Here's the thing about nukes that people don't seem to understand - nukes look like any other conventional weapon. If you put a nuke on a warhead, it will look like any other missile. If you put a nuke in a bomb, it will look like any other bomb.
I'm not sure this is accurate. There was a couple NY Times articles about how closely the US monitors the world's nuclear stockpiles a few weeks ago when Putin first started rattling the nuclear saber, and they made it sound like delivering a nuclear weapon was a little more complicated that just firing a missile.
In that article they are talking about monitoring preparation activity, and more specifically, preparations that would indicate Russia is preparing for a preemptive strike or MAD counterstrike (i.e., dispersing their long-range nuclear arsenal to ensure they can strike anyone at anytime). Note that nuclear capability isn't limited to just ICBMs, long-range bombers, and submarine launches. Those are just the things that allow Russia to ensure that they can threaten anyone at anytime, which is the most important step of any nuclear deterrence policy (and hence why North Korea keeps trying to develop missiles with ever-longer ranges).
The point I was making was that if Putin uses a nuke first, then at that point everyone has to assume that anything coming out of Russia is a nuke. Including anything that can reach the rest of Europe. Or Asia.
There's absolutely no way that any nuclear power will ever tolerate Russia using nukes. It leaves that entire half of the world open to getting hit an any given time with a whole host of nuclear-capable weaponry that doesn't include the super-special stuff Russia reserves just for reaching out to hit the United States on the other half of the globe.
For all its faults, China has a very, very sane policy with regards to nukes. It only keeps as many as are required to maintain deterrence, and no more. If Russia starts letting shit fly, even China will have very good reasons to shut down Russian military capabilities. They are right next to each other, and the second any Russian materiel goes anywhere near China, they now have to have an itchy trigger finger to make sure they can launch a counterstrike before they are taken out.
No one wants to deal with that kind of shit. It leaves them too vulnerable and leaves the world even farther out on what is an already-dangerous precipice.
Here's the thing about nukes that people don't seem to understand - nukes look like any other conventional weapon. If you put a nuke on a warhead, it will look like any other missile. If you put a nuke in a bomb, it will look like any other bomb.
I'm not sure this is accurate. There was a couple NY Times articles about how closely the US monitors the world's nuclear stockpiles a few weeks ago when Putin first started rattling the nuclear saber, and they made it sound like delivering a nuclear weapon was a little more complicated that just firing a missile.
Yes and no. There are specific weapons that mount nukes, and the warheads are still relatively big. You don't have to worry about an RPG mounting a nuke, this isn't Fallout.
which they have fired into Ukraine before? There's no way of knowing until they land whether that's a nuke or not. Except that it hasn't been done before. Once someone fires one though, any nuclear capable unit is going to be assumed to be firing nukes until proven otherwise.
What the NYT article is talking about, is the long range stuff. Bombers, subs and missiles for hitting the US. And their stockpiles of the smaller things, and the "Russia isn't acting like they're expecting nuclear war" bits.
+4
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
Apparently once the bridge was blown up, the tanks all turned around (with their turrets pointed back towards the Ukrainians) and...drove right into the fucking river. To try and get back across. At least eight of them at once.
It did not work. And I'm counting like 11 other vehicles besides those.
Is that a different river crossing they fucked up? Or the same big one from a day or two ago?
I think it is a new incident...
Picture of the original pile of tanks:
And the new image from Telegram:
The pile of tanks is visible in both pictures, but the submerged tanks are only in the second one. In addition, the mud on the riverbank is a lot more torn up in the second photo, and the sunken remains of the bridges look like they've been pulled a bit by the current. Not sure if the downstream debris is two bridges or one that has broken up a bit. All that makes me think that this was a brand new fuckup. It's possible that the sunken tanks were recovered (or had their turrets pulled off in a recovery attempt), but I find that unlikely, as the area appears to be too contested for that.
For a country which isn't making any replacement tanks, the Russian military sure is derping a goddamb lot of tanks and other armored vehicles this last week.
I feel like this is Putin telling various generals "Get that crossing done by Monday or you and your families will suddenly commit suicide" or some such similar direct motivation, because it sure isn't because that these attempts are informed by any such trivial considerations as 'likely to succeed' or 'minimising casualties'.
Armchair general notes about Russia using WMDs:
1. They have other WMDs besides nukes and presumably would select those against Ukraine first. Note that we drew a red line against Assad using chemical weapons and then didn’t follow through when he did. That means we have low deterrence credibility against chemical weapons.
2. If Putin were to launch a nuke, he might not target Ukraine. It would be a less escalatory threat to launch into Russia’s own territory or something more or less neutral like the Black Sea.
3. Putin has to be careful about how hard he escalates the nuclear angle. At some not clearly defined point, a nuclear first strike or an assassination attempt becomes the rational course of action for the United States.
+9
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
Exactly. The point isn't that everyone will attack Russia if Putin uses nukes. The point is that using nukes will be catastrophic precisely because it forces a massive escalation across the board. That is the essence of MAD, and why the Cold War was a thing in the first place. Nuclear powers avoid direct confrontation with each other precisely because the risk is too high.
If he wanted to, Putin could just say "ok we killed all the nazis, good job everyone!" and pull back. The people who buy his bullshit in the first place would also go "oh, I guess all the nazis are dead!"
Putin doesn't want to save face. He wants Ukraine to not exist as a country and for Ukranians to not exist as a people.
I don't think that's what he wants.
I think what he wants is to bring back the power and glory of the USSR.
Because he doesn't want to, or more likely can't, bring himself to admit that was a fairy tale and likely had been long before he even joined the KGB.
He wants to restore his country to a powerful glory that it never actually had.
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
Exactly. The point isn't that everyone will attack Russia if Putin uses nukes. The point is that using nukes will be catastrophic precisely because it forces a massive escalation across the board. That is the essence of MAD, and why the Cold War was a thing in the first place. Nuclear powers avoid direct confrontation with each other precisely because the risk is too high.
I think another factor in the calculation with regards WMD is if Russia do use any, short of wide scale strategic nukes, even if it doesn't mean a full scale nuclear retaliation, it will make Russia a permanent pariah state, that'll make Cuba and Iran wince.
As long as it remains conventional, sanctions are a means to an end, and on cessation of hostility might be lifted. Maybe not immediately, but within a couple years, maybe by the end of the decade. Because sadly, profit supersedes morality.
Russia go Nuke/Bio/Chem, even if they avoid devastating retaliation, those sanctions are gonna be in place for generations/living memory.
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
Exactly. The point isn't that everyone will attack Russia if Putin uses nukes. The point is that using nukes will be catastrophic precisely because it forces a massive escalation across the board. That is the essence of MAD, and why the Cold War was a thing in the first place. Nuclear powers avoid direct confrontation with each other precisely because the risk is too high.
The whole point of proxy wars like Vietnam and Syria and Ukraine is to avoid this outcome. Putin, a child of the Cold War literally grew up understanding this logic.
If Putin really wanted non-proxy confrontation with NATO, he'd have started off with the Baltics, not Ukraine. If he was going to use "tactical nuclear weapons" in response to reverse in Ukraine, he'd have done it when the attack on Kyiv failed rather than endure a humilating retreat.
Even the most Russia-centric wish-fulfillment-based planning in the Kremlin will still predict a very dreary outcome indeed for Russia if there is first-use of nuclear weapons in an aggressive war. As you say: once one nuclear power demonstrates a willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively, the logical move is to immediately destroy them, because at that point MAD has failed and now we're in to the "destroy as many of their nukes as we can with our nukes while we still have our nukes" phase of the game so I guess make that last phone call to your mother quickly.
Boy howdy it sure is nice going back to 80s style nuclear fear. Oh, how I've missed wondering if today's the day when everyone I love and everything I value gets vaporised or irradiated or poisoned.
+18
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Interesting that people are assuming that what happens is Russia just gets all its military taken out conventionally, cos as far I can tell the fastest and most effective way to remove an enemy countries ability to fire nuclear weapons is to flatten everything that could launch nukes with nukes and while that's happening, Russia launches all the rest of the nukes they're capable of launching (since they have no idea if that incoming missile is conventional or a nuke either), and we all die.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
Exactly. The point isn't that everyone will attack Russia if Putin uses nukes. The point is that using nukes will be catastrophic precisely because it forces a massive escalation across the board. That is the essence of MAD, and why the Cold War was a thing in the first place. Nuclear powers avoid direct confrontation with each other precisely because the risk is too high.
Well the point I was reacting to was the way you were talking before seemed to be as if Russia will cease to exist but everyone else will be ok, like the big strong men finally beat up the bully, and like, that was a confusing way to put it for me.
It's a bit like saying the sky is blue. "Russia will cease to exist" Yes indeed. So will everything else? You see why I got confused by that?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
He want's to restore his country to a powerful glory that it never actually had.
Nationalism 101, really.
+39
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited May 2022
I wouldn't even necessarily say he actually personally wants it. It feels more like he's trapped in a mythos of his own creation and the only way that mythos allows him to go is do stupider and stupider stuff cos he can never back down. (I am not at all implying he is not at fault for this, it's entirely his own fault)
I'm just saying, the way this man is acting, thinking he actually has a grand plan at all is giving him way too much credit.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I wouldn't even necessarily say he actually personally wants it. It feels more like he's trapped in a mythos of his own creation and the only way that mythos allows him to go is do stupider and stupider stuff cos he can never back down. (I am not at all implying he is not at fault for this, it's entirely his own fault)
I'm just saying, the way this man is acting, thinking he actually has a grand plan at all is giving him way too much credit.
He had a grand plan, but unfortunately it was "kick in the door and the house collapses" tier. Now he's just continuing to dig in the hope it works out for him.
I wouldn't even necessarily say he actually personally wants it. It feels more like he's trapped in a mythos of his own creation and the only way that mythos allows him to go is do stupider and stupider stuff cos he can never back down. (I am not at all implying he is not at fault for this, it's entirely his own fault)
I'm just saying, the way this man is acting, thinking he actually has a grand plan at all is giving him way too much credit.
He had a grand plan, but unfortunately it was "kick in the door and the house collapses" tier. Now he's just continuing to dig in the hope it works out for him.
Well also that it doesn't actually effect him personally to continue letting his army be ground into dust. Dead soldiers are more useful then wounded soldiers who come back and say things like "the war is not going well" and "this Putin guy has screwed everything up".
Well also that it doesn't actually effect him personally to continue letting his army be ground into dust. Dead soldiers are more useful then wounded soldiers who come back and say things like "the war is not going well" and "this Putin guy has screwed everything up".
He want's to restore his country to a powerful glory that it never actually had.
Nationalism 101, really.
I mean, kinda?
But in this case it was actually (except apparently not) a legit belief that the thing he wants to return to was, at worst, the second best thing around in his eyes.
Reality is kinda showing that it was probably not even in the top ten best things around but that's probably a hard pill to swallow.
+4
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
Another possibility for the tanks now seen in the river is that they could have been disabled during the initial crossing attempt, but since then the river level could drop and expose them.
So while replacing energy and heating oil by green energy costs about 32 billion per million barrels, replacing gasoline cars by trains costs an astounding 0.32 Billion per million barrels. For our hundred billion we can in fact give each of the 225 million employed europeans 1000 passenger kilometers or 4 kilometers a working day- not even all of them need that much.
In the same vein, electrifying train routes is a fast way to become less reliant on diesel.
The Times is reporting up to 50 tanks, APC's and boats lost and "possibly" 1000 KIA, which is the second or 3rd time I've seen that number thrown around. So my guesstimate would be 7-800. My laymans assessment is that the plan was to charge across with armor, soften the Ukranian positions and then have infantry sweep in behind, which seems to be largely a bass ackwards way to do it. They must have all been staged up right in the forest on the opposite bank. It's the only way I can think of that many non mechanized casualties getting goosed at once. All Ukraine would've needed to do was hit the woods with artillery and it's over, especially if the Russians weren't dug in, as it sounds like it was a quick build up. Shorting the timers on artillery shells to have them detonate in the canopy of trees is a tactic that's been used since at least WW2 if not WW1. Basically the shell explodes and turns the trees into improvised wooden shrapnel that blows downwards, even into foxholes and entrenchments. You need some kind of hardened cover.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
The Times is reporting up to 50 tanks, APC's and boats lost and "possibly" 1000 KIA, which is the second or 3rd time I've seen that number thrown around. So my guesstimate would be 7-800. My laymans assessment is that the plan was to charge across with armor, soften the Ukranian positions and then have infantry sweep in behind, which seems to be largely a bass ackwards way to do it. They must have all been staged up right in the forest on the opposite bank. It's the only way I can think of that many non mechanized casualties getting goosed at once. All Ukraine would've needed to do was hit the woods with artillery and it's over, especially if the Russians weren't dug in, as it sounds like it was a quick build up. Shorting the timers on artillery shells to have them detonate in the canopy of trees is a tactic that's been used since at least WW2 if not WW1. Basically the shell explodes and turns the trees into improvised wooden shrapnel that blows downwards, even into foxholes and entrenchments. You need some kind of hardened cover.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
They seem to be basically quoting the dude who said 1500 and then rounded down a bit to be conservative, which I still think is way too high for just that one battle. For all of the river crossings put together though, 1k could be in the realm of possibility.
The Times is reporting up to 50 tanks, APC's and boats lost and "possibly" 1000 KIA, which is the second or 3rd time I've seen that number thrown around. So my guesstimate would be 7-800. My laymans assessment is that the plan was to charge across with armor, soften the Ukranian positions and then have infantry sweep in behind, which seems to be largely a bass ackwards way to do it. They must have all been staged up right in the forest on the opposite bank. It's the only way I can think of that many non mechanized casualties getting goosed at once. All Ukraine would've needed to do was hit the woods with artillery and it's over, especially if the Russians weren't dug in, as it sounds like it was a quick build up. Shorting the timers on artillery shells to have them detonate in the canopy of trees is a tactic that's been used since at least WW2 if not WW1. Basically the shell explodes and turns the trees into improvised wooden shrapnel that blows downwards, even into foxholes and entrenchments. You need some kind of hardened cover.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
Literally nothing about how russia has conducted this war suggests any real grasp of modern strategic or tactical doctrine.
+20
Options
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
The Times is reporting up to 50 tanks, APC's and boats lost and "possibly" 1000 KIA, which is the second or 3rd time I've seen that number thrown around. So my guesstimate would be 7-800. My laymans assessment is that the plan was to charge across with armor, soften the Ukranian positions and then have infantry sweep in behind, which seems to be largely a bass ackwards way to do it. They must have all been staged up right in the forest on the opposite bank. It's the only way I can think of that many non mechanized casualties getting goosed at once. All Ukraine would've needed to do was hit the woods with artillery and it's over, especially if the Russians weren't dug in, as it sounds like it was a quick build up. Shorting the timers on artillery shells to have them detonate in the canopy of trees is a tactic that's been used since at least WW2 if not WW1. Basically the shell explodes and turns the trees into improvised wooden shrapnel that blows downwards, even into foxholes and entrenchments. You need some kind of hardened cover.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
They seem to be basically quoting the dude who said 1500 and then rounded down a bit to be conservative, which I still think is way too high for just that one battle. For all of the river crossings put together though, 1k could be in the realm of possibility.
The number doesn't vaguely make sense if you look at the carrying capacities of the equipment destroyed, so either the number is wrong or they somehow killed a very large number of additional unmounted infantry. Is Russia really bringing that many in support in a way that they can be hit? :shrug:
As for the rest of the thread...this is once again still not the global thermonuclear war thread. :P
Another fascinating video from an Austrian military analyst. I think I posted this guy's last video, this time around I feel I should take a moment to point out the sheer number of qualifications that this guy has. Markus Reisner is the head of R&D for the Austrian armed forces, holds the rank of Colonel in said Austrian armed forces, and is also an actual no-shit doctor, with a PhD in History (his dissertation was on the air war over Austria from 1943 to 1945). That's... a lot of qualifications.
The video is very information dense, not to mention in German (with English subtitles) so here's a TLDR;
The Russians have been trying to redeploy their forces from the north to take part in the offensive in the East
The new objective of the Russian offensive in the East was a fairly basic pincer maneuver to envelop and destroy Ukrainian forces in the East
This failed, for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
The Russian forces, as usual, outnumber the Ukrainian ones, but only just, at 81 Ukrainian battalions vs 93 Russian. Reisner suggests that a ratio of 4:1 would be needed for their attack to succeed I'm not sure where he gets this ratio from, but he has enough military nerd qualifications that I'll take his word for it.
The Ukrainians prepared for this attack by setting up multiple layers of defenses
The Russian forces actually did break through with the north side of the pincer, unfortunately (for them) they were not able to capitalize on this because of the aforementioned layered defense; they just ran straight into the next layer
Ukraine's positions are heavily fortified, and some of these fortified positions have been in place since before the war even began. Ukraine's engineers have clearly not been idle since 2014
Russia is attempting to counter these fortifications with MOAR ARTILLERY, betting on being able to bring enough of their artillery pieces to bear to break the stalemate before the western shipments of artillery arrive
Since this is now turning into a more static war where the two sides pound each other with artillery from entrenched positions, recent arms shipments from the west have focused on artillery. We've talked about the American M777's, but the Czechs have also sent "an undisclosed number" of 152mm DANA self-propelled artillery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_SpGH_DANA These have never seen serious combat but could be a game-changer if they can do everything they were designed to do.
Russia is entirely out of fucks to give, and they are now using "the good stuff", i.e, hypersonic missiles, thermobaric warheads e.t.c in much greater numbers
Recent Russian long-ranged attacks with cruise missiles have mostly focused on Ukraine's rail infrastructure, including electricity substations that would keep Ukraine's mostly electric trains running. This is presumed to be an effort to prevent Western weapons shipments from making it to the front lines
Ukraine's ability to effectively make counter-attacks is going to be limited until they get some more mobile AA... such as the Gepard AA tanks that Germany has just sent them
According to Reisner, this whole situation echoes a similar offensive by the Germans against the Soviets in 1943 in this exact same location.
CNN had an article from a ukranian lawmaker confirming what I suspected, which is that Ukraine is suffering severe losses in more recent fighting compared to the start of the war, which is what happens when things shift to just shelling entrenched positions. They were begging for more advanced military aid to counter this. Another reason to be pissed off at Ron Paul’s bad faith spanned in the works. Now is the worst time to take the foot off the gas so to speak, because it will favour Russian attempts at just attritional grinding down of Ukrainian people and armed forces
Not surprising. Hopefully if they've been frantically training new soldiers as fast as they can since the beginning of this thing, and all indications are that they have, in which case they should have a bunch of new troops just about ready to go at this point. Equipping them might be the bigger issue, and it occurs to me what an absolute clusterfuck Ukrainian logistics must be right now. They have their own assault rifle, the Malyuk, but it sounds like it isn't really widely used, and in most footage I've seen their ground forces seem to be armed with some kind of AK variant. There are also a bunch of foreign weapons trickling in, and while there are only a couple of standard ammunition types, I can see how it could be a huge pain to find what you're looking for in the field.
There's 39 different assault rifles in there. Thirty-nine. And that's just assault rifles, not counting battle rifles, semi-automatics or bolt-actions. Imagine you're a unit being rotated off of the front to resupply and your unit is using AKs, but all they have at the depot is 5.56 NATO ammo. Or they have 7.62, but no magazines that fit your specific models. I imagine that just trying to keep track of what units are where, using what weapons and ammo types would be enough to make the average quartermaster's head explode.
Who the hell gave the Ukrainians mini-14s? Did Ruger just make a private donation or something or has someone been combing the Cabella’s and shipping them overseas?
I mean it isn’t a terrible weapon or anything but its a bit weird to see a weapon that to my knowledge has never been used in an actual military (I may be wrong but certainly not wide scale) and is mainly used as a trail gun or ranch gun by civilians popping up in military usage half way across the world.
4:1 is one of those general military rules of thumb for attacking an enemy of rough parity. You might not need it if the enemy was underequipped, or close to desertion, which is probably what Russia was counting on at the start of the war. Obviously, that's not how it panned out.
And Russia was only able to get that close in this one sector by pulling units from elsewhere. Which is why their units around Kharkiv have ended up running for the border.
+7
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Thinking it over, under normal circumstances I would be fine with Macron constantly trying to find a peaceful resolution to this whole mess. Someone has to do it, and it might as well be him.
But what I find personally galling is that he's clearly doing it because he's thinking about these events like a rich man's game. Regardless of anything that happens, short of nuclear war Macron will never personally feel the impacts. So to him, peace is some kind of noble ideal that is worth pursuing on its own. As though he were a small child being told "sharing is good!" and so he shares stuff just because he thinks it's good, and not due to any meaningful understanding of its intrinsic value (and because he can totally afford to share).
It's like he has done almost no calculus in terms of the long-term consequences of appeasement or what is required for a true, lasting peace in this situation. Because he doesn't want a real peace or real change. He just wants "peace", which for him is really just a return to the moneymaking status quo, and he thinks it's OK to tell people with actual skin in the game what they should be doing if only they were better, more peace-loving people like him.
I cannot imagine being in Zelensky's shoes and having to just listen to this holier-than-thou bullshit and keep my real thoughts stuck in my craw because I have to keep this man-child politician happy or my people will suffer.
The Times is reporting up to 50 tanks, APC's and boats lost and "possibly" 1000 KIA, which is the second or 3rd time I've seen that number thrown around. So my guesstimate would be 7-800. My laymans assessment is that the plan was to charge across with armor, soften the Ukranian positions and then have infantry sweep in behind, which seems to be largely a bass ackwards way to do it. They must have all been staged up right in the forest on the opposite bank. It's the only way I can think of that many non mechanized casualties getting goosed at once. All Ukraine would've needed to do was hit the woods with artillery and it's over, especially if the Russians weren't dug in, as it sounds like it was a quick build up. Shorting the timers on artillery shells to have them detonate in the canopy of trees is a tactic that's been used since at least WW2 if not WW1. Basically the shell explodes and turns the trees into improvised wooden shrapnel that blows downwards, even into foxholes and entrenchments. You need some kind of hardened cover.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
They seem to be basically quoting the dude who said 1500 and then rounded down a bit to be conservative, which I still think is way too high for just that one battle. For all of the river crossings put together though, 1k could be in the realm of possibility.
As Oryx has gone over the photos I think we're up to like, 87 visible vehicles, and supposedly the bridge was hit while it was full of vehicles, so more underneath
Probably not a thousand men, but Russia would probably trade 1000 conscripts in a heartbeat for nearly a hundred (Or, very probably, more than 100, we cant see through the river) armored vehicles
They had another river crossing the same day further south that was also an absolute disaster, and these two rivers were not the only places Ukraine struck along that river
What part of France is he willing to give up top Russia for peace?
None? then he can shut the fuck up about Ukraine giving up shit
If Ukraine wasn't, by all appearances, beating the shit out of Russia, I could see concessions. Like if Odessa was on the verge of breaking to a siege or something... maybe, but, now?
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I assume Macron has some passing familiarity of reality, and is telling Putin that his demands will not be met, but I mean, if those are Putin's terms, he still needs to tell Zelensky. I am hoping he knows it's futile at best, but hey, maybe he is just that unaware.
I assume Macron has some passing familiarity of reality, and is telling Putin that his demands will not be met, but I mean, if those are Putin's terms, he still needs to tell Zelensky. I am hoping he knows it's futile at best, but hey, maybe he is just that unaware.
Macron has the occupational disease of French Presidents: Delusions of Grandeur.
He really wants to present himself as the leader of a nation of great importance. Trying to "broker" a peace deal satisfies that itch, both to himself and to a certain segment domestically(the National Front Segment really).
In reality, France has no leverage, no credibility and no relevance in the entire conflict. Neither side sees any need to really take his brokering seriously, but they humor him because the first side that breaks of peace talks completely gets tarred with "aggressor" brush by global opinion(which doesn't really do nuance).
So he ends up looking like a servile idiot.
At least he is better than Chancellor Scholz, who has slow-walked aid to Ukraine and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Russia is bad. Endlessly inventing new excuses to avoid actually giving Ukraine aid. Even as the rest of Europe and his own countrymen tries to get him to see reason. The donation of Artillery and Gepards to Ukraine wasn't because Germany saw the light, but because if they didn't donate at least some heavy equipment, the German Defense minister wouldn't be invited to the US led meeting at Ramstein Air Base on April 26th. A major political embarrassment.
You can say what you will about FSB intelligence failures, but their influence in German politics is one of their wins. Probably because Putin himself oversaw it I reckon. He was stationed in Leipzig back in the 80s.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
What part of France is he willing to give up top Russia for peace?
None? then he can shut the fuck up about Ukraine giving up shit
If Ukraine wasn't, by all appearances, beating the shit out of Russia, I could see concessions. Like if Odessa was on the verge of breaking to a siege or something... maybe, but, now?
Keep in mind that Ukraine is taking losses throughout all of this, and starting from a much less strong point than Russia. It's easy to forget, because of course they don't tweet out their own tanks and planes and men being lost, but they are.
Weren’t French intelligence completely caught out by the invasion?
You had the US and the UK say the invasion was happening (in an attempt to try stop it) and yet you had France and Macron saying it wouldn’t with Macron bragging he’d spoken to Putin directly (and do consequently looking like a complete birk).
PSN Fleety2009
+5
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Somebody has to be keeping an open dialogue with Putin, and the last reported attempt by anyone not named Macron was Israel who said Ukraine should unilaterally surrender.
So as dumb as it appears, Macron is the one keeping Putin talking to the world, and that is a necessity
Weren’t French intelligence completely caught out by the invasion?
You had the US and the UK say the invasion was happening (in an attempt to try stop it) and yet you had France and Macron saying it wouldn’t with Macron bragging he’d spoken to Putin directly (and do consequently looking like a complete birk).
The question I'd like answered when everything gets declassified was: Did France (and Germany) just ignore/miss the buildup and refusal to leave, or was it a case of concluding that the invasion would be such a bad idea for all the reasons we've seen it be a bad idea that no sensible person would actually do it? Because humans are good at falling into the trap of "this bad thing won't happen because it would be so bad".
Posts
In that article they are talking about monitoring preparation activity, and more specifically, preparations that would indicate Russia is preparing for a preemptive strike or MAD counterstrike (i.e., dispersing their long-range nuclear arsenal to ensure they can strike anyone at anytime). Note that nuclear capability isn't limited to just ICBMs, long-range bombers, and submarine launches. Those are just the things that allow Russia to ensure that they can threaten anyone at anytime, which is the most important step of any nuclear deterrence policy (and hence why North Korea keeps trying to develop missiles with ever-longer ranges).
The point I was making was that if Putin uses a nuke first, then at that point everyone has to assume that anything coming out of Russia is a nuke. Including anything that can reach the rest of Europe. Or Asia.
There's absolutely no way that any nuclear power will ever tolerate Russia using nukes. It leaves that entire half of the world open to getting hit an any given time with a whole host of nuclear-capable weaponry that doesn't include the super-special stuff Russia reserves just for reaching out to hit the United States on the other half of the globe.
For all its faults, China has a very, very sane policy with regards to nukes. It only keeps as many as are required to maintain deterrence, and no more. If Russia starts letting shit fly, even China will have very good reasons to shut down Russian military capabilities. They are right next to each other, and the second any Russian materiel goes anywhere near China, they now have to have an itchy trigger finger to make sure they can launch a counterstrike before they are taken out.
No one wants to deal with that kind of shit. It leaves them too vulnerable and leaves the world even farther out on what is an already-dangerous precipice.
Yes and no. There are specific weapons that mount nukes, and the warheads are still relatively big. You don't have to worry about an RPG mounting a nuke, this isn't Fallout.
But if they fire, say, an Iskander missile? like these guys?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russia-deploys-iskander-m-launchers-near-border-2022-04-24/
which they have fired into Ukraine before? There's no way of knowing until they land whether that's a nuke or not. Except that it hasn't been done before. Once someone fires one though, any nuclear capable unit is going to be assumed to be firing nukes until proven otherwise.
What the NYT article is talking about, is the long range stuff. Bombers, subs and missiles for hitting the US. And their stockpiles of the smaller things, and the "Russia isn't acting like they're expecting nuclear war" bits.
So. You know. That's quite bad.
Yes, that is why the first strike strategy has been discredited and ruled out since the cold war. Everyone on both sides knows the only winning move is to not play.
For a country which isn't making any replacement tanks, the Russian military sure is derping a goddamb lot of tanks and other armored vehicles this last week.
I feel like this is Putin telling various generals "Get that crossing done by Monday or you and your families will suddenly commit suicide" or some such similar direct motivation, because it sure isn't because that these attempts are informed by any such trivial considerations as 'likely to succeed' or 'minimising casualties'.
1. They have other WMDs besides nukes and presumably would select those against Ukraine first. Note that we drew a red line against Assad using chemical weapons and then didn’t follow through when he did. That means we have low deterrence credibility against chemical weapons.
2. If Putin were to launch a nuke, he might not target Ukraine. It would be a less escalatory threat to launch into Russia’s own territory or something more or less neutral like the Black Sea.
3. Putin has to be careful about how hard he escalates the nuclear angle. At some not clearly defined point, a nuclear first strike or an assassination attempt becomes the rational course of action for the United States.
Exactly. The point isn't that everyone will attack Russia if Putin uses nukes. The point is that using nukes will be catastrophic precisely because it forces a massive escalation across the board. That is the essence of MAD, and why the Cold War was a thing in the first place. Nuclear powers avoid direct confrontation with each other precisely because the risk is too high.
I don't think that's what he wants.
I think what he wants is to bring back the power and glory of the USSR.
Because he doesn't want to, or more likely can't, bring himself to admit that was a fairy tale and likely had been long before he even joined the KGB.
He wants to restore his country to a powerful glory that it never actually had.
I think another factor in the calculation with regards WMD is if Russia do use any, short of wide scale strategic nukes, even if it doesn't mean a full scale nuclear retaliation, it will make Russia a permanent pariah state, that'll make Cuba and Iran wince.
As long as it remains conventional, sanctions are a means to an end, and on cessation of hostility might be lifted. Maybe not immediately, but within a couple years, maybe by the end of the decade. Because sadly, profit supersedes morality.
Russia go Nuke/Bio/Chem, even if they avoid devastating retaliation, those sanctions are gonna be in place for generations/living memory.
The whole point of proxy wars like Vietnam and Syria and Ukraine is to avoid this outcome. Putin, a child of the Cold War literally grew up understanding this logic.
If Putin really wanted non-proxy confrontation with NATO, he'd have started off with the Baltics, not Ukraine. If he was going to use "tactical nuclear weapons" in response to reverse in Ukraine, he'd have done it when the attack on Kyiv failed rather than endure a humilating retreat.
Even the most Russia-centric wish-fulfillment-based planning in the Kremlin will still predict a very dreary outcome indeed for Russia if there is first-use of nuclear weapons in an aggressive war. As you say: once one nuclear power demonstrates a willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively, the logical move is to immediately destroy them, because at that point MAD has failed and now we're in to the "destroy as many of their nukes as we can with our nukes while we still have our nukes" phase of the game so I guess make that last phone call to your mother quickly.
Boy howdy it sure is nice going back to 80s style nuclear fear. Oh, how I've missed wondering if today's the day when everyone I love and everything I value gets vaporised or irradiated or poisoned.
Well the point I was reacting to was the way you were talking before seemed to be as if Russia will cease to exist but everyone else will be ok, like the big strong men finally beat up the bully, and like, that was a confusing way to put it for me.
It's a bit like saying the sky is blue. "Russia will cease to exist" Yes indeed. So will everything else? You see why I got confused by that?
Nationalism 101, really.
I'm just saying, the way this man is acting, thinking he actually has a grand plan at all is giving him way too much credit.
He had a grand plan, but unfortunately it was "kick in the door and the house collapses" tier. Now he's just continuing to dig in the hope it works out for him.
Well also that it doesn't actually effect him personally to continue letting his army be ground into dust. Dead soldiers are more useful then wounded soldiers who come back and say things like "the war is not going well" and "this Putin guy has screwed everything up".
He has needed to squash internal critics though, like that Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia.
I mean, kinda?
But in this case it was actually (except apparently not) a legit belief that the thing he wants to return to was, at worst, the second best thing around in his eyes.
Reality is kinda showing that it was probably not even in the top ten best things around but that's probably a hard pill to swallow.
https://m.dw.com/en/germany-plans-9-ticket-to-offset-the-impact-of-the-ukraine-war/a-61788020
For the next three months you'll be able to use all local and regional public transport in all of Germany for 9€/month
Oh that’s exactly what I said the EU should have done years ago, in response to Syria I think. (Edit: it was ten years ago: http://cornucopiist.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-if-we-spent-eu-military-budget-on.html)
It’s extremely low-hanging fruit:
In the same vein, electrifying train routes is a fast way to become less reliant on diesel.
This river crossing could be absolutely catastrophic for Russia. I think even the conservative estimates have this as maybe the single biggest fuck up of this war so far.
Well Ukraine dug trenches around Odessa and got... ancient Greek amphora from the 5th century BC.
May be a sign of who providence favours.
They seem to be basically quoting the dude who said 1500 and then rounded down a bit to be conservative, which I still think is way too high for just that one battle. For all of the river crossings put together though, 1k could be in the realm of possibility.
Literally nothing about how russia has conducted this war suggests any real grasp of modern strategic or tactical doctrine.
As for the rest of the thread...this is once again still not the global thermonuclear war thread. :P
The video is very information dense, not to mention in German (with English subtitles) so here's a TLDR;
Who the hell gave the Ukrainians mini-14s? Did Ruger just make a private donation or something or has someone been combing the Cabella’s and shipping them overseas?
I mean it isn’t a terrible weapon or anything but its a bit weird to see a weapon that to my knowledge has never been used in an actual military (I may be wrong but certainly not wide scale) and is mainly used as a trail gun or ranch gun by civilians popping up in military usage half way across the world.
And Russia was only able to get that close in this one sector by pulling units from elsewhere. Which is why their units around Kharkiv have ended up running for the border.
But what I find personally galling is that he's clearly doing it because he's thinking about these events like a rich man's game. Regardless of anything that happens, short of nuclear war Macron will never personally feel the impacts. So to him, peace is some kind of noble ideal that is worth pursuing on its own. As though he were a small child being told "sharing is good!" and so he shares stuff just because he thinks it's good, and not due to any meaningful understanding of its intrinsic value (and because he can totally afford to share).
It's like he has done almost no calculus in terms of the long-term consequences of appeasement or what is required for a true, lasting peace in this situation. Because he doesn't want a real peace or real change. He just wants "peace", which for him is really just a return to the moneymaking status quo, and he thinks it's OK to tell people with actual skin in the game what they should be doing if only they were better, more peace-loving people like him.
I cannot imagine being in Zelensky's shoes and having to just listen to this holier-than-thou bullshit and keep my real thoughts stuck in my craw because I have to keep this man-child politician happy or my people will suffer.
None? then he can shut the fuck up about Ukraine giving up shit
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/easter-eggs-hitler-1945/
As Oryx has gone over the photos I think we're up to like, 87 visible vehicles, and supposedly the bridge was hit while it was full of vehicles, so more underneath
Probably not a thousand men, but Russia would probably trade 1000 conscripts in a heartbeat for nearly a hundred (Or, very probably, more than 100, we cant see through the river) armored vehicles
They had another river crossing the same day further south that was also an absolute disaster, and these two rivers were not the only places Ukraine struck along that river
If Ukraine wasn't, by all appearances, beating the shit out of Russia, I could see concessions. Like if Odessa was on the verge of breaking to a siege or something... maybe, but, now?
Macron has the occupational disease of French Presidents: Delusions of Grandeur.
He really wants to present himself as the leader of a nation of great importance. Trying to "broker" a peace deal satisfies that itch, both to himself and to a certain segment domestically(the National Front Segment really).
In reality, France has no leverage, no credibility and no relevance in the entire conflict. Neither side sees any need to really take his brokering seriously, but they humor him because the first side that breaks of peace talks completely gets tarred with "aggressor" brush by global opinion(which doesn't really do nuance).
So he ends up looking like a servile idiot.
At least he is better than Chancellor Scholz, who has slow-walked aid to Ukraine and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that Russia is bad. Endlessly inventing new excuses to avoid actually giving Ukraine aid. Even as the rest of Europe and his own countrymen tries to get him to see reason. The donation of Artillery and Gepards to Ukraine wasn't because Germany saw the light, but because if they didn't donate at least some heavy equipment, the German Defense minister wouldn't be invited to the US led meeting at Ramstein Air Base on April 26th. A major political embarrassment.
You can say what you will about FSB intelligence failures, but their influence in German politics is one of their wins. Probably because Putin himself oversaw it I reckon. He was stationed in Leipzig back in the 80s.
Keep in mind that Ukraine is taking losses throughout all of this, and starting from a much less strong point than Russia. It's easy to forget, because of course they don't tweet out their own tanks and planes and men being lost, but they are.
You had the US and the UK say the invasion was happening (in an attempt to try stop it) and yet you had France and Macron saying it wouldn’t with Macron bragging he’d spoken to Putin directly (and do consequently looking like a complete birk).
So as dumb as it appears, Macron is the one keeping Putin talking to the world, and that is a necessity
The question I'd like answered when everything gets declassified was: Did France (and Germany) just ignore/miss the buildup and refusal to leave, or was it a case of concluding that the invasion would be such a bad idea for all the reasons we've seen it be a bad idea that no sensible person would actually do it? Because humans are good at falling into the trap of "this bad thing won't happen because it would be so bad".