You say like major conflicts aren't regularly started over the most trivial bullshit.
You say like major conflicts aren't regularly started over the most trivial bullshit.
They generally aren't, otherwise we would have had nuclear wars over Korea, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, Cuba, Czechoslovakia...
Just because those didn't happen doesn't mean none have, we minced half of Europe because of inbreds beefing over turf.
Maybe if the Russian Empire had had nuclear weapons Austria-Hungary might have been a bit more sensible about Serbia, or Imperial Germany might have reined them in. Now we know how these things cascade, and we know what these weapons do, and we can recognise 'trivial bullshit' (from our perspective) when we see it, what is the excuse?
That assumes anyone actually learns anything from previous conflicts, which they demonstrably do not.
They did with Korea, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, Cuba, Czechoslovakia...
Kherson front is fully collapsing.
Hope they brought their swimming trunks.
Opening sequence of Vlad's Army.
What's the issue here with their rapid collapses? Poor morale? Equipment? Organisation?
I mean there's a few different ways to read it. In some of these areas if you get a successful attack that goes deep in a very limited area, it becomes very difficult to hold the rest of it just because of flanking risks. The Ukrainians have also been trying to starve the Russians in Kherson on supplies for quite some time, so you could think of it like the flashy ending in chess where you've been picking pieces off in the midgame, which when it falls into place looks like a sudden collapse even though it was in the cards for a longer period.
I also assume the Ukrainians ISR (supported by NATO) is leagues beyond Russian capabilities, meaning that when they move they really know which weakpoints to hit. They're probably very aware of how opportunistic they can be at any given time, meaning when they commit they are fairly certain of gaining something.
A more straight-forward explanation is that the Ukrainians have more men and are better able to concentrate forces in particular areas, which they are, quite sensibly, pushing before Russia can swell its numbers. By all accounts they are paying through the nose for the[ir] territory, but they can afford it.
My eyes kind of glaze over on military matters (I'm a politics guy) but Russia can't win on the ground, can it? Not now, anyway. Surely the only way they can finish the war satisfactorily from their point of view will be for the West to pull the plug, which also means that the West shouldn't pull the plug, nuclear sabre rattling be damned. That is, if the West's aim is for Ukraine's borders to return to SQAB and Vlad to get a bit of a custard pie in the gob. Who knows what they actually are/should be.
I was in Tesco the other week and somebody pushed in the queue. I said 'There's a queue here, dickhead', and he just brushed me off. I could have followed him outside and beaten him to death, but I didn't. I just stood there seething to myself. That's where the West is if Russia feels the need to get serious about nuclear weapon use. We've had our extremely costly fun, but at that point we're out.
Here's a wildcard: If a nuke is dropped, what do China do?
Either nothing, or joining the rest of the world in sanctioning them into deserved pariah status.
I have far stronger feelings about the queue skipper than Russia.
I was absolutely spewing.
RIP the bridge from Russia to Crimea.
Day after Vlad's birthday as well.
Nukes before Chrimbo?
Even China would disown them if they used Nukes. It would be (perhaps literal) suicide.
If all the reports in the media aren't just sticking a Ukrainian bias on things then it's increasingly looking like the only option left to ol' Vlad. Well, either that or retreat, which I assume he's never going to do.
He could throw millions of men at Ukraine if he wanted to. The death toll would be horrendous, but they outnumber the Ukrainians massively. That will probably tell eventually.
Plus, the West will eventually get bored of paying through the nose for gas and tell Ukrainian to give up the "pro-Russian" parts as part of a Ceasefire.
Isn't he already throwing millions of men at it?
Yeah, but in comparison to how many he could send it's the tip of the iceberg. If he sells it as Ukraine invading Russia he could mobilise tens of millions. They may only be armed with bread knives and potato guns but they would take ground like zombies in a bad film.
The only thing that 'mobilising millions of Russian men' would actually achieve is mobilising them against him.
There is no way out of this other than a return to the 2014 borders, he's fucked.
A nuke it is then. Gonna feel fucking weird/horrific waking up to that news. Strap in gents.
Haven't the Yanks said they would respond immediately to the use of Nuclear weapons?
Obviously there's alot of wriggle room within that use of words, but still...
On the plus side, a Nuclear Winter should offset Global Warming nicely.
That's not how nuclear winter works.
They have, albeit doing so will obviously start WW3, so whether or not they have the balls to (which I guess is also a consideration for Putin), is anyone's guess.
Was it Lewis who said (if Russia launch one) that's the point we all pull out and put our fingers in our ears? Lewis?
This is a great time to be living within 50 miles of Faslane.
Lol at the idea that Russian failure is bad because it means they'll nuke us all. That's what Vlad wants you to think, chumps.
I was thinking there's nothing worth bombing in Norfolk but I guess we've got a few military bases.
As I said a few pages back, Russian failure means absolutely nothing to me (and nor should it to anyone else) until they've actually failed. The bunting over it is doing nothing to change the situation that Ukraine or we are in.
And I'm not sure who is saying they'll nuke us all? Presumably they'd be wiped off the face of the map before a second one they sent hit anywhere in the West.
My posts above were only about what will happen next if the situation is as bad for Russia as the bunting brigade are making out, and if it is, the only logical conclusion I can draw is a nuke on Kiev.
I don't know why Yev is considering nukes as it's clearly all going to plan.
There's not a chance Russia uses a nuclear weapon. Even the mobilisation is desperate as it's not a numbers game at this point, Ukraine are able to push Russia back because they're using long range artillery to break down supply lines and then grinding isolated units to collapse. The best thing for Putin to do would be to fully withdraw and then turn himself into the police.
I know this line is a lol one, but the point I was making at the time was that the West were viewing things from how it would be if we'd entered into a needless conflict that had sustained losses, which is a moronic way of looking at it as Russians aren't the same as us. Need I remind you that it's still going, 6 months later and despite all the shit, it's showing no signs of stopping.
His options are either keep chucking progressively more useless soldiers into the meat grinder and hope for the best, or give up and withdraw.
I agree with Jimmy's take. There's also a chance he's replaced but still think that's an outside chance as Putin seems to have full domestic control.
There is plenty of scope for escalation between today and using a nuclear weapon, but if they're not willing to do it in response to their bridge being blown up then you have to wonder what they're playing at.
What does he actually gain by using a nuclear weapon?