Free Republic

Totally.

European Nigeria with nukes.

The reason why it is a bluff is because, as that song by Sting went, ‘the Russians love their children too.’ Use of tactical nukes in Ukraine may trigger UNFORESEEN actions by NATO that Russia may not necessarily want to happen.

For example, the entry of NATO proper to Ukraine. Which would result in direct NATO vs Russia war. Which would result in the conventional defeat of Russia. Which would mean that Russia would have to accept conventional defeat, or trigger is anti-NATO strategy in the event of conventional defeat - use of atomics. And thus, even a limited use of that brings ever greater threat of escalation, the end of which would be no winners.

The same calculus exists in the side of NATO, but the likes of France (which has lost a lot of ground in Francophone Africa due to the Russians) and the UK (which is trying to remain relevant) don’t care much and are pushing. Germany is obviously more cautious, as is - believe it or not - the US (as much as Biden and his ilk are rolling crazy dice, some of the idiosyncrasies like the cap on oil prices that is not capped, free flow of Russian fertilizers, drip drip of aid to Ukraine, indicate they are trying to punish Russia as much as they can without triggering global nuclear Gehenna. It may not work out that way.)

As for Russia - huge miscalculation on their side. What they thought would be a repeat of Crimea became a huge smear on their credibility. Sure, they would have defeated Ukraine if it did not get help, and even with help Russia enjoys certain demographic and other advantages over Ukraine that will likely result in a slow grinding ‘victory’ of sorts, but it has cost Russia big time. Huge miscalculation, and I doubt they are willing to make more/greater mathematical fails.

So, a bluff. Russia’s hope is that Germany makes noise, that Poland thinks twice, that British voters wonder what their government is doing, and that Hawks in DC take a short pause.

But they will not use tactical nukes!

The ONLY time they would do that is if Ukraine was in the verge of overwhelming the Russian army, was pushing back hard in the Donbas, and the fall of Crimea was inevitable.

THEN, Russia would definitely use nukes. It is in their clearly available nuclear use doctrine …

… but the US will never allow Ukraine to get that close to winning!

Unless people here really think the West (not the Baltic countries, the ‘proper’ West) actually want Ukraine to win!?!?

:)

Nonsense. Russia cannot even handle Ukraine!

When will the women stand up and fight for women’s rights? This is wrong

It’s a bluff.

For a country without a navy it is quite amazing how successful Ukraine has been in destroying the Russian BS fleet. Amazing.

I really hope we get the same monsoon of Lib tears this November that we experienced in 2016.

Maybe they should send that ship to attack the Kerch bridge in Crimea …

Drones have been an absolute game changer. The cost of one/more drones versus the cost of a ship is mind boggling.

If the USAF is the world’s largest distributor of MiG parts, then Ukraine is the world’s largest manufacturer of Russian submarines …

Fully agree. All ICBMs/SLBMs are hypersonic.

He is insane. Everyone who plans a game of brinksmanship is insane. To make it credible one has to be partially or fully mad.

As for your other statement:

1. You are correct - Russians would not have their country destroyed with nuclear fire.
3. However, the same applies to the West. This is exactly why I was mentioning that no Western leader will play a game of chance with their own citizens. That’s the only good thing about nuclear weapons - it makes all sides take a pause and think a bit.
3. Why do 1 and 2 exist?
Step a: Russia knows it cannot defeat NATO conventionally, thus its nuclear doctrine allows for use of tactical weapons when they are about to be massively outrun by a superior conventional force.
Step b: NATO knows they can defeat Russia conventionally, and thus have to calculate what that would mean in terms of escalation. NATO knows that if Russia used tactical nuclear weapons, they would have to respond with their own similar weapons.
Step c: Russia knows that the NATO tactical response would most likely escalate into the use of strategic weapons.
Step d: Ditto for NATO.
Step e: Neither NATO nor Russia wants to risk such outcomes, and thus everything is done in a moderated manner (eg, Germany going from only delivering helmets to now giving tanks, artillery systems and anti-air missiles - everything has been very paced, much to Ukraine’s chagrin …!!!!)

What does all of the above mean?

- Both NATO and Russia will not escalate.
- In the same way Putin/Russians will not risk nuclear war with NATO because of Ukraine, in the same way no French President or Italian Prime Minister or Western whatever will risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. No matter what fans of either side think, that will not happen.
- Finally, it will result in what I said. An armistice, with the borders being frozen more or less where the frontlines currently are. Russia has enough weapons to make life miserable for Ukraine, but not to take over the country. Ukraine can score wins against Russia (eg a ship here, a plane there), but that will not take Russia back to the February borders (be it Feb 2022 or Feb 2014).

An armistice will happen by the end of this year. I’d bet on it. Definitely if President Trump wins/ Republicans keep at least one of the houses of Congress.

Should Biden seem to be on the way to a triumphant end, then maybe the armistice will happen in mid/late 2025.

But an armistice will happen. There will be no winner to that war. Ukraine is afraid for political reasons to mobilize the 500,000+ people it needs; and Russia is still playing that ‘special operations nonsense’ they’ve been squawking about for two years.

And NATO will not get more involved than they are now. I can only imagine how the German Chancellor, for example, would explain to his citizens (who are already really angry at the economy, considering Germany always needed cheap energy to maintain the industrial edge they enjoyed for decades) that the German military will be fighting Russia. Will never happen.

But, let’s see. I could be wrong. :)

It appears that Ukraine is really good at converting Russian warships into submarines. Unfortunately for Russia, those submarines never seem to ever surface once they dive. Not sure if that’s a big or a feature.

My view …it’s a message. The Zircon is nuclear capable, and the message is that Russia has the ability to launch a tactical nuclear attack on Kyiv that the Ukrainians would not be able to stop.

Consequently, it wouldn’t matter if it hit an apartment building or hit the town square - the result would be the same.

There is a lot of ‘conversation’ going on between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO. This was just another message between the three (more like, between Russia and NATO).

I hoped that this war would be a quick one - and that Ukraine’s early successes would result in Russia opting to quickly save face and return to the borders as at 24 February 2022). That is now out of question, with too much lost for both Ukraine and Russia for a sensible outcome to be agreed upon. If Ukraine gave up, it would be over for Zelenskyy. If Russia gave up, the same for Putin.

And if the West gets directly involved (as in, directly not just sending weapons), then things get tough for everyone. Why? Because Russia has no chance against NATO in a conventional war, and in such an outcome, Russia’s nuclear doctrine allows for the use of thermonuclear weapons.

Now, there are some who say (1) that Russia’s nukes ‘don’t work’ and/or (2) Russia would never use its nuclear weapons, assuming they work, because they would be destroyed themselves.

The thing though is this - there is no Western leader, not even Biden, who would take such a gamble and put their own citizens on the line in such a bet (and, similarly, no Western leader would ever risk sacrificing their own citizens for the sake of Ukrainians). Not even Biden would sacrifice America’s national interests for the sake of Ukrainian lives, even though the current happenings at the border do create some concerns. Otherwise the border issue, not even Biden would risk a thermonuclear conflagration for the benefit of Ukraine. Definitely not the other Western presidents/prime ministers would do this.

This explains why, for example, when a Russian missile flew over Polish airspace, all that happened was a stern warning from Poland and an increase in Polish AF F-16C flights. Both Russia and NATO leadership do not want a direct engagement between themselves because (a) Russia would lose and (b) Russia would go nuclear. It really is that simple,

And that, in my opinion, is why they fired an ‘unstoppable’ weapon at ‘an apartment.’ (Again, I am assuming that the statement it only hit an apartment is true and not propaganda - all sides have been pumping a lot of tripe). It is to send a message - that there is a point where Russia could simply use a tactical strike, which would be a major escalation.

Which takes me back to my initial hope that it would have been a quick war with Ukraine bloodying the nose of Russia and making them go back to their 24 February 2022 position (ie, with Russia in Crimea but outside the rest of Ukraine). That will not be the case!

Options going forward, in my view:
1. Continued stalemate that results in a long-war where both countries keep paying the butcher’s bill in a drawn out fashion. Ukraine would be waiting for a counter offensive next year (2025, assuming Biden wins reelection and the Dems win both houses of Congress and can thus authorize military aid with limited resistance), and Russia would be waiting to see if Western assistance dries up and they can move in with minimal resistance (due to lack of Ukrainian weapons and, especially, soldiers).

2. Continued stalemate that results in some sort of armistice similar to what happened with the two Koreas, resulting in a permanently frozen war. This is actually the most likely option, and it would come with some sort of carrots for Ukraine (eg, joining the EU) but not everything they want (not being part of NATO, but maybe with some sort of bi/tri-lateral security guarantees), and Russia keeping the territories on the other side of the line (and thus giving Putin his ‘win’). By far the most likely situation and the one I would bet money on. I doubt that even the most rabid pro-Ukrainian supporters still believe Ukraine can achieve a total win; and even the most fervent Putin-fanatic stopped believing Russia could take Kyiv in under a week TWO years ago. The outcome will be some sort of armistice with Ukraine joining the EU but not NATO.

3. Ukraine achieves an outright win, and pushes Russia back to either (a) the 24 Feb 2022 borders or even, as some commentators were claiming last year, to (b) the 20 February 2014 borders (prior to Russia moving into Crimea). This, in my view, is impossible! Russia will never let Crimea go for example. They will nuke Kyiv before that happens using tactical weapons.

4. Russia wins and conquers all of Ukraine. Not sure if this was their plan at all, but if it is/was, it is also an impossible task. Russia simply does not have the ability to hold such ground (let alone capture it in the first place), and even if a dark miracle happened and they captured it (impossible), it would result in an insurgency nightmare that would make Fallujah seem like Sunday brunch).

5. NATO gets involved directly. I would hope this is impossible, as it opens up certain permutations that can go wrong quick. I doubt any Western leader would face their nation and tell them they are going to war on behalf of Ukraine, but there are still certain situations that can result in that. For example, scenario A: Ukraine is losing and some commander decides to bomb the nuclear power plant and blame Russia, with radiation flowing into neighboring countries. Or, scenario B: Russia is losing and they attack Ukrainian F-16s based in a NATO country. Not likely, and under normal conditions ‘impossible,’ but unfortunately there are certain scenarios where a desperate Ukraine or Russia can trigger the involvement of NATO.

Perfect.

Maybe it is not sabotage, and maybe it’s not affirmative action. Both of those are possible, but it is more likely that Boeing is now being led by accountants and not engineers, and a renewed focus on cost cutting has resulted a shift from top-notch quality control with unfortunate consequences.

It is crazy that more and more American companies are making inane DEI choices, and it’s easy to place blame on such choices for wings falling off and the milk boiling over, but proper attribution analysis would show that many of the issues started when Boeing shifted to an ‘enhanced profitability’ approach years back.Unlike Airbus, which is (literally) led by an engineer, when you have ‘financial types’ leading an airline they will always try and save costs.

That can come with dire consequences.

But it’s easier to claim it’s affirmative action (which, as a black man who has made it in life without the need of such useless crutches, I deeply detest). Makes everyone concur, all the blame is placed there, and then another Boeing plane loses a wheel or a door or its ability to maintain level flight (!!!) and the song and dance goes on.

When it is all about VERY poor leadership at Boeing.

How can Russia ever hope to challenge the US when it cannot even handle Ukraine?

That’s the one thing I have never understood with those claiming Russia is this big bad dread. They are big (in geography) and bad (in most things - their food, their military, a lot of things), but how can they be the big bad dread if they cannot even defeat Ukraine?

Poland alone would be sufficient.

I wish someone could explain how Russia can be both pathetic yet to be feared at the same time.

Good point.

Whether one likes or hates Zelenskyy, the point still remains that Ukraine was attacked by an external party. Even if someone tries to come up with ‘reasons why,’ it still doesn’t take away from the point that Ukraine was attacked by an external party.

Sometimes people just want to fight back. Maybe they are silly, maybe they are misguided, maybe they are patriotic - but sometimes people stand in the gap against a larger force and say ‘come take it.’

It often doesn’t end the way movies like to show it, with the silly/misguided/heroic fighters winning.

But sometimes people just have to fight for their homeland.

whether or not their leaders are ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

Too swampy to be part of the Trump admin? That is hilarious.

I like President Trump and hope he gets elected this year, but let’s be serious. His administration was filled with traitors and had more swamp slime than the Everglades during summer.

His last administration had Mike Pence as VP, Nikki Haley as ambassador, Chris Christie as head of the transition team, Omarossa as advisor, and a bunch of other interesting names. Many of these people stabbed Trump in the back.

Vivek would be an improvement over any of them!