Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Kyriakos]

If NATO entered the war, which I would like, the russian army would be destroyed within a few days. And it is high time to put an end to putin's terrorism in Ukraine.

Nato wouldn't enter this war ever. What has some possibility of happening (but afaik only a very small one) would be a few countries in nato entering it.
But it is already understood that the moment there is some functional defense against nuclear weapons, there will be a massive world war. Personally I view this as evidence of the species' cretinism, but maybe it won't lead to far worse, by some miracle.

[Loyt]

Ukraine defence minister: We are a de facto member of Nato
And yet, there are those who deny it.

Until Article 5 is applied to Ukraine and NATO military forces start being directly involved in combat - it is not.
Minister says optimistic things to uplift morals of ukrainians and push NATO bureaucrats a little, but fact remains the same - NATO doesn't involve it's military in conflict, which is obligatory thing in case of NATO-country under aggression.

[Peresvet]

Nato wouldn't enter this war ever. What has some possibility of happening (but afaik only a very small one) would be a few countries in nato entering it.
But it is already understood that the moment there is some functional defense against nuclear weapons, there will be a massive world war. Personally I view this as evidence of the species' cretinism, but maybe it won't lead to far worse, by some miracle.

You're wrong. There is no threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, since they are all old and rusty and will not take off. The Russian army is very outdated and weak and will not be able to resist NATO for a long time and will be quickly destroyed. In addition, even now Russia has a reason to use nuclear weapons, since in fact the Ukrainian army is located on the false territory of Russia, but Putin is simply afraid to use it.

[Loyt]

You're wrong. There is no threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, since they are all old and rusty and will not take off.

You can't know that for sure. Even if only half of them in working condition, it is still too much.
Altough i agree that Putin most probably won't use them even if NATO military will fight in Ukraine. It might even be good development for him from PR perspective in the end - it's shameful to loose to Ukraine, but not so much to NATO proper.

[Kyriakos]

Got to say this is the first time I read the claim that Russia effectively has no nuclear weapons.
I hope not many believe that, otherwise things will get to a nuclear winter faster than anticipated.

[conon394]

Got to say this is the first time I read the claim that Russia effectively has no nuclear weapons.
I hope not many believe that, otherwise things will get to a nuclear winter faster than anticipated.

I also have never seen such a dramatic argument. However I have seen a proposed chain of logic that leads to why Russia was really vary upset about the aborted plan to build missile defense facilities in Poland by the US (and the existing one in Alaska). Essentially it starts with something I posted earlier here Russia has not been launching and replacing spy and early warning satellites at any where near the old Soviet rates for a decade or two. Its ground based system for detection are of course now fragmented compared to the USSR and probably again underfunded for years. If its also allowed deterioration of actual nuclear strike capability. Then add say an assumption that maybe the US ABMs work as advertised and in fact its lying about about how many its really putting place and of course the range is classified etc. [Note also requires that Russia assumes the US is indifferent to what damage shorter range range weapons would cause in Europe] You might start to think the US can come around to thinking it can 'win' a surprise first strike option. There is a ton of paste and conjecture in all that... but it would explain Putin's somewhat reckless push toward hyper sonic nuclear weapons which has carried the US and China along with it.

[antaeus]

You say underfunded like that's a choice. They're fully funded. The funds are syphoned off by processes related to the maintenance of power and wealth relationships at various levels of the funding process.

This maintenance of power and wealth through various extra-governmental processes is more important to the survival of the current Russian governmental model than the majority of the actual weapons designated for funding.

[conon394]

On a different note. So Ukraine is going to get a bunch of top tier AFVs and seemly the tank ban is breaking down I assume Leopards will follow the Challengers shortly. None of that is toss in a forget it stuff. By the end of winter Ukraine should also finally have a fair amount of promised new Air defense. So seems like the race is on for who pulls the trigger on a offensive first. I wonder how Ukraine will try to use the new western equipment. Rotate to experienced amour brigades or try to form new ones - and do they have time for the latter which might be the most optimal solution.

[conon394]

You say underfunded like that's a choice. They're fully funded. The funds are syphoned off by processes related to the maintenance of power and wealth relationships at various levels of the funding process.

This maintenance of power and wealth through various extra-governmental processes is more important to the survival of the current Russian governmental model than the majority of the actual weapons designated for funding.

Well yes. I was more trying to be quick about it. But some things are just not funded any more the launch numbers for the NRO/Space force/Air Force/NSA/CIA in the last two years compared to Russia are vastly out of proportion (its even worse if you toss in the rest of the US gov on assumption of multiple use and or not mentioned add ons) - corruption is a killer but they are also just not even trying to maintain the USSR's level of launches for eyes in orbit of any type. I mean Russia is not even keeping their GPS system at its nominal goal for satellites

[PointOfViewGun]

Anyone can guess how many Nazis the Russian army killed in this strike?

[Peresvet]

Got to say this is the first time I read the claim that Russia effectively has no nuclear weapons.
I hope not many believe that, otherwise things will get to a nuclear winter faster than anticipated.

I lived in Russia, I was born in Russia, and I probably know better the state of its armed forces, including nuclear forces, than you do, right?

[Kyriakos]

I lived in Russia, I was born in Russia, and I probably know better the state of its armed forces, including nuclear forces, than you do, right?

Not if you make such claims. I live in Greece but it doesn't mean I would be correct if I said Greece has no working submarines.

[Vanoi]

On a different note. So Ukraine is going to get a bunch of top tier AFVs and seemly the tank ban is breaking down I assume Leopards will follow the Challengers shortly. None of that is toss in a forget it stuff. By the end of winter Ukraine should also finally have a fair amount of promised new Air defense. So seems like the race is on for who pulls the trigger on a offensive first. I wonder how Ukraine will try to use the new western equipment. Rotate to experienced amour brigades or try to form new ones - and do they have time for the latter which might be the most optimal solution.

If they get any Leopards, it won't be from Germany. They have nothing to send except Leopard 2s in active service. It's also illegal for Germany to stockpile tanks so they have nothing left in reserve to give them.

Spain, Poland, Finland, or any other current Leopard 2 operators would have to donate their tanks

[Cyclops]

Were tanks yet another strongly hinted nuclear red line for Putin? Weak stuff from this a bully.

[Laser101]

Were tanks yet another strongly hinted nuclear red line for Putin? Weak stuff from this a bully.

Not really? Given that the Americans and others have already provided artillery, tanks hardly seem like a large change.

[The spartan]

Were tanks yet another strongly hinted nuclear red line for Putin? Weak stuff from this a bully.

There is no such thing as a nuclear red line, here. Russia has made it very clear through years of nuclear policy that their nukes are for defensive protection of the state. The chances of them using a nuke out of frustration in their offensive war in another country is next to zero. Western fearmongering over a nuclear response to supplying weapons system is delusional. Russia knows what suicide is.

[antaeus]

There is no such thing as a nuclear red line, here. Russia has made it very clear through years of nuclear policy that their nukes are for defensive protection of the state. The chances of them using a nuke out of frustration in their offensive war in another country is next to zero. Western fearmongering over a nuclear response to supplying weapon system is delusional. Russia knows what suicide is.

Exactly.

Soviet advisors played an active role against the US in the Vietnam war - including in combat operations. They trained North Vietnamese officers and pilots in the USSR, they manned anti-aircraft batteries, probably flew missions and probably accompanied ground forces on missions. If we're going to talk globally existential red lines - fighting in the periphery is unlikely to be it.

[Loyt]

I lived in Russia, I was born in Russia, and I probably know better the state of its armed forces, including nuclear forces, than you do, right?

No you not unless you served in SRF and had access to certain secret documentation.

[StarDreamer]

There is no such thing as a nuclear red line, here. Russia has made it very clear through years of nuclear policy that their nukes are for defensive protection of the state. The chances of them using a nuke out of frustration in their offensive war in another country is next to zero. Western fearmongering over a nuclear response to supplying weapons system is delusional. Russia knows what suicide is.

I've been trying to lift this point again and again, but for some reason this asinine nuclear discussion keeps rearing its ugly head. Not even the Russian leadership is suicidal enough to actually use them.

[Laser101]

I've been trying to lift this point again and again, but for some reason this asinine nuclear discussion keeps rearing its ugly head. Not even the Russian leadership is suicidal enough to actually use them.

I think it's pretty safe to say that they would not use them against the US or NATO under almost any conceivable circumstances, given that they'd fire back. Against Ukraine on the other hand, MAD is not a factor (though there are other factors involved).