Ukraine War Watch Thread

[Maximus]

Well, we're not going to be able to avoid this discussion forever it seems.

So my thoughts on it haven't changed since my Walpurgisnacht panic attack back in 2014: do hope that one of three things is the reality if nuclear war breaks out—

• Most nuclear weapons are defective, intercepted, and small-yield. Nuclear winter fails to materialize. Agriculture, though reduced, remains. An exchange of less than 1,000 working warheads total, with the vast majority being Hiroshima-sized or smaller, would be devastating but survivable for humanity and possibly even civilization. It'd irreversibly change us, but in the end, life would indeed go on...
• You live in a place that will be bombed. I'm not so lucky, as I live in nondescript small city (less than 25,000 people) away from military installations, missile silos, or important targets. I'll almost certainly just lose electricity and hear the dull thump of civilization falling around me. I don't even live in the fallout zone...
• The USicans or Ruskies were being naughty naughty little children and developed things they shouldn't have. Things like cobalt bombs. In which case, I speak no hyperbole when I say "everyone dies." In that case, we won't worry about our end for long. I call this one "Clean Slate Theory" because it means that those in power decided that, should nuclear war happens, we ought to just start Earth off as a clean slate again. In which case maybe the birds, octopi, or chimps will develop civilization again someday.

For whatever reason, the US intel doesn't think nuclear war is happening though. They're not buying into the idea Putin's actually gone MAD.

I agree, we should have this conversation, given Russia's unilateral escalation in rhetoric with implied threats of nuclear war (over sanctions lol) and raising its nuclear alert status.

1. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world at ~6400. However, of those 1,456 are currently active (and these are just warheads, not actual ICBMs). They need to be mounted on ICBMs or other launch mechanisms, which further reduces the amount of targets to choose from. In a nuclear exchange, neither side would get to use their entire stockpiles, so already we've cut down the amount of possible apocalypse. Like you say, of those 1456 some will likely be defective, or intercepted. Now consider this also; Russia needs to neutralize targets in many countries all over the world. From the US, to Canada, to pretty much all of Europe, and probably even other US allies like Israel, Japan, and Australia. In each of those countries, there are hundreds of targets, from civilian centers, to military bases, to shipyards, steel processing factories, mines, and so on. Also, no single strike is guaranteed to suceed, so multiple ICBMs need to be assigned to important targets. So Russia's arsenal would really be stretched quite thin, and wouldn't achieve all its objectives. The US and NATO on the other hand, can focus only on targets in Russia, of which there are far fewer. For reference, the US has an active inventory of 1,357 warheads. The UK has 120 active warheads. France has 280 warheads. The US and NATO wouldn't come out of it looking pretty, but Russia would be a lot worse off. Unless China decides to join in. But why would they risk their necks? Their two biggest threats are taking each other out, if they just hide in bunkers and come out in a few years, the world will be theirs for the taking.
2. The idea of nuclear winter is from studies done the 80s. Needless to say, models have improved greatly since then, and they seem to show that it might not be as apocalyptic as thought. Yes, it would end the warring nations and result in freezing temperatures for a year or two probably, but maybe there is hope other nations would survive.
3. Well if those weapons are used, then indeed we're all screwed. Russia also said it was working on some apocalyptic radioactive tsunami bomb a few years ago. Maybe this would be an incentive for China and others to bomb both Russia and the US in this scenario, to ensure such doomsday devices aren't released from either side.

[raklian]

I guess that was the nuke-like explosion we saw the other day. Thermobaric weapons are nightmarish. The US military used it quite a bit in Afghanistan.

[caltrek]

As mentioned, I've had a long absence from this forum myself. I've been busy. Life's going well. But of course, history keeps moving - sometimes with very sudden and very violent lunges.

Nice to hear from you and that things in your life are going well.

The Russo-Ukrainian War isn't exactly new. Like Phoenix said, this has its roots in the crisis of 2013-14 with Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and the War in Donbass. An escalation like this, in the long term, was perhaps inevitable (but of course hindsight is 20/20). Russia was not going to tolerate such a large hostile country on its borders forever. Ukraine was never going to settle down and become the next Estonia or Latvia. The question wasn't whether Russia would intervene to replace the Euromaidan regime at all, but when and how that was going to happen. I, for one, was somewhat sceptical over the last few months as to whether or not now would really be the time but I reckoned there was a 50/50 chance, and here we are. It happened. If we're going to be honest, this war isn't really so unfathomable. If Mexico or Canada were cosying up to Russia and China with aspirations of joining a military alliance with them in the near future, I don't think many of us would have doubts about what the Pentagon would do (or at least attempt).

I do tend to agree that NATO was pushing it a bit to recruit a country so close to Russia's borders into its organization, or at least its alliance structure. Still, NATO is at hear an organization devoted to mutual defense. Individual countries in NATO may have on occasion engaged in military offenses, but that tended to be through something other than the NATO organization itself. I would think that recent events demonstrate why many would believe that Ukraine was in need of defense from its neighbor to its east.

America's imperial project may be ending, but it wasn't all that long ago that Western countries were the ones invading and subjugating sovereign nations for their own purposes. The shrieking hysterics from Washington, London and the rest of Europe are hypocritical at best, regardless of whether Russia is right or wrong to invade Ukraine.

It is one of my great frustrations that there are too many examples of U.S. misbehavior on that score to effectively argue the point. I would qualify that by pointing out that the last invasion was of Iraq, which was not a democracy. So, that is arguably different than the present situation, unless you have doubts concerning the fairness of recent elections in Ukraine.

Sadly, there have been way too many other instances of the U.S. taking other measures to undermine democracies in other countries. Europe, although not entirely innocent, I think has not been so guilty in that regard.

There have also been other military actions related to the war on terror. Again, a topic for another thread.

Personally, I also don't think an invasion like this is a good idea.

Agreed, although not for all of the reasons you have given.

Moscow would have been better advised to stick with the long game, just like China does with regard to just about all of its concerns. NATO was wrong to break its promises not to expand eastwards in the 1990s, but I think Russia feels more threatened by NATO than they ought to be.

Agreed, although not for all of the reasons given.

This isn't the 1980s anymore. The West is weak, and NATO is a paper tiger. All Russia had to do was wait for NATO to wither away, which was already in the process of happening de facto, if not de jure. The US, which provides the bulk of finances and resources for the alliance, was increasingly coming to question a project they had to subsidise so heavily at a time of mounting domestic troubles which are only continuing to worsen today.

I think the main threat to NATO came from Trump's tendency to undermine the organization. That probably had more to do with receiving assistance from Russia in the 2016 election than any other "mounting domestic troubles." Otherwise, I really don't think NATO was withering away. For example, it actually increased its membership since 1989.

Russia will probably win the war in Ukraine, but now NATO spending is coming to the forefront of Western priorities and security problems associated with it will only worsen.

Agreed, although some sort of settlement in which Ukraine stays largely intact is not totally out of the question. We will see the result of recently initiated negotiations.

At any rate, Putin's actions seem to have convinced many NATO countries of the need to strengthen their commitment to that organization.

Of course, when it comes to this war, lot of public opinion and commentary in the West reduces this down very crudely to some one-dimensional battle between Putin, the cruel Russian despot who wants to destroy the world for no reason other than because he's so evil, and the heroic Ukrainians fighting for freedom and democracy.

If they are not fighting for "freedom and democracy" then for what goals are they fighting?

A lot of people really think this is like some Marvel movie. There's uncritical repetition of Ukrainian military propaganda, which is obviously designed to raise morale, but it's actually very blatant and low-effort. It doesn't take a genius to distinguish video game footage (for example), and real life. Because of all these theatrics, a lot of people are basically at the point of thinking half the Russian army's been wiped out and that they'll soon have no choice but to retreat back home. What we really see is that the Russians keep advancing day after day and capturing more and more land. They're not at the point of capturing major cities yet (remember it's only Day 5), but encircling them and what we'll start to see over the coming weeks is that they'll simply place these cities under siege and wait for them to surrender.

Well, I think there is a certain sympathy for Ukraine, so that translates into a lot of hopeful thinking that some-how they will pull off a David and Goliath type victory. This may be overly optimistic.

Russia doesn't actually want to destroy Ukraine (they're not like the Americans in Iraq, or the Germans in Poland).

I am sorry, but I don't think the goal of the U.S. in Iraq was to destroy that country. Of course, a full discussion of that belongs in another thread. Also, that is not to say that I approved of the invasion of Iraq.

They want to capture the country intact and instigate regime change.

Which is what the U.S. wanted to do in Iraq.

They don't want apocalyptic damage or hundreds of thousands dead, because they know they can't occupy the whole of Ukraine for long. They want a stable puppet regime to which the majority of Ukrainians will be indifferent and to which resistance is more trouble than it's worth.

As contrasted with what Ukrainians want who are apparently fighting to the death to avoid this outcome.

If Russia wanted to truly destroy Ukraine, they would already be doing so, but a puppet regime installed by them wouldn't last long before Euromaidan 2.0 came. In the end, the goal for most of Ukraine is simply a reversion its arrangement between 2010-14 under the pro-Russian President Yanukovych. With some modifications, of course.

Agreed, assuming you mean Russia's goal.

Crimea will remain part of Russia (which makes sense upon a reading of its history and demography) and either independence for the Donbass republics or maybe absorption into Russia.

You know, initially I agreed with this line of reasoning, but given Putin's proclivity to accomplish such goals through force of arms, I am beginning to wonder. Still, Crimea's absorption is such a done deal that there is very little hope of a change on that front, especially while Putin is still in power.

I'd prefer referenda over military force to decide these matters, but sadly that's probably not to be.

Agreed.

[Maximus]

I don't get it. Are you actually pro-war? Your picture certainly makes me believe it so.

I was writing a wall of text to explain my stance, but it was lost after a nasty glitch. In short, the roots of this war go deep into 2013, this wasn't Russia who started this, this is Russia who is going to finish this. And I'm a common Russian man supporting Russian army fighting for a right cause. The sooner we will win, the sooner there will be peace in Ukraine.

Is this "pro-war" or "pro-peace", you decide.

The Russo-Ukrainian War isn't exactly new. Like Phoenix said, this has its roots in the crisis of 2013-14 with Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and the War in Donbass. An escalation like this, in the long term, was perhaps inevitable (but of course hindsight is 20/20). Russia was not going to tolerate such a large hostile country on its borders forever. Ukraine was never going to settle down and become the next Estonia or Latvia. The question wasn't whether Russia would intervene to replace the Euromaidan regime at all, but when and how that was going to happen. I, for one, was somewhat sceptical over the last few months as to whether or not now would really be the time but I reckoned there was a 50/50 chance, and here we are. It happened. If we're going to be honest, this war isn't really so unfathomable. If Mexico or Canada were cosying up to Russia and China with aspirations of joining a military alliance with them in the near future, I don't think many of us would have doubts about what the Pentagon would do (or at least attempt).

Fascists. Every Russian, and every Russian apologist and detractor (welcoming back another certain user) who thinks this unilateral war is justified bears this kind of blood on their hands. These people will sit here and tell you this invasion is justified for this reason, and that reason. Fascists. Murderers. Nothing they say is of any value, they are snakes who should not be trusted. They do not argue in good faith. Both should be banned.

[Yuli Ban]

[Ken_J]

I do not believe that Nuclear war will really happen. (though I have some questions about the current situation in and around Chernobyl)

Frankly, lay people think of war as a big scale version of bar fights or duels. There is no personal conflict analougue for large scale warfare. Dropping nukes anywhere there are population centers has only been done once for a reason. It was a monsterous thing to do, and it haunts human history. While we may rapidly be losing the people who have the living memory of it, Nukes are not a weapon of war. They are a devistating byproduct of when things have gone too far to come back from.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe that anyone who reaches the level to have the ability to be called on by politicians to ready such weapons, also has enough persepctive on their true hellish potential that they know without a shadow of a doubt that these are not things one uses to get back at people who upset you. They are not toys, they are not tools even.

In a war you target military infrastructure. You wreck supply chains. Any cluster of combatants, you destroy. You use intelligence to find organising centers and cells, their stockpiles. You cripple their communications, and disable the ability to plan and gather intel.

Nukes don't do that. They burn the land and boil the waters. They melt the chruches, and shatter the schools and libraries. They leave shadows on rubble walls of young children and elders in the communities. They scour entire regions of every person, stray dog and house spider. Scrubing it clean of anything living and poisoning the very ground itself for centuries. That is not a tool, nor a weapon of war. And any warrior with training in warfare fucking knows it. You don't fight with nukes. Once you use it, there is no going back. There are world stage level consequences that live for centuries when nukes are used in a war.

And lets not pretend that Because the US did it, it will be anything like that again if it were to happen again. That happened when the tech was young enough that the world supply of nukes could be counted on one hand. Any country that launches one against another nation now, proves they cannot be trusted to not do so again whenever they feel like it. And all sights turn on them to prevent them from doing it again. The country that uses a nuke on another turns any other Battle field quiet and makes it's own lands the new front. It turns any fence sitters into oppoenents, and makes lose coalitions with uncertainty of the best course of action into a far more unified allied force with common and highly motivated objectives.

in short you don't use a nuke to win. It will taint any conflict it ends, and the user will cripple itself by using one. And any military that has gotten to the point of developing them (perhaps aside from North Korea) knows full well these facts. I'd wager good money that in most nuclear nations the upper military has enough people with enough awareness that they'd oppose most orders to be the first to use one.

We have so many other options we can resort to, before nukes are brought into play.

[weatheriscool]

The only thing that could stop the 40 mile long Russian convoy is a repeat of what the United states did to Saddam husseins armor during gulf war one. If not then Ukraine is fucked. I just can't imagine the Ukraine military beating the russian military without overwhelming airpower from a special friend. Putin would fucking lose his fucking mind if we did it and would probably go nuts. The his finger would probably touch a button.

[weatheriscool]

Ukrainian pilots arrive in Poland to pick up donated fighter jets
POLITICO

By Paul McLeary

02/28/2022 06:16 PM EST

Ukrainian pilots have arrived in Poland to start the process of taking control of fighter planes they expect to be donated by European countries, a Ukrainian government official told POLITICO.

The potential transfer of older Russian-made planes to be used in combat against Russian forces could be the most significant moment yet in a wave of promised arms transfers over the past 24 hours that includes thousands of anti-armor rockets, machine guns, artillery and other equipment.

It’s not clear just yet what countries are donating the jets, but European Union security chief Josep Borrell pledged over the weekend that the EU would fund the transfer the fighter planes from multiple countries.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... s-00012560

[wjfox]

Central Square, Kharkiv, this morning.

f*ck Putin, and f*ck everyone who supports Putin.

[caltrek]

How Serious are Vladimir Putin’s Nuclear Threats?
March 1, 2022

https://indianexpress.com/article/expla ... t-7795715/

Conclusion:

(Deutsche Welle via Indian Express) (Marc) Finaud (head of the arms proliferation division at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy) makes the same point. The proliferation expert said he was glad to see that the US didn’t respond “tit-for-tat” by raising their alert level as well, but rather showed a “fairly moderate” reaction.

Behavior like this shows how to prevent further escalation, he said.

But at the same time, the use of nuclear weapons should not be written off as something that Putin is only threatening and would never do, Finaud cautions.

“We have seen a series of red lines being crossed by Putin within a few days. And every time we thought he would not go further,” Finaud said.

“We thought ‘oh, this is just another blow, but he will be rational because this could run against the national interests of Russia,’ Finaud said. “But every time he went further. So now it’s very difficult to imagine where he will stop.”

caltrek's comment: I think a lot will depend on circumstances. For example, if Russian forces were unable to take Kiev, the fallback option might be the destruction of that city. If nuclear weapons are used by Putin, I suspect it would be in such a limited way. That would leave it up to the West as to whether to retaliate and thus potentially escalate to a full- scale exchange. Some time ago (and not in this thread) Phoenix Ru kept mentioning the possibility, even the desire, for Russia to use nuclear weapons in such a limited way. He based his ideas partly on what he had read in the Russian media. So, apparently policy makers there have been thinking the unthinkable.