International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Octavian said:
Yes and no... the use of tactical nukes is a very scary possibility. Russia apparently has systems that can be lobbed by artillery. Tacs are specifically designed to not cause widespread nuclear fallout. Putin is sitting on a stockpile of thousands.

I actually think it's still an open question if NATO would physically enter the war if this were the case. The threat of escalation is very high because one has to reason out if Putin has authorized such weaponry, he's weighed the response of NATO lobbing its own tacs along Russia's frontlines.

I think people are discounting this possibility and think all nukes are the same and level an entire greater city area - quite the contrary.
Click to expand...
The same reasons you say why they can be used are the same reasons Russia probably wouldn’t use it. It’s a huge escalation and for what? For doing something that could be accomplished with regular bombs.
 
Octavian said:
Yes and no... the use of tactical nukes is a very scary possibility. Russia apparently has systems that can be lobbed by artillery. Tacs are specifically designed to not cause widespread nuclear fallout. Putin is sitting on a stockpile of thousands.

I actually think it's still an open question if NATO would physically enter the war if this were the case. The threat of escalation is very high because one has to reason out if Putin has authorized such weaponry, he's weighed the response of NATO lobbing its own tacs along Russia's frontlines.

I think people are discounting this possibility and think all nukes are the same and level an entire greater city area - quite the contrary.
Click to expand...

They have conventional weapons that can achieve similar destruction. So it doesn't seem like there would be a reason to use a tactical nuke and risk the all potential backlash, aside from perhaps generating fear. But it doesn't seem like it would be worth it.

If anything full mobilization of their military would probably even be less risky politically, and we see how they are going at great lengths to make sure that this is kept a 'special military operation'
 
MeatheadMike said:
They have conventional weapons that can achieve similar destruction. So it doesn't seem like there would be a reason to use a tactical nuke and risk the all potential backlash, aside from perhaps generating fear. But it doesn't seem like it would be worth it.

If anything full mobilization of their military would probably even be less risky politically, and we see how they are going at great lengths to make sure that this is kept a 'special military operation'
Click to expand...
I know all this... it's just a legitimate worry that I think a lot of people are discounting. We need to reason for a moment that this is not Putin's war alone but driven by the far right within the Kremlin. That segment has massive authority within Russia and has been decades in the making - very dangerous cohort. Putin has to juggle all of this and he could be facing removal, assassination or risk desperate measures on the battlefield.
 
Octavian said:
I actually think it's still an open question if NATO would physically enter the war if this were the case.
Click to expand...

Let me answer it for you... NO.

Even though, even discussing the use of nukes in Ukraine is a waste of time. It ain't ever happening. Even the most pro-war ultra nationalists and borderline fascists in Moscow call such talks as simple idiocy. They want to take Ukraine by force because their rotten brains think it's their land and the ukrainian people are nothing but slavic people manipulated by the west that need 'liberation' and 're-education'. Their sociopathic minds still somehow consider ukrainians 'their' people and they call Ukraine 'Little Russia' or 'New Russia'. If it ever happens, god forbid, that they use weapons of mass destruction, it won't be on ukrainians. The target are other locations, even further west than Poland.
 
Siver! said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ussian-armys-performance-over-ukraine-retreat

Kadyrov, the fake warlord with his Gucci sneakers, talks tough.

“If today or tomorrow no changes in strategy are made, I will be forced to speak with the leadership of the defence ministry and the leadership of the country to explain the real situation on the ground to them. It’s a very interesting situation. It’s astounding, I would say."

Good luck, bruv.

Be sure to tell Putin, who took control of the offensive a few months ago, how inept he is.

Do so in person; it will have more resonance.
Click to expand...

That the Chechen that wears t-shirts with Putin's face even after Putin leveled Chechnya to the ground? I have a feeling that he won't do shit.
 
nixkid said:
That the Chechen that wears t-shirts with Putin's face even after Putin leveled Chechnya to the ground? I have a feeling that he won't do shit.
Click to expand...
He made a deal to be the man and eat shit from Putin. He’s a traitor to his own people, how could he not be? They leveled cities in Chechnya to win.
 
Denter said:
Yeah. The stone cold reality is that we are all (in the US) following this war play by play because it is a media spectacle. Few people had strong opinions on the Ethiopia- Eritrea War, for example, because the media interest wasn't there. Eastern Euros are obviously much more concerned for legitimate reasons, but I don't kid myself that Washington cares about Ukraine at all. It is a tool, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think that's true. You can go to warontherocks.com and hear people who were part of the Obama and Trump administrations discuss the war. People who were in the big rooms, making the big decisions, not too long ago. Those people care about this for sure.

We Europeans care too. I'm Scandinavian and our people and politicians are all invested in this. Part of it is that it affects us directly through refugees, energy security, rising prizes etc. and another part is the extremely strong communication effort from Ukraine and Zelenskiy. He spoke directly to our parliament. Can't remember another foreign leader ever doing that.
 
Octavian said:
I know all this... it's just a legitimate worry that I think a lot of people are discounting. We need to reason for a moment that this is not Putin's war alone but driven by the far right within the Kremlin. That segment has massive authority within Russia and has been decades in the making - very dangerous cohort. Putin has to juggle all of this and he could be facing removal, assassination or risk desperate measures on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

It is a legitimate concern, and the possibility is always there. It just seems like from the perspective of Putin,or even the far right in the Kremlin, that there isn't a whole lot to be gained from using tactical nukes, and it would cause more problems than its worth. I'd actually be more concerned if it was someone like Kim Jong-Un in this situation, who has basically nobody to answer to and less to lose.
 
Badr Hari said:
Lol erdogan would lick his lips for a piece of Crimea (once ruled by ottomans), maybe for a new bayraktar facility lol

Just kidding, posters on this thread with deep knowledge on Soviet era policies and culture have given reasons why Crimea can never be taken back from the military point of view and more, they pretty much say it can only fall after Moscow falls and the Kremlin is painted in blue and yellow. But what Ukraine can achieve is making it a wasteland. Nobody will want to be a tourist on a place where bombs can drop without warning.
Click to expand...

Militarily, there is no particular reason why Crimea should be impossible to take back: if Ukraine pushes Russia out of Kherson Oblast and gets Himars within range of that Russian prestige bridge and destroy it, the Russian positions on Crimea could become extremely dicey very fast. Ukraine would control both the water supply and the only ground line of communication in that scenario. That's pretty much an untenable position for the Russian army from my armchair.

But politically, of course, losing Crimea would be a certain death knell for the Russian regime. They'd probably invest unreasonable resources and take insane risks to keep it. And the "primacy of the political" is a sound guiding principle in military conflict.
 
Vergilius said:
Militarily, there is no particular reason why Crimea should be impossible to take back: if Ukraine pushes Russia out of Kherson Oblast and gets Himars within range of that Russian prestige bridge and destroy it, the Russian positions on Crimea could become extremely dicey very fast. Ukraine would control both the water supply and the only ground line of communication in that scenario. That's pretty much an untenable position for the Russian army from my armchair.

But politically, of course, losing Crimea would be a certain death knell for the Russian regime. They'd probably invest unreasonable resources and take insane risks to keep it. And the "primacy of the political" is a sound guiding principle in military conflict.
Click to expand...
Crimea is a defensive dream. See the massive resources the nazis had to use to take it.
 
Dalarna3 said:
Crimea is a defensive dream. See the massive resources the nazis had to use to take it.
Click to expand...

It has been conquered by a who's who of great powers through history. It may be one of the most frequently conquered pieces of real estate ever to exist, so it is certainly not impregnable... and if the bridge to Russia went up in smoke, it would be costly to supply. But that's all contingent on some big developments in the South first.
 
Last edited:
Vergilius said:
It has been conquered by a who's who of great powers through history. It may be one of the most frequently conquered pieces of real estate ever to exist, so it is certainly not impregnable... and if the bridge to Russia went up in smoke, it would be costly to supply. But that's all contingent on some big developments in the South first.
Click to expand...
Goths got it from Greeks, Mongols got it from Goths, Russians got it from Mongols and it’s been Russian ever since. Compare that to however many times northern Italy has been invaded. It could be taken if the Russians completely collapse, but I think they would dig in, and fight for every inch since there would not be evacuations in this scenario and the Ukrainians aren’t going to be particularly nice to captured Russians.
 
MeatheadMike said:
It is a legitimate concern, and the possibility is always there. It just seems like from the perspective of Putin,or even the far right in the Kremlin, that there isn't a whole lot to be gained from using tactical nukes, and it would cause more problems than its worth. I'd actually be more concerned if it was someone like Kim Jong-Un in this situation, who has basically nobody to answer to and less to lose.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree, but Putin is def the type to say fuck it under the right circumstances, he has little man syndrome and is basically joe pescis character from casino, if he really is ill he could decide to go out in a blaze of glory rather than be humiliated. Hopefully wiser heads would take him out first.
 
Last edited:
Terry Noonan said:
He made a deal to be the man and eat shit from Putin. He’s a traitor to his own people, how could he not be? They leveled cities in Chechnya to win.
Click to expand...
Kadirov always was pro Kremlin oriented....
Ofc course Checgnya already was situation when majority of checens didn't lived in Checnya.
Due to special politic course: stalin implemented flowchart to remove locals and replace them with other nations ...
Nikita with his idea to create " soviet human " in all USSR had policy to create some kind of hybrid nation....
He had impactful tools...
After trade school or uni ....people might had get job offers in other republics ....
Housing situation was like this: if you already had some place where to live in in city where you had job....you had lesser opportunities to get another place where to rent in this city...
Living was tied to job in general...

If you were an immigrant in this area, ofc you didn't had permanent address in city where you are working.
Then factory etc where you are working get you some temp place in dormitory etc and enlisted you in waiting list for aparment ..

Basically internal immigration in USSR was cos....if you were an immigrant...then you had normal apartment to rent faster than if you were local....
///

After they leveled cities....
Ppl who irl hated russians too ....not low number had relocated from Checnya to other areas ...cos why not to live in better area?


__
Russia installed Kadirov and gave him $ to rebuild Checenya.
Kadirov pumped alost all this in Grozny city....

Ofc established loyal to him circle around him, OMON etc...
Then sport club etc stuff....

U want to live in Grozny? U should not worry Kadirov and his circle.....
U want good job? be loyal to russia and Kadirov...
Don't worry Kadirov's friends and ppl from his circle...
Want to do business? The same...

It is modern Grozny.
 
GhostZ06 said:
no he's not. Hes one of the worst negotiators ever.
Click to expand...
That's negotiation stuff IMHO appeared in order to get time for Russia to bring in working order more missiles...

From last wave of 11 Kalibr missiles targets reached just 2... el infrastructure...
+ they now are using even more C-300 anti air defense missiles AS ground to ground missiles....

Imho wants to get time till next Thocka and Kalibr missiles batches will be in working condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,001
Messages
58,475,848
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top