Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Rebecca Moore6 said:Nonsense.

First, the actual state of the Russian nuclear arsenal is highly questionable. Their last atomic test was back in 1989. We have had seven months to observe their hardware, and it is clear that corruption has taken its toll.

But even if that weren't the case, if Russia were to deploy a tactical nuke, it would cross a red line so significant that even their so-called allies, like China and Iran, would be forced to condemn them and step back. That would give the West a green light to intervene in Ukraine. As a defensive measure, NATO could also introduce a specific number of tactical nuclear warheads into Ukraine. However, the conflict would remain conventional.

Within two weeks, NATO would push the Russians out of Ukraine, and likely out of Crimea as well.
Russia would become the next North Korea, and for the next 50 years, no one would buy a single barrel of their oil or cubic meter of gas. It would set Russia's economy and technology back a century.

Maybe, sure, but let's be real—they still have enough firepower to level whatever they feel like leveling, just like the West does.

Rebecca Moore6 said:Nonsense.

First, the actual state of the Russian nuclear arsenal is highly questionable. Their last atomic test was back in 1989. We have had seven months to observe their hardware, and it is clear that corruption has taken its toll.

But even if that weren't the case, if Russia were to deploy a tactical nuke, it would cross a red line so significant that even their so-called allies, like China and Iran, would be forced to condemn them and step back. That would give the West a green light to intervene in Ukraine. As a defensive measure, NATO could also introduce a specific number of tactical nuclear warheads into Ukraine. However, the conflict would remain conventional.

Within two weeks, NATO would push the Russians out of Ukraine, and likely out of Crimea as well.
Russia would become the next North Korea, and for the next 50 years, no one would buy a single barrel of their oil or cubic meter of gas. It would set Russia's economy and technology back a century.

Actually, there’s already a playbook being floated to Biden for if a tactical nuke actually happens. It pretty much boils down to total global isolation—basically begging China and India to join the boycott—combined with a heavy conventional strike on a base within Ukrainian territory, plus dumping every single piece of weaponry we're currently holding back straight into Ukraine's hands.

rowdyraven112 said:Fine. Let's say he drops one. Or two. They don't even need to be massive—maybe 10 kilotons? Enough to level most of Washington, D.C. Who’s going to react? Who’s going to retaliate? And who wants to gamble with the total collapse of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere?

It's funny how everyone just ignores that famous line from Zakharov about how "Europe is wrong to think Russia can lose this." People ignored it too much. That’s exactly why we’re in this mess. ☕

uh oh, some drunk Russian drone pilot said something again.

I mean, seriously, if Putin wants to mobilize a million people, why hasn't he done it yet? He's been running his mouth about it for six months straight. If it's so easy and so necessary, why is he still stalling?

Up until about six months ago, the Russians genuinely believed their air defense systems were untouchable. Now they've finally realized they're basically flying around in glorified scrap metal.

While the Russians are busy running their fake "referendums," it looks like an explosion just hit a school over in Mariupol, leaving several kids injured. 😠

rowdyraven112 said:Fine. Let's say he drops one. Or two. They don't even need to be massive—maybe 10 kilotons? Enough to level most of Washington, D.C. Who’s going to react? Who’s going to retaliate? And who wants to gamble with the total collapse of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere?

It's funny how everyone just ignores that famous line from Zakharov about how "Europe is wrong to think Russia can lose this." People ignored it too much. That’s exactly why we’re in this mess. ☕

Let the Russians keep living in their own little fantasy world.

gentlerider7 said:Maybe, sure, but let's be real—they still have enough firepower to level whatever they feel like leveling, just like the West does.

Actually, there’s already a playbook being floated to Biden for if a tactical nuke actually happens. It pretty much boils down to total global isolation—basically begging China and India to join the boycott—combined with a heavy conventional strike on a base within Ukrainian territory, plus dumping every single piece of weaponry we're currently holding back straight into Ukraine's hands.

Perhaps. However, I am certain Putin is currently weighing which percentage of his nuclear arsenal is appropriate, and how many of those missiles would detonate within Russian territory. One wonders if he is also questioning the extent of the intelligence advantage held by Americans, and whether they could execute a "first strike" before a launch occurs. It seems highly probable that the CIA and NSA possess the capability to track even the movement of Russian nuclear submarines.

gentlerider7 said:Maybe, sure, but let's be real—they still have enough firepower to level whatever they feel like leveling, just like the West does.

Actually, there’s already a playbook being floated to Biden for if a tactical nuke actually happens. It pretty much boils down to total global isolation—basically begging China and India to join the boycott—combined with a heavy conventional strike on a base within Ukrainian territory, plus dumping every single piece of weaponry we're currently holding back straight into Ukraine's hands.

No. NATO would have to intervene militarily. As previously noted, in such a case, no one would be able to prevent atomic forces from achieving their objectives through tactical nuclear weapons. Not to mention that at least thirty more nations might launch their own nuclear programs within a year.

bluepuma9 said:Using a weapon like that would set a precedent where Putin (or whoever is next in line) could just keep doing it over and over... because of that, you have to be crystal clear that such a move won't be tolerated, regardless of the fallout. Otherwise, this cycle never ends.

I mean, what’s even the point of NATO if the Russians can just toss around nukes whenever they feel like it? It feels like NATO will just fall apart, Europe will sink into total chaos, Americans will be busy pulling back to deal with stuff at home, and everyone in Europe will just start looking out for themselves... honestly, I don't see it ending well. Whether someone answers or not, both scenarios just lead to pure chaos and the whole system collapsing.

Susan Collins3 said:I mean, they probably just mean people based on how they feel politically, I guess.
I know plenty of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who identify as political Ukrainians—like, there’s this famous editor over at CNN who showed his loyalty to Ukraine way back in 2014, and now he’s out there risking his life filming the front lines and showing how much damage the Russian invaders are doing. Then again, I also know ethnic Ukrainians living in Russia who saw photos of destroyed cities sent by their relatives in Ukraine and told them, "Hey, stop sending these, it’s not even the truth." And yeah, obviously there are Ukrainians who had to bail on Russia after 2014 because they couldn't stand parroting all that Russian propaganda about Nazis and fascism in Ukraine.

P.S.
Since we’re bringing up CNN: There was this guy in Donbas, head of some criminal organization from the Russian Federation, who’d been in prison since 2015 on a 23-year sentence for murder, arms dealing, and all sorts of crime from '98 to '13. He ended up signing a contract with the Wagner Group and finished his career out in Donbas.

https://cnn.com/en/photo_news/336..._but_he_signed

Ivan here is my take 😁 on the "political Russians." That’s who I mean—plus our own local traitors and enablers, whether they're Ukrainian or Russian. I won't count every single Russian 😁. Looking at the Russian people, especially in Russia itself, I see about 20% radicals, 20% who are against Putin and the regime but feel completely suffocated, roughly 60% who just have that "politics doesn't affect me" attitude—and I see that largest group as the ones effectively keeping Putin in power. They'll mostly just vote for him and call it a day; they don't care about politics at all. But because they stay indifferent and still give Putin their vote, human rights get stripped away, and then they'll be right back to protesting when it finally hits home—like what we're seeing now with the mobilization.
That's how I see the "elite" in Moscow, too.

rowdyraven112 said:Fine. Let's say he drops one. Or two. They don't even need to be massive—maybe 10 kilotons? Enough to level most of Washington, D.C. Who’s going to react? Who’s going to retaliate? And who wants to gamble with the total collapse of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere?

It's funny how everyone just ignores that famous line from Zakharov about how "Europe is wrong to think Russia can lose this." People ignored it too much. That’s exactly why we’re in this mess. ☕

Here is how it goes: they drop two on Lviv, and the Americans respond by dropping two on Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk.
Fair enough?

rowdyraven112 said:Fine. Let's say he drops one. Or two. They don't even need to be massive—maybe 10 kilotons? Enough to level most of Washington, D.C. Who’s going to react? Who’s going to retaliate? And who wants to gamble with the total collapse of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere?

It's funny how everyone just ignores that famous line from Zakharov about how "Europe is wrong to think Russia can lose this." People ignored it too much. That’s exactly why we’re in this mess. ☕

If by "people" you mean the Russians, then sure, you might have a point.
Otherwise, no.

If the West allows Ukraine to slip through its fingers, we would be looking at the exact same scenario in Poland in just a few years.

Hannibal is at the gates—there is no avoiding it.

Rebecca Moore6 said:Perhaps. However, I am certain Putin is currently weighing which percentage of his nuclear arsenal is appropriate, and how many of those missiles would detonate within Russian territory. One wonders if he is also questioning the extent of the intelligence advantage held by Americans, and whether they could execute a "first strike" before a launch occurs. It seems highly probable that the CIA and NSA possess the capability to track even the movement of Russian nuclear submarines.

No. NATO would have to intervene militarily. As previously noted, in such a case, no one would be able to prevent atomic forces from achieving their objectives through tactical nuclear weapons. Not to mention that at least thirty more nations might launch their own nuclear programs within a year.

I mean, they probably can track them pretty damn well, though it’s funny how every single time there’s a massive threat, the official line is always some "we haven't noticed any movement in the Russian atomic arsenal" nonsense. It's such a joke. And don't even get me started on the stuff slipping under the radar, like those reports in the Gazette about American engineers being over in Russia to inspect the Sarmat systems—the Russians themselves leaked that!

Rebecca Moore6 said:Perhaps. However, I am certain Putin is currently weighing which percentage of his nuclear arsenal is appropriate, and how many of those missiles would detonate within Russian territory. One wonders if he is also questioning the extent of the intelligence advantage held by Americans, and whether they could execute a "first strike" before a launch occurs. It seems highly probable that the CIA and NSA possess the capability to track even the movement of Russian nuclear submarines.

No. NATO would have to intervene militarily. As previously noted, in such a case, no one would be able to prevent atomic forces from achieving their objectives through tactical nuclear weapons. Not to mention that at least thirty more nations might launch their own nuclear programs within a year.

Well, they'd be intervening on Ukrainian soil. Using conventional weapons, obviously.

Arthur Miller7 said:I mean, what’s even the point of NATO if the Russians can just toss around nukes whenever they feel like it? It feels like NATO will just fall apart, Europe will sink into total chaos, Americans will be busy pulling back to deal with stuff at home, and everyone in Europe will just start looking out for themselves... honestly, I don't see it ending well. Whether someone answers or not, both scenarios just lead to pure chaos and the whole system collapsing.

Any nuclear deployment would essentially guarantee a rapid defeat for Russia.
We might even see them cleared out of Kaliningrad altogether.
Specifically locations like Krslovec and places similar to it...

Rebecca Moore6 said:Nonsense.

First, the actual state of the Russian nuclear arsenal is highly questionable. Their last atomic test was back in 1989. We have had seven months to observe their hardware, and it is clear that corruption has taken its toll.

But even if that weren't the case, if Russia were to deploy a tactical nuke, it would cross a red line so significant that even their so-called allies, like China and Iran, would be forced to condemn them and step back. That would give the West a green light to intervene in Ukraine. As a defensive measure, NATO could also introduce a specific number of tactical nuclear warheads into Ukraine. However, the conflict would remain conventional.

Within two weeks, NATO would push the Russians out of Ukraine, and likely out of Crimea as well.
Russia would become the next North Korea, and for the next 50 years, no one would buy a single barrel of their oil or cubic meter of gas. It would set Russia's economy and technology back a century.

They'd drive them out of other territories as well, not just Ukraine.
They would crush them in every sense of the word.
And then simply leave them to starve.

Is there an American shield in Poland and Romania?

Susan Collins3 said:I mean, they probably just mean people based on how they feel politically, I guess.
I know plenty of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who identify as political Ukrainians—like, there’s this famous editor over at CNN who showed his loyalty to Ukraine way back in 2014, and now he’s out there risking his life filming the front lines and showing how much damage the Russian invaders are doing. Then again, I also know ethnic Ukrainians living in Russia who saw photos of destroyed cities sent by their relatives in Ukraine and told them, "Hey, stop sending these, it’s not even the truth." And yeah, obviously there are Ukrainians who had to bail on Russia after 2014 because they couldn't stand parroting all that Russian propaganda about Nazis and fascism in Ukraine.

P.S.
Since we’re bringing up CNN: There was this guy in Donbas, head of some criminal organization from the Russian Federation, who’d been in prison since 2015 on a 23-year sentence for murder, arms dealing, and all sorts of crime from '98 to '13. He ended up signing a contract with the Wagner Group and finished his career out in Donbas.

https://cnn.com/en/photo_news/336..._but_he_signed

Even though it says "Russians who feel like political Ukrainians," I agree—and I’d add that they view Ukraine as their homeland. Many Russians fighting on the side of Ukraine do so primarily because of their sentiment toward the country; that doesn't necessarily mean they align with every bit of Ukrainian politics 😁 😁. Sure, many Russians are serving in the Ukrainian military, and one guy was actually disowned by his entire family after February 24th simply because he chose to fight for Ukraine. It's a tough spot to be in when your parents value Putin more than their own son. People often assume these individuals are pro-Russian or "political Russians," 😁 but that’s just not accurate. There are plenty of people who see exactly what Putin is trying to do.

jadetinker85 said:Now they’re out in the streets demanding parts of Ukraine be annexed. 🤷 At this rate, they might start asking for chunks of the Moon or specific plots of the Milky Way. I wonder which country would even bother giving them a permit for their luggage there.

It’s a perfect snapshot of what Russia looks like—even in Moscow. A total disappointment, both for the city and its people 👎.

When it comes to the whole nuclear situation, I really don't think we're looking at some random, sporadic exchange of fire. If—and I really mean IF—things actually kick off, everyone is going to try to absolutely cripple their opponent until they're completely neutralized. The real issue here is that the people calling the shots are probably sitting pretty in some deep, underground bunker somewhere, so the end of civilization doesn't even look like an ending to them. I mean, hasn't Putin already proven that he couldn't care less about human lives?
Honestly, I’m just praying there's some quiet diplomacy happening behind the scenes to at least set some ground rules for a potential conflict, otherwise, we are all going to have some serious fucking problems very soon.
I was reading this piece in an American newspaper the other day where they were basically just explaining how many of us are going to die, without even bothering to give citizens any actual instructions on how to potentially survive... 🙄
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/iris...eland-28045994

Rachel Richardson said:Here is how it goes: they drop two on Lviv, and the Americans respond by dropping two on Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk.
Fair enough?

If by "people" you mean the Russians, then sure, you might have a point.
Otherwise, no.

If the West allows Ukraine to slip through its fingers, we would be looking at the exact same scenario in Poland in just a few years.

Hannibal is at the gates—there is no avoiding it.

I highly doubt Americans would actually drop nukes. Honestly, the risk of using them outweighs any potential gain. If they fire, they risk a massive retaliation; if they don't, they just lose some half-baked allies.
Meanwhile, Putin and Medvedev have already made up their minds. They’ve probably spent way too much time watching videos of leaders who lost to Americans or those backed-up revolutions.

Kate Cook27 said:It’s a perfect snapshot of what Russia looks like—even in Moscow. A total disappointment, both for the city and its people 👎.

Government officials protesting on orders from 'above.' You can see from an aerial view that this wasn't some spontaneous gathering; it was strictly orchestrated.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Government officials protesting on orders from 'above.' You can see from an aerial view that this wasn't some spontaneous gathering; it was strictly orchestrated.

The real issue here is that it’s starting to look more and more like North Korea. Up until now, I always viewed Russia as a budding democracy—you know, still under construction—but now they’ve basically slid backward a hundred years. It’s honestly painful to watch how blindly these people follow orders.

Please, give me a break with this whole "Russia" thing. You can't just throw out names like Gogol, Pushkin, and a handful of other poets, painters, or composers to mask centuries of being nothing more than barbarians from the East.
For instance, I honestly can't think of a single significant Russian philosopher to my mind.

William Cooper11 said:Please, give me a break with this whole "Russia" thing. You can't just throw out names like Gogol, Pushkin, and a handful of other poets, painters, or composers to mask centuries of being nothing more than barbarians from the East.
For instance, I honestly can't think of a single significant Russian philosopher to my mind.

And what about Alexander Dugin?

Nancy Gomez26 said:Government officials protesting on orders from 'above.' You can see from an aerial view that this wasn't some spontaneous gathering; it was strictly orchestrated.

Regardless, Moscow is a massive disappointment.