[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight

Deterrence only works when—if—it deters.
Yes, and getting your capitals potentially obliterated has been pretty efficient at it for the past 80 years.
Would Zelensky have pushed the button in February 2022 if he were tested?
Would Putin have invaded if he risked getting nuked ?
Would you?
The entire principle of deterrence only works if you goes (or if you're believed to go) through the threat. That's why Putin invaded : he didn't believe that the West would fight back (and sadly, was mostly right).
So either you push the button, or you forego nukes as deterrence and build up an army strong enough to keep you safe.
Keep in mind you would be risking retaliation.
You're putting things on their heads here. It's pushing the button which is the retaliation, and it's the invader who is the one forcing the issue.
 
yes, that's how it works (or not)

you must show you are absolutely ready to push the button, and no one will invade you, and you will never have to ask yourself the question

if you don't show that willingness, the weapon is useless.

would Putin pushes it ? Would Trump pushes it ?

the one that really have to ask himself the question is the invader. will the other side do it ?

is Putin mad enough to risk Moscow and ST Petersburg annihilation if the Baltic States or Poland have nuclear weapons?
The number of casualties in this war probably exceeds what 1 nuclear hit would produce. Still, if you use nukes, you better hope that the other side will then have no ability to respond with their own nukes - let alone if there are thousands of them.
Didn't Pakistan have nukes in almost all of its conflicts with India?

Maybe having nukes only means you can't be forced to sign an unfavorable peace if your enemy doesn't.
 
The number of casualties in this war probably exceeds what 1 nuclear hit would produce. Still, if you use nukes, you better hope that the other side will then have no ability to respond with their own nukes - let alone if there are thousands of them.
Didn't Pakistan have nukes in almost all of its conflicts with India?

Maybe having nukes only means you can't be forced to sign an unfavorable peace if your enemy doesn't.
you really don't know how nuclear dissuasion work ?

there is no "hope that the other side will not respond", if you have to launch one you're past that consideration.

the point is to make the invader thinks about what are the risks before he invades.

will India attack Pakistan? quite surely.

will they launch a full scale invasion or a first strike ? absolutely not
 
Didn't Pakistan have nukes in almost all of its conflicts with India?

No, it didn't. And the Indo-Pakistani example you give kinda refutes the point you're trying to make about nuclear deterrence.

Pakistan might have had the ability to make nuclear weapons in the late 1980s, but it only did its first nuclear weapon test in 1998.

By then, the main Indo-Pakistani wars had already occurred (1947-48, 1965, 1971). Those wars occurred over long frontlines, with combined arms operations, and sometimes even deep airstrikes. They caused thousands of casualties each.

Since Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons, fighting has been much more limited in scope. The conflicts since then (Siachen, Kargil, the skirmishes from 2000 to this day) have been very localized and caused fewer casualties.

Even against a nuclear-armed Ukraine, Putin might have attempted his swift takeover of Crimea and his covert operations in the Donbas, but he would have thought twice about it. It's doubtful he would have attempted his full-scale invasion. But history has shown us that he has completely misjudged Ukraine's will and ability to fight. So he might have had made a similar miscalculation regarding a nuclear-armed Ukraine. Still, it's really hard to imagine a country invading a nuclear power, sieging its capital, and repeatedly lobbing missiles at it and other cities deep behind the frontline.
 

Body of Ukrainian journalist who died in Russian detention returned by Moscow with signs of torture and with missing organs​


By Ivana Kottasová, Victoria Butenko and Daria Tarasova-Markina, CNN


A colleague of Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna holds a photograph of her during an event in honor of her memory in Kyiv, on October 11, 2024.

A colleague of Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna holds a photograph of her during an event in honor of her memory in Kyiv, on October 11, 2024.
Anatoloo Stepanov/AFP/Getty Images
CNN —
The body of a young Ukrainian woman who died in Russian captivity after being held incommunicado for months was returned to Ukraine showing signs of torture, Ukrainian prosecutors have said.

Kyiv said the remains of journalist Victoria Roshchyna, who went missing during a reporting trip, were returned as part of a body exchange between Ukraine and Russia in February.

Yuriy Belousov, who heads the war crimes department at the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office, said that forensic examination found “numerous signs of torture and ill-treatment… including abrasions and hemorrhages on various parts of the body, a broken rib and possible traces of electric shock.”

He said the experts have determined the injuries were sustained while Roshchyna was still alive. Russia is known to use electric shocks as a method of torture against detained Ukrainians, and the widespread nature of the practice was documented by CNN in the past.

Belousov said that repeated DNA analyses confirmed the body belonged to Roshchyna, even though it reportedly arrived from Russia labeled as “an unidentified male.” He said the state of the body made it impossible to determine the cause of Roshchyna’s death, but added that Ukraine was working with international forensic experts to get more answers.

Roshchyna’s colleagues at Ukrainska Pravda said her body was returned from Russia with missing organs. Citing members of the investigating team who handled her remains, they said the brain, eyeballs and part of the trachea, or windpipe, were missing, in what they said could have been an attempt by Russia to disguise the cause of death.

CNN has reached out to the Russian Federal Commissioner for Human Rights Tatyana Moskalkova and to the Russian penitentiary services for comment.

Held in brutal detention center​

Roshchyna went missing in August 2023. Her colleagues said the reporter went to a Russian-held part of Ukraine – a dangerous ordeal for any Ukrainian – to report on the lives of people living under occupation.

Journalist Evgeniya Motorevskaya, who worked with Roshchyna as the former editor of Hromadske, a Ukrainian media outlet, said the young reporter was determined to do her job as best as she could.
“For her, there was nothing more important than journalism. Vika was always where the most important events for the country took place. And she would have continued to do this for many years, but the Russians killed her,” she said in a statement published on Hromadske’s website when Roshchyna’s death was first announced, referring to her by her diminutive.
Roshchyna’s father first raised the alarm when she stopped responding to messages while on the assignment, but her family had no idea about her whereabouts until nine months later, when Moscow finally admitted it was holding her in detention.

Like thousands of other Ukrainian civilians, Roshchyna was snatched by Russian authorities in occupied Ukraine and deported into Russia where she was held without charge or trial. By September 2024, Roshchyna, a healthy 27-year old, was dead – although her family didn’t find out until about a month later, when they received a notification from Russia.

Petro Yatsenko, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Coordination Center for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, said in October that Roshchyna died while being transferred from a detention facility in the southern Russian city of Taganrog to Moscow. He said the transfer was in preparation for her release as part of a prisoner exchange.

The detention facility in Taganrog is known for its cruel treatment of detainees. CNN has previously spoken to prisoners held there, who described being subjected to physical and psychological abuse, being given insufficient amounts of food and denied access to basic health care. Reporters with Ukrainska Pravda have partnered up with journalists from more than a dozen international media after her death was announced, to try to piece together what happened to her during the last few months of her life.

They interviewed dozens of prisoners, as well as prison guards and human rights defenders. They were able to trace her movements and describe the brutality of her detention.
 
Pakistan/India is indeed a good example about nuclear deterrence between two nations, one being more powerful than the other, and the resulting difference in policy.


India has a “no first use” policy. That means it will only retaliate with nuclear weapons if there is a nuclear attack on Indian forces or Indian territories.

Pakistan has a different policy, full spectrum deterrence, aimed at using tactical nuclear weapons to counter nuclear threats and conventional military attacks from its bigger, stronger and richer regional rival.

Pakistan has not ruled out using nuclear weapons first if it feels an existential threat. But Pakistan can ill afford to initiate nuclear war with India because of its neighbor’s superior firepower. It has lost three conventional wars in the past.

Instead, Pakistan uses its nuclear arsenal to deter India from invasion or massive attack.
 
Moderator Action: Back to Russian invasion news please.
 
I don't remember watching this episode of The Magic School Bus!

Russian Troops Rolled Into Battle In A Yellow School Bus​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...attle-in-a-yellow-school-bus/?ctpv=searchpage



A Russian bus on the front line in Donetsk.

A Russian bus on the front line in Donetsk.

Ukrainian defense ministry capture.
Chinese-made golf carts. Belarusian motorcycles. Lada compact cars, bukhanka vans and antique GAZ-69 trucks. Surplus electric scooters from Russia’s thriving scooter rental industry. At least one locomotive. As Russia’s stocks of armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) run low, Russian regiments and brigades in Ukraine are turning to civilian vehicles to transport troops into battle.

The most recent addition to this arsenal of ex-civilian vehicles, many of them up-armored with anti-drone cages, might be the most comical: a school bus.

On or just before Sunday, a Ukrainian drone operator spotted a yellow school bus parked near the front line in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast, the locus of the fighting in the east.

The bus may have broken down. It may have gotten stuck while trying to go off-road on the soft terrain that’s typical of springtime Ukraine. At least one explosive first-person-view drone barreled in, striking the bus and lighting it ablaze.

As a battlefield transport, a bus is less than ideal. “Civilian vehicles are better than walking but will obviously not provide any protection or fire support” with vehicle-mounted guns, explained analyst Jakub Janovksy. “So assaults with them instead of proper AFVs will be more costly and more likely to fail. They are also unlikely to be able to cross trenches, razor wire and other anti-infantry obstacles.”

A Russian car with add-on anti-drone armor.

A Russian car with add-on anti-drone armor.

Via Special Kherson Cat

Low vehicle stocks​

But the Russians have little choice. Verified Russian losses in the 39 months since Russia widened its war on Ukraine include 17,000 vehicles and other pieces of heavy equipment. That’s more vehicles than many armies have in their entire inventories—and more vehicles than Russia’s sanctions-squeezed weapons industry can produce in three years. Annual production of new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in Russia might total 1,100.

The Kremlin has complemented its newly built vehicles with Cold War-vintage vehicles its technicians pulled from vast storage yards. But even these yards are depleted now. “A lot of what remains is in a terrible state,” Janovksy said.

Hence the golf carts, scooters and cars—and the bus.

The Donetsk war bus wasn’t the first-ever bus to go to war in recent years. Islamic State militants and their most fearsome opponents, the Kurdish Peshmerga, both modified civilian vehicles for combat use in the 2010s. The big difference between the ISIS and Pesh battle buses and Russia’s own battle bus is that the former usually wore a lot of add-on armor to protect them from enemy fire.

The Russians often add protection to their civilian assault vehicles, but there’s no evidence they gave the bus in Donetsk this treatment. Maybe there was no time. Maybe the engineers who fit cars and trucks with improvised armor weren’t ready to give a much bigger vehicle the same treatment.

Abandoned, immobile and totally lacking protection from the drones that are everywhere all the time over the front line in Ukraine, the Russian bus was an easy target.
 
There was a German reports a few weeks ago about Russia not sending new equipment to the front, but stocking it.

If a new BMP ends the same way as an old bus in an offensive on a fixed frontline, better send old buses for attrition of ammo and keep the BMP in case of a breakthrough or for a new front.
 
Yes, the only thing that's changed is that they now recognize the mob-like nature of the Russian military and employ mob-friendly tactics. RT's delusional view of the Russian military as a modern, NATO-level army cost the Russian military dearly in the early days of the war.

Both senses of the word "mob" apply here insofar as the Russian army has acted like an organized crime group. Fwiw, you'd rather overestimate your opponent's capabilities than underestimate them.
 
no clue if this was posted, i'll just share the general news, ukraine signed some mineral deal with the us. google at your own volition, it's all over.

at this point i believe we don't know what ukraine gets out of it. thing is that they had no previous incentive to do it as the us was still pulling support and not willing to guarantee safety even post-war, but were rather willing to rescind ukraine's military presence and such.

so the details might be that there's some kind of safety guarantee post-war, or military support. ukraine needs to get something out of it to sign it. i of course have a lot of qualms about this, but here's some points on how it's good (i think it's mostly bad, but you can't get a lot of good out of a trump situation).

i can't see how this is good news for russia, is all i think about it. they don't want the us in the war and don't want us security guarantees. and the thing is that the us will get nothing out of the deal if ukraine remains a warzone. mining needs to not be bombed. so there has to be some kind of security investment or guarantee from the side of the us to even get anything out of these precious rare earths. signing stuff like this with ukraine means that a) ukraine needs to exist and b) they need to remain safe to dig in.
 

Ukraine expected to ratify US minerals deal lacking security guarantees​

Ukraine’s parliament is expected to ratify a controversial minerals deal with the United States in a decisive step towards securing the latter’s long-term commitment to the war-battered country amid stalled efforts to strike a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire.

The deal, signed by Kyiv and Washington on Wednesday, pushed by US President Donald Trump and after protracted negotiations, marks an inflection point of sorts in the war, granting the US priority access to Ukraine’s critical minerals as a means of deterring future Russian aggression. However, it stops short of offering specific security guarantees and questions remain over accessing minerals in areas under Russian control.
 
I must say. It is a very confusing set of affairs that Trump feels he must gain something monetarily tangible from Ukraine in order to, I guess, at least vicariously support Ukraine by protecting some kind of future US investments there. Rather than supporting Ukraine directly because it is generally a good thing to have independent countries as opposed to conglomerated and conquered ones.

But that is reflective of the psychology of this man's mind. It is not a strict nationalist/isolationist one, or even a particularly ideological one, as many critics see it as. But it is one we have never seen (or, at least, not very much) within a US leader.

A wise response from Putin would be to offer a partition of Ukraine between him and the US...
 

Ukrainian Su-27 shot down during combat mission against Russian drones.​

After F-16 lost in April, it's the second fighter jet lost by Ukraine in less than a month.

Zelensky "can't 'ensure safety' of global leaders visiting Moscow"​


Let's see how many of them will be discouraged by this threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom