Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Slant]

If Russia wanted to further mobilize the West against them, to the point where directly attacking a pipeline could even be pushed as a reason for triggering article 5, then yeah.... sure....

It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.

[Lathspell]

It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.

They bombed a pipeline that is in Sweden and Denmark, regardless of who owns it. This could be seen as a direct military assault against those countries, one of which is a NATO member. The problem is that it is hard to prove who did I guess.

[P for Pancetta]

It's not going to trigger Art. 5. The West has no interest in a direct confrontation. Actually, the West would prefer if Russia didn't force their hand, because it would look like a typical discussion on here, where you start out with "Russia vs. US, who would win?" and inevitably, on page one, some guy goes "Yeah, but nukes!" and the discussion is over, because all that's left to do is see who is left after the fallout.

Some dumb pipeline that doesn't even belong to Europe? Yeah, not going to make anyone overly uncomfortable, although of course the horse will be beaten to a pulp diplomatically before all of this is over.

I agree that this is often the case, but It shouldn't be. Before the start of the great war, as WW1 was then called, many intellectuals argued that a great war was not going to happen because of the large armies that nations had build up acting as a protection against war, because a full scale war would lead too the destruction of all nations involved and was therefore unthinkable. An argument used was the Chinese Civil war that started in ~1850 had caused between 20-30million casualties, and that the western nations with their much bigger armies and much more advances weaponry would lead to a much bloodier conflict (the chinese started the rebellion using mainly spears/swords/bows and handcannons tied to sticks along with terracotta "handgrenades".

Yet obviously the first world war did happen.

I don't believe that if Russia where to use a nuclear weapon as a show of force that the US would respond with nuclear weapons themselves. I think their main priority is disabling Russia's launching capabilities ASAP and I believe they'll most likely have more efficient weapons for that. Additionally I could see the US throw a heavy nuke on a Russian bunker/base hidden deep within Siberia far from civilization just to show they're capable of reaching everywhere within Russia.

I think a big error in this debate is the idea of MAD. I don't believe Russia has the capability to destroy the US and Europe. theoretically if they'd launch all their launchable weaponry simultaneously it could destroy large parts of the western world, but even then that would just be the start of a really horrible and short war that Russia would lose. In reality there are the possibilities of countermeasures, weapon and equipment malfunctions, refusals to execute orders, breakdown in communications, sabotage and many more that'll make the real world scenario play out less apocalyptic, yet ultimately still devastating and world changing.

The only way that Russia can reliably hit the US is though the use of their submarines, and if they were to station all their nuclear missile subs around the US and launch all their weapons and hit all their targets the US would obviously be devastated, but it would still be around and capable of fighting back. Theoretically they could shoot one of their ICBMs toward the US but these things are huge, and can't be launched from just anywhere. They can only be launched from relatively deep within Russia, their launch would most likely be detected and while they go very fast and far, they can't deviate much from their projected path without losing significant range, and they're going to need all of it to hit the west coast. A large cloud of metal particles deposited in it's projected path would shred the missile long before it could split up.

On top of that Russia is suspecting the US of having loitering ICBMs that can enter the orbit and from there change their course, which means that unlike the Russian missiles that have to travel along a thousands miles long path which is entirely predictable the US ones can just change course when orbiting above Russia, even when already detected and tracked (very difficult) there would only be a few seconds between them finding out it's intended target and the moment of impact.

I won't say Putin won't use a nuke, but realistically speaking it'd a very bad move for him and Russia. Using a single nuke as a show of force would most likely sour his relationship with China and India further. It would open the floodgates for military intervention from all over the world. after that and even if all things go according to his designs when going for a nuclear apocalypses Russia would still lose, and Putin will die. And his greatest enemy the US would most likely come out of it largely unscathed.

This would cement his legacy as the worst and weakest leader in the history of Russia. The reason why I think he could use a single one is because that would be a catastrophically bad idea for him and blow up in his face which is kind of his playbook at this moment.

[Gabriel]

I'm still not completely convinced it wasn't actually Finland taking a revenge on Germany for the Uniper episode.

[Iphie]

I'm still not completely convinced it wasn't actually Finland taking a revenge on Germany for the Uniper episode.

I know you're not serious, but what's that?

[zealo]

They bombed a pipeline that is in Sweden and Denmark, regardless of who owns it. This could be seen as a direct military assault against those countries, one of which is a NATO member. The problem is that it is hard to prove who did I guess.

It's in our economic zone, not on our territory. The pipeline is in international water in other regards and didn't belong to either country.

[Gabriel]

I know you're not serious, but what's that?

Long story short, The government fucked up by selling some Fortum owned infrastructure and immediately investing all the money into a German power company Uniper. Gas prices surged but the majority of contracts Uniper had with its clients were at fixed rate, and the Finnish government, through Fortum, ended up having to pay about 10 billion euros to keep Uniper alive by paying the market rate for gas while Uniper continued to deliver it to their customers at fraction of the market price.

It was 110% the fault of the Finnish government monkeys for making retarded decisions, but in my head-canon the bombing of the gas lines was Finland sending a message to Germany about relying on russian gas.

[Breccia]

Russia has repeatedly cut off its own nose to spite its face so them sabotaging the pipeline would not surprise me.

Artificially driving up the prices might be a desperate act. Their economy will die out in winter if they don't change course.

Meanwhile, US Embassy tells Americans to flee Russia.

[The Stormbringer]

Oh hey, it sounds like Putin has taken over a lot of the decisions for the war. Surely this will go well for them! /s

[Skulltaker]

Oh hey, it sounds like Putin has taken over a lot of the decisions for the war. Surely this will go well for them! /s

Well, it could mean a potentially quicker end to the war. When ol' Adolf took over his immediate decision was to attack Russia, so maybe, in an equally smart move, he'll attack China?

[Iphie]

So, Donetsk at least, Kherson and Zaporozhzhia negotiable?

I obviously don't think that's what the russians mean but you could read it like that.

[Breccia]

Well, it could mean a potentially quicker end to the war. When ol' Adolf took over his immediate decision was to attack Russia, so maybe, in an equally smart move, he'll attack China?

Putin wants to reform the USSR. China was never part of that.

He did just up the penalties for dodging the draft, and wartime desertion, to 10 and 15 years each. He's not fucking around, he wants the absolute least motivated, least trained, worst fucking army ever to continue a war he's already losing. Already Russians are fleeing the country in hordes and fleeing their jobs lest they get drafted there. Putin's going to end up with, well, "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".

[Specialka]

Putin wants to reform the USSR. China was never part of that.

He did just up the penalties for dodging the draft, and wartime desertion, to 10 and 15 years each. He's not fucking around, he wants the absolute least motivated, least trained, worst fucking army ever to continue a war he's already losing. Already Russians are fleeing the country in hordes and fleeing their jobs lest they get drafted there. Putin's going to end up with, well, "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".

Nah, he does not want to reform the USSR. He wants the old Great Russian Empire back with him as Tzar.

[Crispin]

Nah, he does not want to reform the USSR. He wants the old Great Russian Empire back with him as Tzar.

Seems more like a showcase of what happens when the incompetent leads the unmotivated.

[Zaydin]

Seems more like a showcase of what happens when the incompetent leads the unmotivated.

I wouldn't call Putler 'incompetent' in the sense at being a bad leader. He is, however, an incompetent military leader/general.

I wouldn't be shocked if he was the one who ordered that elite paratrooper unit get dropped at the airport at Kyiv to try and use it as a bridgehead to take the capital only for them to get effectively wiped out or taken prisoner when the ground troops couldn't reach them fast enough (AKA what happened to some Allied paratrooper units during Operation Market Garden in WW2).

In other news, the US is shipping 18 more HIMARS to Ukraine in the next batch of military aid, doubling their total from 16 to 34. Given how effectively Ukraine has used Saint HIMARS so far I can only hope they do much more with double the number.

[Slant]

They bombed a pipeline that is in Sweden and Denmark, regardless of who owns it. This could be seen as a direct military assault against those countries, one of which is a NATO member. The problem is that it is hard to prove who did I guess.

There's that, it's hard to prove. Then there's the limited scope of the damage and lack of severity to respond with Art. 5. Art. 5 is designed against open acts of aggression, not something that just barely goes beyond the "oops, it's an accident" stage. Sabotage is barely worth discussing for Art. 5. You have counter intelligence to deal with that type of shit. Proportionality is key if you want to avoid WW3.

Which people on the internet these days apparently don't. There is a time and place, today is not the day to call Art. 5.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that this is often the case, but It shouldn't be. Before the start of the great war, as WW1 was then called, many intellectuals argued that a great war was not going to happen because of the large armies that nations had build up acting as a protection against war, because a full scale war would lead too the destruction of all nations involved and was therefore unthinkable. An argument used was the Chinese Civil war that started in ~1850 had caused between 20-30million casualties, and that the western nations with their much bigger armies and much more advances weaponry would lead to a much bloodier conflict (the chinese started the rebellion using mainly spears/swords/bows and handcannons tied to sticks along with terracotta "handgrenades".

Yet obviously the first world war did happen.

I don't believe that if Russia where to use a nuclear weapon as a show of force that the US would respond with nuclear weapons themselves. I think their main priority is disabling Russia's launching capabilities ASAP and I believe they'll most likely have more efficient weapons for that. Additionally I could see the US throw a heavy nuke on a Russian bunker/base hidden deep within Siberia far from civilization just to show they're capable of reaching everywhere within Russia.

I think a big error in this debate is the idea of MAD. I don't believe Russia has the capability to destroy the US and Europe. theoretically if they'd launch all their launchable weaponry simultaneously it could destroy large parts of the western world, but even then that would just be the start of a really horrible and short war that Russia would lose. In reality there are the possibilities of countermeasures, weapon and equipment malfunctions, refusals to execute orders, breakdown in communications, sabotage and many more that'll make the real world scenario play out less apocalyptic, yet ultimately still devastating and world changing.

The only way that Russia can reliably hit the US is though the use of their submarines, and if they were to station all their nuclear missile subs around the US and launch all their weapons and hit all their targets the US would obviously be devastated, but it would still be around and capable of fighting back. Theoretically they could shoot one of their ICBMs toward the US but these things are huge, and can't be launched from just anywhere. They can only be launched from relatively deep within Russia, their launch would most likely be detected and while they go very fast and far, they can't deviate much from their projected path without losing significant range, and they're going to need all of it to hit the west coast. A large cloud of metal particles deposited in it's projected path would shred the missile long before it could split up.

On top of that Russia is suspecting the US of having loitering ICBMs that can enter the orbit and from there change their course, which means that unlike the Russian missiles that have to travel along a thousands miles long path which is entirely predictable the US ones can just change course when orbiting above Russia, even when already detected and tracked (very difficult) there would only be a few seconds between them finding out it's intended target and the moment of impact.

I won't say Putin won't use a nuke, but realistically speaking it'd a very bad move for him and Russia. Using a single nuke as a show of force would most likely sour his relationship with China and India further. It would open the floodgates for military intervention from all over the world. after that and even if all things go according to his designs when going for a nuclear apocalypses Russia would still lose, and Putin will die. And his greatest enemy the US would most likely come out of it largely unscathed.

This would cement his legacy as the worst and weakest leader in the history of Russia. The reason why I think he could use a single one is because that would be a catastrophically bad idea for him and blow up in his face which is kind of his playbook at this moment.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions and a whole lot of optimistic guessing. Thank god people like you aren't in charge. Nobody knows what will happen if Russia launches a nuke. I'm not even convinced the Americans are 100% sure of what they should do if it happens. I would not presume to say "Oh, they only hit Ukraine, who cares". One thing I'm certain of, the US, and the EU have a massive interest in preventing the normalisation of nuclear weapons as an extension of military force.

I think a good, rational case can be made for a nuclear response to be almost mandatory. The whole idea about MAD is not very well understood by most people. It's not just about "Oh, they launch nuke, so let's blow up the planet". It's a wargame where strategists sat down and played the game of WW3 and inevitably came to the conclusion that it always ends like in the movie Wargame. One nuke here, one nuke there, escalation within hours and no way to stop it unless you're prepared to sacrifice your nation for the survival of humanity. And this would probably happen if you don't respond with a nuke yourself. I mean, the second Putin gets the idea into his head that he can just nuke shit without retaliation... oof, some people are going to have a bad day when that happens.

So, all in all... considering this pipeline: Nothing but talk will happen. I can promise you that. Of all the things that are going into the shitter these days, that pipeline is at the bottom of the list.

[Kokolums]

I think people don't understand what is going on, but the mainstream media just confuses the issue. I'll try to explain this war in as few words as possible, so this post is not meant to be nuanced, its meant to convey exactly what is going on in few words.


The US has been bombing Russia (Belgorod) for months. Russia will nuke in response if it doesn't stop.


Everything else is just details. That's what really matters to the planet here.

[Kaleredar]

I think people don't understand what is going on, but the mainstream media just confuses the issue. I'll try to explain this war in as few words as possible, so this post is not meant to be nuanced, its meant to convey exactly what is going on in few words.


The US has been bombing Russia (Belgorod) for months. Russia will nuke in response if it doesn't stop.


Everything else is just details. That's what really matters to the planet here.

Awww, does poor little Russia have a problem with being attacked by other countries?

And maybe the country they're actively in pitched warfare against is bombing them, and not super-secret US CIA chemical plant warplanes.

And if Russia has a problem with being attacked, they can always just leave Ukraine.

[Iphie]

@Slant

I think you can add every nuclear armed nation to that list, maybe not North Korea but even them I currently see as more reliable and responsible than russia. Even if the US and China came to blows I'm not sure it'll end up nuclear, russia Vs the US or China? Almost guaranteed to go nuclear.

Art. 5 will likely not be invoked for something like this no, unless it's on sovereign territory of NATO (+Finland and Sweden), but it is a bit of a soft deterrent.

[Gorsameth]

I think people don't understand what is going on, but the mainstream media just confuses the issue. I'll try to explain this war in as few words as possible, so this post is not meant to be nuanced, its meant to convey exactly what is going on in few words.


The US has been bombing Russia (Belgorod) for months. Russia will nuke in response if it doesn't stop.


Everything else is just details. That's what really matters to the planet here.

The US has been bombing Belgorod for months and there are still buildings left standing? unlike the Russian army I don't think the US army would be capable of that level of incompetence.

Did you mean to say that Ukraine has struck at fuel and ammo storage near Belgorod twice? in the last 7 months?

I can see how you might confuse the 2, they are after all very similar.

Ps.
I think one of those 2 was explained by Russia as an accident with smoking or some such, so really its 1 attack in 7 months.