Vladimir Putin and Russia

[Toonpack 10053]

Putin's pet project knackered on his birthday 😃

 

Also means if Ukraine can liberate Melitopol, Crimea and Kherson are effectively cut off from land resupply.

 

No more an escalation than dropping missiles on civilian targets IMO, but as said it's Putin's pet project so a big response expected, but will have severely dented him at home.

 

Interestingly (as an aside) Xi never sent Putin a 70th birthday letter, which is unusual, he sent one to another Eurasian president day before for that blokes 70th (I forget which one, Armenia or the like)

[Dr Gloom 22200]

Tactical nuke time 

[trooper 940]

7 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

Tactical nuke time 

There's no such thing though is there really. Start that shit & we're all fucked 

[Dr Gloom 22200]

8 minutes ago, trooper said:

There's no such thing though is there really. Start that shit & we're all fucked 

There is such a thing, yeah. Don’t rule it out. Putin doesn’t have many other options other than shock and awe over Kyiv 

[Dr Gloom 22200]

How/if NATO responds to a tactical nuke is another matter 

[Gemmill 46205]

Given the lack of enthusiasm from the general population to his mobilisation, I doubt there'll be much enthusiasm fro the chain of command to start dropping nukes either. 

 

Who knows though? Let's at least get through the match today though, Vlad. Don't be a helmet. 

[Renton 22056]

11 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

There is such a thing, yeah. Don’t rule it out. Putin doesn’t have many other options other than shock and awe over Kyiv 

 

There isn't really. Nukes have little tacticsl utility, was explained in a thread posted on here last week (think toonpack posted it). 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Renton

[Dr Gloom 22200]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

There isn't really. Nukes have little tacticsl utility, was explained in a thread posted on here last week (think toonpack posted it). 

I didn’t see it. What was the main takeaway?

 

My understanding of tactical nukes is they can be as small as one kiloton, or less. So 150 times smaller than the bombs dropped by the Yanks in Japan, and their use wouldn’t cause the same type of nuclear fallout associated with bigger nuclear weapons.

 

Putin may raise the stakes if he thinks he can fire a tactical nuke without crossing the same threshold he would if he dropped a big one.  
 

Either way, it’s a massive escalation. But what options does he have left after this latest humiliation other than shock and awe over government command buildings in Kyiv?

 

The question is whether he would be allowed to push the button, and what kind of response this sort of escalation would be met with were he to do so. Armageddon, if Biden is to be believed 

[Toonpack 10053]

23 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

How/if NATO responds to a tactical nuke is another matter 

 

If used and fallout is registered in any NATO country it has already been stated that would be considered a trigger for article 5.

[Toonpack 10053]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

I didn’t see it. What was the main takeaway?

 

My understanding of tactical nukes is they can be as small as one kiloton, or less. So 150 times smaller than the bombs dropped by the Yanks in Japan, and their use wouldn’t cause the same type of nuclear fallout associated with bigger nuclear weapons.

 

Putin may raise the stakes if he thinks he can fire a tactical nuke without crossing the same threshold he would if he dropped a big one.  
 

Either way, it’s a massive escalation. But what options does he have left after this latest humiliation other than shock and awe over government command buildings in Kyiv?

 

The question is whether he would be allowed to push the button, and what kind of response this sort of escalation would be met with were he to do so. Armageddon, if Biden is to be believed 

 

Militarily, it has no benefit and massive downsides for Putin - China still want to rule the world, not a sea of glass.

[Renton 22056]

On 05/10/2022 at 07:38, Toonpack said:

No, train thing been properly debunked, this thread a decent analysis of will he use them:

 

 

 

FYI @Dr Gloom.

[Rayvin 5354]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

How/if NATO responds to a tactical nuke is another matter 

 

Patreaus said NATO would fully commit at that point.

 

This is a big success for Ukraine - IMO not enough for Putin to go nuclear over, but enough to genuinely, seriously hurt him.

[Rayvin 5354]

Also worth noting that NATO will 100% have known about this strike.

[Toonpack 10053]

41 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Also worth noting that NATO will 100% have known about this strike.

 

Doubtful, would they know Ukraine would try, absolutely, it was a patently obvious target with high strategic/military and propoganda value, but the when, where and how, I suspect not. 

[Rayvin 5354]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

Doubtful, would they know Ukraine would try, absolutely, it was a patently obvious target with high strategic/military and propoganda value, but the when, where and how, I suspect not. 

 

I'm working on the assumption that the use of NATO/Western hardware comes with guarantees and assurances of mission critical informational transfers - I'm not military but I certainly would have demanded that as part of the price of the hardware - but maybe you're right.

[Toonpack 10053]

Seems Modi similarly shunned a Putin happy birthday message, would seem he's not very popular.

[Toonpack 10053]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I'm working on the assumption that the use of NATO/Western hardware comes with guarantees and assurances of mission critical informational transfers - I'm not military but I certainly would have demanded that as part of the price of the hardware - but maybe you're right.

 

Only deal I am aware of is they won't shoot western stuff into Russia itself and no-one accepts Crimea is Russia. 

 

Don't think this was a missile anyway, massive amount of explosive needed to do what was done, much larger than the warheads Himars etc have and not sure they'd even be in range (300km).

[Rayvin 5354]

Was reading earlier that the big "worry" now is that Putin doesn't really have any way out of this while saving face. Almost sounds like they think he'd pull out if it was remotely possible for him personally.

[Toonpack 10053]

Just now, Rayvin said:

Was reading earlier that the big "worry" now is that Putin doesn't really have any way out of this while saving face. Almost sounds like they think he'd pull out if it was remotely possible for him personally.

 

He has no way out really, and the Kremlin vultures will be circling.

[Renton 22056]

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Was reading earlier that the big "worry" now is that Putin doesn't really have any way out of this while saving face. Almost sounds like they think he'd pull out if it was remotely possible for him personally.

 

Was thinking today, had NATO been involved from the start, critical Russian infrastructure like this would have been removed on day one making the invasion impossible. I do wonder in hindsight if the West blundered here as its now impossible for Putin to save face and he's more unstable than ever. But then I would never have predicted the Russians being defeated militarily by the Ukrainians. There are no right answers. 

[Tom 14021]

In a lot of war games the US conducted, they seem to be able to beat Russia without using nukes, even if Russia do use them.

 

Who knows!?

 

 

[Rayvin 5354]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Was thinking today, had NATO been involved from the start, critical Russian infrastructure like this would have been removed on day one making the invasion impossible. I do wonder in hindsight if the West blundered here as its now impossible for Putin to save face and he's more unstable than ever. But then I would never have predicted the Russians being defeated militarily by the Ukrainians. There are no right answers. 

 

As someone who advocated for immediate NATO intervention, I still believe we should have. We don't have wartime leaders though, so it was too big a decision for them, understandably.

 

We're moving in the same direction as we would have if NATO had gotten involved which was inevitable unless Russia just outright won. The only real argument for NATO not getting involved immediately was that Ukraine was an acceptable sacrifice to avoid nuclear war - but as soon as they dug their heels in and made clear they weren't going to go quietly, that became impossible. Whether by NATO or Ukraine, Putin was going to be pushed to the same conclusion if he couldn't win.

 

I don't think he'll go for nukes yet, but we might see more apparent indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and, frankly, civilians themselves. And again, NATO should step in. Ukraine deserves that.

[Renton 22056]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

As someone who advocated for immediate NATO intervention, I still believe we should have. We don't have wartime leaders though, so it was too big a decision for them, understandably.

 

We're moving in the same direction as we would have if NATO had gotten involved which was inevitable unless Russia just outright won. The only real argument for NATO not getting involved immediately was that Ukraine was an acceptable sacrifice to avoid nuclear war - but as soon as they dug their heels in and made clear they weren't going to go quietly, that became impossible. Whether by NATO or Ukraine, Putin was going to be pushed to the same conclusion if he couldn't win.

 

I don't think he'll go for nukes yet, but we might see more apparent indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and, frankly, civilians themselves. And again, NATO should step in. Ukraine deserves that.

 

But of course Ukraine werent in NATO, so protecting them was over reach. The red line for NATO appears to be use of nuclear weapons or involving a NATO country. 

 

Truth is we don't know yet what the best approach was, and never will as we don't know the counterfactual. If Ukraine wins this war, and Putin is disposed of without nuclear escalation, then that well and truly puts Russia back in the box and would be an excellent outcome imo. Not for the casualties of war though obviously. I think we're most likely heading that way tbh.  If however nuclear weapons are used, then, well....

[Rayvin 5354]

Just now, Renton said:

 

But of course Ukraine werent in NATO, so protecting them was over reach. The red line for NATO appears to be use of nuclear weapons or involving a NATO country. 

 

Truth is we don't know yet what the best approach was, and never will as we don't know the counterfactual. If Ukraine wins this war, and Putin is disposed of without nuclear escalation, then that well and truly puts Russia back in the box and would be an excellent outcome imo. Not for the casualties of war though obviously. I think we're most likely heading that way tbh.  If however nuclear weapons are used, then, well....

 

I think I said my response to that first bit at the time - that in my eyes that piece of paper which dictated which countries we would respond over and which we wouldn't was nothing more than an excuse in the face of what is really a direct attack on Western liberalism and our values. This isn't just Ukraine's war although they're the only ones paying for it in blood. Putin is the enemy of the entire West and has been for fucking years. He's funded all the chaos we've had to live through, he's funded right wing lunatics the world over, he fundamentally believes in a fascist, authoritarian style of government - and has whittled away at our institutions and structures in order to weaken us in the face of his imperialism.

 

The war was already raging, he just thought he'd done enough to take us out of the game. While Ukraine's bravery and defiance of him in this will not have been expected, neither will the collective respond of the West that he had thought to be wounded and broken.

 

So yes, I do believe that we should be in there fighting him back in defence of any country that shares our values and asks for help. Bits of paper be damned. If Putin falls here we have won a much bigger war than just the battle for Ukraine's standing as a sovereign nation - it will be a great triumph of Western liberalism, proof that interdependency and internationalism work. Ukraine is paying a great price for this, fighting alone.

[Dr Gloom 22200]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think I said my response to that first bit at the time - that in my eyes that piece of paper which dictated which countries we would respond over and which we wouldn't was nothing more than an excuse in the face of what is really a direct attack on Western liberalism and our values. This isn't just Ukraine's war although they're the only ones paying for it in blood. Putin is the enemy of the entire West and has been for fucking years. He's funded all the chaos we've had to live through, he's funded right wing lunatics the world over, he fundamentally believes in a fascist, authoritarian style of government - and has whittled away at our institutions and structures in order to weaken us in the face of his imperialism.

 

The war was already raging, he just thought he'd done enough to take us out of the game. While Ukraine's bravery and defiance of him in this will not have been expected, neither will the collective respond of the West that he had thought to be wounded and broken.

 

So yes, I do believe that we should be in there fighting him back in defence of any country that shares our values and asks for help. Bits of paper be damned. If Putin falls here we have won a much bigger war than just the battle for Ukraine's standing as a sovereign nation - it will be a great triumph of Western liberalism, proof that interdependency and internationalism work. Ukraine is paying a great price for this, fighting alone.

👏