Putin's invasion of Ukraine

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Jan 20, 2022.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    Effectively no. That sham "referendum" will "prove" that the Ukranians consider themselves Russians, and they all want Putin to protect him. If he concedes defeat after that, it means he is saying he cannot protect Russians. And once he concedes defeat, it indicates he has lost power, and that opens him up to "accidentally falling out a window." It's literally life or death for him.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,122
    If he uses nuclear weapons I think you might see NATO start to get involved whether Ukraine is a member or not. I don't think the US can stand by and let nukes be used without, one way or another, going into Ukraine to push the Russians out. One step too far in other words.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,918
    Suppose that happened and was successful(even just suppose Ukraine forces the Russians out of its territory without anyone "going in" )..do you suppose that there will not be ongoing resistance from those parts of Ukraine that had the Russia-backed armed groups in them prior to this war (and even Crimea)?

    Might ,in that wished for scenario accommodation still have to be made to those areas if there is indeed (and remains)a genuine ,unforced desire to be a part of Russia?

    Or will /is Russia's reputation so low that their "allies" will shun them ?(maybe a more general break up of Russia?)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    Perhaps. As will likely be the case with chemical or biological weapons. But he may be counting on his armies of Internet trolls to spin such an attack as "so we sent troops to protect Russians from Ukranian nazis, and we found a US chemical weapons lab! Built by Hunter Biden! And it blew up! Not our fault. It's Hunter's fault. Attack him."

    Or some similar story.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,122
    True enough. Much like Trump though, do we have to care? Of course Putin is never going to change stripes, lay down and say "You know, you guys were right, sorry".
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    If he uses CBN weapons? Yeah, we do have to care.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,122
    OK, I didn't mean that literally. Yes, we have to care about everything. We don't have to accept any action from Putin without response no matter how extreme Putin's action is.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    Definitely agreed there.
     
  12. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,635
    Who blew the pipe undersea?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    It's looking likely that it's Russia. Causing energy insecurity for the EU puts Putin in a stronger negotiating position for selling his fuel.
     
  14. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    185
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,828
    I read that, with Russia almost certainly about to claim sovereignty over the four regions of Ukraine, they are also likely to draft unwitting Ukranians within those territories into their army. There again, would you hand someone you knew was not genuinely on your side a loaded weapon and ask them to stand next to you as you face your own countrymen?
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,478
    Agreed. One suggestion I've seen would be a massive conventional attack on Putin's military in Crimea.

    If a nuke were to be used, even a battlefield one, from I read there would be visible signs of preparation, in term of forces being pulled back so they don't get hit or irradiated and that sort of thing. So we need to watch from those satellites very carefully.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    . . . if the country in question cared about their troops.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,478
    Haha yes, but if they didn't, they could only use such a weapon once, or there would be mutiny.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    Well, there's mutiny right now. Troops are going into Ukraine and surrendering en masse.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,828
    Andrey Piontkovsky, in a recent interview, reckoned within half an hour of a nuclear weapon being used by Russia, NATO forces could take out the entirety of Russia's Black Sea fleet, and within a few days take out all Russians in Ukraine who have weapons.
    That rather depends on where they're planning to hit. You're assuming a front-line position, which is not necessarily what they'll do, as the frontlines are mostly in the four territories they're trying to annex. If it's a distance back from the front line then they could probably do it with little warning. Given that they have aircraft that can carry such munitions, neither Ukraine nor the West might know until after the fact. There might not be the obvious sign of preparation that there is with the likes of ICBMs.

    Bear in mind that Russia have nukes with a wide range of yields, from the 10's to the 1,000's of tonne. The Texas explosion in 2013 was c.10 tonnes, and the warehouse blast that rocked Beirut in 2020 was around 300-400 tonnes equivalent. So what if they use one of their diddy little nukes, say 20 tonnes (if they have any that small)... is that sufficient for NATO to get involved the same way as if it was, say, a 1 kt nuke? I mean, is the red line the fact that it's a nuke at all, or is it the size, and the effect?
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,122
    It's all speculation of course but I would think any nuke would be at least as bad as the use of any chemical weapons (in terms of a NATO response). The response would probably vary as the effect varies but there would probably be some kind of response if any nuke was used at all.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,795
    Due to the physics involved it's hard to get a yield of under a kiloton, and experts estimate that Russia's smallest weapons are around 1000 tons (a kiloton.) So the question is why they would use one of those over just dropping a whole lot of conventional weapons. But who knows? Perhaps they think that use of a nuclear weapon will end the war instantly due to the intimidation factor.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,828
    Okay. I'm sure I read somewhere that they were possibly as small as the 10s of tonnes. After all, the W-54 back in the 60s had a yield in that range. I hope, in a way, that they are much larger as that should reduce the chance of them being used.
    Several reasons spring to mind: because they don't have enough conventional weapons to achieve the same effect; because the effect of using a nuke is bigger than just the explosion; they want to make a point.
    That's one possibility, and given the poor advice he seems to have received thus far, it may well be what they're telling him. Let's hope not.
     

Share This Page