[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: War News Thread: Round 6

[red_elk]

yes, repurposed drone, but they could have used it on Moscow and targeted Engels instead, why would they act differently with cruise missiles, if they had them ?

I don't know. Out of desperation? To take revenge for strikes against Kiev? To provoke escalation and NATO intervention? Or just because they can?
Or may be they won't attack it.
Question is whether you really want to try and find out.

 

[pecheneg]

NATO et al has warned of massive conventional strikes inside Russia proper should Putin use a nuclear weapon.

An attack with noticeable damage will be followed by a strike with tactical nuclear weapons on the bases and troops of the United States and Co. For each of your retaliatory strikes, four will arrive, I remind you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: I suggest a new thread or the spillover thread if you want to continue discussing who will start the next nuclear war. Not here please. War news.

 

[Joij21]

Please quote me saying that.

Sure thing buddy:

The very successful Ukrainian resistance emphasized that everything from the past decade no longer mattered. The NATO reaction is a clear reinforcement of that message. Whatever situations created by Minsk, Donbas, Crimea, etc. no longer apply. For Putin the invasion was "a bridge too far".

 

[Birdjaguar]

That does not say "might makes right".

 

[Joij21]

That does not say "might makes right".

It implies might makes right for the Ukrainians were able to change NATO's geopolitical calculous simply through winning battles.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It implies might makes right for the Ukrainians were able to change NATO's geopolitical calculous simply through winning battles.

The Ukrainians have been winning, after months of losses, not because they were more powerful than the Russians but because they were smarter and understood the nature of the warfare at hand. NATO decided to support the Ukraine, not because they were so powerful but because the invasion was politically dangerous. If you recall, the support started quite small and has been growing. It was Russia thinking its might made it right for it to invade Ukraine. Turns out they were not as mighty as they thought.

 

[Joij21]

The Ukrainians have been winning, after months of losses, not because they were more powerful than the Russians but because they were smarter and understood the nature of the warfare at hand. NATO decided to support the Ukraine, not because they were so powerful but because the invasion was politically dangerous. If you recall, the support started quite small and has been growing. It was Russia thinking its might made it right for it to invade Ukraine. Turns out they were not as mighty as they thought.

Being smarter and understanding the nature of the warfare at hand IS what makes one mighty.

Politically dangerous true, but would nations the likes of Germany be so willing to give their support if things had turned out differently? I'm sure you're quite well aware of the French and their preconditions on helping the early United States during the war of independence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Being smarter and understanding the nature of the warfare at hand IS what makes one mighty.

Politically dangerous true, but would nations the likes of Germany be so willing to give their support if things had turned out differently? I'm sure you're quite well aware of the French and their preconditions on helping the early United States during the war of independence.

Woulda coulda shoulda doesn't apply. Ukraine was invaded and NATO responded, not because Ukraine was powerful, but because they were invaded. It took the Ukraine many months to demonstrate more than defensive capability. Again, it was Putin who was demonstrating the "might makes right" idiom.

 

[Joij21]

Woulda coulda shoulda doesn't apply. Ukraine was invaded and NATO responded, not because Ukraine was powerful, but because they were invaded. It took the Ukraine many months to demonstrate more than defensive capability. Again, it was Putin who was demonstrating the "might makes right" idiom.

Then why would you say that the very successful Ukrainian resistance emphasized that everything from the past decade no longer mattered?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then why would you say that the very successful Ukrainian resistance emphasized that everything from the past decade no longer mattered?

All of the interrelated actions that took place between Russia and Ukraine in the past decade or so have been short, negotiation attempts, or from NATO's view, not significant enough to warrant involvement. They were often internal to Ukraine or as in the case of the capture of Crimea, quick enough to avoid intervention. The two nations have been in a pas de deux for quite some time with smoldering violence and the pretense of trying to solve things peacefully (Minsk?). The invasion and subsequent destruction wiped away any pretense that Russia was trying to work out a peaceful solution. It would force its way through a full blown war of destruction. When the tanks rolled across the borders in Feb 2022, the Russians were saying: screw Minsk, screw discussions, screw the smoldering resistance Russia supported in the Donbas, they will take what they want and install the government they want in Kyiv.

 

[Joij21]

All of the interrelated actions that took place between Russia and Ukraine in the past decade or so have been short, negotiation attempts, or from NATO's view, not significant enough to warrant involvement. They were often internal to Ukraine or as in the case of the capture of Crimea, quick enough to avoid intervention. The two nations have been in a pas de deux for quite some time with smoldering violence and the pretense of trying to solve things peacefully (Minsk?). The invasion and subsequent destruction wiped away any pretense that Russia was trying to work out a peaceful solution. It would force its way through a full blown war of destruction. When the tanks rolled across the borders in Feb 2022, the Russians were saying: screw Minsk, screw discussions, screw the smoldering resistance Russia supported in the Donbas, they will take what they want and install the government they want in Kyiv.

But you specifically mentioned the Ukrainians and their successful resistance. Why didn't you emphasize the Russians invading instead?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Then why would you say that the very successful Ukrainian resistance emphasized that everything from the past decade no longer mattered?

In hindsight Ukraine holding onto their nuclear arsenal would have been the correct call
But its taken this invasion, russian atrocities and ukraine committment to get to where we are today. I dont see how this level of NATO support would have been provided otherwise no mater how Ukraine may have tried to handle Russia
Even giving into ALL Russian demands would have likely only encourage yet more annexation and wars

 

[FriendlyFire]

Question is whether you really want to try and find out.

Ivan: I GET TO ATTACK KIEV FROM BELARUS LOL
also Ivan: NO ATTACKING MOSCOW ALLOWED

Ruski will find out when Ukraine Vents its Nuclear power plants into the direction of Russia. Try and Find out

 

[Birdjaguar]

But you specifically mentioned the Ukrainians and their successful resistance. Why didn't you emphasize the Russians invading instead?

Because this has been a moving conversation over (now multiple threads) and my train of thought gets sidetracked by both moderating ad responding to other posts. This was my original referential post:

As far as the nuke option goes, I do not think that Putin wants to or will pull the trigger on the destruction of Russia or the West. I do not think he is crazy enough to do that. Escalation creep is real and ongoing. it is very much a game of "chicken" that Putin has been encouraging. Prior to Feb 24th 2022, Putin had gotten away with all of his efforts with minimal effects from the West. The invasion changed the game completely and what had happened before was swept away and off the table. None of the prior events and accusations mattered any more. The very successful Ukrainian resistance emphasized that everything from the past decade no longer mattered. The NATO reaction is a clear reinforcement of that message. Whatever situations created by Minsk, Donbas, Crimea, etc. no longer apply. For Putin the invasion was "a bridge too far".

I mentioned both the invasion and the resistance. My ongoing remarks build upon both depending upon what was asked or what I was responding to.

 

[Yeekim]

Hersh's story is getting picked apart.

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

On the surface Seymour Hersh's story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.

oalexanderdk.substack.com

 

[Birdjaguar]

Great link! Thx.

 

[Akka]

Russia stopped mobilization 4 months ago, while Ukraine seems to be scraping at the bottom.

Russia never stopped mobilization. Putin specifically never signed the end of the "first mobilization".

In this case a possibility of "escalation" from NATO was mentioned and I responded that Russia reserves the right to defend itself up to using nuclear weapons.
So it seems you confused who is actually threatening here.

Though you deliberately ignore it, Russia is the aggressor. It doesn't "defend itself". The one "defending itself" is Ukraine.

Latest European polls

View attachment 654155

Anxious we stand?

eupinions - opinions, moods and preferences of european citizens

eupinions.eu

In other news:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626324165966848006

I honestly find frightening the amount of idiots in the general population. It's nothing new, populism, tankies equivalent and the like have always existed. But it really paints a depressive picture of mankind.

I'm just saying that Russia used the nuclear threat for every single things that was not going in their favor for 15 years now, so no one find it credible anymore.

MBT are being sent, jet fighters and long range missiles are next, IMO we could have skipped the previous small steps and saved Ukrainian lives.

Yes. Basically what I've said since the beginning of the war.

But, why Moscow being hit by one conventional missile would cause a nuclear war, and not a strike on a city closer to the Ukrainian border, like Belgorod ?

Better question : why is bombing Ukrainian city acceptable, but bombing Moscow isn't ?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Better question : why is bombing Ukrainian city acceptable, but bombing Moscow isn't ?

Neither are. The counter to an agressor murdering civilians is not to murder it's civilians.

 

[Akka]

Neither are. The counter to an agressor murdering civilians is not to murder it's civilians.

True, but that's not the point I was making. I was pointing how someone consider it fine to bomb Ukrainian cities, but unacceptable to the point of nuclear escalation to have the bombed guys doing exactly the same.