I would say it is more so because of people realizing the gravity of the situation but coming to the conclusion that other involved parties might as well. I am decidedly not saying that I know how things will play out - or would, if another path was chosen at any given moment. But I also do not believe that these sorts of events are as easy and deterministic as displayed here.
For example, you say Using nukes on Ukrainian soil means game over. But does it really? The thing about nuclear exchanges between Nato and Russia, as you say, is that there are no winners there. You don't start nuking for gain, at least not on that level. That kind of fatal exchange is a scenario of all-out war of extermination, a desperate measure. The next person in the line of nuking, so to say, after a nuke going of on Ukrainian soil would know that too and deliberately pursue a course of action that would ultimately get them killed, most likely.
I mean, that is what nuclear powers want you to believe, because that is the deterrent. But just because it is threatened does not mean it is deterministic. There is a reasonable chance that, say, even if a war between Poland and Russia started, that exchange might not happen. A lot of wars in history concluded without one side being obliterated. Heck, WWI Germany surrendered before they were even invaded. As long as, for example, Russia's existence is not threatened at the core, why would it start a nuclear exchange that would with almost certainly do exactly that?
I mean, it is possible that a fatal chain of fear and miscalculation still leads to such an exchange. But I am not convinced that it just will deterministically happen.
Yes, it means exactly that. Here is a Zelensky's party member (it's the ruling party), a deputy in Rada, being quite vocal about it:
https://twitter.com/grishchukroma/st...00141159985157
Personally - I don't have an opinion. It could be Kremlin's ploy, but the guy is... Nah, not gonna comment there.
https://twitter.com/EmineDzheppar/st...2F20222235161d
"Russian tank fires on a civilian who just stands nearby. As reported, it was an elderly person."
What kind of a POS person do you have to be to actually do that wtf.
EDIT: seems like it was a mortar shell and not the tank that hit him. Still fucking terrible.
Last edited by Torched; 2022-03-15 at 10:21 PM.
“A man will contend for a false faith stronger than he will a true one,” he observes. “The truth defends itself, but a falsehood must be defended by its adherents: first to prove it to themselves and secondly, that they may appear right in the estimation of their friends.”
-The Acts of Pilate.
Russia lost alot of helicopters in Kherson today https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/s...64619932205065
Don't put air assets in a unsupported forward position!
Also they use the same tactic with these choppers on the airfield as i use in battleships, put all the battleships in the same corner and hope no one finds them.
3 million people have left Ukraine.
Some. They already did claim fantastic ~30 frags couple of days ago - but no proof followed, especially after the satellite images started showing up. This is an airfield with lots of dead Ukrainian helis (by dead I mean incapable of flight, old decommed crap before the war, ex-soviet states are full of them laying around airfields). This time they did hit something. Most likely guess with Uragan or something of the kind.
~3 or so helis, plus likely something else is burning, fuel as the primary guess (lot of things to burn on an airfield), 7-8 heat points.
Shrapnel possibly has damaged more vehicles. Nothing critical, but painful nonetheless for Russia.
Do not underestimate constant live intel fed to Ukraine by NATO.
Yes, but that path of escalation is certainly visible in a war between Russia and the West.
If Russia starts attacking NATO from Russian soil then NATO needs to strike at Russia to disable that threat. If Putin doesn't surrender you need to either entirely disable Russia's military industry, accept regular attacks or force a regime change. 2 of those 3 options lead to Russia facing an existential threat and a real danger of 'I have nothing to lose'.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Ehh, there are different schools of thought regarding NATO vs Russia scenario. It depends on multiple factors and Gaidax, while, erhm, disliked here, said something very important - there are A LOT of steps between full on nuclear war and whatever is happening right now.
A relatively popular thought, at least I think it is by my observations, is that unless USA is driving Abrams to Moscow with the explicit goal of regime change it is very, very possible that no one will use nukes. It is not worth it. Eastern Europe and Western Russia becomes a conventional battlefield, but either side pushes for peace after winning the theatre (most likely NATO, if allowed to concentrate forces) to end the war ASAP. Read, MAD scenario does not apply because no one starts it in the first place.
I subscribe to this one, honestly.
Then you have to understand the basic human desire to not fucking die in a nuclear holocaust. Putin and Russian leadership as such would prefer to live (this guesswork is strengthened by their riches, what would be the point of getting them then?). I do not believe in the theory that they are hardcore ultranationalists who would rather watch the world burn than surrender. Some? Surely. But in general? No, too much to loose. People are not suicidal, normally...
They are also aware that they would not be executed, Nuremberg times have long passed, thus they would live on after total defeat and surrender.
Then there is a really unpopular one, but still - war does not escalate above use of tactical nukes. High risk of said escalation after use of the first one, but might also be a tacit agreement to use only those and otherwise fight the war conventionally.
Of course, then there always is the opposite option - USA + allies ends Russia and Russia ends them in nuclear war right at the very start. Still absolutely possible because humans are very rational creatures as we all know
TL;DR;
WW3 might not happen even if NATO intervenes.
So who is gonna go and find out whether basic logic and self-preservation applies? Who will call out bluffs? Better never find out...
I do not believe no-fly zone will ever happen, nor other intervention. Even giving old MiG's to Ukraine made Poland shit bricks, anything more is clearly not gonna be acceptable.
Welcome to war, it sucks.
Some better images of the Kherson airfield attack can be seen here. Quite a few burning helos as well as destroyed ones that might have been from the previous attack.
The site that documents confirmed losses has Russian having lost 30 helos confirmed over the war, and 1350 vehicles all up, including 228 tanks. The true number will be higher as not all losses can be documented.
- - - Updated - - -
The US is considering providing Ukraine with Switchblade loitering missiles, along with other gear.
There's supposedly two versions of the Switchblade; one meant for anti-personnel and the other anti-armor. The latter would be a huge boon for the Ukrainian military; supposedly the anti-infantry version can be built for about 6,000 dollars which is less than a Hellfire missile. For comparison, a Hellfire costs about 150,000 dollars per missile.
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers
I periodically check the comments on Fox News and there seems to be very little support for Putin/Russia over there. Sentiment seems similar to the left, with most people wanting the U.S. to do more. Some minority comments asking why we are there in the first place.
Honestly the war in Ukraine seems to be the political topic with the most bipartisan consensus...of the last decade.
Given that Russia has carried out assassinations in NATO countries, even in recent years, makes your posts come off poorly. This is even more so when considering what occurred in Hong Kong, where China has publicly arrested protesters, only for some to die in custody, or shortly after being released, and having their deaths ruled as suicide, which helped take steam out of the domestic "Free Hong Kong" movement. That you appear to think that Russia killing notable dissidents is somehow unthinkable is a little silly.
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
It appears that those, who could, are leaving Russia.
Russian News Presenter Praised by Putin Resigns, Flees Country
"I left [Russia] first because I was afraid they would not let me go just like that, then I submitted my resignation," she told Varlamov.