Current Affairs Ukraine

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

I think that’s a reasonable summary of what the US have told Russia - except I am not 100% convinced that they would carry through with their threats to blow up the Russian army in Ukraine. I mean, how could they even do that without killing 10s maybe even 100s of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers let alone civilians? Seems unrealistic.

And why would they risk something which as you say could end up in nuclear strikes on Poland or perhaps even further west in Europe ?

Doesn’t add up.

That is the point of mutually assured destruction. If Russia launch a nuke then the retaliation will be devastating.

 

[Kev The Rat]

That is the point of mutually assured destruction. If Russia launch a nuke then the retaliation will be devastating.

that all depends on where the nuke was launched to. If it was at the US, then yes I agree. Where I disagree is that the oligarchs who run the US would literally die on a hill for Ukraine.

They are not idealogues, their only concern is their own financial welfare and safety.

During the cold war in the 60s and 70s, I agree the government was more idealogically bound, but not now.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

that all depends on where the nuke was launched to. If it was at the US, then yes I agree. Where I disagree is that the oligarchs who run the US would literally die on a hill for Ukraine.

They are not idealogues, their only concern is their own financial welfare and safety.

During the cold war in the 60s and 70s, I agree the government was more idealogically bound, but not now.

There are responses that are non-nuclear. Russia is well aware it cannot fight toe to toe on any front with NATO. The threat of having, for example, your entire southern fleet wiped off the map would be a game changer on all levels. Everyone is well aware, on all sides, of the consequences of wild escalation.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

I think that’s a reasonable summary of what the US have told Russia - except I am not 100% convinced that they would carry through with their threats to blow up the Russian army in Ukraine. I mean, how could they even do that without killing 10s maybe even 100s of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers let alone civilians? Seems unrealistic.

And why would they risk something which as you say could end up in nuclear strikes on Poland or perhaps even further west in Europe ?

Doesn’t add up.

The threat of MAD.

NATO’s first response is conventional and limited to areas outside Russias national borders). The next play now rests with Russia.

The NATO attacks would be massive co-ordinated air-strike packages on Russian positions and strikes against their Black Sea fleet. Along with Air/land/sea launched Cruise missile strikes on their airbases and military infrastructure in Ukraine.

If after this event Russia opts to launch a nuclear attack on a NATO country then NATO would respond in kind with Nuclear attacks on Russia - so why would they do that?

IMO the response is more likely to be Russia and NATO backing off and de-escalating at this point.

 

[Kev The Rat]

The threat of MAD.

NATO’s first response is conventional and limited to areas outside Russias national borders). The next play now rests with Russia.

The NATO attacks would be massive co-ordinated air-strike packages on Russian positions and strikes against their Black Sea fleet. Along with Air/land/sea launched Cruise missile strikes on their airbases and military infrastructure in Ukraine.

If after this event Russia opts to launch a nuclear attack on a NATO country then NATO would respond in kind with Nuclear attacks on Russia - so why would they do that?

IMO the response is more likely to be Russia and NATO backing off and de-escalating at this point.

MAD only works if you are convinced there will be a serious response to the initial strike. You are convinced that there would be a massive response regardless of where the strike takes place - I am not, based on the US not being attacked itself.

And I dont see how you can say why would Russia do this or that for fear of annihilation, without asking the same questions of NATO.

To be fair, none of this is going to happen anyway, as we can see the Ukrainians are completely running out of steam now, they cant even get men to fight any more.

Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight

Ukraine has a soldier shortage. Though many have volunteered, others are dodging the draft.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

MAD only works if you are convinced there will be a serious response to the initial strike. You are convinced that there would be a massive response regardless of where the strike takes place - I am not, based on the US not being attacked itself.

And I dont see how you can say why would Russia do this or that for fear of annihilation, without asking the same questions of NATO

Okay I understand your point, but NATO has already decreed that if Russia were to create a radioactive cloud in Ukraine (either by tactical nuke or deliberate sabotage of the ZPP) then it would invoke article 5 and therefore warrant an appropriate military response. NATO has already made their stance public and clear and it’s also been reiterated by POTUS and his chiefs of staff.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Do you think they are using it as a recruitment drive? I read an article that said Wagner had claimed he was "here to follow orders" or something along those lines...

It seems that Putin is looking to replace Prigozhin with Gennadiy Timchenko and Oleg Deripaska who have another PMC, Redut - primarliy the tool of Timchenko, an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin who ranks seventh on the Russian Forbes list. If the chatter on the Russian channels is true, as Prigozhin situation would appear to validate, then Redut will focus on Ukraine and Wagner refocus on stealing Arican minerals.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

MAD only works if you are convinced there will be a serious response to the initial strike. You are convinced that there would be a massive response regardless of where the strike takes place - I am not, based on the US not being attacked itself.

And I dont see how you can say why would Russia do this or that for fear of annihilation, without asking the same questions of NATO.

To be fair, none of this is going to happen anyway, as we can see the Ukrainians are completely running out of steam now, they cant even get men to fight any more.

Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight

Ukraine has a soldier shortage. Though many have volunteered, others are dodging the draft.

www.bbc.co.uk

Kev - you’re quoting the BBC FFS!

 

[Kev The Rat]

Kev - you’re quoting the BBC FFS!

I know, but since it seems that people here consider it a source of authority, I thought it might be taken a bit more seriously lol

 

[sbbefc]

Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight

Ukraine has a soldier shortage. Though many have volunteered, others are dodging the draft.

www.bbc.co.uk

Very miniscule sample, but my partners family is from Ukraine. I've also been lucky to meet some lovely people from there myself in the past (both in Ukraine and Georgia). More people they know (and I've met) have left the country than volunteered to fight. On the day of the invasion thousands left. If you had money you got out (that's how it works there). People today are still heading to the likes of Moldova if they can.

These people aren't necessarily sympathetic towards Russia. But they're indifferent to their own government and the rise in Ukrainian nationalism over the last decade or so. Ukraine isn't the democratic beacon of hope many people are led to believe. Corruption is rife at all levels of society. Socially, most people are conservative. Culturally, they have a lot in common with Russia.

Don't get me wrong, the invasion was a disgrace, totally unnecessary and Putin is a war criminal. These people didn't want to be invaded. They will hate Russia now. But if you have a young family are you going to risk it all?

 

[Kev The Rat]

Very miniscule sample, but my partners family is from Ukraine. I've also been lucky to meet some lovely people from there myself in the past (both in Ukraine and Georgia). More people they know (and I've met) have left the country than volunteered to fight. On the day of the invasion thousands left. If you had money you got out (that's how it works there). People today are still heading to the likes of Moldova if they can.

These people aren't necessarily sympathetic towards Russia. But they're indifferent to their own government and the rise in Ukrainian nationalism over the last decade or so. Ukraine isn't the democratic beacon of hope many people are led to believe. Corruption is rife at all levels of society. Socially, most people are conservative. Culturally, they have a lot in common with Russia.

Don't get me wrong, the invasion was a disgrace, totally unnecessary and Putin is a war criminal. These people didn't want to be invaded. They will hate Russia now. But if you have a young family are you going to risk it all?

Historically, Ukraine has always had a problem with Russia. Or I should say a section of Ukraine. I dont think its something that has only emerged over the last decade or so tbh. The west is where its come from, in fact the cradle of all the hostility. And to be fair those people see themselves as closer to Poland.

 

[Cool_Blue]

MAD only works if you are convinced there will be a serious response to the initial strike. You are convinced that there would be a massive response regardless of where the strike takes place - I am not, based on the US not being attacked itself.

And I dont see how you can say why would Russia do this or that for fear of annihilation, without asking the same questions of NATO.

To be fair, none of this is going to happen anyway, as we can see the Ukrainians are completely running out of steam now, they cant even get men to fight any more.

Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight

Ukraine has a soldier shortage. Though many have volunteered, others are dodging the draft.

www.bbc.co.uk

lol I thought you didn’t trust the BBC Kev?

 

[Kev The Rat]

lol I thought you didn’t trust the BBC Kev?

I know but you do, so I'm sure you'll take it as gospel.

 

[Cool_Blue]

I know but you do, so I'm sure you'll take it as gospel.

Well if you’ve quoted it, it must be true.