Warfare Russia/Ukraine War
- Thread starter morris
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 6,471
- Points
- 293
Yes, see below(/above).
His allies in Europe have been working to massage this narrative into western public opinion no doubt aided by russian foreign intelligence and cyber warfare assets for over two years now and he's blown it straight out of the water single handedly.
This is why they need to thread carefully regardless of whether it's pro-Ukrainian or pro-russian politicians. You're not dealing with the russian parliament, cabinet, the legal system, the constitution, the general staff or any other part of the russian state, you're dealing with a single person who has total control over all of it and who is clearly no longer operating from sanity which can be predicted, is adherent to traditional political machinations and open to reasoning.
Western intelligence agencies are seeing the pieces being moved across the board, but they can't read the strategy being played, if the strategy exists at all in the mind of the opponent. Intelligence agency chiefs have come out saying this, that they can no longer see into Putin's state of mind. He'll burn two years worth of strategic operations and the assets involved in an instant because he feels like it.
They can't rely on him not to use nukes against anyone, and they know that the chances of anyone inside the russian state (being able to) stopping him from using nukes or starting a war with NATO are negligible at best. The people who had an inkling of a chance were the people who put him in office and he had most of them murdered after the war started. The population has indicated plenty of times that they will follow him to whatever end unless he is replaced by another leader at which point they will follow that guy. Don't expect the Lemmings to revolt, they pride in their own suffering.
What we perceive as the most innocent move on our part might trigger the need for full blown escalation in his garbled mind.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,949
- Points
- 234
@Mike1976 I largely agree, except on the threat of nuclear war. A man who's worth north of $40 billion and has palaces and dachas all over Russia isn't a man who wants to die. And it takes more than Putin's whims to launch even a singular Russian nuke. Even now, Putin isn't omnipotent. The Kremlin's policies are clearly designed to bother the middle and upper classes as little as possible with the war, suggesting their are still segments of society and circles of power whose potential reaction to him escalating the war Putin cannot ignore.
And at least as far as nuclear war is concerned, I'm convinced he won't escalate.
Violating the unwritten-but-longly respected paradigm that nuclear powers shall not use nukes against conventionally armed foes would be extremely detrimental to Russia's interests. It would also be vehemently opposed even by China, North Korea and Iran. For the nuclear deterrent to work, a certain degree of predictability is required: I want you to know that if you threaten my existence, I'll end yours. But I don't want you to think I could be about to end your existence at a whim (which might compell you to take unforeseeable actions or strategies with which I cannot compete).
Let's imagine Putin decides to drop a single nuke on Kharkiv, a final warning of sorts to get Ukraine to surrender immediatedly (thereby ending the global nuclear contract on proportionality and predictability).
What would happen?
And at least as far as nuclear war is concerned, I'm convinced he won't escalate.
Violating the unwritten-but-longly respected paradigm that nuclear powers shall not use nukes against conventionally armed foes would be extremely detrimental to Russia's interests. It would also be vehemently opposed even by China, North Korea and Iran. For the nuclear deterrent to work, a certain degree of predictability is required: I want you to know that if you threaten my existence, I'll end yours. But I don't want you to think I could be about to end your existence at a whim (which might compell you to take unforeseeable actions or strategies with which I cannot compete).
Let's imagine Putin decides to drop a single nuke on Kharkiv, a final warning of sorts to get Ukraine to surrender immediatedly (thereby ending the global nuclear contract on proportionality and predictability).
What would happen?
- World War Three would be hanging in the air: The current US administration has made it clear that if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, America would retaliate conventionally (if the articles a couple of months back are to be believed, they'd wipe out what's left of the Black Sea Fleet). There's a chance that NATO in its entirety could enter the war on Ukraine's side; at the very least, Poland, the UK, the US and perhaps France might intervene unilaterally.
- A whole host of nations would recognise their newly-found strategic vulnerability and/or drop previous reservations against nuclear weapons. Poland, Taiwan and South Korea could embark on a nuclear armament program right away, followed by Turkey and Saudi-Arabia. The Philippines are another potential candidate, and Germany would likely take up a decade-old French offer for a Franco-German nuclear deterrent.
- China would be furious. Putin would've ensured that 1. Taiwan would seek nuclear weapons and 2. the USA would stand by Taiwan in the event of an attack, making it literally impossible for the Reds to fulfil their biggest dream and reclaim the island.
- In fact, all nuclear powers would be angry with Russia, because such a strike would render their current nuclear strategies ineffective. A new nuclear armament race would begin, the like of which none of them can (financially) afford. Heck, China alone with their relatively modest nuclear force would have to produce like another 1,000-2,000 warheads in order to compete with Russia and the US.
- Russia would become a global pariah. The usual propaganda and victim-blaming wouldn't work here, because in order for Ukraine to get the message, Moscow couldn't disown the strike and claim it hadn't been of their doing.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 6,471
- Points
- 293
Sending the minorities to war has been a thing ever since the Moscovites expanded beyond their original territory. In 1917 (and 1990ish) it wasn't the middle or upper class who revolted either, but the poorest people.
The problem with your argument is that it's deduced from logic in regards to the rules based international order, but Putin has made it very clear that he wants to destroy that order entirely. This is why he's at odds with China who want to lead that order rather than destroy it. That's one of the reasons why russia is having to beg Best Korea and Iran for equipment and only getting dual-use parts from China instead of having China providing them everything they would ever want directly.
The West doesn't dare to confront China regardless so if it was in China's interest to fully support russia they would, but Putin twisted Xi' hand and China is making him pay for it.
Anyone intervening in Ukraine on behalf of Ukraine is extremely unlikely, these scenarios have been floated and have proven wholly unpopular with both policy makers and the general public no matter what russia does in Ukraine. The only exception is a direct attack on a NATO member and that's more due to treaty obligations than the public mindset being eager for it. Anyone bringing this up as a serious option will be annihilated at the ballot box if they have credible opponents instead of token opposition. War costs a lot of money and we prefer to spend our money on welfare. Countries in Europe are having trouble filling the jobs in their armed forces in peace time with virtually no one wanting to die for their country and these people would suddenly do a 180 and wholeheartedly embrace foreign adventures because they suddenly see the need for active defense and a war economy?
The US has already stated through the last three presidents that they will militarily intervene if China attacks Taiwan, so there wouldn't be any change there.
As for other countries seeking nuclear weapons, you said it yourself, most countries are in no position to do so due to economic circumstances (and, rather likely, also public opinion because even if russia uses nuclear weapons most westerners will argue we don't need nukes because we're under the US umbrella, no matter how leaky that has proven to be time and again when America's interests start to diverge from those of their allies). Forcing my enemies to spend money they don't have so they can't spend it on anything else to be used against me is a bad thing for me? I have 5,600 nukes, it's not my problem, it's everyone else's.
And again just like war nukes costs an absolute fortune and would make politicians deeply unpopular (peace -and non-proliferation movements in the 70s and 80s when the chance of a russian first strike was an actual concern instead of the distant memory it is now at the end of history).
He's solely reliant on China, Best Korea, Iran and a few Gulf States already, do you honestly think he gives a sh*t about what countries in Africa think? The same regimes he's propping up with his mercenaries?
Putin's entire world view is based on "might makes right" and in his mind russia is historically the mightiest of all and is their divine right to be so again.
This stab in the back against his ally Orban, the declaration (really tirade) at the start of the war, the delirious interview with Tucker, the genocidal stuff he has his hand puppets in the media repeating verbatim and actually carrying out in Ukraine, do those sound like the deliberate wordings of a statesman or the ramblings of a madman to you?
The idea of direct involvement of western conventional forces in Ukraine is impossible because of the "Never Again" and "No More War" of the last nearly 80 years of European educational, cultural and political influences towards making European society entirely pacifist, rapidly accelerated after 1990.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,246
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,246
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,949
- Points
- 234
@Mike1976
Putin strives to undo Western liberalism, which (for better or worse) has dominated the world since 1945 (and uncontestedly so since 1990). That doesn't mean he seeks the absence of order or a world without rules, though. He's after a reiteration of the late 19th, early 20th century multipolar world order of demarcated spheres of interest. But even a world where might makes right isn't one where Putin can do whatever he wants.
As a matter of fact, the world which Putin means to resurrect had a way of punishing unilateral action way harder than is the case now. Political decisions which are now seen as a sovereign nation's inalienable right would frequently lead to war or the threat thereof, requiring conferences and lengthy negotiations between all countries powerful enough to demand a seat at the big boys' table (whether the matter at hand actually concerned them or not). In other words, a world where Russia gets to try and impose their will on others is a world where others get to try and impose their will on Russia, too. Sure, you're right, Putin thinks himself strong enough not to let that happen.
But objectively speaking, Russia isn't nearly powerful enough to claim a seat at the big boys' table without a more powerful sponsor: China. Beijing will support Russia's war against Ukraine (and, implicitely, against the West) as long as Putin's happy to be their useful idiot. It's a win-win situation for them, with Russia also weakening its economy and pushing itself further and further into a relationship of dependancy on China. But Beijing will not tolerate any Russian action that would damage Chinese interests or aim to install Russia as China's equal.
If Putin were to use a nuke on Ukraine, China (with its no-first-strike-policy and modestly sized nuclear arsenal) would find itself suddenly outgunned and open to attack; it would find its way to Taiwan blocked by a wall of nuclear fire; and, perhaps most importantly, it would face the crisis-related depreciation of its foreign currency reserves (currently more than $3.2 trillion). I mean, their entire economic policy of weaving their economy into ours is an outspoken attempt to ensure that America can't make war on China without killing its own economy. But the same is true in reverse. Even a rumour of a war would lose China hundreds of billions. They have no reason to let that happen.
The day Russia risks open war with NATO is the day when Xi will let Putin know in no uncertain terms that Russia isn't strong enough to even be China's side-kick. Without nuclear weapons, Russia would be about as important on the world stage as Italy. Perhaps less so, as Italy's left a much bigger cultural mark. They'll end up becoming a bigger North Korea. And China doesn't give a F*** about North Korea.
By the way, acquiring nuclear weapons isn't as big as a financial burden as you seem to think. Means of delivery and maintenance is what's costly, not the technology itself. But except for attack submarines and ICBMs, the entry level is ridiculously low. That's why everyone is worried of Iran, after all. SANA's nuclear threshold map (of countries with the financial means and technology to announce a nuclear weapons programme) includes almost all developed nations. If one is willing to make do with a conventional free-fall bomb as opposed to air-launched cruise missiles or short-to-intermediate range ballistic missiles, the list could be even bigger.
Putin strives to undo Western liberalism, which (for better or worse) has dominated the world since 1945 (and uncontestedly so since 1990). That doesn't mean he seeks the absence of order or a world without rules, though. He's after a reiteration of the late 19th, early 20th century multipolar world order of demarcated spheres of interest. But even a world where might makes right isn't one where Putin can do whatever he wants.
As a matter of fact, the world which Putin means to resurrect had a way of punishing unilateral action way harder than is the case now. Political decisions which are now seen as a sovereign nation's inalienable right would frequently lead to war or the threat thereof, requiring conferences and lengthy negotiations between all countries powerful enough to demand a seat at the big boys' table (whether the matter at hand actually concerned them or not). In other words, a world where Russia gets to try and impose their will on others is a world where others get to try and impose their will on Russia, too. Sure, you're right, Putin thinks himself strong enough not to let that happen.
But objectively speaking, Russia isn't nearly powerful enough to claim a seat at the big boys' table without a more powerful sponsor: China. Beijing will support Russia's war against Ukraine (and, implicitely, against the West) as long as Putin's happy to be their useful idiot. It's a win-win situation for them, with Russia also weakening its economy and pushing itself further and further into a relationship of dependancy on China. But Beijing will not tolerate any Russian action that would damage Chinese interests or aim to install Russia as China's equal.
If Putin were to use a nuke on Ukraine, China (with its no-first-strike-policy and modestly sized nuclear arsenal) would find itself suddenly outgunned and open to attack; it would find its way to Taiwan blocked by a wall of nuclear fire; and, perhaps most importantly, it would face the crisis-related depreciation of its foreign currency reserves (currently more than $3.2 trillion). I mean, their entire economic policy of weaving their economy into ours is an outspoken attempt to ensure that America can't make war on China without killing its own economy. But the same is true in reverse. Even a rumour of a war would lose China hundreds of billions. They have no reason to let that happen.
The day Russia risks open war with NATO is the day when Xi will let Putin know in no uncertain terms that Russia isn't strong enough to even be China's side-kick. Without nuclear weapons, Russia would be about as important on the world stage as Italy. Perhaps less so, as Italy's left a much bigger cultural mark. They'll end up becoming a bigger North Korea. And China doesn't give a F*** about North Korea.
By the way, acquiring nuclear weapons isn't as big as a financial burden as you seem to think. Means of delivery and maintenance is what's costly, not the technology itself. But except for attack submarines and ICBMs, the entry level is ridiculously low. That's why everyone is worried of Iran, after all. SANA's nuclear threshold map (of countries with the financial means and technology to announce a nuclear weapons programme) includes almost all developed nations. If one is willing to make do with a conventional free-fall bomb as opposed to air-launched cruise missiles or short-to-intermediate range ballistic missiles, the list could be even bigger.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,045
- Points
- 188
This is what happens when you have dumb asses like biden and the other idiots trying to see how many men they can get killed without taking the blame. That entire cabinet is nothing but a nest of fags and other assorted unqualified people. If you are going to arm a country like Ukraine and you see that Russia is willing to commit war crimes, the entire Russian Proper should have been targeted 2 years ago. This is exactly what happened with the Vietnam War and a liberal ass wipe named johnson sipped his coffee each morning and had his doughnut while assigning air targets sparing all the real military targets of North Vietnam. Richard Nixon unleashed the dogs on North Vietnam and we lost around 28 B-52s but we stopped a week too soon. After the accords were signed the North Vietnamese Military Leaders said one more week of bombing and they would have ceased fire and withdrawn. If the enemy tells you that you actually won but you left the field before they quit you know you screwed up. Every time I see or read that phrase Police Action it just really makes me mad. A lot of good Americans died under the watch of another incompetent liberal. They just seem to roll that way.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,045
- Points
- 188
Little fat boy wants to get his ass handed to him. Put a big bounty on each square head and see what happens
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 706
- Points
- 159
Meanwhile the great Indian leadership is walking in Moscow taking PR photos.
Screw them too. It would be a good time to remind them which is more important trading partner for them, russia or the EU and the US.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 6,471
- Points
- 293
It seems they're expecting China's little lap dog to supply them with weapons when they get into a full blown war with China.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,246
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,246
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 8,246
- Points
- 284
Similar threads
