Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Iphie]

My surprised face when russia breaks an agreement.

I know I'm usually a more moderate voice but at this point I'm more surprised when russia keeps a promise. (NB: by moderate I mean: not necessarily agreeing with more radical solutions, the russian leadership and army can get bent for the most part though.)

Very convenient, russia is still determining what they annexed, so basically they can just say: those areas liberated weren't liberated as we never annexed those anyway...

[Slant]

I think the alternative is every single country with a border with Russia either joining NATO or joining a defense agreement with China.
We have the Baltics, we will have Finland and inevitably Ukraine. Georgia is not unlikely and in the shit state Russia will be in by the end of the war, the only thing stopping Georgia from joining NATO is objections within NATO over the state of its democracy. And Georgia very much should consider action because they are the very next in line for a Russian invasion over Abkhazia. Everything Russia is doing to Ukraine they already did to Georgia back in 2008 and we all just let them.
The real question would be Azerbaijan, Turkey would probably champion them joining but there would need to be a competent solution to Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia with Armenia possibly also joining.

Kazakhstan and Mongolia are interesting cases. Both are Russian allies and both balance the interests of Russia and China (with Mongolia also having substantial western interests). If Russians did invade either, I don't think it would be the West's war to have; it would be a proxy war with China and Western leadership would probably love seeing it as long as it is not substantially disruptive to the world economy. Not even the Russians would invade North Korea, they aren't that stupid.

Yo, NATO isn't a charity organisation. We don't need the third world included. And it's the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty, not the "surrounding Russia" treaty. Ukraine is really already the easternmost I would consider, anything not in Europe or North America is of no interest to NATO. They can join some Pacific defense pact with Japan and the US as the core.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is that in the West, tactical nukes are considered nuclear armament while they are considered conventional armament in the "East" (Russian and Chine for instance). So that is definitively what they will say if one would be used.

Not that anyone gives a shit what Russia calls things these days. Like seriously, if Putin called them rabbit toys it would have the same meaning as anything else he says. Russia is full of shit and we should refuse to play by their rules or accept their definitions. Once you start that, you're one step closer to accepting that Donetsk is now Russian.

Nah, fuck that. If he uses tactical nukes, we should use them, too.

On Moscow.

- - - Updated - - -

nooks a nook, doesn't matter if they chuck one at snake island as a show of force. once you cross the Rubicon like that it would demand an answer from Nato.

That's a sensible notion, Jonny.

[Specialka]

Yo, NATO isn't a charity organisation. We don't need the third world included. And it's the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty, not the "surrounding Russia" treaty. Ukraine is really already the easternmost I would consider, anything not in Europe or North America is of no interest to NATO. They can join some Pacific defense pact with Japan and the US as the core.

- - - Updated - - -



Not that anyone gives a shit what Russia calls things these days. Like seriously, if Putin called them rabbit toys it would have the same meaning as anything else he says. Russia is full of shit and we should refuse to play by their rules or accept their definitions. Once you start that, you're one step closer to accepting that Donetsk is now Russian.

Nah, fuck that. If he uses tactical nukes, we should use them, too.

On Moscow.

- - - Updated - - -



That's a sensible notion, Jonny.

As I said, most people don't know the difference. Most tactical nukes are under the 500km range, which put Moscow out of range for most of them. Nuff said.

It is not a simple problem to answer. Who would fire it ? From where ? How should we respond ? Etc... I know we have a lot of armchair generals here, but get serious a little.

[Gabriel]

Nah, fuck that. If he uses tactical nukes, we should use them, too.

On Moscow.

Based fellow moderate.

[Voidism]

The fact that we talk about "oh no, they'll use nukes!" tells me that ALL nukes are strategic.
If they were "tactical" this wouldn't be an issues talked about this way.

There are small nukes and big nukes. All are strategic. None of them practical for warfare.

[Nymrohd]

Yo, NATO isn't a charity organisation. We don't need the third world included. And it's the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty, not the "surrounding Russia" treaty. Ukraine is really already the easternmost I would consider, anything not in Europe or North America is of no interest to NATO. They can join some Pacific defense pact with Japan and the US as the core.

Using the North Atlantic term to define NATO's geographical limitations is quite inane given I don't know, that most of the members (Germany included) do not really border the North Atlantic. Georgia is actually considered one of the transcontinental countries as the Caucasus is widely considered the transcontinental barrier between Asia and Europe in the region (alongside the Urals, Ural river and the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles) and both Georgia and Azerbaijan extent at places on both sides of the range. Armenia is indeed solidly in Asia which is why I only included it provisionally there. NATO has officially recognized Georgia as an aspiring member.

And this entire mess SHOULD have ended back in 2008 when Russia did to Georgia EXACTLY what they would later do to Ukraine in 2014 and we all ignored it. So I don't know, maybe we should not be ignoring Georgia either.

[Vakna]

As I said, most people don't know the difference. Most tactical nukes are under the 500km range, which put Moscow out of range for most of them. Nuff said.

It is not a simple problem to answer. Who would fire it ? From where ? How should we respond ? Etc... I know we have a lot of armchair generals here, but get serious a little.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the definition of each is. If Russia uses any kind of weapon that has a nuclear payload the gloves are off and Russia is done. Maybe the rest of the world is done too if it escalates, but Russia certainly is. There is absolutely no excuse, naming convention or otherwise, that justifies the use of these weapons. Even if they fire off a nuke that only has the destructive capability to kill a small mouse. Glass them.

Naming conventions and what Russia considers nuclear armaments are irrelevant, the response will be the same either way.

[Feltima]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the definition of each is. If Russia uses any kind of weapon that has a nuclear payload the gloves are off and Russia is done. Maybe the rest of the world is done too if it escalates, but Russia certainly is. There is absolutely no excuse, naming convention or otherwise, that justifies the use of these weapons. Even if they fire off a nuke that only has the destructive capability to kill a small mouse. Glass them.

Naming conventions and what Russia considers nuclear armaments are irrelevant, the response will be the same either way.

If we glass Russia, we glass the world. Who knows how well maintained that massive arsenal has been since the '90s, but if only 30% are launch ready, there goes the Earth.

[Makabreska]

If we glass Russia, we glass the world. Who knows how well maintained that massive arsenal has been since the '90s, but if only 30% are launch ready, there goes the Earth.

With what we have seen they equip their soldiers, 30% seems waaaaay to generous.

[Iphie]

Can anyone who can read russian give some confirmation of this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisO_wi...KHuSgvKdrHQ0Tg

[Feltima]

With what we have seen they equip their soldiers, 30% seems waaaaay to generous.

Assuming that RU hasn't been saving its real arsenal for conflict with NATO in a similar manner to the US offloading billions worth of outdated(but still clearly formidable) hardware, all the more reason to believe the controllers are in good shape. The reason I say this, is that having a launch-ready nuclear arsenal comparable to the USA is far more valuable than maintaining a conventional military.

- - - Updated - - -

Can anyone who can read russian give some confirmation of this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisO_wi...KHuSgvKdrHQ0Tg

JFC, wild if true.

[Gabriel]

If we glass Russia, we glass the world. Who knows how well maintained that massive arsenal has been since the '90s, but if only 30% are launch ready, there goes the Earth.

Yeah, no.

On paper, the amount of money russia spends on their nuclear arsenal is in the same ballpark as the UK and France. That's something like 100-300 deployed warheads. Knowing russia, 10-90% of that money was funneled into crocodil and prostitutes, so the number of nukes they would be able to launch is a fraction of the number that the Doomsayers like to parrot.

[Makabreska]

Assuming that RU hasn't been saving its real arsenal for conflict with NATO in a similar manner to the US offloading billions worth of outdated(but still clearly formidable) hardware, all the more reason to believe the controllers are in good shape. The reason I say this, is that having a launch-ready nuclear arsenal comparable to the USA is far more valuable than maintaining a conventional military.

How often nukes are being used vs using a conventional army? Nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrence that no one wants to test, therefore you don't need them usable. You need a message that you have nukes that are usable. So I think it is way more possible that all this supposed stockpile has been mostly rotting away, considering the state of Russian economy, corruption in army and general cost of maintaining nukes. Russia kept saying they have a might army, and it was all lies.

[Edge-]

Can anyone who can read russian give some confirmation of this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisO_wi...KHuSgvKdrHQ0Tg

What if like...people don't buy all that shit? Like, eventually conscripts are gonna rebel over being forced into debt their families can't afford to buy supplies for a losing war they don't want to go to and may not return from while their countries economy remains in the tank? I know some lad already shot up a conscription center or something but like, how long until that shit spreads?

[Makabreska]

Oooooooof shits getting personal:

[Vakna]

If we glass Russia, we glass the world. Who knows how well maintained that massive arsenal has been since the '90s, but if only 30% are launch ready, there goes the Earth.

And that is why Putin will never use nukes, because not only will everyone die, but he and his country dies too, there is no winner when you let one of those off the leash, all other justifications and comparisons are irrelevant.

[Gabriel]

Oooooooof shits getting personal:

Take that Putin!

[Forogil]

With what we have seen they equip their soldiers, 30% seems waaaaay to generous.

Well, 30% launch ready may be possible - launching missiles is similar to launching things to space and Russia manages that fairly regularly.

Whether they actually would hit and explode with close to the intended strength is another matter - the explosive part is complicated because of the need for specialized timing of high explosives and maintaining hydrogen isotopes. But, in the unlikely event that it is tested, the rest of the world will likely counter-launch before we know that.

[Zemini7]

Russia has over 6k nukes that require billions of dollars in yearly maintenance. Considering their plundered/corrupt military and brain drain, I wouldn't be surprised if only a handful (if any) were still being cleaned and repaired. Not a risk one should take obviously, but im confident that 99% of their arsenal is rotting in some bunker.

I wonder if Russia will consider testing one of their old nukes on their own soil. If it goes off then we should be worried.

[Slant]

As I said, most people don't know the difference. Most tactical nukes are under the 500km range, which put Moscow out of range for most of them. Nuff said.

It is not a simple problem to answer. Who would fire it ? From where ? How should we respond ? Etc... I know we have a lot of armchair generals here, but get serious a little.

You need to get serious. Tactical nukes as in local, immediate effect NUCLEAR weapons is a fantasy. All nukes are strategic. It's not just wiping out the local brigade, it's deterring further opposition.

But okay, let's get serious: NATO must respond to any use of nukes. Even dirty bombs should be met with a nuclear strike as a response. MAD must not be compromised, cos if you don't take it seriously and don't immediately, decisively strike back... all you've got left is a criminal oligarch with access to nukes and a taste for imperialism.

This is one of the few points in life where the choice is binary.

- - - Updated - - -

Using the North Atlantic term to define NATO's geographical limitations is quite inane given I don't know, that most of the members (Germany included) do not really border the North Atlantic. Georgia is actually considered one of the transcontinental countries as the Caucasus is widely considered the transcontinental barrier between Asia and Europe in the region (alongside the Urals, Ural river and the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles) and both Georgia and Azerbaijan extent at places on both sides of the range. Armenia is indeed solidly in Asia which is why I only included it provisionally there. NATO has officially recognized Georgia as an aspiring member.

And this entire mess SHOULD have ended back in 2008 when Russia did to Georgia EXACTLY what they would later do to Ukraine in 2014 and we all ignored it. So I don't know, maybe we should not be ignoring Georgia either.

I consider Georgia a very debatable candidate. And NATO was always understood to include EUROPE, because EUROPE owns one half of the Atlantic Ocean.

Be that as it may, we get to pick and choose the partners. I have my views, you have yours. And I'm not seeing the point of countries like Armenia or Azerbaidjan in NATO. They need to sort out their bullshit first. One Turkey/Greece is enough already, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no.

On paper, the amount of money russia spends on their nuclear arsenal is in the same ballpark as the UK and France. That's something like 100-300 deployed warheads. Knowing russia, 10-90% of that money was funneled into crocodil and prostitutes, so the number of nukes they would be able to launch is a fraction of the number that the Doomsayers like to parrot.

I would agree with this. Looking at the current state of their military in Ukraine, I doubt this isn't a systemic problem and also affects their nuclear arsenal. The Ukraine war is really the only "important" thing for the Russian military going on right now, everything else being the same meaningless "guarding against NATO" bullshit that doesn't require good equipment since NATO won't attack. I would be very surprised if they could launch more than a few dozen nukes. A third of which would most likely hit Russian soil, because.. fuck it, aiming ain't their thing. *looks at those SAMs*

Right now I would call every single bluff that Putin throws out.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is why Putin will never use nukes, because not only will everyone die, but he and his country dies too, there is no winner when you let one of those off the leash, all other justifications and comparisons are irrelevant.

Wargames should be mandatory watching in every school on this planet.