Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

So, Germany is sending help in the form of helmets but the exchange cannot take place in Ukraine. I'm seriously struggling to understand the difference here, either way, Russia knows Germany supplied Ukranians with aid (much like other countries have been doing) Yet Russia continues with this "If you interfere you will face consequences" rhetoric. I think its safe to say the West has interfered. It may be time to call their bluff entirely, and impose the toughest sanctions possible immediately.

It's probably more about what happens if the Germans get shot at.
 
That looks like a gas pipeline or something similar to me.
That’s where UA is dug in. They shelled it almost non stop yesterday if you look at the vids from last night. Lots of reports of huge Russian casualties.
 
I know it’s almost meme level joking about this being enough to end the war but these sorts of things are going to add up to the Russian public over time. No Eurovision, no Grand Prix, no Champions League, the list is going to go on and on and over time the public is going to begin to massively resent being cut off from the rest of the world.
Regarding the F1 aspect, one of the teams (Haas) is owned by Dmitry Mazepin (who is the owner of Uralkali)

 
That’s where UA is dug in. They shelled it almost non stop yesterday if you look at the vids from last night. Lots of reports of huge Russian casualties.

That is something on fire, not explosions by the looks. Only times I've seen fires like that are either chemical facilities e.g. Buncefield fire or pipelines.
 
More concerning is the Russian ship off of Ireland that was loitering around the transatlantic internet cables.

There are a lot of transatlantic cables from France, Spain, Portugal, England... They can't just "bring down" the internet.
 
Putin & his goons have enough money to withstand any external economical pressure and he doesn't care about Russian people enough for them to really influence his decisions. It's very egoistical of me, of course, but I just know that he's going to be just as good as he was before and we're going to struggle while Russian stance on the matter of Ukraine won't change even a bit.

The only possible scenario where those sanctions would actually lead to anything is if the whole entirety of Russian population riots and overthrows the current regime but somehow I doubt that it's possible :(

Agree.
 


Just to add to this; also says that Chechens are spoiling for a fight in order to collect war trophies.
 
It would be tactical nuclear weapons aimed at destroying a large military build up. Bombing cities like Hiroshima would be the very last option.
It's a debate in nuclear strategy. If you interpret that a tactical nuclear strike would lead to broader nuclear strikes as retaliation, and so on and so forth, leading to a situation where maybe your nuclear force would be at risk from a first-strike, then the conclusion is never to make a limited nuclear strike. "If one goes, they all go" is the saying. I have no idea what the actual thinking is nowadays in the actual governments.

As another practical point though, I think the US is currently a bit better positioned in the strategic nuclear balance and that could lead to instability. Basically the US is pretty well protected against a counter-force strike, because even if their ICBM and bomber bases are successfully targeted, they should have enough SLBMs that are pretty safe to launch a devastating strike. But further, the US might possibly think (again, dunno what the actual thinking is) that a first-strike on their part against Russian ICBMs and bomber bases could be successful in significantly reducing their numbers, and make a defense against a smaller Russian strike viable with their limited anti-ballistic missile defenses. The summary is that if indeed US planners believe this is possible, they have motivation to launch a first-strike if they believe Russia is seriously contemplating a strike of their own. So yeah, I think we're maybe a bit less stable than back in 1983
 


If I were Finland I think I would join now before its too late


After what I know about the people of Finland, that message will only make them more defiant and edge them closer to joining Nato. Russia is going to break down again I think. The consequences will be extreme no matter how their illegal invasion goes.
 
After what I know about the people of Finland, that message will only make them more defiant and edge them closer to joining Nato. Russia is going to break down again I think. The consequences will be extreme no matter how their illegal invasion goes.

A country can't just join when/because it suits them. Members contribute, train together and stand ready to defend each other.

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but it's unfair on all the other members.
 
A country can't just join when/because it suits them. Members contribute, train together and stand ready to defend each other.

I think a lot of people assume it's like getting a costco membership, nice and straightforward.
 
There are a lot of transatlantic cables from France, Spain, Portugal, England... They can't just "bring down" the internet.

They can visit those sites as well. Even if one link goes down, it will cause disruptions in transatlantic commerce and communication since 97% of traffic happens through cables.
 
It's a debate in nuclear strategy. If you interpret that a tactical nuclear strike would lead to broader nuclear strikes as retaliation, and so on and so forth, leading to a situation where maybe your nuclear force would be at risk from a first-strike, then the conclusion is never to make a limited nuclear strike. "If one goes, they all go" is the saying. I have no idea what the actual thinking is nowadays in the actual governments.

As another practical point though, I think the US is currently a bit better positioned in the strategic nuclear balance and that could lead to instability. Basically the US is pretty well protected against a counter-force strike, because even if their ICBM and bomber bases are successfully targeted, they should have enough SLBMs that are pretty safe to launch a devastating strike. But further, the US might possibly think (again, dunno what the actual thinking is) that a first-strike on their part against Russian ICBMs and bomber bases could be successful in significantly reducing their numbers, and make a defense against a smaller Russian strike viable with their limited anti-ballistic missile defenses. The summary is that if indeed US planners believe this is possible, they have motivation to launch a first-strike if they believe Russia is seriously contemplating a strike of their own. So yeah, I think we're maybe a bit less stable than back in 1983
Disclaimer: It's a stupid thought.

This made me wonder, do we know if Russia has an equivalent of the Tsar Bomba? Maybe the Putin Bomba?
 
That is something on fire, not explosions by the looks. Only times I've seen fires like that are either chemical facilities e.g. Buncefield fire or pipelines.
You’re right, Russians have caused a huge fire after targeting some kind of industrial complex. Air strikes and cruise missiles. Lots of vids on Twitter.
 
@harms I know this is a very difficult question to answer given the circles you keep, but at your best estimate, how much of the country is likely to be okay with what Putin is doing? If it's anywhere near 50%, that's terrifying.
 
Putin & his goons have enough money to withstand any external economical pressure and he doesn't care about Russian people enough for them to really influence his decisions. It's very egoistical of me, of course, but I just know that he's going to be just as good as he was before and we're going to struggle while Russian stance on the matter of Ukraine won't change even a bit.

The only possible scenario where those sanctions would actually lead to anything is if the whole entirety of Russian population riots and overthrows the current regime but somehow I doubt that it's possible :(

What of the rumours that Putin has stolen so much wealth from Russia that he's secretly the richest person on the planet?
 
A country can't just join when/because it suits them. Members contribute, train together and stand ready to defend each other.

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but it's unfair on all the other members.

I think for Finland/Sweden it would be a formality should they want to join NATO. There are no corruption issues and they don't have land disputes (which Ukraine does, which is why it cannot now join even if it wanted to). They also train regularly with NATO as observer members. The only reason they've never formally applied is due to treading that fine line between Europe and Russia. However, Russia is pushing countries into the arms of NATO with its actions so it has no one but itself to blame.
 
Disclaimer: It's a stupid thought.

This made me wonder, do we know if Russia has an equivalent of the Tsar Bomba? Maybe the Putin Bomba?
Tsar bomba was just for testing and boasting, its was an impractical design for any realistic delivery platforms. I think that in the same vein Putin was boasting about some HSV
 
Disclaimer: It's a stupid thought.

This made me wonder, do we know if Russia has an equivalent of the Tsar Bomba? Maybe the Putin Bomba?
Nah probably not. Big bombs are apparently impractical. The warheads the US currently has are mostly (all?) below 500 kilotons, Tsar bomba was ~50 mega. The preference is for a bigger number of smaller warheads, that you can multiple of on platforms (submarines, stealth bombers) that can successfully deliver them to the target. Not one giant bomb that will depend on one bomber successfully making it to its target.
 
Tsar bomba was just for testing and boasting, its was an impractical design for any realistic delivery platforms. I think that in the same vein Putin was boasting about some HSV

I know what the Tsar Bomba was, I'm just wondering if they tried to create a modern equivalent.
 
After what I know about the people of Finland, that message will only make them more defiant and edge them closer to joining Nato. Russia is going to break down again I think. The consequences will be extreme no matter how their illegal invasion goes.
I can imagine the look of fear on their Finnish faces. The sudden dread of war against Russia would definitely make their facial muscles move by about a millimetre.
 
@harms I know this is a very difficult question to answer given the circles you keep, but at your best estimate, how much of the country is likely to be okay with what Putin is doing? If it's anywhere near 50%, that's terrifying.
Over the past few days I’ve been exposed to much more of those opinions, sadly. The main argument is “they’re crying war now but why were they ignoring 8-year long war at Donbass?”.

But I wouldn’t dare to estimate. The petition for the end of any military action has gained about 500 thousand signatures over the last 24 hours, which is quite a lot, I’d say. Many public figures (even some that I haven’t expected it from) are starting their disagreement with what’s happening in Ukraine. But a lot are seeing it the other way :(

It’s very weird. For example, at the Russian main sports-related website the general attitude towards anything Putin-related is overwhelmingly negative, but when it comes to this war, most of the upvoted comments are criticizing NATO/West/Ukraine, mentioning 8 year-long aggression towards Donbass, recalling Yugoslavia bombings etc.
 

I know that we are cynical about politicians these days, but this guy has massive balls. It is almost guaranteed that he will die within the next week, but he is still going with that.

I think it massively improves the moral of his soldiers who are also sacrificing their lives. When you see him and ex president Poroshenko fighting, multi-millionaire Klitschko brothers, Osyk returning to fight, it gets easier to say ‘if I die, so what, I’ll probably take a Russian or two with me’.