Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine captures Severodonetsk

Pillz Member	Sun Sep 25 15:18:51 +8 MLRS systems +20 artillery +234 special equipment
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 25 15:24:18 Russian figures 7th to 17th: +0 planes +3 helicopters +2 AA missiles +186 drones +143 tanks/IFVs +12 MLRS systems +24 artillery and mortars +280 technicals/other Kherson hasn't been particularly active during either of those periods. The only Major ukrainian pushes have been Kupyansk and Lyman. Neither successful. So Russian comments earlier last week that the attacks on Lyman have been as costly as the whole Kharkov offensive are looking pretty accurate.
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 25 15:41:19 When are you going to russia?
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 25 16:12:34 Only 15% of the American public support sending more military and financial aid to Ukraine than wealthy European countries, with almost twice as many people (34%) wanting to send less assistance. 54% of respondents said that the United States should only continue to provide aid to Ukraine if the Europeans are willing to match our support. Around half of the respondents polled said the U.S. should provide the same level of support for Ukraine as wealthy European countries, not more. Generally, Americans would like to see less American military involvement in the world overall: 57% of respondents oppose (strongly or somewhat) direct American military intervention in the war in Ukraine while only 14% percent support (strongly or somewhat). 42% of respondents would like to see less American military involvement abroad. Only 7% would support more engagement. A plurality of respondents said Biden should make lowering or eliminating inflation his top priority (40%). Conversely, only 2% believe that ensuring a defeat of Russia in Ukraine should be the President’s main priority. Notably, when compared to a similar poll conducted in July, American sentiment on the Russia-Ukraine war has remained largely unchanged – only about a quarter of the American public support directly involving the U.S. military in the Russia-Ukraine war, with more than twice as many people opposing. http://cv4...rect-intervention-in-conflict/ Pay up Europe, with rare exceptions y'all are cheap skates.
Paramount Member	Sun Sep 25 16:45:22 Obaminated must be among those 14% that support a direct american military intervention in Ukraine. He might actually be about to go to Ukraine tomorrow and join the Boogaloo Boys. http://www...oogaloo-bois-ukraine-mike-dunn
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 25 19:53:20 http://t.me/asbmil/5692 https://t.me/asbmil/5694?single Ukrainian sources say that the warehouses in Odessa were packed with so much ammunition that they expect the explosions to last for at least 1 to 2 more hours https://t.me/asbmil/5695
LazyCommunist Member	Mon Sep 26 02:25:44 Crazy killer is certainly not pure ethnic Russian http://mob...oth/status/1574272320071426049 Video of a Russian man opening fire and killing the military commandant in a draft centre in the city of Úst-Ilimsk in Irkutsk region. The military commandant was the head of the local draft committee. He has died, according to reports.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 26 05:42:30 Very strong statements around nuclear weapons from the US and others according to the FT. http://www...93-6635-40eb-a356-c8e1bb14cea3 “We have communicated directly, privately at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” he said." US president Joe Biden has said that if Putin uses nuclear weapons, Washington’s response would be “consequential . . . depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur”. I read the above as my preferred response: use nukes against Ukraine, and NATO will go all in conventionally to destroy your forces in Ukraine. Do you dare escalate to a nuclear war then? Also, just for the lulz: "Russia’s poor co-ordination of its conventional military units since the start of its invasion of Ukraine suggests that nuclear strikes may not materially change the outcome on the battlefield, some military experts also said. “You need some kind of integration with your conventional forces, whether you want to stop an attack or advance. They haven’t really demonstrated they can do that,” said Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. Russia’s mixed record of conventional strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure also indicated that a nuclear attack could go awry, he said. Ukrainians “could shoot down a [nuclear-armed] cruise missile, or a cruise missile could go astray and could hit a residential building. There is a risk of that kind — considerable uncertainty about the success of a strike.”
Pillz Member	Mon Sep 26 06:09:44 Seb exuding /k/ tier level of cope
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 08:09:35 Seb Well, the West will soon know what it has to do then since it obviously is taking the potential seriously. Russian triggers for nucler weapons use is pretty transparent and the country is nothing if not formalistic. It just has to avoid allowing Ukraine to seriously threaten Russia's territorial integrity defined by how Russia understands it. Not that I for a second think there is a Nato concensus on what military action to take if any if nukes are used. I cannot imagine this can even be discussed at political levels in most Nato countries. The experts you find say stupid shit. Russia has tactical delivery platforms that cannot be shot down..and it would matter how if one hit a residential building? Residential buildings are going to be in the blast radius no matter what.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 08:49:41 Deadly gun attack at Russian school By Merlyn Thomas BBC News Seven children and six adults were killed, including two security guards and two teachers, according to Russian officials. Staff and pupils have been evacuated from the school buildings. One local MP said the attacker - named as Artem Kazantsev- had been armed with two pistols. A video posted online by the investigative committee shows the gunman lying dead on the floor wearing a T-shirt with a Nazi symbol and a balaclava. Investigators are searching his place of residence. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63032790
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 08:50:11 "A Princeton University simulation of a US-Russian conflict that begins with the use of a tactical nuclear weapon predicts rapid escalation that would leave more than 90 million people dead and injured," it said." Seems Seb's scenario has already been wargamed. Russia begins with tactical nukes in Ukraine that for reasons unknown somehow trigger a hot US-Russian conflict that quickly leaves 90 million dead. The scenario did not specify what country the tactical nukes were first used in, merely assumed that the US would respond, so prolly thought it a Nato country.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 08:58:03 if nukes are used in ukraine,it will probably be a false flag by nato's nazis to implicate the russians. just like the false flag chem attacks in syria.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 09:05:56 ST Well, it was either Russia has to partially mobilize, or it has to use tactical nukes. Now Russia has partially mobilized, is setting the stage for fully mobilizing 4 provinces in Ukraine (along the lines of how Ukraine has done in the rest of the country) and told the West, "mkay, lets pretend your best case still happens. What then? Well, our doctrine is pretty clear, so your best case scenario is actually your worst case scenario" Interests now dovetail. A perpetual conventional conflict with no major changes for either party. The West does not want to give Ukraine leopards or Abrams anyway, so it works in that sense too.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 09:11:37 it will give leopards and abrams,if ukraine doesn't capitulate before the new year.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 09:30:13 The UA army is very careful not only with each received HIMARS, but also with each received missile. Do you know why? Because each one hits the target! Because each one brings us closer to our victory! http://twi...78469?cxt=HHwWisCiheGxo9krAAAA that's why the leo's and abrams are gonna go to ukraine. the current wunderwaffen is starting to lose it's charm and aura of awesomeness,and missiles are getting scarcer it would seem.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Sep 26 09:39:43 Luckily, although Putin could resort to nukes because he's completely fucked, his top generals are not. They can still return to their families and lives. He's lost everything, but the guys he needs to set off a nuke have not. It's imperative that we continue to make sure they know they have a way out, possibly why we often hear Biden et al. reiterate that this is entirely Putin's responsibility, but maybe could be stated completely up front. Also, this may not be proof that NATO takes the threat seriously, it could be NATO deciding it's time to start talking tough back.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 09:48:45 WtB The elite in Russia knows that the only way out on Western terms is a repeat of the dissolution of the USSR at a Russian Federation level with the chaos, anarchy and suffering that caused. The actual way out is a perpetual conflict along Israel-Arab lines for a number of decades. Ukraine and the West in the role of Arabs in this analogy. Putin is actually more of a Russian moderate than he is a hardliner. Thinking the conflict is just about him would be completely wrong.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 09:50:42 Well the complet analogy: Russia - Israel Ukraine - Palestine The West - Arabs Donbas etc - Israel occupied territories
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 09:56:21 ukraine is the israel of europe.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 09:57:12 A single missile is not actually very survivable. That is why Ukraine launches high precision missiles in barrages. Saturation tactics. Fire enough and some will get through. For example: http://www...f_himars_rockets_are_launched/
williamthebastard Member	Mon Sep 26 09:57:58 "Thinking the conflict is just about him would be completely wrong" With regards to personal desperation, there are a top officials involved in the launch of nukes that do not have to make the same life or death decisions that Putin is faced with, that aren't faced with the same personal desperation
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 09:58:14 ST Your analogy does not work. Who is the Arab world and who is Palestine in that case? Mine works :).
williamthebastard Member	Mon Sep 26 10:03:38 "Putin is actually more of a Russian moderate than he is a hardliner. " His desperation is what people fear here, not his political ideology
FUCK YOU FAG Member	Mon Sep 26 10:27:13 Best meme on current Russia: http://twitter.com/maxfras/status/1574027504326791168
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 10:46:09 WtB What desperation? Fighting in Ukraine will go on, and if criteria for nuclear weapons use are reached, then they might be used. So desperate means nuclear weapons use criteria have been passed. Nothing odd about Russia's nuclear doctrine in that sense. It has about the same criteria all nuclear powers have. So, I guess the trick here is to not make "Putin" "desperate". Quotations around "Putin" because it could be any random Russian leader in the same situation. Don't worry, there is a pretty broad path to keeping the conflict in Ukraine going, but not supporting Ukraine enough to trigger nuclear weapons use. Frankly, I am unsure if we can provide Ukraine with enough help to trigger nuclear use even if we wanted to. Russia's main weakness has been lack of manpower.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 10:52:51 The minds of russians and their simps work in odd ways.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 10:53:03 "Work"
williamthebastard Member	Mon Sep 26 11:06:48 "WtB What desperation?" You've actually missed that at the forefront of every relevant analyst's task is to try to establish how desperate he is and whether he is desperate enough to have suicide-by-cop tendencies or not, where his red line is? Because thats his only weapon, the only thing keeping him alive is his nuke-threats. Without them, NATO could destroy his forces in half an hour.
murder Member	Mon Sep 26 11:33:22 "Best meme on current Russia:" That went right over my head.
FUCK YOU FAG Member	Mon Sep 26 11:57:35 "That went right over my head." That is because you don't know the original meme and the 1000 variants.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 12:04:26 Did you get it? I assume you did, but for general reference: The dud staring at the chick is missing. Mobilized no doubt :). Wtb Desperation is framed oddly. Russia just partially mobilized. Some 8 months after Ukraine fully mobilized. That is being framed as desperate. It is actually just a partial mobilization because Russia does not have the manpower to cover a 1500 km long front without partially mobilizing. Nukes are probably the only thing keeping Nato from getting directly involved in a stand-offish way. So sure, Russia is stating the obvious. Credible chances of actually reversing the land grab will probably involve tactical nuclear weapons if done either directly by nato, or by nato using an Ukrainian proxy they decide to try and arm for that purpose. Game-set-match? Or are you willing to go to nuclear war for Ukraine?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 12:10:17 "Credible chances of actually reversing the land grab will probably involve tactical nuclear weapons if done either directly by nato, or by nato using an Ukrainian proxy they decide to try and arm for that purpose." Lol batshit.
murder Member	Mon Sep 26 12:15:18 "The dud staring at the chick is missing. Mobilized no doubt." Or fled or dead I assume.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 12:19:00 Sammy Formalistic and follows logically from Russia annexing territory. The decision point to use nukes to defeat any chances of a landgrab reversal is if to annex or not. If Russia does not want to use nukes under that contingency, then it will not annex. It will probably be avoided in any event. A partial mobilization should soon take away a lot of Ukraine's manpower advantage along the contact line.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 12:19:52 German FM ladies and gentlemen http://twi...87616?cxt=HHwWgMC4ya3artkrAAAA lol
murder Member	Mon Sep 26 12:36:31 She's right. Allowing Russia to get away with a landgrab would only invite more of it. From them and from others. That's why Russia needs to be turned back at all cost.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 12:38:52 How come swordfail and pillz only find the most batshit tabloid sources on the internet?
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 12:50:11 Germany Secures Just One Tanker of Gas During Scholz’s Gulf Tour UAE delivery to floating terminal will be made by early 2023 Europe’s biggest economy may face blackouts and rationing http://www...eal-as-energy-squeeze-tightens nato's nazis and their nincompoops just keep on winning
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 13:17:48 Murder Russia has by no stretch "gotten away" with the landgrab. Losses are considerable and it is under a sanction regime so rigerous, it has no alternative but to permanently pivot east for market access and imported goods. The only thing this proves and continues to prove is that having a nuclear arsenal is rather a good idea.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 26 13:22:42 hopefully iran smartens up and gets one
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 13:39:51 Nah we are gonna color revolution iran.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 14:05:08 Has that worked at all anywhere in the last decade?
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 26 14:30:18 Russia and Iran should arm the MAGA rebels (freedom fighters) and provide intelligence to them.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 14:36:02 Maga is already better armed and trained than russia and WAY better than iran. "Has that worked at all anywhere in the last decade?" Doesnt matter, we are still gonna do it to iran.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 15:01:07 Maga seems rather like a geriatric branch of the Waffle-SS.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 26 15:05:39 "Maga seems rather like a geriatric branch of the Waffle-SS." Yup. And would still defeat russia. Lol.
murder Member	Mon Sep 26 15:57:17 "Russia and Iran should arm the MAGA rebels (freedom fighters) and provide intelligence to them." They couldn't afford it.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 26 16:34:21 Murder Not how it works. You get MAGA folk on your cause and they pay you.
Pillz Member	Tue Sep 27 01:10:35 Video with destroyed armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kherson region. You can see the Yugoslav M-80A infantry fighting vehicle delivered from Slovenia, the British Husky TSV armored car and the Dutch YRP-765 armored personnel carrier. http://t.me/intelslava/37956 Lol
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 03:22:15 27 Sep, 10:01 NATO won’t interfere if Russia uses nuke weapons against Ukrainian aggression — Medvedev It is said that supplying weapons to Kiev is nothing more than business for Western countries MOSCOW, September 27. /TASS/. NATO will not interfere if Russia uses nuclear weapons in response to Ukrainian aggression, and Kiev must realize this to some degree, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said on his Telegram channel on Tuesday. "Let’s imagine that Russia is forced to use its most formidable weapons against the Ukrainian regime, which has committed a large-scale act of aggression that is endangering the very existence of our state. I believe that NATO will not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev wrote. He said that the security of Washington, London, and Brussels was "much more important to NATO than the fate of a dying Ukraine, even if it is abundantly supplied with all kinds of weapons". According to Medvedev, supplying weapons to Kiev is nothing more than business for Western countries, even if it is "densely mixed with hatred" towards Russia. "The overseas [the US] and European demagogues are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse. That is why they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict", Deputy Chairman of Russian Security Council stressed, "It would be good if the authorities in Kiev realized this sad conclusion at least a little bit. Alas, this is almost unrealistic," the politician concluded. According to the Russian nuclear doctrine (the Fundamentals of Russia’s Nuclear Deterrence State Policy, approved in 2020) the country may use nuclear weapons if the enemy uses this or other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia and its allies, reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles to attack Russia and its allies is received, the enemy strikes facilities necessary for retaliatory actions of nuclear force, and in case of aggression against Russia using conventional weapons, when the existence of the state itself is threatened.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 04:06:08 "I believe that NATO will not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario" He believes wrong. "That is why they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict", This is making the case for a limited demonstrative strike by NATO on some Russian grouping in Ukraine to get them to understand that this is not the case; lest they blunder into escalation.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 04:51:19 Seb This is not blundering. Russia is telegraphing quite succinctly. The decision point is to annex or not annex. It is formalistic thereafter if Russian conventional forces are insufficient to stablize the line of contact. It is actually making the case to tailoring Western aid to ensure the line of contact is stablized and remains stabilized. Neither more, nor less. Arming for a win for Ukraine at this juncture is overreach. Nukes exist for a purpose boyo.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 05:08:05 Jergul: I doubt the US or any Western country will be shifted by Russia's decision to annex. It amounts to "anywhere is Russia if we say so or we will nuke you". Well the Ukrainians disagree, and we aren't likely to stop supporting them. Russias threats don't look credible because they expect and require the rest of the world to accept and believe Russia can put its borders where it wants or trigger Armageddon: there rather die than accept that Ukraine exists. That's not credible, nor acceptable. And if Russia then does nuke Ukraine, that's a major norm demolished and creates enormous pressures to intervene conventionally against Russia in territory the West doesn't recognise as Russian. Again - nuking Ukraine that Dave respond in kind is one thing, but nuking NATO and risking all of Russia being reduced to ashes for two provinces they can't hold conventionally and which have been independently for decades? Again not credible. They know perfectly well that fit the West, the question is limited only to Ukraine's territorial borders. They can claim bits of Ukraine are now Russia and that an attack on that is an existential threat, but: A. Objectively it isn't. B. NATO doesn't think it is. c. They know we think that. So again, they lack credibility. They should also realise that such naked aggression and the US being deterred by nukes in Ukraine means the general preception is that they would be deterred also in other front line states - so the issue is existential for the Western slave and European security regime and therefore couldn't not be responded to. They may not do so, but they should. But in the end we can't simply adopt a mindset that concedes relentlessly to aggression - the aggressor will keep testing each new limit, and each will have less credibility than the last.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 05:08:55 That cannot respond in kind.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 05:18:07 I am told that Medvedev's grammar is ambiguous and "which has committed a large-scale act of aggression that is endangering the very existence of our state." can be read as a future conditional e.g. "should it have committed".
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 05:21:36 Basically annexing the DNR, lnr, Crimea may charge what Russia can sell the population of Russia re where the war is defensive or not. But it is not credible to think that the West etc. will then see Ukrainian attacks as aggression and Russian use of nukes as proportionate or acceptable or indeed a credible threat. It will be use of nuclear weapons, against a non nuclear state (one that disarmed, no less) in a war of unprovoked aggression. It will upend European security. There will be a response, by the sounds of it non nuclear, but decisive.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 06:11:55 Seb Funny how the Western argument is actually an absurdum fallacy. Russia has already demonstrated it will go to great lengths and accept high costs before it might use a nuclear option. An option it will telegraph comprehensively before it does. Russia is telegraphing very clearly. Including referenda and possible annexation. The decision point is at annexation. Russia will use nukes if that is what is needed to stablize the line of contact if it annexes and will not if it does not annex. Princeton has already wargamed a conflict scenario with Nato that begins with the use of tactical nukes. It ended with 90 million dead and wounded. What you are actually trying to do is telegraph an insane position. Arm and support Ukraine until Russia is forced to use nukes to stabilize the conflict. Why would you think Russia would allow Nato to defeat it conventionally by way of proxy? The fix is simple. Tailor aid to stabilize the line of conflict. Russia will probably accept that without using tactical nukes to lay the groundwork for a more decisive outcome. It may all be moot anyway. Russia should be able to stabilize the line of contact without nukes. But do forget about Ukraine winning. That is off the table.
Dukhat Member	Tue Sep 27 06:41:34 Jergul wants to bend over for Putin now.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 07:13:53 Jergul: The problem is that they have spent years saying they will use nuclear weapons for existential threats and territorial integrity of Russia is threatened. Now they are are trying to say they will use it to bully neighbors into being annexed by trying to pretend that failure of that country to surrender and accept this is an existential threat and a that to their territorial integrity - things that are manifestly not true - so are therefore discounted. If Russia meant they intended to use their nukes to intimidate countries into unilateral surrender of their territory to Russia in a blatantly imperialist war of choice, they would have said so previously. If Russia wants their nuclear threats taken seriously, they should be stop dissembling in their statements.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 07:16:56 "Russia is telegraphing very clearly." I'm pretty sure we don't have to care.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 07:20:29 I'm sorry but I don't agree that it is sane to think Russia will use nuclear weapons to annex foreign territory. It has always maintained that's not why it has nukes, logically it makes no sense to risk annihilation, and it would be madness for any neighbor of Russia to accept the idea that they must surrender or be nukes as a premise, and madness for Russia to believe that this could be accepted. It is a bluff. And we know it is a bluff because they can't even say it openly, and instead make a charade of it by trying to reframe their invasion of Ukraine as a Ukrainian invasion of Russia. If they can't even *say* what they are trying to do, and instead resort to trying to claim and have us believe that they believe a more plausible circumstances is happening where it would be rational for them to use nukes is occurring, then what is the likelihood of them actually carrying through? Nil.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 07:21:12 "But do forget about Ukraine winning. That is off the table." If you assert things with sufficient certainty, it's almost like they are true.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 07:22:35 Tl;dr even the Russians know their threats are not credible, hence the need to pretend lnr, dnr are Russian with fake referendums.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 07:30:00 "It has always maintained that's not why it has nukes, logically it makes no sense to risk annihilation, and it would be madness for any neighbor of Russia to accept the idea that they must surrender or be nukes as a premise, and madness for Russia to believe that this could be accepted." jergul is right about one thing, if that is Russia's position then the fix really is simple. Tactical nukes for all of Russia's neighbors.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 07:39:53 Dukhat Not at all. I am happy with a forever conflict where Russia does not get what it wants. Seb That is the thing. You keep on shuffling the order to try and make a point and by that show how little you understand the formalistic/procedural nature of what Russia is signaling. First referenda, then annexation, then stabilize line of contact or use tactical nuclear weapons. Russia's decision point is to annex or not annex. If it is bluffing, it will not annex. If it annexes, then tactical nuclear becomes procedural. Either it is triggered by events, or the events do not happen. Most likely, Russia will not need tactical nukes in any event. But yah, thinking Nato can beat Russia using a proxy on territory Russia defines as its own... ...is crazy. Your gambit has simply failed. Russia will not fall. China will not be contained. Best outcome now is a stabilized line of contact (what we tend to encourage anyway in conflicts we are not party too. You know. The stop fighting part). The alternative is 90 million dead or wounded according to 1 recent wargame at least.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 07:45:03 "Your gambit has simply failed. Russia will not fall. China will not be contained." You keep saying that you're not rooting for Russia, but it sure sounds like you are.
LazyCommunist Member	Tue Sep 27 08:53:17 Well it's true that they will get no training. But we don't have much time, we need to win before the winter. It's for a greater cause, it's for a greater Russia! http://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1574677787977228288 "Translation: they are officially told that there will be no training. they will be sent to Kherson on the 29th."
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 09:03:41 Murder Seb has a geopolitical perspective sometimes that ups the stakes. My line has been the same as always. There will be an exhaustion fueled ceasefire along a contact line at some point that will more lower intensity than actually be a ceasefire. The consequences of an Ukrainian victory on Ukrainian terms is simply for dire for Russia for it to happen. You know, given nukes exist.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 09:29:02 jergul: "First referenda, then annexation, then stabilize line of contact or use tactical nuclear weapons." The order doesn't make the slightest bit of difference for anyone but Russia and doesn't change objectively what is happening. Russia is using nuclear weapons to annex territory from a non-nuclear neighbour in an unprovoked act of aggression. No stage management will alter this.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 09:34:58 "If it annexes, then tactical nuclear becomes procedural." Implausible and not-credible. "But yah, thinking Nato can beat Russia using a proxy on territory Russia defines as its own..." So all Russia needs to do to defeat the US is declare east and east costs part of their territory - and naturally the west must accept this otherwise it is crazy. Russia can't beat NATO in a conventional war in Ukraine, and it isn't going to start WWIII over the issue.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 27 09:38:10 "If you assert things with sufficient certainty, it's almost like they are true." This is how russia works. A nation of liars and dishonor.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 27 09:40:13 It appears russia blew up their own pipelines, both NS 1+2, via underwater demolitions. Saddam style.
LazyCommunist Member	Tue Sep 27 09:53:10 Jergul, take this as a warning, choose the right side before *it* starts: http://www...nidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 10:11:14 Seb Russia's understanding of reality is what matters. Russia is not using nukes to annex territory. It captured territory, is holding referenda on captured territory and may very well annex that territory. Annexation turns this into a procedural affair. If Russia needs to use tactical nukes to keep the annexed territory from being liberated, then it will. You are doing the absurdum fallacy again. A bit trite frankly. What you think or don't think does not matter if Russia annexes. That is the decision point on if it is willing to use nukes to avert outcomes. Just hope it does not annex and opts for some hybrid variant with Ukrainian provinces being "independent". Using tactical nukes to correct convential imbalances is a well established principle embraced by all nuclear powers. But do feel free to just invent your own nuclear doctrine if that pleases you. Sammy Who benefits? The answer is Norway. So we prolly did it. Well, someone demonstrated capability. We now know that piped gas supplies to Europe from anywhere can be disrupted.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 10:13:26 "If Russia needs to use tactical nukes to keep the annexed territory from being liberated, then it will." "Russia will commit suicide!!!!!!!!!!" Nah, I don't think it will.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 10:24:30 Murder The wargame where Nato and Russia fighting was triggered by tactical nuclear use suggested 90 million killed and wounded before the fighting petered out. Hardly suicide. I don't really think it will be needed. The contact line in Ukraine should stabilize with conventional tools. My point is mostly that the decision point on using nukes or not will be made in a couple days when Russia decides to annex or not. What happens thereafter is procedural based on the situation on the ground.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 10:54:33 "The wargame where Nato and Russia fighting was triggered by tactical nuclear use suggested 90 million killed and wounded before the fighting petered out. Hardly suicide." What is Russia's declining population again? Considering that Putin just wanted to increase Russia's population, that seems like something he'd want to avoid. ;o) "My point is mostly that the decision point on using nukes or not will be made in a couple days when Russia decides to annex or not." My point is that it doesn't matter what the results of the referendum or whether Russia votes to annex the territory after the referendum. The fighting will continue. Western support will continue. Russia will lose. They will not use nukes. The only thing annexing the territory is going to accomplish is forcing Putin to eat an even bigger shitburger when Russia is defeated and "loses territory" to Ukraine.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 11:18:34 Jergul: It's only using nukes because it cannot hold the terrorist territory it has captured. It's also covering territory it hasn't captured in scope of the referendum. Annexation isn't procedural for anyone other than Russia. Russia can insist that after its held the referendums, attempts to liberate the territory is an existential threat to Russia and it must respond as such as it likes. It objectively isn't true. Nobody other than you and a few cooks seem to find this attempt at madman theory seriously. Ukraine will not stop retaking territory, NATO isn't going to stop helping Russia. Russia is unlikely to use a nuke, and if it does the odds are NATO or at least the US will respond dramatically and decisively. Russia would then need to decide if it wants to die because of procedures that they can choose to carry out of not carry out at their discretion. They will not start Armageddon to hold Crimea.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 11:52:57 Murder Surely you mean Russia's increasing population? There is no bigger shitburger. Losing on Western terms means the defacto dissolution of the Russian Federation. Seb The use of nukes after annexation is procedural based on trigger conditions. Russia's willingness to use nukes = its willingness to annex territory. What it annexes it will defend as if it were Russian heartlands. A nuke? That would be silly. 24-36 tactical nukes to fundamentally form the battlespace on and behind the contact line in Russia's favour. I think it more than likely that partial mobilization is enough to stabilize the line of contact. I remain unsure on why you think Russia would ignore a Nato assault using Ukrainian proxy forces. You prolly need a pretty high security clearance to access analysis along these lines from official channels. You are welcome!
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 12:52:42 Yeah nobody believes Russia is going to use nukes automatically and mindlessly because procedure. "Russia's willingness to use nukes = its willingness to annex territory." No it won't. That might be what they want us to believe, so we go along with annexation. But it's not true, their bluff will be called on that point. "24-36 tactical nukes to fundamentally form the battlespace on and behind the contact line in Russia's favour." The world will turn on Russia at that point. And the war will intensify not stop "I remain unsure on why you think Russia would ignore a Nato assault using Ukrainian proxy forces." It's not Russian territory, it's not an assault, it is liberation.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 13:12:59 Russian weapons have failed so thoroughly that jergul is talking about Russia using dozens of nuclear weapons ... as if that wouldn't provoke a devastating nuclear response.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 13:17:38 To put it in clear terms ... a nation that sets off nukes whenever it doesn't get its way is a nation that needs to get nuked for the safety of everyone else.
obaminated Member	Tue Sep 27 13:37:07 Imagine if the US openly spoke about the possibility of using tactical nukes in Afghanistan. Its insane how jergul and other morons can be so nonchalant about the use of nukes in a conventional war. If that were to happen the entire rules of war would be rewritten.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 27 13:48:48 "a nation that sets off nukes whenever it doesn't get its way is a nation that needs to get nuked for the safety of everyone else." Correct.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 14:12:02 Seb Nobody is expecting anyone to "go along with annexation". A live conflict along a more or less static line of contact is the expectation. The decision point is with annexation. It is about if Russia wants to bring to occupied areas firmly under its nuclear unbrella or not. There is no bluff to be called. Tactical nukes will be used if criteria are met. 1 tactical nuke does not reset the battlefield. 24-36 do. Still not a big deal. Total payload less than a single of the smallest strategic nukes in the US arsenal. Yepp, I am sure there would be political and diplomatic fallout. Still not getting why you think Russia would allow Nato to defeat it conventionally. Murder A ceasefire on Western terms would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation. Shrug, that ceasefire is not going to happen. Sammy Yah, I am looking for a fully fitted countryside home a few hours away almost as I type. I live a bit too close to a US nuke sub resupply base. It is probably on Russian target list. No downside either. Nice to have even without the precautionary backdrop.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 27 14:20:19 "A ceasefire on Western terms would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation. " And an increased standard of living for 99.9% of russians.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 14:42:55 Murder: If it was in the tends of nukes, yes, I think it would be impossible not to respond with nuclear weaponry. But if it was demonstrative use of a single nuke - then I think the disparity of arms is so great nato would likely not use nukes (unless Russia escalated) - because they do not need to and the benefit of maintaining the norm of no nuclear use while also kicking Russia's arse is strategically better.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 14:53:18 "A ceasefire on Western terms would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation." There's no need for a ceasefire on anyone's terms. All they have to do is pack up their shit and move it back to their side of the border. The war automatically ends. It's like magic!
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 14:56:50 Jergul: Your expecatations of Russia's threats involve them expecting the west to internalise the idea that Ukranian territories are part of Russia because Russia says so. Nobody believes that for a second, which is why their threat to go nuclear over it is not credible. They will need to go nuclear because Ukraine isn't going to stop because of the referrendums, nor is the west going to stop backing Ukraine. And if Russia does use nuclear weapons, it is going to trigger further escalation, no de-escalation. It's not a credible threat - because nobody else accepts the Russian referendums as meaningful, nor do they think Russia believes that they will accept them. "24-36 do" 24-36 reset the world order and start WWIII, that ends with either Russia destroyed, the world destroyed, or Putin shot and a Russian govt surrendering. "Total payload less than a single of the smallest strategic nukes in the US arsenal." Smallest known Russian warhead for Iskander runs between 5 and 50 kt. Cube/square law means that 24x5= 120kt in 20 packages devestates a greater volume (and produces more fall out) than a single W76 (100-150kt) - the smallest* strategic warhead. *It actually isn't any more, the latest refit of the W76 was down shifted to under 100kt as the fusing and triggering is much more accurate than it used to be for silo kills, so the yield can be reduced for greater usability against rogue state nuclear targets.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 14:57:33 Worth noting that Iskander mounted "tactical" nuclear weapons are city killers.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 14:58:16 "A ceasefire on Western terms would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation." That's their problem to manage.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 27 14:58:36 "we had to annex our neighbours because otherwise we would fall apart".
jergul large member	Tue Sep 27 16:31:24 It is indeed Russia's problem to manage. Manage in the same way any nuclear power would manage existential threats. Its funny in a sad way that you just don't get that. Anyway, we are some ways off any nuclear use 1. Russia has to annex the territories 2. Russia has to fail to stabilize the contact line. After that, it is just procedural. No bluff, just thresholds being passed that trigger 24-36 tactical missiles. Russia will probably be able to stabilize the frontline.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 17:40:55 "Russia will probably be able to stabilize the frontline." Yeah ... on their border.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Sep 27 17:47:26 ✔️Donetsk People's Republic - 99.23% ✔️Lugansk People's Republic - 98.42% ✔️Zaporozhye region - 93.11% ✔️Kherson region - 87.05%
Pillz Member	Tue Sep 27 18:05:14 Lol @ murder Imagine being that dumb ---- AFU Offensive on Beryslav Chronicle of Battles, August 29 — September 26 ▪️ At the end of August, the AFU launched a major offensive in the Mykolaiv-Kryvyi Rih direction. One of the objectives was to strike in the direction of Beryslav to split the Russian Armed Forces' grouping on the right bank of the Dnipro into two parts. ▪️ Near Andriivka and Lozove, the AFU forced the Inhulets and advanced to the village of Sukhyi Stavok, but withdrew under the strikes of the Russian Armed Forces. ▪️ On 31 August, the AFU managed to take the ruins of Sukhyi Stavok and occupy Kostromka and reach the village of Bruskyns’ke. Ukrainian units found themselves in open terrain and were heavily hit by Russian artillery and aviation. The enemy lost over 30 pieces of equipment and withdrew back to Sukhyi Stavok. ▪️The Ukrainian command launched another attack on September 2. AFU firward units occupied Bezimenne, but the Russian Air Force's Su-34 wing dropped almost two dozen tonnes of FAB-500 air bombs there. The village was levelled to the ground. ▪️ On September 9, the AFU reoccupied the ruins of Kostromka and Bezimenne, with advance groups reaching Chkalove. However, the Ukrainian units were forced to retreat to the initial positions under the Russian Armed Forces' strikes. ▪️ By September 13, the AFU only managed to retain control over the outskirts of Sukhyi Stavok. The nearby villages became a "grey zone" and all mobile groups’ attempts to infiltrate into the Russian Armed Forces' rear were suppressed by retaliatory fire. ▪️ By September 26, the front had stabilised. After weeks of continuous suicide attacks in the Kherson direction, the AFU suffered 4,000 casualties, mostly during attempts to attack in the area of Sukhyi Stavok. The Ukrainian offensive on Beryslav ended in complete failure. http://t.me/rybar/39455
Sam Adams Member	Tue Sep 27 18:22:38 lol mentally ill
Habebe Member	Tue Sep 27 18:51:24 ""A ceasefire on Western terms would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation. " And an increased standard of living for 99.9% of russians." Depends, they will probably want to flood the area with middle eastern & African Immigrants and make them eat dick and bugs. In which case a bunch of Russians on vodka sounds preferable.
murder Member	Tue Sep 27 20:01:54 "✔️Donetsk People's Republic - 99.23% ✔️Lugansk People's Republic - 98.42% ✔️Zaporozhye region - 93.11% ✔️Kherson region - 87.05%" jergul was right, early results undercounted the yes votes. ;o)
	show deleted posts