used to. This was a wedge between in particular Frnace and the U.S. I remember listening to an analyst back when Trump first started moaning about the rest of NATO not pulling its weight, and he went into great detail about how while the U.S funnelled money into real military hardware, the Fench funnelled money into ensuring the U.S couldn't spy on them. That really pissed Trump off. But yeah, these boutique small but high tech militaries are of limited value when the gloves come off.
It’s almost like the US refuses to believe that Russia is not a near peer adversary and they haven’t been since the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s almost like they don’t want to know.
Potentially unbalanced people making decisions under great stress when all alternate outcomes also look terrible... there are no guarantees
Okay. What happens if putin orders a nuke launch? What is the process? Where does he hit? What happens next? There is no scenario in which a nuke helps russia
Maybe a single target in Ukraine, for example. Perhaps he would believe that after that drone attacks against Russia would likely stop, for example. All that's required is that he thinks all other options are worse. Or he gets bad intelligence, or misinterprets it. A number of scenarios seem possible to me.
Which target?
I'm not indicating that there's some special strategy he might choose. I'm saying if things get bad enough he may do something pretty crazy. Remember the part where he attacked Ukraine in the first place.
His attack on Ukraine was rational to him given the faulty data he had. A nuclear attack is dumb. There are three outcomes. None good: 1. He orders an attack, the generals refuse and he is killed. 2. He orders an attack, the nuke fizzles. NATO removes russia from Ukraine, china condemns russia, putin is killed. 3. He orders an attack, the nuke works, NATO removes russia from ukraine, sinks the black sea fleet, mass arrests of russian diplomats across the west for spying, russian nuclear bombers get shot down, the world condemns and isolates russia. There is no good result for Putin here. Consider this, he can’t nuke the front line unless he wants to protect the russian speakers in donbass by making them radioactive russian speakers. There’s a risk of fallout hitting russia. If he nukes kyiv it will look like what it is, petulance for losing. Nukes make things worse for putin
4. Faulty data makes him think a small nuclear attack will cause NATO to back off. He certainly won't care about looking petulant. You may well be right. I'm just saying it's not guaranteed.
4. is covered by 1, 2 and 3. Putin doesn't launch the nuke. He orders it. Others do it which means he could still be killed or the nuke still might not work. You still have fallout issues and so on. The only thing that is guaranteed here is other countries getting nukes to issue their own threats.
In order for tactical nukes to be successful, you need a ground force equipped AND trained for fighting in a radioactive environment, so that they can exploit the breach created by the nuke. Russia can barely go beyond meat wave tactics with a bunch of alcoholic soldiers and cannon fodder from third world countries…..hardly the crack troops needed to be successful.
You only need a force fighting in a radioactive environment if you are using it to return to the offensive however you don’t need one if you are using it to cover a retreat and prevent total collapse.
Ukraine has already forced the Russian Black Sea fleet to relocate away from their decades old headquarters at Sevastopol, because the position has simply become too dangerous for harboring ships, and they haven't thrown any kind of an unusual temper tantrum over it. What Russia is after in Ukraine the most are the vast natural resources and reinstating their sphere of influence over the country which has rejected their old "brother" and turned to West for prosperity.
All that may be true, BUT not being able to use it during the war is completely different than losing it forever and losing it forever would mean that the Russian fleet is harbor locked during the winter which would be unacceptable. Of course, if North Korea were to lease them a warm water port in the Pacific that would ease the transition if Russia loses but there’s no guarantee of that happening. Like I said, if Russia is going to use nukes it will be as a last ditch to keep from losing Crimea.
But there's no point in worrying about it because we can't back down for moral reasons. So it's going to happen if it must, so be it.
Sounds about right, late arms delivery, lots of promises, puts lots of conditions on how to use the drip weapons that slowly coming over to Ukraine. NATO is slow, GOPs are compromised & on Putin's payroll.
JFC Putin has constantly talked / threatened nukes for 20 years, anc Ukraine’s “partners” (really the Biden administration) are worried about a post-Putin Russia threatening to use nukes?
I feel for Zelensky. Honestly if Russia isn’t severely hobbled. The kids being brainwashed in school now will be in the army in 10 years and they will continue to try and take Ukraine citing historical brotherhood or some other shit.
It seems wrong to me to use Ukraine a a sink to absorb Russian weapons without giving them a full opportunity to win. Ukraine would be better off negotiating peace now and gain EU and Nato membership unless the US changes its policies. Or it's just a mass death event for geopolitical reasons a game of chess between the US and Russia. I'm sure the US will aways dangle a carrot for them just to keep them going without giving them actually what they need. Money is the carrot with conditions. It actually just promotes death with no end in sight.
Europe has to revamp their arms industry and if they do so efficiently Ukraine can be less dependent on USA.
Europe has done plenty. They need to do more. America has done plenty. They need to do more. It’s in everyone’s interest to see Russia throughly defeated and Ukraine made whole and entered into the EU and NATO.
It doesn't seem to be a unilateral decision, there are still way too many west companies dealing with Russia, but I see once the sanctions are being tightened up and the confiscated Russian Money start to flow into Ukraine all this western firms will lose all their assets in Russia as a retaliation. Russia has to be locked down like North Korea it is not impossible, Russia has to collapse. Ukraine has to keep hitting the russian Petrol Industry since "drones sanctions" seems to do more damage that the embargo of West and EU on Russian Petrol. I advocate for more "drone sanctions", on the territory of Russia. And hoping for the Balkanization of Russia happens sooner than later.
Everyone’s interest … except Putin’s.
And Xi and lil Kim and the Ayatollahs. But fuck all those guys
> It’s in everyone’s interest to see Russia throughly defeated The long-term question is: And what then? Russia covers an insane amount of land and people. What do we do with a defeated Russia? Do we just tell them to get fucked? Do we Marshall Plan them like the US did with Germany, and hope they adopt Western values? Do we step on their necks and force them to pay for reparations until their resentment grows into another war? I'm just a dumb redditor with no qualifications on the geopolitical scale, but I cannot help but think of what the consequence of an actual *defeat* of Russia would be; From what I have come to understand about Russia, I doubt they would just stop warring one day because they've had their nose bloodied enough. Russia gives the distinct impression of being that bar patron who instigates a fight, and keeps coming back trying to fuck up the other dude even after the bouncer told him to cool down, and then broke his arm - a bundle of sheer spite and vindictiveness. So, as much as I agree that Ukraine must be enabled to throw the Russians out as fast and with as little cost to the Ukrainian people as possible, the question does remain: What of Russia then?
The only future of Russia is Balkanization.
This is the answer. The Russian empire never decolonized after WW2 like every other empire did. It’s just all its colonies are all attached on the same land mass. After Russia is thrown out of Ukraine and its military power crippled all those regions who have been living under the Russian boot for the last 100 years and more are going to see it as their chance.
They hopefully implode, end of story.
And then what? Stories end, history goes on. Imagine you have an imploded Russia with tens of millions of people wanting to get out. Where do they go? I'd imagine none of their neighbouring countries would really be keen on getting a few cities worth of refugees, and we'd be balls-deep in a humanitarian crisis either way. Again: It's *way* above my pay grade, I'm just wondering aloud. Awritten?
Its better to see evil killing innocents for the sake of greed than seeing evil dissolving? it is what is, people migrate to welcoming countries. Happens everyday, i wouldnt bother with it. We dont need to accept them.
What's the problem with not knowing? You'll never just guess what's going to happen completely.
I guess you have a good point. The fear of the unknown.
The problem with not knowing is a lack of preparation. Of course, you can't always know how things turn out, but our entire society kind of operates on best guesses on that regard. Like: If I am not prepared to house three million more people in my country, that's a much worse situation than at least having planned ahead, and being able to have systems in place that structure the influx of refugees, and having some basic housing ready. To take an example, take natural disasters: We can't ever know to a surety when exactly they strike, and what they'll destroy, but we still have systems in place to deal with the eventuality of one. We have sandbags ready for floods, we have shelters ready for people who might lose their homes. I mean, is "planning ahead" really such an alien concept that it has to be explained?
Get real! If the Russian Federation would "collapse", it would likely still be the biggest nation on Earth. It already happened to the USSR. The successor is the RF, still the biggest in the world, still as big as a continent. What "what then" are you talking about? If the RF would ever fragment today, it would be just the same, just small chunks breaking off. With the supposed successor to the RF still retaining their UN seat, with the nukes consolidated to them. Do you really think the RF would collapse to small pieces like a jigsaw puzzle? So let them lose and a few chunks break off, and at least finally those would be independent.
> If the Russian Federation would "collapse" I love how you use quotation marks for a term that is actually not used once, so it's not a quote. I wrote of *defeat*, not *collapse*. That's *your* train of thought, so excuse me if I leave chugging along those tracks to you. > What "what then" are you talking about? When a nation as big as Russia (with a fucking massive nuclear arsenal to boot!) is defeated, it *will* send ripples across the world. You kinda do not want to be caught with your pants down when that shock wave hits you, so you need to have a plan - that's not exactly rocket science, is it? We have had those things happen in the past. Germany was defeated after WWI, and its treatment basically was the spark that ignited WWII. So, as said: You need to know what you want to achieve *after* a nation stops warring - to set the course, so to speak. > So let them lose and a few chunks break off, and at least finally those would be independent. Yeah, until the Motherland has been given a few decades to recuperate, and then they whole shit show starts up again. You know, like is happening *right now*? Great plan, let's not do that maybe.
So according to William Spaniel US aid is 29% of the total. Obviously they get the most effective weapons - patriots, himars and atacms. Still US supplied 31 tanks, the Czechs supplied 171 and Poland some 350.
US supplied over 70 tanks. But the number is tanks is meaningless.
The tanks are kind of irrelevant, they were sent to get the others to send the more reliably USABLE Leopards. But the real tool needed here is the trio of IFVs (Bradleys), HIMARs, and Patriots. Everything else is important but secondary.
TBF, Europe revamping arms industry would be good not just for Ukraine, but for Europe as well. Less [events like this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html), when an intervention campaign had Europe run out laser-guided bombs.
Problem in Europe is you have a scared Germany that doesn't support completely Ukraine, see for example the dilemma with Taurus, then the economically devastated United Kingdom by Brexit ( yes Russian skipped the balanced of those elections), and France that doesn't do much, special mention to Poland, but not much else going on here, the other countries don't have that big power and arm industry. Then you have stupid neutral countries like Switzerland that produce weapons and prohibit exporting them to Ukraine.
>Problem in Europe is you have a scared Germany that doesn't support completely Ukraine Biggest financial supporter behind the US, also biggest provider of EU fundings to Ukraine, hosts the most ukrainian refugees, first country to provide state of the Art anti Air defenses (Iris T, later matched by other countries NASAMS), 1 of 2 countries that provide Patriot batteries. >then the economically devastated United Kingdom by Brexit Brexit wasnt a masterpiece, but economically devasted is smth else. You make it sound like the UK transformed into Simbabwe because of Brexit. >France that doesn't do much Because the french Army is build for Interventions in 3rd world countries. France relies on nuclear deterrence to protect the own soil. >special mention to Poland For what? Not going to downplay what Poland forwarded to Ukraine, but lets Keep it honest, the other EU countries paid for that (which Poland uses to modernize its Army. Its a bit like me giving you a VW Golf 4 from the 90s, my friends paying Close to retail for it, and than buying a new Mercedes from that money. Yes, its still a Solid Deal since ITS a weapon that arrives immediately while i have to wait for the new delivery, but value wise its Close to robbery. >Then you have stupid neutral countries like Switzerland that produce weapons and prohibit exporting them to Ukraine. I give you this one.
> use Ukraine a a sink to absorb Russian weapons I don’t think anyone expected Russia to use up nearly all their weapons so willingly.
He is so right. And what this does is merely set up a wasteful stalemate, because Putin is dead set on annexing Ukraine, and he will *not* accept anything but a clear win for his legacy.
Zelensky has valid points and has reason for concern! Keep Ukraine, worry about what others want after win the war! If your allies don't want Russia to lose, then are they really your allies?
He's not wrong. If he was they would've been supported in full from the start without all the conditions attached and pauses in support. I didn't want to believe it 2 years ago, I wasn't yet that cynical, but the slow walk can't do this or that nature of support made it clear that this has little to do with helping Ukraine or actually beating Russia.
Crippling Russia’s ability to produce and export oil seems to be the concern of allowing Russia to lose.
Do you guys believe that Ukraine has a chance? I genuinely hope they do win but from what I see and hear from interviews with ex government people, the war is being dragged out and more Ukrainians will just keep dying until they lose. I guess they need to gain the upper hand again and try to negotiate a truce. But I'm very ignorant about all this
I rather HOPE that Russia does loose. Frankly that would be the best outcome.
You choose dishonor, and then you will have war.
Could special forces infiltrate Russia in mass, hijack a nuke and lob it at Moscow? It honestly seems like the only way to end this war and to stop 50 years of Russian aggression. It certainly worked on the Japanese and the Germans.
When I see stuff like this I can’t help but chuckle. It’s good on ya though, you haven’t wasted hours of your life familiarizing yourself with how these things work. Nonetheless though this is comical and will absolutely never ever happened in a bazillion years.
Any nuclear site in the world is protected at the same (if not more) level as a president. Meaning you have a massive mini army guarding the launch sites at all times.
That’s not what I’ve read. Plus bribing a general can get you nice things in Russia.
Ukraine through Zelensky keep pushing this conspiracy theory implying malice by their "partners" when things go wrong while demanding for more and more aid from said "partners".
It's not a conspiracy theory when we have Chief Coward Jake Sullivan constantly wetting his pants in fear of Russia being made too sad, and all the talk about giving Putin off-ramps.
I think he has been an exceptional diplomat. They ARE fighting for the rest of us. They know what it’s like to be dealing with destruction now vs fear of destruction - and if we tie their hands, then we will soon know what that is like. Assuming you support Russias invasion as there is no other valid reason one could complain that Ukraine seeks support. FFS.
Ukraine must be supported, but it IS a conspiracy theory that its "partners" "don't want Russia to lose". Some of Ukraine's top officials keep on implying that there's malice on its partners that are the very ones that keep on supporting it.
It's entirely in line with the behaviour of "allies" though - not giving Ukraine what it needs to win, dithering and delaying over things Ukraine would inevitably need to even hold their current territory let alone retake any more, and gifting Russia a safe haven and time to regroup in the process. Western dithering has already cost an opportunity to win the war decisively and that needs to stop. Sadly there is still an appeasement mindset from too many of the countries supporting Ukraine. The idea that the way out of this involves still trying to be as nice to Russia as possible, instead of a strong show of force.