Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Laser101]

Two things:

-Putin is now driven by narcissistic rage. He has been rudely reminded that his fantasy image of himself as a genius statesman and war leader is in fact a fantasy, and so is lashing out to regain a sense of control.

-Putin doesn't have to justify himself to the Russian public. He isn't accountable to them. While he would prefer to have popular support, as long as the military remains loyal he can rule through fear and intimidation.

The operative words being "as long as the military remains loyal". Considering the situation in Ukraine, that may be in doubt.

[bitterhowl]

Been a bit busy celebrating new Russian rules for gas trading.

Incoming! Well known Kremlin speaker here



No NATO in Ukraine ofc, only tens thousands if troops trained by NATO. No justification really.

@Love Mountain - I discussed same things on local forum about tactical nukes.

Asked one naive question - how one will differ regular Kinzhal launch from nuclear?

[bitterhowl]

As for Russian losses - 40k?

Russian Ministry of Defense - 1351 dead 3825 wounded. It's Russian soldiers, without LNR/DNR, yes. So 35 k from Donbass?

Your calculations for Russia include Donbass forces ofc.

[EmperorBatman999]

It’s generally known that official Ministry statistics tend to be on the low end of estimates for casualties and high end for enemy losses. Likewise I wouldn’t consider the Ukrainian numbers reliable for gauging how many Russians are KIA/WIA. The real number will be between Ukrainian and Russian official “statistics.” These official stats are mere propaganda devices to emphasize good news and hide bad news.

[Derpy Hooves]

So Russia has lost more vehicles than soldiers? Lol ok. If you believe that, I got a bridge connecting China to California to sell you

[bitterhowl]

So Russia has lost more vehicles than soldiers? Lol ok. If you believe that, I got a bridge connecting China to California to sell you

Wake up good morning, it's China calling

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a picture of how Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs think things go.

And this is how some western media think things going in Ukraine

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[z3n]

@DavidBN, Vanoi

Tactical nukes can have a yield of 0.1 kiloton. That's not going to cause fallout of any significance.
To suggest that USA would let New York City, with 20 million people, get nuked to death over a 0.1 kilton tactical nuke is ludricrous. Even 20 million American people getting nuked to death in NYC over 50'000 dead Ukrainians in far eastern europe is ludricrous.

You're also suggesting however, that USA would be willing to have 310 million of its citizens living in urban areas nuked to death over these same 50'000 Ukranians living in far eastern europe. Governments have an obligation first to their own people. They serve and protect the American people.


@DavidBN

Why do you think not a single nuke has ever been fired in a combat zone since 1945, by anyone?

Pure luck, just look at the Cuban Missile crisis. Or any other missile crisis.

__

Although since you say combat zone, again, pure luck. Look at the MacArthur situation. Despite only 4 nuclear powers (including an ahistorical UK, France and China to fluff up the number by three) of the 195 countries in the world being involved in that conflict, nukes were nearly used.

Also France and the UK have nukes.

As I said previously, "America First, Brexit, Vive la France!". The last phrase means "long live France". France would not live very long if 80% of its population (that which lives in urban areas) died to nuclear bombs. America First, means that American interests come first. We see this clearly in both WW1, WW2, and every other war since then. American appetite for casualties is nonexistent. Britain is a tiny island which would suffer even more than USA or France in the event of nuclear strikes against it, and regardless Brexit clearly shows they prefer Britain over Europe.

Also Ukraine.

It's Russia #1 (17.6% of all wheat exports), USA #2 (14.1%), Canada #3 (14% very close behind USA), France #4 (10.1%), and Ukraine #5 (8% much less than the first 4).

Yours seems a bit lacking of that famous empathy, I must say.

How so?

Again, you bet they would. NATO's entire existence is predicated on that.

As clearly laid out in the nato treaty; no state is obligated to provide military aid or support. Especially when the vast majority of American lives are at risk (or French, or British).

@EBatman

Russia may have a theoretical delineation between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, but I don't think NATO will respect this view, especially in light of the humanitarian atrocity it'll create on the European continent should one be used in Ukraine

The consequences of strategic nukes are 80% of all American, French, and British lives lost and the American country, British Island, and French country laid to waste. They would no longer be Great Powers and America would never be a superpower again. To suggest NATO nuclear powers be willing for such 80% of their population dead (500 million people) and to be powerless, all over 50'000 Ukranians, is unbelievable.

Finally, Clausewitz noted that the concept of "limited war" was foolhardy and contradictory to the inherent goals of modern war

Von Neumann's game theory shows the "rational" move by those in possession of strategic nukes is to immediately use them on the "enemy". This is contradictory, as it implies we are being irrational by not using them immediately.

[Bande Nere]

@DavidBN, Vanoi

Tactical nukes can have a yield of 0.1 kiloton. That's not going to cause fallout of any significance.
(1)To suggest that USA would let New York City, with 20 million people, get nuked to death over a 0.1 kilton tactical nuke is ludricrous. Even 20 million American people getting nuked to death in NYC over 50'000 dead Ukrainians in far eastern europe is ludricrous.

You're also suggesting however, that USA would be willing to have 310 million of its citizens living in urban areas nuked to death over these same 50'000 Ukranians living in far eastern europe. Governments have an obligation first to their own people. They serve and protect the American people.


@DavidBN


(2)Pure luck, just look at the Cuban Missile crisis. Or any other missile crisis.




As I said previously, "America First, Brexit, Vive la France!". (3)The last phrase means "long live France". France would not live very long if 80% of its population (that which lives in urban areas) died to nuclear bombs. America First, means that American interests come first. We see this clearly in both WW1, WW2, and every other war since then. American appetite for casualties is nonexistent. Britain is a tiny island which would suffer even more than USA or France in the event of nuclear strikes against it, and regardless Brexit clearly shows they prefer Britain over Europe.




(4)It's Russia #1 (17.6% of all wheat exports), USA #2 (14.1%), Canada #3 (14% very close behind USA), France #4 (10.1%), and Ukraine #5 (8% much less than the first 4).



(5)How so?





As clearly laid out in the nato treaty; no state is obligated to provide military aid or support. Especially when the vast majority of American lives are at risk (or French, or British).

@EBatman


The consequences of strategic nukes are 80% of all American, French, and British lives lost and the American country, British Island, and French country laid to waste. They would no longer be Great Powers and America would never be a superpower again. To suggest NATO nuclear powers be willing for such 80% of their population dead (500 million people) and to be powerless, all over 50'000 Ukranians, is unbelievable.



Von Neumann's game theory shows the "rational" move by those in possession of strategic nukes is to immediately use them on the "enemy". This is contradictory, as it implies we are being irrational by not using them immediately.

1) How many Americans died in 9/11 and how many during the next 20 years "avenging" those deaths? 3 to 4 times that number?
How many Americans died at Pearl Harbour and how many in the following three years? THe Japanese made the same assumptions you are doing now, it didn't go so well for them.
What happens if instead of bombing Ukraine they nuke a US carrier group? Those are all American lives, and would be more than the ones who died in 9/11.

2) pure luck EVERY SINGLE TIME? I doubt you believe that yourself.

3) I do speak French, along with 3 other national languages and 2 regional ones.

4) and every single one of those Countries is in the northern Hemisphere. The one "no one would care about if it got nuked to extinction", remember?

5) laughing about the prospect of a nuclear holocaust claiming areas of the World you aren't fond of is generally not considered a great sign of empathy. But you must have written the book on the whole subject, so what do I know. He will now show me he actually did and I shot myself in the foot

[bitterhowl]

An opinion about info war
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukrain...utouts/280012/

Dan Cohen reveals the network of foreign strategists, Washington DC lobbyists, and intelligence-linked media outlets behind Ukraine’s public relations blitz.

by Dan Cohen

And Russian MFA spokesperson Maria Zakharova's comments

#Opinion by Maria Zakharova:

What an amazing piece of American investigative reporting we have here.

It reveals that Kiev and its Western patrons have been manipulating the public opinion on a mind-blowing scale.

It turns out that the image cultivated by all Western media for a month now by casting Ukraine as a victim results from a sophisticated and systematic effort by very serious people, probably for a lot of money.

First, the jokes about the communication guidelines turned out to be true. They do exist with the best Western PR agencies drafting key messages and what words must be used and when. They make video compilations for broadcasts and issue recommendations on sources. There is a direct ban on using “unverified media,” i.e., those that were not approved in the West.

Yaroslav Turbil is described as a key figure of the Ukrainian propaganda machine. A native of Kiev, he is linked to US intelligence and is head of Ukraine.UA, a website operated by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry that often serves as a source of planted propaganda stories.

The investigative journalists analysed these propaganda materials and concluded that the Ukrainian propagandists seek to spin various topics like the Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Plant or the no-fly zone in Ukraine and serve them to a network of Western PR services, including the British PR Network and the US lobby groups like SKDKnickerbocker, Yorktown Solutions and Your Global Strategy. Those, in turn, have the experience of working with the Western media to deliver the right message to the Western audiences.

Judging by this investigation, those who masterminded this approach have partners, including Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, Dozhd, Mediazona and Russian-language services of the Western media such as the BBC.

This is a rigorous and differentiated effort. There are memes for the younger audience and serious political analysis for experts.

The authors of the investigation did not hide the mind-blowing scale of this system, which includes over 150 entities and major figures for communicating the Ukrainian vision of the conflict to the entire world.

Who pays for all this? This is not an easy question, but at least part of the PR effort is paid for by government subsidies allocated by the UK, the US and the Czech Republic, as well as entities belonging to billionaire George Soros, incredible as this may sound.

This giant squid has penetrated with its tentacles every TV set, website of major Western media and every newspaper to cultivate a worldview that is simple and clear. The creators of this mechanism couldn’t care less that it is at odds with reality.

The world has not seen a disinformation campaign of this kind since the cult of the Caesars.

https://t.me/MariaVladimirovnaZakharova/2229

[z3n]

1) How many Americans died in 9/11 and how many during the next 20 years "avenging" those deaths? 3 to 4 times that number?
How many Americans died at Pearl Harbour and how many in the following three years? THe Japanese made the same assumptions you are doing now, it didn't go so well for them.
What happens if instead of bombing Ukraine they nuke a US carrier group? Those are all American lives, and would be more than the ones who died in 9/11.

2) pure luck EVERY SINGLE TIME? I doubt you believe that yourself.

3) I do speak French, along with 3 other national languages and 2 regional ones.

4) and every single one of those Countries is in the northern Hemisphere. The one "no one would care about if it got nuked to extinction", remember?

5) laughing about the prospect of a nuclear holocaust claiming areas of the World you aren't fond of is generally not considered a great sign of empathy. But you must have written the book on the whole subject, so what do I know. He will now show me he actually did and I shot myself in the foot

1) You must understand, Ukranians are not Americans. America first.
2) According to game theory it's pure luck.
3) That's nice dear.
4) Who are you quoting? It seems irrelevant to what I said.
5) I find it entertaining that you and others think 20 million American deaths (not your own or your families) are a fair trade for 50'000 Ukranian deaths.

[Muizer]

Wake up good morning, it's China calling

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a picture of how Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs think things go.

And this is how some western media think things going in Ukraine

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And do you happen to have an opinion or argument of your own to go with this, or are we supposed to guess?

[Bande Nere]

1) You must understand, Ukranians are not Americans. America first.
2) According to game theory it's pure luck.
3) That's nice dear.
4) Who are you quoting? It seems irrelevant to what I said.
5) I find it entertaining that you and others think 20 million American deaths (not your own or your families) are a fair trade for 50'000 Ukranian deaths.

America First stopped being a thing in 2020. If it was ever a thing.
Half my family is American and living there, there are 2 bases with nuclear armament in Italy, just a few kms away from where a consistent amount of my other side of the family lives.
I would say I have a vested interest in what happens.

Mind you I'm not thrilled about any nuke hitting any other place in the World either. But the West isn't the one promoting their use. Putin is.

[bitterhowl]

And do you happen to have an opinion or argument of your own to go with this, or are we supposed to guess?

It's pretty cool that Chinese minister's opinion mean nothing here without mine. Great achievement of bitterhowl!

Beyond sweet stories about families living near nuclear facilities main decisions are made in Kremlin and Pentagon.

Just imagine a scenario that Pentagon received information that 3 tactical nukes brought on Kinzhal missiles hit military objects in Eastern Europe a minute ago. What they gonna do? Strategic nuclear balance didn't changed.

I'm totally not a nuclear weapons addicted at all. But what I'm seeing is that escalation is slowly going up. And personally I don't like it.

[z3n]

America First stopped being a thing in 2020. If it was ever a thing.
Half my family is American and living there, there are 2 bases with nuclear armament in Italy, just a few kms away from where a consistent amount of my other side of the family lives.
I would say I have a vested interest in what happens.

Mind you I'm not thrilled about any nuke hitting any other place in the World either. But the West isn't the one promoting their use. Putin is.

Bidens statement was "'Would you send your own son or daughter?' Biden explained his decision to pull out of Afghanistan after America's longest war". Furthermore, when the country voted for America First, and the same country has an extensive history of "America first", it doesn't suddenly stop.

Even though you apparently want the American half of your family to die during a nuclear exchange, it seems like Biden is not interested in that happening to his family or his other Americans. So 20 million Americans aren't going to die in exchange for 50'000 Ukranians.

[PointOfViewGun]

No NATO in Ukraine ofc, only tens thousands if troops trained by NATO. No justification really.

You think its intelligent to talk about how NATO is in Ukraine now in response to the Russian invasion that was supposedly initiated because NATO was in Ukraine?

[bitterhowl]

You think its intelligent to talk about how NATO is in Ukraine now in response to the Russian invasion that was supposedly initiated because NATO was in Ukraine?

How do you estimate amount of time necessary to train "tens thousands of troops" during 29 days campaign? Or maybe they was trained previously (since 2015 honestly). Is it intelligent saying there where no NATO in Ukraine at all?

[Lord Thesaurian]

And do you happen to have an opinion or argument of your own to go with this, or are we supposed to guess?

I’m also confused what criticism China is leveling there given the defense industry in Russia is responsible for 20% of the country’s manufacturing jobs. Russia is also one of the top arms exporters in the world. Not alot of thought there and maybe there isn’t meant to be. Wolf warrior laziness perhaps? Beijing spends twice as much as the US on defense as a portion of GDP.

[Muizer]

It's pretty cool that Chinese minister's opinion mean nothing here without mine. Great achievement of bitterhowl!

I'm assuming he's not happy with a situation that is the direct result of Putin ordering troops into the Ukraine (it's not even affected much by the progress of the war. If anything, if Russia had conquered Ukraine in a day, the US military complex would have profited even more). I'm just curious why you thought this worth bringing to our attention. Are you having second thoughts about the Great Leader's decision?

[EmperorBatman999]

5) I find it entertaining that you and others think 20 million American deaths (not your own or your families) are a fair trade for 50'000 Ukranian deaths.

Just to be clear, I don’t want this kind of event to happen, and world leaders should endeavor to diffuse nuclear tensions. NATO wouldn’t fire a strategic nuke to punish Russia for the strike, but they are more likely to send troops into the country to get Russia out of Ukraine. Putin warned explicitly against this sort of interference, and the introduction of NATO boots into the country would lead to escalation chain that could result in the unthinkable. The Western public and civilian policy officials wouldn’t know the difference between a tactical and ICBM-type nuke: they will only care to know Ukraine was hit with an atomic weapon, even if it’s yield is comparable to conventional high explosives or thermobarics. Considering how much the war has triggered Westerners’ sense of empathy for Ukraine, seeing such an event night prompt voters and policymakers to ask for irrational and emotional responses to the situation.

I still think the Russian tactical nuke doctrine is highly irresponsible and the international community should dissuade them from even considering such an option. If it is successfully deployed on Ukraine, it will set a horrendous precedent that could lead to an escalation chain in future potential conflicts, even if we all manage to walk away from the Ukrainian Crisis.

David and I aren’t hoping doomsday will happen: I believe we are both trying to map out what could happen if either Russia or NATO enter into an escalation path following a potential miscalculation regarding Ukraine. This is a warning and a plea against it, not a wish for it.

[Bande Nere]

Bidens statement was "'Would you send your own son or daughter?' Biden explained his decision to pull out of Afghanistan after America's longest war". Furthermore, when the country voted for America First, and the same country has an extensive history of "America first", it doesn't suddenly stop.

Even though you apparently want the American half of your family to die during a nuclear exchange, it seems like Biden is not interested in that happening to his family or his other Americans. So 20 million Americans aren't going to die in exchange for 50'000 Ukranians.

Yeah, one could say it was a bit of that America First mentality that made "us" think all those countries would just forget their history and become a shining example of western democracyinterests in a year or two.


Biden lost a son in the "war on terror", and has shown he has very little taste for spilling anyone else's blood. After the last 20 years this is an improvement.
But don't expect him to just let Putin nuke cities or anything else outside Russia. He understands that NATO would cease to be the second he chooses not to retaliate.