I find it interesting that Ukraine is under inexorable, inevitable, existential threat, but doesn't use Western weapons in its arsenal inside Russia. Regardless of permission. Why? What does it fear? That the West won't resupply them? Why wouldn't they? Or does it fear something else?
But Ukraine does not have the permission it needs to Western supplied weapons deep inside Russia. It cannot risk losing Allied support.
So it wouldn't be because it would be going it alone in provoking a tactical nuclear counterstrike? Which is moot due to the targeting software. They can't be trusted not to launch.
Another fallacy. That is not what restrains Russia on nuclear issues. MAD is what restrains Russia, along with the US threat to wipe out their Navy if the US wants to keep it non-nuclear.
That has been what Putin has hinted at, though without being explicit about it. He's done the same everytime Western nations have increased their military aid to Ukraine, each time saying it would lead to escalation ("hint, hint, I have loads of nukes") and each time there's not even an increase in the conventional forces he sends into the region. Is he serious this time? Personally, I doubt he'll use nukes ... but, then again, chicken is a dangerous game.
Another fallacy. That is not what restrains Russia on nuclear issues. MAD is what restrains Russia, along with the US threat to wipe out their Navy if the US wants to keep it non-nuclear.
Yep. MAD being the West's call. We'd be the ones saying 'Your move'.
That has been what Putin has hinted at, though without being explicit about it. He's done the same everytime Western nations have increased their military aid to Ukraine, each time saying it would lead to escalation ("hint, hint, I have loads of nukes") and each time there's not even an increase in the conventional forces he sends into the region. Is he serious this time? Personally, I doubt he'll use nukes ... but, then again, chicken is a dangerous game.
I mostly agree but would frame it slightly differently.
It's not so much hint hint as explicit statements. Putin has directly threatened to go nuclear.
Every time he has threatened it, it was designed to dissuade the West from providing the help that Ukraine needs. Every time he has done nothing when the West has sent aid to Kiev.
So what's stopping him? Let's be clear, there is no moral restraint that stops Putin. I think that's obvious, but it has also been specifically elucidated by Russian experts. He has used chemical weapons on UK streets. He has attacked civilian targets in several theatres. He has repeated murdered his own people if he considers them a threat.
So what does stop him? Well, I think it's the real threat of a genuine nuclear exchange. Putin's whole identity is tied to Mother Russia. Whilst he really wants to rule Kiev remotely, a threat to Russia itself is totally unacceptable. That analysis fits entirely with the pattern of upping the threats but not actually doing anything.
I agree that the game of chicken is very dangerous but this must be weighed against the dangers of not supporting Ukraine. And I have deliberately framed it that way, ignoring any moral angles.
Another fallacy. That is not what restrains Russia on nuclear issues. MAD is what restrains Russia, along with the US threat to wipe out their Navy if the US wants to keep it non-nuclear.
Yep. MAD being the West's call. We'd be the ones saying 'Your move'.
That is the way it has been since 1955.
Anything else in just an excuse to cave to a bully.
Another fallacy. That is not what restrains Russia on nuclear issues. MAD is what restrains Russia, along with the US threat to wipe out their Navy if the US wants to keep it non-nuclear.
Yep. MAD being the West's call. We'd be the ones saying 'Your move'.
That is the way it has been since 1955.
Anything else in just an excuse to cave to a bully.
Agreed. I give my assent to MAD. This war has made me do that. Such privileged freedom as we have is worth it. As I have. How appalling is that?
I find it interesting that Ukraine is under inexorable, inevitable, existential threat, but doesn't use Western weapons in its arsenal inside Russia. Regardless of permission. Why? What does it fear? That the West won't resupply them? Why wouldn't they? Or does it fear something else?
But Ukraine does not have the permission it needs to Western supplied weapons deep inside Russia. It cannot risk losing Allied support.
So it wouldn't be because it would be going it alone in provoking a tactical nuclear counterstrike? Which is moot due to the targeting software. They can't be trusted not to launch.
I think putting weight on official Russian statements about where their "red lines" are is to make a category error. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Andreas Umland published in the Kyiv Times.
As with past threats, Moscow aims to scare away foreign supporters of Ukraine from continuing and expanding their aid. The proposed change in military doctrine is another attempt to curtail Western assistance to Ukraine.
However, it’s important to put Putin’s statement in context. Russian official texts – whether laws, doctrines, or treaties – carry little weight in a country where there is no rule of law and state behavior is marked by arbitrariness. As in domestic affairs, Kremlin decisions are based on political preferences, with legal acts being adapted, interpreted or amended as needed.
<snip>
Since 2014, Putin and his associates have repeatedly signaled their willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to Western-supported Ukrainian resistance against Russia’s territorial expansion using conventional weaponry.
The phrase “the very existence of the Russian state” could be interpreted to encompass the inviolability of its borders and the security of its airspace – including the annexed Ukrainian territories that Moscow now views as part of Russia. Ukraine’s strikes and incursions into legitimate and illegally held Russian territory since 2022 could also have been viewed by the Kremlin as justification for retaliating with weapons of mass destruction.
However, no nuclear weapons have been used. This is because Russian threats – whether verbal or written – are not previews of actual actions. They are part of a psychological warfare campaign aimed at undermining Ukraine’s defense. Putin’s recent announcement of changes to Russia’s military doctrine is just another move in this high-stakes PR game.
A decision to use nuclear weapons would be driven more by political calculations than by doctrinal documents. If the Kremlin believes that using such weapons would enhance its power, it may act – regardless of the specific wording in official texts. Political utility, rather than legal obligation, will guide Moscow’s choices.
Mr. Umland is a German citizen currently working for the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies. Here's his Wikipedia page for those who want to check the sourcing on this opinion piece.
At any rate, I think Mr. Umland is correct in his analysis about putting too much weight on the Kremlin's official statements. Avoiding this error seems particularly difficult for those of us living in places with written constitutions and more or less consistently applied rule of law.
Superb @Crœsos. But where does that leave us? I'm sure that if NATO ripped itself apart, if the US detached itself under Trump, formally or not, that makes Russian tactical nuclear use almost mandatory, regardless of any 'provocation'. Trump would not respond at all, would not deliver on Stoltenberg's promise. And would not provide any cover, including nuclear umbrella, for Euro-NATO to attack Russian forces in Ukraine. Let alone still nuclear capable Euro-NATO attacking inside Russia. Biden won't call Putin's bluff by giving the codes for Ukraine to attack Russia in the next 5 weeks, or the following 12. Would Harris? I can't see how.
Superb @Crœsos. But where does that leave us? I'm sure that if NATO ripped itself apart, if the US detached itself under Trump, formally or not, that makes Russian tactical nuclear use almost mandatory, regardless of any 'provocation'. Trump would not respond at all, would not deliver on Stoltenberg's promise. And would not provide any cover, including nuclear umbrella, for Euro-NATO to attack Russian forces in Ukraine. Let alone still nuclear capable Euro-NATO attacking inside Russia. Biden won't call Putin's bluff by giving the codes for Ukraine to attack Russia in the next 5 weeks, or the following 12. Would Harris? I can't see how.
Whilst I am not predicting nor advocating this as a strategy, Britain alone could destroy every major Russian city* in under an hour. I do not know how many nuclear warheads France has, but a quick Google search suggests they have both submarine based missiles - same as the UK - and aircraft-lauched weapons and a similar total. So by my count, Britain and France could destroy Russian two to three times over without any need for American input.
It is worth remembering that Russian views of how The West works are very different to what we think of ourselves. According to Russian experts, Putin believes that the European countries do whatever Washington tells them to. That is ridiculous in lots of ways but whether and how Russian analysts would adjust to a post-NATO world is an open question.
The big issue with the US is if Putin believes no one will defend Finland or Poland or Latvia, then he's likely to attack. However, thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainians, it won't be even possible for 3-5 years.
The question is not how would The West respond to Russia using tactical nuclear weapons. The question is how does Putin think (and/or fear) The West would respond?
So for my money, all the talk of Nukes is nonsense. It is bluster for tactical advantage. If I'm wrong, then we're all under the same cloud anyway.
AFZ
*There are 92 Russian cities with a population greater than 200,000. Based on information in the public domain, the UK has around 225 warheads with a programable yield of 0.3 to 100 kilotons. For reference, the Hiroshima bomb was 16 kt of TNT. The UK Has undetectable submarines always at sea carrying an undisclosed number of missiles and warheads. (Trident D5 has a MIRV system - multiple independently targetablr reentry vehicles - meaning that each missile can hit multiple targets).**
**I find it is possible to be horrified by these weapons and yet some how fascinated by the technology.***
I suspect that Putin has a good idea that Poland and Finland are still nursing historic grudges against Russia, and their militarys would love nothing better than a chance to hand him his arse on a plate. I don't know about Latvia and Lithuania, but Finland would surely wade in on Estonia's behalf (there's a lot of shared history), so he would have if anything an even harder fight than he has had against Ukraine as they are all armed with NATO weapons.
I suspect that Putin has a good idea that Poland and Finland are still nursing historic grudges against Russia, and their militarys would love nothing better than a chance to hand him his arse on a plate. I don't know about Latvia and Lithuania, but Finland would surely wade in on Estonia's behalf (there's a lot of shared history), so he would have if anything an even harder fight than he has had against Ukraine as they are all armed with NATO weapons.
I agree and Ukraine has taught the world how to fight the Red Army. I knew some people years ago who regularly went to Latvia. They taught we that the Baltic states have always been expecting the Russians to come back one day. It's when not if...
But I don't think any of them could face down Russia alone, which is why NATO is so important.
Whilst I am not predicting nor advocating this as a strategy, Britain alone could destroy every major Russian city* in under an hour. I do not know how many nuclear warheads France has, but a quick Google search suggests they have both submarine based missiles - same as the UK - and aircraft-lauched weapons and a similar total. So by my count, Britain and France could destroy Russian two to three times over without any need for American input.
<snip>
*There are 92 Russian cities with a population greater than 200,000. Based on information in the public domain, the UK has around 225 warheads with a programmable yield of 0.3 to 100 kilotons.
That analysis makes several very optimistic (if I can use that term about nuclear war) assumptions. First there's the assumption that every bomb reaches its target, which is not a good assumption in a chaotic military situation. Weapons will fail, or go off target, or be intercepted. That last one is particularly problematic for the French aircraft-launched weapons, which would presumably need to successfully navigate Russian anti-aircraft measures. Given this, a determined attack would probably want to target multiple bombs at whatever are regarded as the most critical targets simply to assure their destruction.
Second, even a 100 kt nuclear weapon wouldn't completely destroy a large city. Nukemap is a website that will show the various blast radii of different effects. For a UK-based scale reference, a 100 kt nuke detonated directly over the Palace of Westminster would probably destroy/kill everything within London Fare Zone 1. Buildings in Fare Zone 2 would be lightly damaged. Outside of those areas there would be little direct damage, though a plume of deadly fallout would extend as far as (depending on the winds) Salisbury or Peterborough. While having central London vaporized would certainly be very disruptive for everyone and everything outside the blast radius I'm not sure we should consider it enough to "destroy" the city. And that's assuming perfectly accurate targeting, something that rarely occurs in battlefield conditions.
Third, it's debatable whether a country would be willing to commit its entire nuclear arsenal to a first strike. Keeping a few nukes on hand for follow-up action (because of the aforementioned uncertainties) seems prudent, especially given that one of the first things likely to targeted in retaliation is any facilities capable of manufacturing more nuclear weapons.
Whilst I am not predicting nor advocating this as a strategy, Britain alone could destroy every major Russian city* in under an hour. I do not know how many nuclear warheads France has, but a quick Google search suggests they have both submarine based missiles - same as the UK - and aircraft-lauched weapons and a similar total. So by my count, Britain and France could destroy Russian two to three times over without any need for American input.
<snip>
*There are 92 Russian cities with a population greater than 200,000. Based on information in the public domain, the UK has around 225 warheads with a programmable yield of 0.3 to 100 kilotons.
That analysis makes several very optimistic (if I can use that term about nuclear war) assumptions. First there's the assumption that every bomb reaches its target, which is not a good assumption in a chaotic military situation. Weapons will fail, or go off target, or be intercepted. That last one is particularly problematic for the French aircraft-launched weapons, which would presumably need to successfully navigate Russian anti-aircraft measures. Given this, a determined attack would probably want to target multiple bombs at whatever are regarded as the most critical targets simply to assure their destruction.
Second, even a 100 kt nuclear weapon wouldn't completely destroy a large city. Nukemap is a website that will show the various blast radii of different effects. For a UK-based scale reference, a 100 kt nuke detonated directly over the Palace of Westminster would probably destroy/kill everything within London Fare Zone 1. Buildings in Fare Zone 2 would be lightly damaged. Outside of those areas there would be little direct damage, though a plume of deadly fallout would extend as far as (depending on the winds) Salisbury or Peterborough. While having central London vaporized would certainly be very disruptive for everyone and everything outside the blast radius I'm not sure we should consider it enough to "destroy" the city. And that's assuming perfectly accurate targeting, something that rarely occurs in battlefield conditions.
Third, it's debatable whether a country would be willing to commit its entire nuclear arsenal to a first strike. Keeping a few nukes on hand for follow-up action (because of the aforementioned uncertainties) seems prudent, especially given that one of the first things likely to targeted in retaliation is any facilities capable of manufacturing more nuclear weapons.
I don't buy it. Pokrovsk could fall in days. 4km to go. Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to throw away in house to house, or rather cellar to cellar fighting. Let alone pinch off that salient. We'll see what the F16s can achieve. Not much. That's Donetsk gone, all the way to the Dnipro by the rasputitsa. Time for a scorched earth retreat. Especially the water works.
I don't mean to be petty about this but I am reaching for a broader point. Sorry.
So how's that going? More than a month later, has Pokrovsk fallen?
It may well do so at some point but your assertion of imminence was way off.
What's my point?
Well, of course I fear a Russian strategic victory in Ukraine. No sane person would not fear that. However, constantly buying into the idea that Russia are doing better than they actually are adds nothing to the discussion.
The fact remains that Russia is staring down the barrel of total strategic failure unless something changes in the next 18 months.
I don't buy it. Pokrovsk could fall in days. 4km to go. Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to throw away in house to house, or rather cellar to cellar fighting. Let alone pinch off that salient. We'll see what the F16s can achieve. Not much. That's Donetsk gone, all the way to the Dnipro by the rasputitsa. Time for a scorched earth retreat. Especially the water works.
I don't mean to be petty about this but I am reaching for a broader point. Sorry.
So how's that going? More than a month later, has Pokrovsk fallen?
It may well do so at some point but your assertion of imminence was way off.
What's my point?
Well, of course I fear a Russian strategic victory in Ukraine. No sane person would not fear that. However, constantly buying into the idea that Russia are doing better than they actually are adds nothing to the discussion.
The fact remains that Russia is staring down the barrel of total strategic failure unless something changes in the next 18 months.
In a month, I think we’ll know more.
AFZ
Not petty at all. 5 weeks and the wall hasn't burst yet. Yet how can it not? They took Avdiivka between the rasputitsas.
The first change in the next 18 months is on a globally significant American knife edge in a month. 18 months is irrelevant until then. And China and Iran and North Korea and India and Francophone Africa; all her trading partners, won't let Russia fail if they can help it, regardless.
Yes, the EU is still importing Russian gas, though the quantity has dropped significantly (from about 150 billion m3 in 2021 to less than 40b m3 in 2023). Our addiction to fossil fuels means that criminals continue to profit from it.
The vast majority of that gas was used in Poland, Germany and other nations in the east of the EU. The UK is a net exporter of gas, and even before 2022 didn't import any significant quantities of gas from Russia. Whether turning on your heating supports Russia is going to depend on where you are.
I’m pretty sure Trump will use the threat of aid cut to force Zelensky to accept a bad deal. Russia will gain as a result of the Trump victory.
North Korea? Not so likely. When Trump discovered Kim Jong Un was developing a terrorist suitcase nuke bomb he got very close to nuking North Korea. That love affair is over for sure.
Genocide is a loaded term but 70% of Palestinian casualties being women and children is surely a cause for concern @Telford.
There are also hard-line Israelis who are now openly talking about driving 'the Arabs' out of northern Gaza and settling Israelis there instead. If that's not genocide it's certainly ethnic cleansing.
None of these observations let Hamas or Hezbollah off the hook of course.
Nice enough, but it won't work. Leaving aside Ukraine's NATO aspirations (a hightly contingent outcome) the proposal appears reasonable for what a disinterested party would want, but it has too many moving parts.
Russia is on the offensive and doesn't want to give that up.
Ukraine has Kursk and won't give that up without substantial compensation elsewhere. What is a bargaining chip for but for bargaining?
Europe et al would never, ever agree to a nightmare of a "peacekeeping" operation. From Russias POV none of the proposed peacekeepers are neutral, all have provided Ukraine aide and impounded Russsin money.
If this is the proposal then it's going to land flat on its face.
Reading the article, there is this sentence: The US still appears to be placing caveats on the use of its long-range missiles - limiting their use to the Kursk region.
But, given the recent missile attack by Russia, I would hope Biden drops the last restrictions before he leaves office. In my opinion, one solid missile strike by Ukraine on Moscow and St. Petersburg might help at the bargaining table.
The weapons (we know of) supplied to Ukraine don't have the range to hit Moscow much less St Petersburg. ATACMS has a 300km range. Storm Shadow (supplied by UK and France, so would need UK and France to authorise use) has a longer range of about 500km, Moscow would thus be at the extreme range assuming it's fired from the nearest point to Moscow in Ukraine.
I'd expect Ukraine would be much more interested in hitting the launch sites of missiles targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, and supply depots closer to the Ukrainian border. Something that directly reduces the ability of Russia to launch missiles and drones against Ukraine, or the ability of Russia to supply front line troops operating on Ukrainian soil.
Putin's move. And did they work or not? Could Russia have shot any down? Let alone hit 6, destroying 5. And 12 secondary explosions are pretty good going for debris. His move should come after January 20th if he has any sense.
Putin's move. And did they work or not? Could Russia have shot any down? Let alone hit 6, destroying 5. And 12 secondary explosions are pretty good going for debris. His move should come after January 20th if he has any sense.
Debris from shot down missiles seems peculiarly effective at creating explosions and starting fires in Russian military bases.
I honestly don't see why the US or other suppliers of arms place any restrictions on how they are used (beyond the obvious 'don't bomb civilian targets') - if Russia is bombarding you with artillery based over the border, for example, it is a valid target for Ukraine's response.
Putin's move. And did they work or not? Could Russia have shot any down? Let alone hit 6, destroying 5. And 12 secondary explosions are pretty good going for debris. His move should come after January 20th if he has any sense.
Debris from shot down missiles seems peculiarly effective at creating explosions and starting fires in Russian military bases.
I honestly don't see why the US or other suppliers of arms place any restrictions on how they are used (beyond the obvious 'don't bomb civilian targets') - if Russia is bombarding you with artillery based over the border, for example, it is a valid target for Ukraine's response.
Let's hope Putin sees it that way and not an attack by the nuclear armed West, so that his only possible response is a tactical nuclear strike on the now evacuated (of Western technicians that cannot be proved otherwise absent) proxy launch sites. I wonder when we might know by? It's been, what, 48 hours since Biden's permission. Thursday. I remember Cuba.
As the BBC said yesterday, British Stormshadows destroyed Russian naval presence in Crimea, sovereign Mother Russia, 6 months ago. Now we've only got 2 months left. Time enough to deploy a million long life landmines? Which aren't on offer...
How does ENATO alone defend against Russia in 2 months' time?
He's the Russians' candidate. He thinks he's strong because he loves strong men... Putin, Shi. And he only said he'd end the war in one day to get elected?
Comments
So it wouldn't be because it would be going it alone in provoking a tactical nuclear counterstrike? Which is moot due to the targeting software. They can't be trusted not to launch.
Yep. MAD being the West's call. We'd be the ones saying 'Your move'.
I mostly agree but would frame it slightly differently.
It's not so much hint hint as explicit statements. Putin has directly threatened to go nuclear.
Every time he has threatened it, it was designed to dissuade the West from providing the help that Ukraine needs. Every time he has done nothing when the West has sent aid to Kiev.
So what's stopping him? Let's be clear, there is no moral restraint that stops Putin. I think that's obvious, but it has also been specifically elucidated by Russian experts. He has used chemical weapons on UK streets. He has attacked civilian targets in several theatres. He has repeated murdered his own people if he considers them a threat.
So what does stop him? Well, I think it's the real threat of a genuine nuclear exchange. Putin's whole identity is tied to Mother Russia. Whilst he really wants to rule Kiev remotely, a threat to Russia itself is totally unacceptable. That analysis fits entirely with the pattern of upping the threats but not actually doing anything.
I agree that the game of chicken is very dangerous but this must be weighed against the dangers of not supporting Ukraine. And I have deliberately framed it that way, ignoring any moral angles.
AFZ
That is the way it has been since 1955.
Anything else in just an excuse to cave to a bully.
Agreed. I give my assent to MAD. This war has made me do that. Such privileged freedom as we have is worth it. As I have. How appalling is that?
I think putting weight on official Russian statements about where their "red lines" are is to make a category error. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Andreas Umland published in the Kyiv Times.
Mr. Umland is a German citizen currently working for the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies. Here's his Wikipedia page for those who want to check the sourcing on this opinion piece.
At any rate, I think Mr. Umland is correct in his analysis about putting too much weight on the Kremlin's official statements. Avoiding this error seems particularly difficult for those of us living in places with written constitutions and more or less consistently applied rule of law.
Whilst I am not predicting nor advocating this as a strategy, Britain alone could destroy every major Russian city* in under an hour. I do not know how many nuclear warheads France has, but a quick Google search suggests they have both submarine based missiles - same as the UK - and aircraft-lauched weapons and a similar total. So by my count, Britain and France could destroy Russian two to three times over without any need for American input.
It is worth remembering that Russian views of how The West works are very different to what we think of ourselves. According to Russian experts, Putin believes that the European countries do whatever Washington tells them to. That is ridiculous in lots of ways but whether and how Russian analysts would adjust to a post-NATO world is an open question.
The big issue with the US is if Putin believes no one will defend Finland or Poland or Latvia, then he's likely to attack. However, thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainians, it won't be even possible for 3-5 years.
The question is not how would The West respond to Russia using tactical nuclear weapons. The question is how does Putin think (and/or fear) The West would respond?
So for my money, all the talk of Nukes is nonsense. It is bluster for tactical advantage. If I'm wrong, then we're all under the same cloud anyway.
AFZ
*There are 92 Russian cities with a population greater than 200,000. Based on information in the public domain, the UK has around 225 warheads with a programable yield of 0.3 to 100 kilotons. For reference, the Hiroshima bomb was 16 kt of TNT. The UK Has undetectable submarines always at sea carrying an undisclosed number of missiles and warheads. (Trident D5 has a MIRV system - multiple independently targetablr reentry vehicles - meaning that each missile can hit multiple targets).**
**I find it is possible to be horrified by these weapons and yet some how fascinated by the technology.***
***Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears is a great read.
I agree and Ukraine has taught the world how to fight the Red Army. I knew some people years ago who regularly went to Latvia. They taught we that the Baltic states have always been expecting the Russians to come back one day. It's when not if...
But I don't think any of them could face down Russia alone, which is why NATO is so important.
AFZ
That analysis makes several very optimistic (if I can use that term about nuclear war) assumptions. First there's the assumption that every bomb reaches its target, which is not a good assumption in a chaotic military situation. Weapons will fail, or go off target, or be intercepted. That last one is particularly problematic for the French aircraft-launched weapons, which would presumably need to successfully navigate Russian anti-aircraft measures. Given this, a determined attack would probably want to target multiple bombs at whatever are regarded as the most critical targets simply to assure their destruction.
Second, even a 100 kt nuclear weapon wouldn't completely destroy a large city. Nukemap is a website that will show the various blast radii of different effects. For a UK-based scale reference, a 100 kt nuke detonated directly over the Palace of Westminster would probably destroy/kill everything within London Fare Zone 1. Buildings in Fare Zone 2 would be lightly damaged. Outside of those areas there would be little direct damage, though a plume of deadly fallout would extend as far as (depending on the winds) Salisbury or Peterborough. While having central London vaporized would certainly be very disruptive for everyone and everything outside the blast radius I'm not sure we should consider it enough to "destroy" the city. And that's assuming perfectly accurate targeting, something that rarely occurs in battlefield conditions.
Third, it's debatable whether a country would be willing to commit its entire nuclear arsenal to a first strike. Keeping a few nukes on hand for follow-up action (because of the aforementioned uncertainties) seems prudent, especially given that one of the first things likely to targeted in retaliation is any facilities capable of manufacturing more nuclear weapons.
Indeed. It was a simplistic way of framing it.
I don't mean to be petty about this but I am reaching for a broader point. Sorry.
So how's that going? More than a month later, has Pokrovsk fallen?
It may well do so at some point but your assertion of imminence was way off.
What's my point?
Well, of course I fear a Russian strategic victory in Ukraine. No sane person would not fear that. However, constantly buying into the idea that Russia are doing better than they actually are adds nothing to the discussion.
The fact remains that Russia is staring down the barrel of total strategic failure unless something changes in the next 18 months.
In a month, I think we’ll know more.
AFZ
Not petty at all. 5 weeks and the wall hasn't burst yet. Yet how can it not? They took Avdiivka between the rasputitsas.
The first change in the next 18 months is on a globally significant American knife edge in a month. 18 months is irrelevant until then. And China and Iran and North Korea and India and Francophone Africa; all her trading partners, won't let Russia fail if they can help it, regardless.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0ngzg9754o
the EU is still importing natural gas from Russia.
Does this mean when I turn my heating on I am supporting the Russian war effort??
The vast majority of that gas was used in Poland, Germany and other nations in the east of the EU. The UK is a net exporter of gas, and even before 2022 didn't import any significant quantities of gas from Russia. Whether turning on your heating supports Russia is going to depend on where you are.
I've been reading that NK troops being very ineffective. Not confirmed but if true, the involvement of much more symbolic importance than practical.
I m hoping it causes SK to open the taps of military aid.
NK units will likely never make it home from what I am hearing.
I think this is the most upto date information:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-strengthens-national-security-and-bolsters-ukraines-war-chest-with-226-billion-military-loan
I believe the loan interest is being paid by the income from seized Russian assets but that may be a different scheme.
North Korea? Not so likely. When Trump discovered Kim Jong Un was developing a terrorist suitcase nuke bomb he got very close to nuking North Korea. That love affair is over for sure.
There is no genocide in Gaza or Lebanon
There are also hard-line Israelis who are now openly talking about driving 'the Arabs' out of northern Gaza and settling Israelis there instead. If that's not genocide it's certainly ethnic cleansing.
None of these observations let Hamas or Hezbollah off the hook of course.
@Gramps49, @Telford, @Gamma Gamaliel , discussion of Palestine belongs in Epiphanies
Hostly hat off
North East Quine, Purgatory host
https://hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-has-a-tactical-plan-to-end-russia-ukraine-war-bring-peace-details-european-troops-buffer-zone-101731231483835.html
Nice enough, but it won't work. Leaving aside Ukraine's NATO aspirations (a hightly contingent outcome) the proposal appears reasonable for what a disinterested party would want, but it has too many moving parts.
Russia is on the offensive and doesn't want to give that up.
Ukraine has Kursk and won't give that up without substantial compensation elsewhere. What is a bargaining chip for but for bargaining?
Europe et al would never, ever agree to a nightmare of a "peacekeeping" operation. From Russias POV none of the proposed peacekeepers are neutral, all have provided Ukraine aide and impounded Russsin money.
If this is the proposal then it's going to land flat on its face.
Ukraine latest: Biden gives green light for US missiles to strike inside Russia - BBC News
But, given the recent missile attack by Russia, I would hope Biden drops the last restrictions before he leaves office. In my opinion, one solid missile strike by Ukraine on Moscow and St. Petersburg might help at the bargaining table.
(And, welcome back, Martin)
I'd expect Ukraine would be much more interested in hitting the launch sites of missiles targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, and supply depots closer to the Ukrainian border. Something that directly reduces the ability of Russia to launch missiles and drones against Ukraine, or the ability of Russia to supply front line troops operating on Ukrainian soil.
Debris from shot down missiles seems peculiarly effective at creating explosions and starting fires in Russian military bases.
I honestly don't see why the US or other suppliers of arms place any restrictions on how they are used (beyond the obvious 'don't bomb civilian targets') - if Russia is bombarding you with artillery based over the border, for example, it is a valid target for Ukraine's response.
Let's hope Putin sees it that way and not an attack by the nuclear armed West, so that his only possible response is a tactical nuclear strike on the now evacuated (of Western technicians that cannot be proved otherwise absent) proxy launch sites. I wonder when we might know by? It's been, what, 48 hours since Biden's permission. Thursday. I remember Cuba.
How does ENATO alone defend against Russia in 2 months' time?
Politically?