Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

It starts with 15% of Ukraine today, and tomorrow it’s 50% of Poland... haven't we learned anything from history? You can't afford to give an inch.

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

For the time being, "US deterrence" seems to be doing its job, whatever they might be telling Moscow behind closed doors.

Publicly, all we’ve seen is them basically saying, "Hey, don't do it—you'll regret it."

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

The problem is, they're essentially selling this deal to Putin. So, the real question is: is he actually ready to trigger a nuclear apocalypse just for 15% of Ukraine? Plus, you've got other heavy hitters like China watching closely, too. They'll have a massive stake in how this plays out.

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

If they don't act, they've basically already sacrificed everything anyway. Because then Putin realizes he doesn't need anything else to take over whatever's next—he could just drop a nuke on the capital of any country he wants to annex.

Michael Davis9 said:But wait, what exactly does it mean for the USA or Ukraine to achieve "conventional leveling" of Alaska?
From my perspective, that would essentially amount to one nuclear superpower launching a direct assault on another, which just doesn't seem to align with American interests at all—especially when things are already moving along quite smoothly for them just the way they are...

Just a proportional response to what Russia did.

If this annexation actually ends up succeeding, does that mean Turkey could just casually swoop in and annex eastern Cyprus? It’s almost like a domino effect—if that happens, it might stop Russia from trying to grab pieces of Georgia or Moldova, though let's be honest, taking over parts of Mexico is pretty much out of the question.🤣
But really, at the end of the day, any major power can wake up on any given morning and decide to tell their smaller neighbor, "Hey, I'm just going to annex a little slice of your territory."

Christian Torres3 said:Just a proportional response to what Russia did.

Let’s assume there's an obligation from both the VB and the USA, stemming from the Budapest Memorandum, to protect Ukraine from nuclear threats. That would be a pretty solid foundation for responding to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, wouldn't it?

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

I don't know, I think NATO would definitely react. That's been made pretty clear to Putin. Honestly, using any kind of nuclear weapon... it doesn't look like they gain anything, just lose everything. And where would they even drop them? Probably not right on the front lines, maybe deeper inside Ukraine, somewhere where the radiation could bleed over into neighboring NATO countries. Anyone thinking NATO stays quiet after that... I guess they're just dreaming. To start with, an American official already mentioned that the entire Black Sea Fleet could end up at the bottom of the ocean in a single day. Then you've got the retaliation—everything from ramping up ATACMS deliveries to providing whatever else is needed to shut the Russians down fast. In short, I suppose Putin's only shot at winning this war is through conventional weapons (though even that seems like a long shot at this point), but once he touches the nukes, he's basically finished.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If they don't act, they've basically already sacrificed everything anyway. Because then Putin realizes he doesn't need anything else to take over whatever's next—he could just drop a nuke on the capital of any country he wants to annex.

That might actually be true—I mean, history isn't exactly full of surprises when it comes to this kind of thing.
When you're analyzing these high-stakes games, you have to look for the equilibrium. You have to find that specific position where neither side holds a move capable of improving their standing.
Triggering a nuclear Armageddon certainly doesn't improve your hand. It’s not like NATO is going to launch a full-scale assault on Russia, nor is Russia going to go after NATO. It's a stalemate by design.
And let's be realistic—the nuclear option isn't exactly sitting at the top of Russia's priority list. They aren't going to jump straight to the end of the world; they'll try to grab whatever they think belongs to them using conventional forces first.

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

Exactly!

Melissa Rivera5 said:It’s not like they'll necessarily go nuclear, but they really HAVE to hit back hard. Like, they don't really have much of a choice here—it's either do nothing or react in a way that isn't just... weak.

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If they don't act, they've basically already sacrificed everything anyway. Because then Putin realizes he doesn't need anything else to take over whatever's next—he could just drop a nuke on the capital of any country he wants to annex.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

There’s actually an agreement from 2013 between China and Ukraine where China guarantees they'll step in to protect Ukraine if they ever face a nuclear attack.

bluepuma9 said:They'll have to react, otherwise Iran and others will just follow the Russian playbook. According to the NATO Secretary General, the response is going to be devastating for Russia.

That isn't even a question.
I suspect the US would dismantle their entire Black Sea fleet if necessary. There is no need for nuclear weapons when they possess more than enough conventional firepower to crush the Russians.
If he fails to grasp the message, let his own people deal with him or let it all go to hell.

bluepuma9 said:There isn't even a dilemma to begin with, and there shouldn't be. This is high-stakes theater, and the first one to blink loses. Putin needs to go to bed tonight knowing that if he even thinks about touching the nuclear button, he'll wake up to mushrooms sprouting all over Russia.

I'm totally with you that we can't go soft on Putin or give an inch, but man, here's the reality check: if Putin actually goes nuclear and those mushrooms start popping up over Russia, they aren't staying there. They're gonna sprout over the USA and the United Kingdom too. People in Washington, D.C. and New York City know that damn well, and they're factoring that into everything. So, personally? I don't buy that if he uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, he'll just see mushroom clouds over his own backyard. Using nukes that close to his own borders is just insane, especially since he’d instantly lose every single "ally" and "friend" he has left on the planet. To me, that's a much bigger deterrent for him than just fearing some Western retaliation.

If that were to happen, Russia would find itself staring down the barrel of total isolation—it's a terrifying prospect. They really need to wrap their heads around that reality, because trust me, it is far from a cheap or easy way out.

It is essential that China and India exert pressure on the madman. Who actually benefits from an escalation?

Tyler Johnson11 said:I'm totally with you that we can't go soft on Putin or give an inch, but man, here's the reality check: if Putin actually goes nuclear and those mushrooms start popping up over Russia, they aren't staying there. They're gonna sprout over the USA and the United Kingdom too. People in Washington, D.C. and New York City know that damn well, and they're factoring that into everything. So, personally? I don't buy that if he uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, he'll just see mushroom clouds over his own backyard. Using nukes that close to his own borders is just insane, especially since he’d instantly lose every single "ally" and "friend" he has left on the planet. To me, that's a much bigger deterrent for him than just fearing some Western retaliation.

The trouble is, he's narcissistic and unstable enough to actually reach for those buttons. His inner circle is even more unhinged, so the odds of a total disaster are pretty high.
As for how the USA and NATO will react, I haven't got a clue.

Michael Davis9 said:Exactly!

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

I mean, I feel like you're missing a ton of options here. Like, two isn't exactly a massive number when we're talking about WMDs, and honestly, that whole scenario seems pretty much impossible anyway, I guess.

Michael Davis9 said:Exactly!

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

I mean, what is all of Europe actually doing besides the UK and France? Honestly, if you don't count them, it feels like nothing is happening unless you consider NATO falling apart. At that point, Russia basically owns all of Eurasia.

Andrew Booth29 said:If that were to happen, Russia would find itself staring down the barrel of total isolation—it's a terrifying prospect. They really need to wrap their heads around that reality, because trust me, it is far from a cheap or easy way out.

I mean, honestly, the answer to WMDs just has to be military. I guess you can't really reason with someone like Putin—it’s not like he respects anything other than raw, physical force. There's just no other way. We probably need to show him a demonstration of power that's totally clear and absolute. Maybe that's the only language that actually works.

The world has managed to survive this long because we’ve stuck to one fundamental rule: stay out of my way—and I’ll stay out of yours. It’s that simple. We basically just split ourselves into two distinct camps, and honestly? That’s what creates equilibrium. This new era of bloc-based division is the new status quo—it’s stable. The only real question left to answer is whether the new border is going to be drawn right through Ukraine or just alongside it.

Andrew Booth29 said:The world has managed to survive this long because we’ve stuck to one fundamental rule: stay out of my way—and I’ll stay out of yours. It’s that simple. We basically just split ourselves into two distinct camps, and honestly? That’s what creates equilibrium. This new era of bloc-based division is the new status quo—it’s stable. The only real question left to answer is whether the new border is going to be drawn right through Ukraine or just alongside it.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture a little bit here, man, because most people out there aren't actually capable of following that logic... if everyone actually acted on what you wrote above, we would've seen nukes flying at third-party nations years ago.

Gregory Ramos3 said:I think you’re missing the bigger picture a little bit here, man, because most people out there aren't actually capable of following that logic... if everyone actually acted on what you wrote above, we would've seen nukes flying at third-party nations years ago.

But why? What does Russia gain from Kenya? Or Argentina?
It’s not as if expanding borders indefinitely is some grand strategic objective for these states... it simply isn't. Sure, they’ve played around with proxy wars globally, but that's a different beast altogether.
Maintaining an occupation in a distant land is just too damn expensive—I mean, look at how the British eventually had to pack up and leave the Middle East, and even then, there were factions actually willing to foot the bill for staying. It's just not sustainable.