Replies

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.