Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[mishkin]

If you think thermite is bad, wait till you see nuclearite. People will burn and keep burning, and the window for avoiding it is almost shut now.

When will this happen? According to Putin's supporters, NATO is already a direct party to the conflict and there are Ukrainian/NATO troops on Russian territory, conditions under which the nuclear arsenal should have already been used. So what is Putin waiting for? Why is he not carrying out his threats? I am really fed up with hearing the threat of nuclear war over and over again here.

[Kyriakos]

^It makes sense that if nukes are used, they will be (first) used against a non-nuclear side. In this case, Ukraine. It's why imo there is simply no scenario where Ukraine manages to get out of the war without losing land (if it comes to that, they will be nuked and be over that way).

[mishkin]

^It makes sense that if nukes are used, they will be (first) used against a non-nuclear side. In this case, Ukraine. It's why imo there is simply no scenario where Ukraine manages to get out of the war without losing land (if it comes to that, they will be nuked and be over that way).

Are you saying that Putin will only launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine if he sees that he is going to be defeated?

[Coughdrop addict]

^It makes sense that if nukes are used, they will be (first) used against a non-nuclear side. In this case, Ukraine. It's why imo there is simply no scenario where Ukraine manages to get out of the war without losing land (if it comes to that, they will be nuked and be over that way).

People keep on shouting that if Russia suffers any reverse the nukes will fly, yet it keeps on not happening. And it's never going too.

Their stockpile is 99.9% ancient USSR duds that haven't had any maintenance done in half a century. They haven't used nukes in Ukraine because most of their nukes don't work. They are terrified of NATO, the US, and China figuring this out, hence the constant empty nuclear threats. The US spends $80B a year to keep its nukes working. Simple math tells us Russia has never had the budget to keep its stockpile working. The USSR also wasn't maintaining its nukes in the 70s and 80s as its economy was collapsing. Ukraine gave up its nukes in part because they knew they didn't have the budget to keep them functioning.

What's funny is you never hear anyone exclaim that the world better throw itself in the dirt at the US' feet in response to our nukes.

[Kyriakos]

Are you saying that Putin will only launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine if he sees that he is going to be defeated?

That is my suspicion, yes. It isn't logical to use nukes if you are not losing. Currently we aren't there, Russia is still advancing, although very slowly - but the front in Donbass clearly is now far less defended than before Ukraine used troops in Kursk.

[Alastor]

When will this happen? According to Putin's supporters, NATO is already a direct party to the conflict and there are Ukrainian/NATO troops on Russian territory, conditions under which the nuclear arsenal should have already been used. So what is Putin waiting for? Why is he not carrying out his threats? I am really fed up with hearing the threat of nuclear war over and over again here.

First of all NATO IS a party in this conflict. This isn't "according to Putin's supporters", this is fact. NATO provides the weaponry, the manufacturing base, the training, the money and perhaps most crucially the intelligence and targeting capabilities. So yes fact. Anything short of openly sending their armed forces in, NATO has done.

Secondly, why would Russia use nukes in a conflict they are winning? Why rock the boat and invite further scrutiny? Russia has been slow and methodical, not allowing itself to get baited ever since the initial invasion plan failed. If anything I would argue that it is Ukraine that wants Russia to escalate further so that NATO gets pressured to come in openly, instead of covertly and save them. As that's, basically the only card they have left. Hence all the provocations, like the ridiculous invasion in Kursk, or Zelensky's constant demands to be allowed to hit deep into Russia. Why? What strategic purpose would that serve? There is simply not enough missiles available to actually make a dent on Russia's manufacturing ability, so it would all be yet again about provoking and PR, hit a few high profile targets here and there and hope that Putin finally loses his patience. See, it's not enough for Zelensky that we have ruined our economies and Europe is in heavy decline thanks to this war, he wants to see it burn too. I mean why not? He already destroyed his country by pursuing this suicidal conflict at the behest of the US. Why not destroy the rest of Europe too. But my guess is, even the US understands that's a bridge too far.

[PointOfViewGun]

That is my suspicion, yes. It isn't logical to use nukes if you are not losing. Currently we aren't there, Russia is still advancing, although very slowly - but the front in Donbass clearly is now far less defended than before Ukraine used troops in Kursk.

Black Sea fleet crippled and denied free roaming in Black Sea despite non-existent Ukrainian navy with losses over twenty ships lost costing Russia billions of dollars. Mounting armoured vehicle losses numbering over ten thousand where Russia has to rely on relics from past wars to keep its mechanized divisions populated. A Russian air force that is unable to dominate the Ukrainian skies and forced to conduct hit and run tactics from great distances while still losing substantial amount of fighter jets, bombers and scarce reconnaissance aircrafts. A supposedly non-existent Ukrainian army managed to capture more lands in Kursk within a matter of weeks than what Russians could capture within the whole year.

I don't think Putin sees this as winning. He's only continuing the war to save face with his own camp. If Ukraine capitulates tomorrow and Russia takes over the entirety of Ukraine it will still go as a pyrrhic victory. Most importantly, it showed what a joke the Russian army actually is.

[mishkin]

That is my suspicion, yes. It isn't logical to use nukes if you are not losing. Currently we aren't there, Russia is still advancing, although very slowly - but the front in Donbass clearly is now far less defended than before Ukraine used troops in Kursk.

How likely do you see Ukraine "winning" this war (recovering or taking disputed territories) and Putin "being forced" to nuke Kiev? Given the number of times this retaliation is mentioned, it would seem that the possibility of powerful Russia not achieving its objectives is very real.

[Ludicus]

It isn't logical to use nukes if you are not losing

Obviously.

Europeans are worried about World War III. They are not paranoid- The Indian Express.

At a conference in the European Parliament earlier this week, I noticed an interesting trend among some European political thinkers. In fact, some even believe that the Third World War is not too far off. One Member of the European Parliament (MEP) whispered into my ear that some rich Europeans are actually relocating to places considered remote but more secure, like Cambodia and Papua New Guinea, buying villas and mansions there.

Europeans, take note. CIA boss says west should not be intimidated by Russia's Russia’s nuclear threats

I'm afraid Burns isn't the only American who thinks that WW III will just be a war, which, like the first two wars, will leave American soil untouched.

[mishkin]

"Let me conquer new territories or you will be responsible for the third world war". Dear Hitler also blamed the Western countries for triggering the Second World War. Fortunately, Putin is an infinitely more pragmatic person. A war in which Russia would obviously fail is not in its plans at all.

[Kyriakos]

How likely do you see Ukraine "winning" this war (recovering or taking disputed territories) and Putin "being forced" to nuke Kiev? Given the number of times this retaliation is mentioned, it would seem that the possibility of powerful Russia not achieving its objectives is very real.

Maybe Ukraine could turn the tide, IF they are given a large multiple of what they are currently given. I am not sure that is the actual plan, however.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ukraine doesn't need multitude of tanks or jets. They need enough artillery ammunition to suppress the Russians.

[Alastor]

Maybe Ukraine could turn the tide, IF they are given a large multiple of what they are currently given. I am not sure that is the actual plan, however.

There is no turning the tide. Ukraine can't win this war. First, we don't have that much left that we can afford to send them. Second, even if we did they don't have the manpower to use it. This war Ukraine was always going to lose, which is why it was so surprising they chose to fight it. All that Russia demanded initially was neutrality and respecting the Minsk agreements, that would have spared Ukraine so much. But it was not beneficial to the US. Zelensky simply put, chose wrong.

As I wrote above, for Ukraine to actually win this, there is exactly one scenario. For NATO to send their armies openly to fight against Russia. That explains Ukraine's repeated provocations, it explains their demands to be allowed to provoke even more by striking Moscow for example. They want an escalation. They want Russia to up the ante so they can come crying to NATO for help. We, particularly we in Europe, must not fall for this ploy. No matter how much of a hard-on for war against Russia some in eg Poland or Lithuania may have, we need to wake up. We need our leaders to finally wake up. We have already paid a heavy price for the games America wanted to play in the region. No more.

[Kyriakos]

I don't think it was that surprising they chose to fight, given they were already humiliated by losing Crimea so forcing them to soft-lose (autonomy-while-in-Ukraine) Donbass is something very very very few countries would agree to.
Besides, Ukraine is pretty large - not compared to Russia, but to the rest of Europe - so it always had a chance to create a front if helped. And helped they were.

[Alastor]

I don't think it was that surprising they chose to fight, given they were already humiliated by losing Crimea so forcing them to soft-lose (autonomy-while-in-Ukraine) Donbass is something very very very few countries would agree to.
Besides, Ukraine is pretty large - not compared to Russia, but to the rest of Europe - so it always had a chance to create a front if helped. And helped they were.

Ukraine was already in a civil war with the Donbas regions though. It's not like they controlled the area. I can also say with confidence that Russia was surprised that Ukraine chose to fight. It's why they got caught with their pants down early on. And considering how obvious it was they couldn't win this war and the relative leniency of the terms Russia was demanding why endure the cost of turning this into a war proper? Hundreds of thousands dead, the country in ruins. For what? A region they didn't control to begin with?

[Kyriakos]

There is still the theoretical chance it can lead to a larger conflict, even world war. Ukraine isn't as vast as China, but it's what got China to avoid defeat to clearly superior militarily Japan.

[PointOfViewGun]

All that Russia demanded initially was neutrality and respecting the Minsk agreements, that would have spared Ukraine so much.

Disclaimer: Not on planet Earth. Russia was throwing unrealistic demands while claiming that they were not getting ready to invade Ukraine as a smokescreen to keep other nations shuffling.

Russia demands NATO roll back from East Europe and stay out of Ukraine

Russia said on Friday it wanted a legally binding guarantee that NATO would give up any military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, part of a wish list of security guarantees it wants to negotiate with the West.

The demands contain elements - such as an effective Russian veto on future NATO membership for Ukraine, opens new tab - that the West has already ruled out.

Others would imply the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that were once in the Soviet Union.

After they started their latest phase of invasion of Ukraine they changed their demands. If all Russia demanded was neutrality and peace it would not invade and annex Crimea in the first place.

Ukraine and Russia end second round of peace talks in regret, as reports dispute port city's fall

Russian officials said Moscow's demands included Ukraine's recognition of Russia's hold on Crimea, independence for the separatist-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as "de-militarisation" and "de-Nazification".

Then Russia changed it position again and decided to annex territories of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia while not even having complete control over them.

British Defense Ministry Notes ‘Continued Churn of Senior Russian Officials’

The Kremlin reiterated its dismissal of the proposal Wednesday, doubling down on its stance that Ukraine must accept the annexation Russia claimed in September after referendums rejected by Ukraine and most other nations as shams. The four Ukrainian regions include Luhansk and Donetsk in the east, and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in the south.

“There can be no peace plan for Ukraine that does not take into account today’s realities regarding Russian territory, with the entry of four regions into Russia,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday. “Plans that do not take these realities into account cannot be peaceful.”

[Alastor]

There is still the theoretical chance it can lead to a larger conflict, even world war.

Yes there is. But why in the world would a larger conflict be a desirable outcome?

[Laser101]

There is still the theoretical chance it can lead to a larger conflict, even world war. Ukraine isn't as vast as China, but it's what got China to avoid defeat to clearly superior militarily Japan.

Except the Japanese did at least manage to take the RoC's capital (and its most densely populated territories), unlike Russia two years ago. So I'm not sure that comparison works.

[Kyriakos]

The Japanese had a vast tech edge on China, and the help to China in the pre-ww stage wasn't as prominent as it is for Ukraine. Apart from a few first months, this war has been Russia against over 10 countries- and it is telling that war material in the Eu has been depleted.