Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

UK refugee scheme designed to fail

Is anyone even slightly surprised by this? I have to say, withholding the visa of one child in the family is a level of nefariousness I didn't expect them to stoop to but it's genius.

Not even sure it plays that well with their base in this instance though.
 
UK refugee scheme designed to fail

Is anyone even slightly surprised by this? I have to say, withholding the visa of one child in the family is a level of nefariousness I didn't expect them to stoop to but it's genius.

Not even sure it plays that well with their base in this instance though.
The U.K. system is word play to say we did our part. But as far as I understand from people who have tried to go through it, it’s designed to put you off
 
The U.K. system is word play to say we did our part. But as far as I understand from people who have tried to go through it, it’s designed to put you off
All our visa policies are essentially. For example, the financial requirement for a foreign spouse to join their UK national partner is explicitly designed to keep families apart and reduce net migration.
 


The risk of MAD has been hanging over the US/NATO and Russia for more than half a century. New ICBMs don't change that.

Russia sent another diplomatic note to the US demanding an end to weapons shipments, and Lavrov is talking more about WWIII. I interpret this as more signs that things aren't going well in Donbas and that the risk of things falling apart for Russia is going up.


Russia is starting to look and sound more and more like North Korea. "Look at me!! I have bombs!! I will hurt you if you don't do what I say!!"
 
Can't decide whether it is all going to kick off around Transnistria, and whether these are all Russian/Transnistrian false flag events or someone else is behind them. A desperate move from Russia to try and sandwich Odesa? You'd think it would play into Ukrainian and Moldovan hands medium term.
 
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
 
Russia is starting to look and sound more and more like North Korea. "Look at me!! I have bombs!! I will hurt you if you don't do what I say!!"

They are exactly like North Korea as long as Putin is in power.
 
Can't decide whether it is all going to kick off around Transnistria, and whether these are all Russian/Transnistrian false flag events or someone else is behind them. A desperate move from Russia to try and sandwich Odesa? You'd think it would play into Ukrainian and Moldovan hands medium term.

They've got everything available thrown in Ukraine, they're not really in a position to open another front in Moldova right now, let alone speak about WW3.
 
Transnistrian soldiers will be annihilated if they cross the border. There's only 1500 of them and they are apparently very poorly trained.

Moldova should also be prepared to move in once they vacate.
 
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
I can't see what they will be able to achieve with a single tactical - the Ukrainians are not amassing armour or manpower in one spot . They are doing much more decentralised operations. So it's either a barrage of nukes on the front , a land that they will have to move through and occupy later. Or its a nuke over a city which is genocide effectively. At that point nato is in. Or if not the whole nato, some members definitely are.
 
I don't think he does because I don't think there's a tangible benefit. If he drops a Nuke, what does he gain? Does he even stop the flow of weapons into Ukraine? Probably not, maybe only a Nuke on the border to stop supply lines would make any sense in terms of tangible benefit. But even then it seems like mass overkill.

Most of his moves gives him or Russia tangible benefits. Taking Crimea gives him access to the massive amount of gas and oil reserves in the black sea. Taking a land bridge and more costal sites makes it much easier for Russia to run Crimea while giving even greater access to the oil and gas reserves.

The same content maker claims Putin is obsessed with how quickly NATO could send a Nuke to Moscow. If he is that obssessed with it, it means he won't want to risk it. His attitude to covid shows he is paranoid about risks that could damage his health. Putin tends to calculate what he can get away with to a large extent.

Thank You for the shedloads of content you post on here btw. Do you have a background or career that helps you come across all this content or is it just an interest?

I just very much want to see Ukraine survive and see it as vital for freedom and democracy going forward. Most of the content comes from a few Twitter feeds and a few YouTube channels. However, it's been hugely distracting me from getting on with a big work-related project, so I need to start disciplining myself to switch back to that.

I hope you're right about the nukes. However, the video-maker we're discussing sees Putin as a gambler who is stuck in escalation mode and obsessed with a sense of historic mission concerning "Greater Russia". The gambler aspect could mean that Putin doesn't think the West will risk responding with their own nuke if he uses a tactical nuke in, say, Estonia, or at least is willing to gamble that they won't.
 
This is a very disturbing video, from someone who seems to be very knowledgeable.

It essentially says that Putin has no real plan but is simply acting in escalation mode (in gambling fashion, believing that things to his advantage will somehow simply fall into his lap from the chaos), that Putin sees this as primarily a war with the West (and only secondarily with Ukraine), that he is ready to use nuclear weapons, starting with a tactical nuke, and that the target will not be Ukraine but somewhere in a NATO country - probably a non-civilian, military target.



If Putin is really thinking about setting off a nuke to see if things fall more favorably for him afterwards then there isn't much we can do about that.

It would be a huge mistake, worse than the decision to invade in the first place.
 
I can't see what they will be able to achieve with a single tactical - the Ukrainians are not amassing armour or manpower in one spot . They are doing much more decentralised operations. So it's either a barrage of nukes on the front , a land that they will have to move through and occupy later. Or its a nuke over a city which is genocide effectively. At that point nato is in. Or if not the whole nato, some members definitely are.

It’s for supremacy in the minds rather than battlefield. Genacide is occurring already they don’t really care do they.

NATO will never go into Ukraine if Russia nuke a Ukrainian city. Weapons delivery may intensify though.
 
If Putin is really thinking about setting off a nuke to see if things fall more favorably for him afterwards then there isn't much we can do about that.

It would be a huge mistake, worse than the decision to invade in the first place.
Agree. If does that then even the countries that have not condemned Russia would take a step further away from him. Cannot see Beijing not coming out against nukes being used, however limited the payload is.
 
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
What does gaining credence get them though? If he uses nukes, what incentive will NATO / the west have to not go all in? What's keeping us out is the risk of nuclear escalation.
 
I just very much want to see Ukraine survive and see it as vital for freedom and democracy going forward. Most of the content comes from a few Twitter feeds and a few YouTube channels. However, it's been hugely distracting me from getting on with a big work-related project, so I need to start disciplining myself to switch back to that.

I hope you're right about the nukes. However, the video-maker we're discussing sees Putin as a gambler who is stuck in escalation mode and obsessed with a sense of historic mission concerning "Greater Russia". The gambler aspect could mean that Putin doesn't think the West will risk responding with their own nuke if he uses a tactical nuke in, say, Estonia, or at least is willing to gamble that they won't.
We would have to repsond with a nuke, but we could basically let off a nuclear firework rather than respond in kind, IE something that is a matching response but non escalatory. If such madness is even possible.
 
We would have to repsond with a nuke, but we could basically let off a nuclear firework rather than respond in kind, IE something that is a matching response but non escalatory. If such madness is even possible.

Yeah I'd rather not respond with another nuke if possible. The only time I'd do that is if an ICBM is fired, or if they fired shit tons of small nukes everywhere.

But we should definitely close the sky and possibly move peacekeepers in.
 
Last edited:
Is there any sort of agreement (or common understanding) between the nuclear capable states as to what actually constitutes a tactical nuke?
 
Is there any sort of agreement (or common understanding) between the nuclear capable states as to what actually constitutes a tactical nuke?
There is no such thing as a tactical nuke as such.

The point is whether a nuke is used against tactical targets like troop concentration on a battlefield, or whether it is used against strategic targets like industrial complexes or even cities.
 
There is no such thing as a tactical nuke as such.

The point is whether a nuke is used against tactical targets like troop concentration on a battlefield, or whether it is used against strategic targets like industrial complexes or even cities.
Well I think those below 50kt are considered tactical. Because they usually can't achieve much against hardened underground targets , and the ones that are in the strategic category while in theory can be used on the battlefield , it would be a waste and also impractical due to the specifics of their delivery platforms.
 
Well I think those below 50kt are considered tactical. Because they usually can't achieve much against hardened underground targets , and the ones that are in the strategic category while in theory can be used on the battlefield , it would be a waste and also impractical due to the specifics of their delivery platforms.
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
 
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
They have plans but of course not public , usually you'd want the opposition to fear a full response which would hopefully discourage it in the first place. For 3rd countries like Ukraine it's of course murkier , however I think it was Biden who said that if Rus uses chems/nukes "all bets are off".
 
Yeah I'd rather not respond with another nuke if possible. The only time I'd do that is if an ICBM is fired, or if they fired shit tons of small nukes everywhere.

But we should definitely close the sky and possibly move peacekeepers in.

Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
 
They have plans but of course not public , usually you'd want the opposition to fear a full response which would hopefully discourage it in the first place. For 3rd countries like Ukraine it's of course murkier , however I think it was Biden who said that if Rus uses chems/nukes "all bets are off".
That they haven't used chemical weapons yet, at least unambiguously, makes me think that message might be being heard.
 
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.

It's not so much a deterrent but rather a sense of responsbility. I think we owe it to civilisation to give things one more chance before we start properly nuking each other, even when the enemy has lost their head.
 
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.

Exactly this, you cannot let a nuke go off without a reaction. Using a nuke against a non-nuclear state, especially as the aggressor, can only be met with a similar response. The global impact of that level of escalation will also be severe, as countries naturally allied to Russia will then consider themselves targets of tactical nuclear weapons should they face the US and her allies. So it's fundamentally a scenario that nobody wants to see and Russia will find itself even further isolated. Beyond that it's MAD and to be honest we might as well just watch Kevin Costner's The Postman or Mad Max to understand the longterm consequences.

I do, however, understand why Russian rhetoric is ramping up internally. The propaganda machine can only sell Russia as a militaristic superpower, something that is pretty easy with 6k nukes. Ultimately, it's all they have. I personally don't think that nukes of any description will be used and that fundamentally the worst case scenario for Russia is that they do a full scorched-earth retreat and claim they've cleansed Eastern Ukraine of whatever made up shit they can think of. No matter what happens, they've already lost any future war with NATO due to their tactical blunders and the sheer determination of Western countries to starve Russia of the capability of modernising any further in the future.
 
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
I think that would depend on the targets. Conventional strikes against missile bases for example should send quite a strong message.
 
I think that would depend on the targets. Conventional strikes against missile bases for example should send quite a strong message.
Against nuclear missile bases? Doesn't quite work, the silos are hardened and can withstand significant impacts. That's why plans call for hitting them with nuclear weapons, and several per target.

Also once one country attacks the other's strategic arsenal, that is seen as a strategic threat whether nuclear weapons are being used or not, and there's incentive to launch the ICBMs anyway. Use it or lose it becomes the thinking. If you attack nuclear missile bases/silos, you do it as part of a full counter-force strike attempt.

I'm on the side of being very aggressive in the (private) messaging about response to a nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. It's the only way I see to potentially cut out the possibility of a nuke being used in the first place.
 
Exactly this, you cannot let a nuke go off without a reaction. Using a nuke against a non-nuclear state, especially as the aggressor, can only be met with a similar response. The global impact of that level of escalation will also be severe, as countries naturally allied to Russia will then consider themselves targets of tactical nuclear weapons should they face the US and her allies. So it's fundamentally a scenario that nobody wants to see and Russia will find itself even further isolated. Beyond that it's MAD and to be honest we might as well just watch Kevin Costner's The Postman or Mad Max to understand the longterm consequences.

I do, however, understand why Russian rhetoric is ramping up internally. The propaganda machine can only sell Russia as a militaristic superpower, something that is pretty easy with 6k nukes. Ultimately, it's all they have. I personally don't think that nukes of any description will be used and that fundamentally the worst case scenario for Russia is that they do a full scorched-earth retreat and claim they've cleansed Eastern Ukraine of whatever made up shit they can think of. No matter what happens, they've already lost any future war with NATO due to their tactical blunders and the sheer determination of Western countries to starve Russia of the capability of modernising any further in the future.

The reaction would be for NATO to go into Ukraine and end everything ASAP. By supporting Ukraine in the air, we pretty much guarantee their win.

If Russia launches multiple nukes, then yes, we have to respond. And then it would definitely be whiskey time for all of us. Also, we have to consider that a nuclear response cannot be fired onto Ukrainian land from our side, because that would be stupid. It would have to be fired onto Russian land.

My view is that once the first nuke is launched, the whole deterrence idea quickly disappears, and we then rely on the restraint of the nuclear powers to prevent armageddon.
 
Last edited:
The reaction would be for NATO to go into Ukraine and end everything ASAP. By supporting Ukraine in the air, we pretty much guarantee their win.

If Russia launches multiple nukes, then yes, we have to respond. And it would definitely be whiskey time for all of us.

My view is that once the first nuke is launched, the whole deterrence idea quickly disappears, and we then rely on the restraint of the nuclear powers to prevent armageddon.
Exactly this. There is no way that Russia launches a nuke and nobody responds. if Putin is bent on doing something, then Ukraine and allies are bent on doing everything to protect and survive. Thers is no fooking way Putin dares to use a WMD and gets away with it.
 
If nukes are used in Ukraine, especially in the West, I think NATO will close the sky.

It would do that and also allow NATO troops to go into Ukraine, as I don't think the world has an appetite for allowing Putin to murder endlessly, just so he can manufacture "a win" back home.
 
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
US has expanded its "tactical" nuclear arsenal so it can respond in kind to their use, so Russia can't use them without response.

"“When we look at some of the activities, statements, capabilities that adversaries — or potential adversaries — have pursued, one of the things that we want to make sure that we maintain is a flexible set of capabilities so that they not come to the mistaken impression that would be some ranges of situations where they might employ nuclear weapons — whether they be low-yield or so-called ‘battlefield nuclear weapons,’ things of that nature — in a way that we would feel that we did not have credible response options, in order to preserve deterrence,” Rood said."

https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/small-nuclear-war/
 
If Putin is really thinking about setting off a nuke to see if things fall more favorably for him afterwards then there isn't much we can do about that.

It would be a huge mistake, worse than the decision to invade in the first place.

I don't see much logic in that vid, even hypothetical guessing of Putin's logic. Its just amplifying their scaremongering rhetoric.

"Putin in his mind is not at war with Ukraine, Putin is at war with USA" Errr yeh Putin has always been at war with USA in some way I am sure, but right now he is most certainly at war with Ukraine.

He'll do more damage to USA and the west by getting the next republican candidate elected.
 
"The U.S. State Department argued in a paper released last week that fitting the low-yield nuclear warheads to submarine-launched ballistic missiles would help counter potential new threats from Russia and China. It charged that Moscow in particular was pondering the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons as a way of coercion in a limited conflict — an assertion that Russia has repeatedly denied.

The State Department noted that the new supplemental warhead “reduces the risk of nuclear war by reinforcing extended deterrence and assurance.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry sees it otherwise.

The ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, commented on the State Department’s paper at a briefing on Wednesday, emphasizing that the U.S. shouldn’t view its new low-yield warheads as a flexible tool that could help avert an all-out nuclear conflict with Russia.

“Any attack involving a U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), regardless of its weapon specifications, would be perceived as a nuclear aggression,” Zakharova said. “Those who like to theorize about the flexibility of American nuclear potential must understand that in line with the Russian military doctrine such actions are seen as warranting retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Russia.”

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuc...ussia-slams-us-arguments-for-low-yield-nukes/
 
Last edited:
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
How would using a tactical nuke do anything but make them look even less competent than they already do?
It would surely also burn the few bridges they still have diplomatically.
 
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
Both countries have said that any nuclear weapons fired will be treated the same.