Topic: Russia launches invasion of Ukraine (*) & use spoiler tags for anything graphic!

[Lusty]

If Putin is toppled would that also expose the scumbag Ramzan Kadyrov to justice?

Seeing the four smug prats put in charge of the land grabbed Ukrainian regions I came up with only four possible scenarios of where they'll be in four months time:
1) Dead
2) Captured
3) In hiding
4) Administering a nuclear wasteland after Putin has shown the world what a strong man he is

It felt like the 2022 equivalent of being banished to Siberia but those clowns were lapping it up.

Kadyrov is one of Putin's fiercest critics at the moment. If Putin got toppled, he'd likely be doing the toppling.

Unfortunately I don't see a scenario where Putin gets replaced by someone more reasonable, any scenario where he gets brought down likely leads to something worse.

[Red-Soldier]

Kadyrov is one of Putin's fiercest critics at the moment. If Putin got toppled, he'd likely be doing the toppling.

Unfortunately I don't see a scenario where Putin gets replaced by someone more reasonable, any scenario where he gets brought down likely leads to something worse.

You could be right.  There will definitely be an uncertain power vaccuum there.

[classycarra]

There's 25,000 Russians trapped on that bank apparently, so could get very messy very quickly.

If they can take Kherson and get as far as the Azov sea, they'll have cut the land bridge to Crimea and they'll be in range to destroy the actual bridge as well.

Think we might be about to find out whether Putin is willing to use nukes or not.

surely chemical weapons would be more likely. straight out of the syria playbook, and more of a progression in terms of boundary breaking.

having said that, the calculations should be different now. western actors and electorates are back on board with responding to and trying to prevent genocide after a decade or so of isolationist navel gazing left syria to be destroyed because it was apparently easier to sleep well at night leaving syrian civilians to be targeted and the surviving population displaced, than it was to try to do something about it because 'its complicated'

[Mister Flip Flop]

NATO isn't sinking the black sea fleet if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that would lead to all out nuclear conflict that doesn't bare thinking about. Biden has already made it clear they'll respond like that only if one inch of NATO territory is attacked which is why Ukraine is doing all it can to rush through NATO membership. As harsh as it seems America, the UK, France etc... aren't going to risk a nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine that's the bottom line.

[Gerry Attrick]

NATO isn't sinking the black sea fleet if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that would lead to all out nuclear conflict that doesn't bare thinking about. Biden has already made it clear they'll respond like that only if one inch of NATO territory is attacked which is why Ukraine is doing all it can to rush through NATO membership. As harsh as it seems America, the UK, France etc... aren't going to risk a nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine that's the bottom line.

I’m glad you’re here to share your military expertise and insight over a former CIA director on what US and allies may respond with. I’m not sure we’re worthy of it, I think you should be keeping it a secret.

[Mister Flip Flop]

I’m glad you’re here to share your military expertise and insight over a former CIA director on what US and allies may respond with. I’m not sure we’re worthy of it, I think you should be keeping it a secret.

Oh im sorry, i didn't realise i needed some sort of military background to comment on the thread, there's me thinking it was a discussion forum. How foolish of me.

As we all know the CIA are the most reputable source of information on the planet. 

[Gerry Attrick]

Oh im sorry, i didn't realise i needed some sort of military background to comment on the thread, there's me thinking it was a discussion forum. How foolish of me.

As we all know the CIA are the most reputable source of information on the planet. 

It is quite surprising you are now saying America wouldn’t want to get involved in a nuclear war after forecasting pretty much nothing else 6 months ago. You must’ve heard something.

[classycarra]

As we all know the CIA are the most reputable source of information on the planet. 

Not sure of the agencies involved, but I think it's fair to say US and NATO intelligence is on a better streak for assertively calling things correctly in this conflict than you have

[Red Beret]

NATO isn't sinking the black sea fleet if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that would lead to all out nuclear conflict that doesn't bare thinking about. Biden has already made it clear they'll respond like that only if one inch of NATO territory is attacked which is why Ukraine is doing all it can to rush through NATO membership. As harsh as it seems America, the UK, France etc... aren't going to risk a nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine that's the bottom line.

So if Putin uses a nuke or nukes in Ukraine, what do you think NATO's response would be, and what do you think it should be?

And if weather patterns carry radioactive contamination into NATO territory, how should that response change as a result?

There's no diplomatic solution that I can see. There's likely frantic back channel activity on the potential repercussions of a nuclear strike, and that's probably the only thing staying Putin's hand. That can't last as he's running out of options. The military situation is on the verge of disintegrating, and he faces an outcome of less than what he started with if Ukraine moved against Crimea. Nobody's ready to talk yet.

[Mister Flip Flop]

So if Putin uses a nuke or nukes in Ukraine, what do you think NATO's response would be, and what do you think it should be?

And if weather patterns carry radioactive contamination into NATO territory, how should that response change as a result?

There's no diplomatic solution that I can see. There's likely frantic back channel activity on the potential repercussions of a nuclear strike, and that's probably the only thing staying Putin's hand. That can't last as he's running out of options. The military situation is on the verge of disintegrating, and he faces an outcome of less than what he started with if Ukraine moved against Crimea. Nobody's ready to talk yet.

NATO at present has to play the hard line with Putin but what they say in public and what they do in reality is another matter.

There is no blood thicker than ink.

[Lusty]

surely chemical weapons would be more likely. straight out of the syria playbook, and more of a progression in terms of boundary breaking.

having said that, the calculations should be different now. western actors and electorates are back on board with responding to and trying to prevent genocide after a decade or so of isolationist navel gazing left syria to be destroyed because it was apparently easier to sleep well at night leaving syrian civilians to be targeted and the surviving population displaced, than it was to try to do something about it because 'its complicated'

I think chemical weapons, and tactical nukes for that matter, would be a miscalculation for Putin either way.

For a start, I don't think they really give him any particular battlefield advantage over and above what he has now.  Despite their poor performance overall, the Russian armies main strength is its artillery and they already have the ability to flatten an entire square mile without having to resort to chemical or nuclear weapons.  He can also launch them into civilian areas if he wants and that would not be an escalation from where we are now because he's already done it.

The other thing though is that Putin's only real way out now is to play the long game, and hope that Ukraine's Western partners either lose interest, get sick of the increased gas bills, or that some major elections go his way like the US mid terms.  He basically needs that Western unity to dissolve away, and using chemical or nuclear weapons would have the opposite effect.

[Mister Flip Flop]

I think chemical weapons, and tactical nukes for that matter, would be a miscalculation for Putin either way.

For a start, I don't think they really give him any particular battlefield advantage over and above what he has now.  Despite their poor performance overall, the Russian armies main strength is its artillery and they already have the ability to flatten an entire square mile without having to resort to chemical or nuclear weapons.  He can also launch them into civilian areas if he wants and that would not be an escalation from where we are now because he's already done it.

The other thing though is that Putin's only real way out now is to play the long game, and hope that Ukraine's Western partners either lose interest, get sick of the increased gas bills, or that some major elections go his way like the US mid terms.  He basically needs that Western unity to dissolve away, and using chemical or nuclear weapons would have the opposite effect.

Not to up on American politics but what's the situation with the American mid terms. like in how will that effect Russian thinking in the field?

[Lusty]

Not to up on American politics but what's the situation with the American mid terms. like in how will that effect Russian thinking in the field?

If US politics heads back in a Trumpy direction then Putin will now that Biden will be gone in a couple of years and the US will stop supporting Ukraine.  Then the whole Western coalition starts to fall apart.

If Biden does well in the midterms then he's got to think that the US will be supporting Ukraine for another 6 years, and he can't hold on that long.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

The amazing thing about all this is that, in a way, Elon Musk (like him or not) has prevented an escalation so far to this war, by building Starlink in such a short period of time. Not only has the satellite linkage proved extremely useful to the Ukrainian military, it's also prevented the use of biological and chemical weapons by denying the Russians the ability to deny culpability. Live updates from the war, in places like Mariupol for example, allowed an unprecedented amount of information from the front lines to get out, which makes denying atrocities that much harder.

In a way, I think Starlink has to have been the most vital infrastructure the Ukrainians have in their arsenal, much more than any of the Western weapons have proven to be.

[afc tukrish]

In a way, I think Starlink has to have been the most vital infrastructure the Ukrainians have in their arsenal

When does Schwarzenegger come back from da futah?

[classycarra]

I think chemical weapons, and tactical nukes for that matter, would be a miscalculation for Putin either way.

For a start, I don't think they really give him any particular battlefield advantage over and above what he has now.  Despite their poor performance overall, the Russian armies main strength is its artillery and they already have the ability to flatten an entire square mile without having to resort to chemical or nuclear weapons.  He can also launch them into civilian areas if he wants and that would not be an escalation from where we are now because he's already done it.

The other thing though is that Putin's only real way out now is to play the long game, and hope that Ukraine's Western partners either lose interest, get sick of the increased gas bills, or that some major elections go his way like the US mid terms.  He basically needs that Western unity to dissolve away, and using chemical or nuclear weapons would have the opposite effect.

agree with every word, well put together points

i was only commenting on that topic as there've been a lot of posts suggesting that putin is about to go nuclear and i think in the unlikely event he pulls something so extreme it would be more like the Douma chemical weapon attack rather than a something nuclear (regardless of the scale)

[Red Beret]

NATO at present has to play the hard line with Putin but what they say in public and what they do in reality is another matter.

There is no blood thicker than ink.

I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? That doesn't answer the questions I raised at all! 🤔

[west_london_red]

I think chemical weapons, and tactical nukes for that matter, would be a miscalculation for Putin either way.

For a start, I don't think they really give him any particular battlefield advantage over and above what he has now.  Despite their poor performance overall, the Russian armies main strength is its artillery and they already have the ability to flatten an entire square mile without having to resort to chemical or nuclear weapons.  He can also launch them into civilian areas if he wants and that would not be an escalation from where we are now because he's already done it.

The other thing though is that Putin's only real way out now is to play the long game, and hope that Ukraine's Western partners either lose interest, get sick of the increased gas bills, or that some major elections go his way like the US mid terms.  He basically needs that Western unity to dissolve away, and using chemical or nuclear weapons would have the opposite effect.

I dont think you can compare conventional Russian artillery to a tactical nuclear weapon, a tactical weapon still has the capability of producing a Hiroshima level of destruction in a single event as opposed to days or weeks of conventional bombardment and the opportunity that provides for evacuation of civilians or counter attacks for example. You dont get that with a single strike weapon.   

[thaddeus]

I dont think you can compare conventional Russian artillery to a tactical nuclear weapon, a tactical weapon still has the capability of producing a Hiroshima level of destruction in a single event as opposed to days or weeks of conventional bombardment and the opportunity that provides for evacuation of civilians or counter attacks for example. You dont get that with a single strike weapon.

I presume any nuclear weapon, tactical or otherwise, also creates a contaminated no-go zone for many decades after and the potential for contamination spreading further afield.  I appreciate artillery rubbleisation isn't exactly laying the foundations for a habitable area but nuclear weaponry is a whole different level.

As others have said I don't think Russia will go through with it as it will make it very difficult for those countries still sitting on the fence to continue to do so.  I don't pretend to have any deep insight into Putin's mind though so I guess we just hope for the best.

[Lusty]

I dont think you can compare conventional Russian artillery to a tactical nuclear weapon, a tactical weapon still has the capability of producing a Hiroshima level of destruction in a single event as opposed to days or weeks of conventional bombardment and the opportunity that provides for evacuation of civilians or counter attacks for example. You dont get that with a single strike weapon.   

I think part of the problem is that there isn't a single definition of what is a tactical nuke and what isn't.  I think most people think of things like the Davey Crockett or a briefcase bomb which are nothing like that powerful.  Anything on the level of Hiroshima would not be considered, in the mind of the public at least, as a tactical nuke.

The best thing the US could do is make it very clear that there is no such thing as a tactical nuke and that any nuclear strike would be met with the same result regardless of size.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

NATO isn't sinking the black sea fleet if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that would lead to all out nuclear conflict that doesn't bare thinking about. Biden has already made it clear they'll respond like that only if one inch of NATO territory is attacked which is why Ukraine is doing all it can to rush through NATO membership. As harsh as it seems America, the UK, France etc... aren't going to risk a nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine that's the bottom line.

The Ukrainians have been doing a good enough job of that.


And you have zero idea or insight into what the reaction would be.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

I dont think you can compare conventional Russian artillery to a tactical nuclear weapon, a tactical weapon still has the capability of producing a Hiroshima level of destruction in a single event as opposed to days or weeks of conventional bombardment and the opportunity that provides for evacuation of civilians or counter attacks for example. You dont get that with a single strike weapon.

Russia now employs large amounts of thermobaric weapons, from the TOS-1A to the air dropped FAB variants. Those already cause huge amounts of destruction per salvo, you can see when they're deployed in villages where whole swathes of buildings get annihilated in an instant.

I think part of the problem is that there isn't a single definition of what is a tactical nuke and what isn't.  I think most people think of things like the Davey Crockett or a briefcase bomb which are nothing like that powerful.  Anything on the level of Hiroshima would not be considered, in the mind of the public at least, as a tactical nuke.

The best thing the US could do is make it very clear that there is no such thing as a tactical nuke and that any nuclear strike would be met with the same result regardless of size.

But if you really think about it, the Russians have never said the use of nuclear weapons would be limited to just tactical use only. Think this is a line that has come from western sources, however if we have come down to this, I imagine it won't be that limited.

[Lusty]

Russia now employs large amounts of thermobaric weapons, from the TOS-1A to the air dropped FAB variants. Those already cause huge amounts of destruction per salvo, you can see when they're deployed in villages where whole swathes of buildings get annihilated in an instant.

But if you really think about it, the Russians have never said the use of nuclear weapons would be limited to just tactical use only. Think this is a line that has come from western sources, however if we have come down to this, I imagine it won't be that limited.

Yes and this goes back to my earlier point, there is not really any such thing as a nuclear weapon that gives Russia a tactical benefit that outweighs the strategic cost of using it. 

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Yes and this goes back to my earlier point, there is not really any such thing as a nuclear weapon that gives Russia a tactical benefit that outweighs the strategic cost of using it.

I would agree with this. Think the spectre of its' possible use far outweighs any advantages of them actually being used.

[Qston]

I agree with all the points raised above about there being no benefit to Russia/Putin using a nuclear weapon. My concern remains that all these arguments are based on logic - correctly - but that Putin seems to have lost sense of what is logical, not least by his invasion in the first place. He is becoming increasingly cornered and that makes his decision making likely all the more erratic.

How does 'the west'/NATO even respond to it if it happens ? I have seen the article quoting Patreus, and various others voicing a similar opinion, again all logical The worry has to be that even with a conventional response won`t that automatically cause a rapid escalation to something even more serious ? No doubt NATO countries are working through all possibilities and it must be a nightmare trying to second guess someone who is totally losing a grasp on reality. The hope beyond hope is that there are some saner people in a position within Russia to do something about him - most likely the military.

[Red Beret]

I think part of the problem is that there isn't a single definition of what is a tactical nuke and what isn't.  I think most people think of things like the Davey Crockett or a briefcase bomb which are nothing like that powerful.  Anything on the level of Hiroshima would not be considered, in the mind of the public at least, as a tactical nuke.

The best thing the US could do is make it very clear that there is no such thing as a tactical nuke and that any nuclear strike would be met with the same result regardless of size.

The Hiroshima bomb was 15kt; Nagasaki's was 21kt. A modern tactical nuke would probably have a yield of anything between 5-12kt. But as you say, a nuke is a nuke.

I disagree on a response in kind, ie a nuke in response. But there needs to be a harsh and immediate military response that really hurts the Russian military badly. It would be the start of a Nato-Russo war, but if Vlad starts lobbing nukes without a reply then we're all fecked anyway.

[Nobby Reserve]

If Putin is toppled would that also expose the scumbag Ramzan Kadyrov to justice?

Seeing the four smug prats put in charge of the land grabbed Ukrainian regions I came up with only four possible scenarios of where they'll be in four months time:
1) Dead
2) Captured
3) In hiding
4) Administering a nuclear wasteland after Putin has shown the world what a strong man he is

It felt like the 2022 equivalent of being banished to Siberia but those clowns were lapping it up.

Razman 'Ramsay Bolton' Kadyrov

What a horrible piece of mouldy shite this c*nt is.

[Lusty]

The Hiroshima bomb was 15kt; Nagasaki's was 21kt. A modern tactical nuke would probably have a yield of anything between 5-12kt. But as you say, a nuke is a nuke.

I disagree on a response in kind, ie a nuke in response. But there needs to be a harsh and immediate military response that really hurts the Russian military badly. It would be the start of a Nato-Russo war, but if Vlad starts lobbing nukes without a reply then we're all fecked anyway.

I didn't say that the US should nuke them back just to clarify.

[Red Beret]

I didn't say that the US should nuke them back just to clarify.

And just to clarify, I didn't intend to imply that!

I think the most terrifying prospect of a nuclear attack isn't just that Putin ordered it - but that people were prepared to carry it out.

We know the Russian political system is corrupt and rotten to the core, and that dictators by their nature make themselves very difficult to replace. A nuke going off would be the signal that there is nobody we can deal with diplomatically. They'd all be in too deep, with nothing to lose at that point, so unwilling they would be to face up to the consequences of their actions.

And this isn't 1945. We can't just drive into Moscow, catch all the Putin supporters to put on trial, and completely rebuild their governance system from scratch. Who the hell would there be left to talk with to try and stop things getting any worse?

[So… Howard Philips]

Razman 'Ramsay Bolton' Kadyrov

What a horrible piece of mouldy shite this c*nt is.

And he’s sending his three teenage sons into battle. Very medieval.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63118050

[thaddeus]

And he’s sending his three teenage sons into battle. Very medieval.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63118050

The same sons he entered into an illegal martial arts competition where protective equipment wasn't used.  Using the GoT analogy maybe he's actually Roose Bolton and the next generation are going to be the real psychopaths.

Lusty answered the question earlier so I'll not repeat it.  In a different outcome though where Russia is led by a moderate and accepted back surely Kadyrov would lose the protection he's currently afforded by Russia.  He plays the hard man but without Mother Russia I don't expect he'd last long.

[stoa]

And he’s sending his three teenage sons into battle. Very medieval.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63118050

Probably can't afford the food for the fat one...

[redbyrdz]

And he’s sending his three teenage sons into battle. Very medieval.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63118050

Its good on him to announce that, they'll be prime targets for Ukraine to find and arrest.


I'd feel sorry for the kids, but they've likely been brainwashed from birth.

[So… Howard Philips]

Its good on him to announce that, they'll be prime targets for Ukraine to find and arrest.


I'd feel sorry for the kids, but they've likely been brainwashed from birth.

They’ll probably end up as psychopathic as Sadam’s offspring.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Elon Musk just went on Twitter to post about Ukraine.

Ukraine-Russia Peace:

- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

- Water supply to Crimea assured.

- Ukraine remains neutral.

Pretty irresponsible of him, to be honest. I think the companies he has brought into this world are pretty remarkable, but with his character I really can’t get onside with. He’s gone off even more into the deep end ever since he became a MAGA supporter too.

[rafathegaffa83]

Elon Musk just went on Twitter to post about Ukraine.

No surprise this dickhead has waded in. Musk has an opinion on everything, even in areas in which his knowledge is limited and his fanboys will lap it up.

[Red Beret]

Rich person in thinking he has all the answers shocker.

If Putin tells him to shove it, will Elon label him a pedo as well?

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

No surprise this dickhead has waded in. Musk has an opinion on everything, even in areas in which his knowledge is limited and his fanboys will lap it up.

It’s such a shame though, I’m a huge fan of SpaceX, which makes me wish even more that he would have been kicked out after his failed takeover of Twitter. But if it was just some other old corporate type taking over, we probably won’t see the same innovations coming out of that company like they are now.

I just wish I could be a neurosurgeon and give him the first politically correct lobotomy in human history.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Zelenskyy has seen enough and put out his own poll on Elon.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1577006943499350016?s=21&t=LnVeSnWhFf8ZwpN3x9Ye3g

He is just a master at his craft.

[classycarra]

Elon Musk just went on Twitter to post about Ukraine.

Pretty irresponsible of him, to be honest. I think the companies he has brought into this world are pretty remarkable, but with his character I really can’t get onside with. He’s gone off even more into the deep end ever since he became a MAGA supporter too.

The guys a c*nt. I expect someone who points out the deficiencies in his grandstanding 'ideas' is gonna get called a paedophile again, he isn't very good at handling scrutiny