Russian Options in Ukraine: Are Nuclear Weapons Under Consideration?

Geopolitical Futures ^ | 09/20/2022 | George Friedman

[Big Brother Go to Hell]

From what we’ve seen of the Russian military this year, I bet their missiles would fail to launch or break up in flight. The warheads that did arrive anywhere near the intended target would probably be duds.

[buwaya]

Its those “experienced troops” that need to have their ranks refilled with replacements. Divisions are in brigade strength, brigades are battalions, etc. The whole Russian army needs large numbers of individual replacements.

Ex. Kherson - there are supposed to be three VDV (Airborne) divisions, a motor-rifle Division, three detached brigades, a special forces brigade, misc DNR and security (ministry of the interior) and independent artillery units there, besides engineering and service units. Full strength that lot should be close to 100,000 men on the east bank of the Dneipr. But the consensus seems to have them at 25,000.

This seems to be the case all along the line. I expect that the call-up is mainly intended to provide replacements to all the depleted units, not create new ones. Russia probably doesnt have the cadre to set up many new units from scratch, and these will take time. Russia hasnt got much time.

[buwaya]

There hasnt really been that much sent over. About 400-500 tanks, all from Poland and other Euro sources, maybe 250 155mm guns, most also from Europe, aircraft spares, most also from Eastern Europe, etc. Add a rather bizarre zoo of misc armored vehicles dragged out of every European military garage.

The big US contributions are 155mm ammo, the HIMARS system (and the MLRS parts of that are also from Europe), the Javelins (but Europe has sent more ATGMs), recon and comm services, Musks’ Starlink equipment, a few HARMS, a few Harpoons (but I think these were from Norway). The US has been paying for uniforms, boots, armor, and etc, but a lot of that is from Euro sources too, along with a mass of infantry weapons. The Ukes after all have had to triple their army and largely rearm it after their ammo stocks were depleted.

All this is pretty sketchy when facing everything that Russia had. Its quite amazing how much has been done with so little.

Wars arent cheap. I think you are being very unrealistic about your expectations.

I suggest you do a deep dive into open source info as to what is actually in service in Ukraine.

[avenir]

That guy is phony baloney to the core.

[telescope115]

I will do that. Thanks for the info.

[Campion]

The power of tactical nuclear weapons (depending on the type) is less than 1 percent of the Hiroshima blast

I think this statement is highly questionable. The Hiroshima bomb's yield was between 12 and 15 kilotons. I don't think there is anything in the current US arsenal with a yield of 120 to 150 tons of TNT.

The smallest nuclear weapon the US ever built -- probably the smallest ever built, period -- was the Davy Crockett, with a yield of 10 tons. It was retired in 1971. The TADM ("tactical atomic demolition munition," the original "suitcase nuke") was retired in 1966. It had a yield of 500 tons, well over the 150 ton limit.

[pierrem15]

Fairly decent analysis overall, but the potential attack on Romania is very fanciful indeed. First off, Ukrainian anti-ship missiles are too dispersed to be eliminated, and second how will Russians land in Romania, will they swim there?

The only real threat I see is to mass another invasion force in Belarus and open a second front aimed at Kiev to relieve pressure in the east. Lukashenko would have to agree, and it would risk Polish intervention.

So far Russia has been unable to train and equip adequately much smaller forces than the current mobilization. I do not see that changing. In fact, the chaotic initial mobilization of men haphazardly strongly suggests a complete lack of planning. Mobilization results will probably vary wildly from district to district, with way too many to transport, clothe, house and feed in some areas and way too few in others. Coordinating their movement to Ukraine will be a disaster. Even if Putin manages to transport 300k poorly trained troops to Ukraine, how will he feed them? Arm them? Make them sufficiently mobile to attack?

I suspect Russian generals know this. So if Putin's bluff fails this time, he's finished.

[Kazan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-BXPfRiCOw

Update on Russian military operations in Ukraine for September 21, 2022

- Referendums have been announced across Russian-held territory in Ukraine;

- If incorporated into the Russian Federation, Moscow could upgrade the special military operation significantly;

- The US Department of Defense, in a recent briefing, seems to acknowledge the limits of what aid it can provide Ukraine;

- Western analysts appear to agree that Ukraine’s offensives may have been a final gamble, exhausting their reserves and leaving them at the mercy of subsequent Russian escalations;

[telescope115]

Can I ask you where your information is from?

[buwaya]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

What I recall from numerous press accounts, but here is a roundup of delivered and upcoming aid, with a fair breakdown of types. Its lacking in detail on some things like ammunition.

This is to equip an army of @700,000+ so keep that in mind.