Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Precaution said:
I doubt Chernobyl is any much of importance other than a pathway to the most of Ukraine, highly doubt Russian military thought being exposed to radiation is a grand idea, unless they intend to become Radioactive Man
Click to expand...
Suspect more because it’s somewhere they can land aircraft, refuel/repair tanks and defend easily as its isolated and the area around it is massive.
 
Deery said:
On a purely selfish note, we might be left with on gas heating or fuel for cars..
Click to expand...

I don’t class this as purely selfish. It’s natural to wonder how this will affect each of us and what you mention is at this point a potential scenario.
 
dal said:
however we must ask ourselves is Russia rational right now.
Click to expand...
It is, as of now. Ukraine is still a non NATO country and rest of Europe has not, in the past, come running to support Ukraine. It is a relatively low risk job for Russia.
 
If you remove Russia from SWIFT, you essentially cut off all their gas to Europe. Not reduce it, but cut it off.
 
JPRouve said:
I wouldn't say that it's a fact. Now I do think that it would lead to a generous use of WMD, people seem to forget that even conventional WMD are absolutely terrible. Simply going to a phosphorus bombs match would be awful.
Click to expand...
But you can't go into a conventional war without accepting that a nuclear war could follow. So if you go in in any conventional way it means you're already accepted a nuclear war.

MoskvaRed said:
I disagree. I don’t think the Russian military are psychotic enough to launch a nuclear strike over this issue. Remember Able Archer in the 80s when they disobeyed orders. Most likely you’d see Putin stepping down for “health reasons”. Naturally I do not want to put that theory to the test but nor should Western policy be dictated by an assumption of madman strategy on the other side.
Click to expand...
If they're attacked by a superior conventional force then they have no option but to.
 
Walrus said:
Russian tanks outside of Kyiv, and you call for caution? Maybe the Russians just need a bit more lebensraum?

I question whether you would have the same attitude if it were your city being bombed and country torn apart.

The only agreement that is possible right now will be for Ukraine/Zelensky to submit to Putin and accept his demands. And you would say "the situation has changed, sanctions are no longer appropriate"? Russia's actions have to be punished. If the West is not willing to go to war over it, then there must be absolutely nothing held back in economic sanctions. This is a full scale invasion of a European country - we are already at the absolute top tier of escalation, conflict, and crisis (short of WW3). Nothing should be held back at this point. Nothing.
Click to expand...
It's the full scale invasion of a non-NATO country. That's the point. And I said sanctions will be implemented and held but that heads of state aren't working to your (or my) timeline. Lots of things should be held back and will be held back because, again, no one wants a nuclear war over Ukraine.
 
Walrus said:
Russian tanks outside of Kyiv, and you call for caution? Maybe the Russians just need a bit more lebensraum?

I question whether you would have the same attitude if it were your city being bombed and country torn apart.

The only agreement that is possible right now will be for Ukraine/Zelensky to submit to Putin and accept his demands. And you would say "the situation has changed, sanctions are no longer appropriate"? Russia's actions have to be punished. If the West is not willing to go to war over it, then there must be absolutely nothing held back in economic sanctions. This is a full scale invasion of a European country - we are already at the absolute top tier of escalation, conflict, and crisis (short of WW3). Nothing should be held back at this point. Nothing.
Click to expand...
This apathy from some people on here surprises me, are you even European and what are your values. If Nato would get involved I would certainly volunteer myself to go and defend European values.
 
MackRobinson said:
It's really not about military power, but more so about the how willing the West is to draw a line in the sand. Look no further than toothless foreign policy of the West that allowed Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia
Click to expand...
Still it makes zero sense for Russia to invade Poland, Romania or other European countries that they can’t really comprehensively control anyway. I’d imagine if they did that it would be to make way to Germany, France, Netherlands etc. and at some point countries would group together and intervene. Surely they won’t take over the entire Europe.
 
dal said:
Using a nuclear weapon is stupid for any country who is rational however we must ask ourselves is Russia rational right now.

This isn’t security, it seems like a power trip.
Click to expand...
I think he is. Some have suggested he's become psychotic, but I think it's the same old Putin, just emboldened by a weakened US/UK.

Launching a nuke for any other purpose other than defending the homeland from an invasion would be a PR disaster. He'd be ousted immediately or most likely before he could do it.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
He is very calculated and clever for sure - but he isn’t a sophisticated leader, none of the old skool superpower leaders are. They’re all old and out of touch with the new era of humanity.

That’s one of the reasons why the World is currently so fecked up - we’re at a crossroads in civilisation where the power is hoarded by increasingly old and out of touch entities who know their physical time is limited
Click to expand...

If anything, it's a calculated decision to go down this path as a leader, not that he's too old to actually understand better. His understanding of the people of Russia and what he can get away with seems to be fairly unparalleled, given what he's actually getting away with and for how long. Factor in Russias size, the amount of people, the money and power he's wielding, it's not like it's a tiny country where it's easier to get away with things.

In terms of the world, it's a complicated question but it's hardly down to out of touch entities.
 
Danny1982 said:
People need to understand this simple but crucial concept in this conflict: Any, any kind of use of military force by NATO in this conflict = nuclear war

So conventional NATO forces in Ukraine = nuclear war
No-fly zone by NATO = nuclear war

Why is Russia ready to go to nuclear war over Ukraine but not NATO? It's because Ukraine means much more to Russia than to NATO, not because NATO are cowards or because Putin is crazy. Vice versa, NATO is definitely ready to go to nuclear war over Denmark, but Russia won't.

Ukraine should have realized this and played its cards correctly after 2014, and not go all-in in its anti-Russia pro-NATO agenda before they even get enough guarantees for protection. Adding NATO membership to the constitution and start talking about nuclear arms while you have an ongoing conflict on your borders with Russia and without enough protection from NATO looks like a huge miscalculation and was bound to lead to this.
Click to expand...

People do understand that use of nuclear weapons would only be considered if US puts troops on Russian soil. Some deluded people just think Pootin will use said weapons, as he's a man of his word. No one wins once the nukes come into play, it simply will not happen. It's all just big talk from a little shitehawk of a man.
 
dal said:
Using a nuclear weapon is stupid for any country who is rational however we must ask ourselves is Russia rational right now.

This isn’t security, it seems like a power trip.
Click to expand...

Completely rational in my opinion. They know they can do something, knew what the consequences would have and have mitigated them to the extent they can, and now they're doing it.
 
Danny1982 said:
And why did Ukraine try to defend it? It's obviously on the way to kyiv from Belarus, but it's still far from Kyiv and not really very 'strategic'.
Click to expand...

They're going to get their assets picked off from the air most likely. If you're going to fight, you might as well do it while you have as much equipment as you're ever going to have.

It's also just not something you'd want to give to your neighbour who clearly has no regard for your population.
 
Red_toad said:
People do understand that use of nuclear weapons would only be considered if US puts troops on Russian soil. Some deluded people just think Pootin will use said weapons, as he's a man of his word. No one wins once the nukes come into play, it simply will not happen. It's all just big talk from a little shitehawk of a man.
Click to expand...
Putin can't afford to lose the war in a humiliating way.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I think he is. Some have suggested he's become psychotic, but I think it's the same old Putin, just emboldened by a weakened US/UK.

Launching a nuke for any other purpose other than defending the homeland from an invasion would be a PR disaster. He'd be ousted immediately or most likely before he could do it.
Click to expand...

I think that whoever does it will die in a matter of hours if not minutes. As far as I know all the western nuclear-weapon powers planned an almost immediate response. The only question is how many missiles will be sent on Moscow and will it be coordinated. This eventuality makes me wonder if there is a predetermined hierarchy, if it's the US, France or the UK that are supposed to answer first, if it's coming from a bomber, ICBMS or SLBMS. My guess is that the three countries have subs ready in the Baltics or Black Sea.

@Raoul do you have an idea about the protocol?
 
Red_toad said:
People do understand that use of nuclear weapons would only be considered if US puts troops on Russian soil. Some deluded people just think Pootin will use said weapons, as he's a man of his word. No one wins once the nukes come into play, it simply will not happen. It's all just big talk from a little shitehawk of a man.
Click to expand...

I doubt they would be used in that case either due to MAD.
 
IWat said:
Completely rational in my opinion. They know they can do something, knew what the consequences would have and have mitigated them to the extent they can, and now they're doing it.
Click to expand...
Yup. This Putin is a totally irrational and insane actor narrative only helps him because it feeds into the reason we won’t stand up to him because he’s mad enough to use nukes.
 
JPRouve said:
I think that whoever does it will die in a matter of hours if not minutes. As far as I know all the western nuclear-weapon powers planned an almost immediate response. The only question is how many missiles will be sent on Moscow and will it be coordinated. This eventuality makes me wonder if there is a predetermined hierarchy, if it's the US, France or the UK that are supposed to answer first, if it's coming from a bomber, ICBMS or SLBMS. My guess is that the three countries have subs ready in the Baltics or Black Sea.

@Raoul do you have an idea about the protocol?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's any coordination of nuclear strike plans. I think from the US point-of-view they would possibly attempt a first strike against Russia's own nuclear weapons, probably SLBMs accounting for the majority of warheads as those give the Russians the shortest notice time. The French and UK forces can't attempt an anti-force strike, they don't have enough subs and warheads for that. So is more a dead-hand type strategy where they'd just strike political targets upon launches detected at their respective countries.
 
I would have assumed the capture of Chernobyl is less about the reactor site and more about the 60-mile exclusion zone that borders Kyiv and offers a direct route by land?
 
Shakesey said:
But RUS wants UKR in the long run. Surely utilizing your troops in overthrowing the "regime" is more important than attacking a nuclear waste facility...
Click to expand...

Of course but if it all goes tits up and you want to feck them, crack that dome and contaminate a whole swathe of the country.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
It's the full scale invasion of a non-NATO country. That's the point. And I said sanctions will be implemented and held but that heads of state aren't working to your (or my) timeline. Lots of things should be held back and will be held back because, again, no one wants a nuclear war over Ukraine.
Click to expand...

No, if its an invasion of a NATO country, its WW3. This is as bad as things can get beyond that, and therefore should be met with the strongest possible response beyond that. You cannot dictate your policy and sanctions based purely on what Putin threatens to do. Putin is not starting a nuclear war over being barred from SWIFT, as far as im concerned.
I repeat: Short of military measures, nothing should be held back at this stage.

Rajma said:
This apathy from some people on here surprises me, are you even European and what are your values. If Nato would get involved I would certainly volunteer myself to go and defend European values.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is this apathy and division which emboldens and fuels the likes of Putin. Just as Putin relies so heavily on his nuclear armament as a deterrent, the West needs to be strong and unified as its own deterrent.

The only reason Putin has done this, is because he feels (probably correctly) that he can get away with it. There needs to be unified and harsh sanctions to show that he cannot get away with it - not now and not in the future.
 
JPRouve said:
I think that whoever does it will die in a matter of hours if not minutes. As far as I know all the western nuclear-weapon powers planned an almost immediate response. The only question is how many missiles will be sent on Moscow and will it be coordinated. This eventuality makes me wonder if there is a predetermined hierarchy, if it's the US, France or the UK that are supposed to answer first, if it's coming from a bomber, ICBMS or SLBMS. My guess is that the three countries have subs ready in the Baltics or Black Sea.

@Raoul do you have an idea about the protocol?
Click to expand...
Even in nuclear exchanges usually there is a principle of proportionality. A single tactical strike would be parried by the same. A limited strategic icbm salvo, depending where it is targeted would also emit a similar response. A certain launches, even if not full scale, for example a slbm towards DC, probably will trigger the full SIOP which is basically end of the world.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Cut all ties with Russian industry. If enough countries do it their own people will turn on him. That's one thing the whole world has in common. Nobody likes getting poorer.

War isn't the answer here. Ban their products coming over here. Ban their participation in global sporting events. Ban everything. You watch how quickly their own people rise up and get rid of him.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is Europe will also get poorer. Why do you think there are still some European countries against banning Russia from the swift payment system. Europe is already facing an energy crisis, The dispute between Morocco and Algeria has already stopped gas into Spain/Portugal. Stop the supply from Russia and it would be a whole other level.
 
MTF said:
I'm not sure there's any coordination of nuclear strike plans. I think from the US point-of-view they would possibly attempt a first strike against Russia's own nuclear weapons, probably SLBMs accounting for the majority of warheads as those give the Russians the shortest notice time. The French and UK forces can't attempt an anti-force strike, so is more a dead-hand type strategy where they'd just strike political targets upon launches detected at their respective countries.
Click to expand...

That's what I had in mind but wasn't sure.

The Firestarter said:
Even in nuclear exchanges usually there is a principle of proportionality. A single tactical strike would be parried by the same. A limited strategic icbm salvo, depending where it is targeted would also emit a similar response. A certain launches, even if not full scale, for example a slbm towards DC, probably will trigger the full SIOP which is basically end of the world.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
sullydnl said:
I would have assumed the capture of Chernobyl is less about the reactor site and more about the 60-mile exclusion zone that borders Kyiv and offers a direct route by land?
Click to expand...

Yup, and the two-headed mutant wolves they will inevitably capture and train as fighting machines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.