Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Nick Fallin said:Solid read;
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-718541

I’m betting Xi and Modi have already made it clear to Putin that if he touches a nuke, their support is gone. It’s not because they actually care about Ukraine—it's because the global economy would tank so hard that their own leadership wouldn't survive the fallout.

Exactly.

Andrew Booth29 said: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.

Well, first the neighbors start causing trouble, don't they?

Will Putin try to claim Warsaw tomorrow too? It was the third largest city in an empire that collapsed over a century ago, and given how much he seems to live in the past, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Gerald Torres84 said:Well, first the neighbors start causing trouble, don't they?

Sure, maybe—but eventually, you hit that point where two worlds collide. You find an equilibrium. What was actually left after the USSR collapsed? Not exactly a collection of high-value targets worth conquering.
If Russia were allowed to just coast along without NATO breathing down its neck, they wouldn't be barking about the alliance's expansion. But bit by bit, we’re heading toward a division similar to what we saw before. The real question now is where those remaining former Soviet republics end up landing... and, of course, there's Ukraine.

Andrew Booth29 said: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.

If history has taught us anything, it's that no emperor ever just looked at the map and said, "Alright, I'm good, I've got everything I want." Human nature is just wired that way—once you hit a goal, you just raise the bar and set a new one, chasing things toward infinity like some weird math equation.

Or to put it more bluntly, why on earth would Russia want Argentina or Kenya? It's the same reason a dog licks its own business—just because it can.

Seriously, what the hell do they need these annexations for when they already have such a massive amount of territory to deal with?

The USA is set to announce "immediate" military aid for Ukraine next week
View on twitter

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.

Those guys don't know squat. HE is the one calling all the shots over there.
And look, this guy still has a few years left in him, he's got no family to speak of, and honestly, who gives a damn? If he feels like he's losing his grip, he’ll dump everything in his arsenal just to etch his name into history. Isolation? Please. Like they haven't been isolated before? If any group of people can be totally self-sufficient and stay in their own bubble, it’s them.
The whole strategy has been dead wrong from the jump—and I’m not just talking about 2022. They completely underestimated the situation. He should have been taken out immediately while he was still traveling the world. Now? It’s too late, the tension is through the roof, and even if they tried, we’d probably just end up with some new Zhirinovsky taking the reins.
For everyone acting shocked at how many people actually back the regime there—it's a shame you've never actually spent time in Russia. You'd get a much clearer picture of how the government works, the state apparatus, and that deep-seated, genuine hatred for the West (especially the USA) that Putin’s regime has been feeding for over twenty years.

Christian Torres3 said:The US response would be conventional. There were probably two Arleigh Burke class destroyers near Alaska—maybe they're still there—with enough Tomahawks to level that Russian base. I doubt Putin would ever dare touch US soil.

Nah, if they struck at all, it would be strictly against Russian positions and units inside Ukraine (excluding Crimea)—since, technically, they don't view that as Russian territory.

My take? In any scenario involving an attack on Russian troops—even a conventional one—Putin would likely retaliate with a tactical nuke against some NATO military site. It's simple math for him; he knows he’d lose a conventional exchange, so he'd look for the shortcut.

From there, you're just guessing how it ends—but after a few tactical strikes, they'd probably decide it's better to just call the other side and negotiate a ceasefire everywhere, including Ukraine itself. The wildcard would be Zelenskyy—he might feel played and just refuse to play ball.

Gregory Ramos3 said:If history has taught us anything, it's that no emperor ever just looked at the map and said, "Alright, I'm good, I've got everything I want." Human nature is just wired that way—once you hit a goal, you just raise the bar and set a new one, chasing things toward infinity like some weird math equation.

Or to put it more bluntly, why on earth would Russia want Argentina or Kenya? It's the same reason a dog licks its own business—just because it can.

Seriously, what the hell do they need these annexations for when they already have such a massive amount of territory to deal with?

Twelve different time zones... and most of the country is basically a ghost town. They don't have the slightest clue what's actually out there. But sure, why not? Let's grab more!
I honestly think it’s like a scorned woman. You know the type—she lashes out and tries to cause as much damage as possible just to prove a point. That's exactly how Putin's Russia operates. Feeling abandoned, so it throws a tantrum. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them around, yet she refuses to let the prettier neighbors move into the block because it makes her own ugliness even harder to ignore. It's the same story with Russia. If the former Soviet republics start living well—looking at you, Poland—then people in Russia might actually start connecting the dots. And for an autocrat, that kind of realization is the ultimate nightmare.

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 just don't see this "bloc division" you're talking about.
In what sense?

Sure, China is trading with Russia, but they are far more interdependent with the West and the rest of the world where the West calls the shots.
Therefore, China is clearly and most neatly a part of the Western bloc in every meaningful way.
China dies the day the West decides it's over... no armed conflict required. They’d face famine on par with the darkest days under Mao Zedong. And they are terrified of that... because today, that means a bloody, brutal civil war where the people would likely tear the Party and its local officials apart like rabbits. The public would skin them alive. 😁 And then they'd turn on each other.

Economically speaking, that bloc simply does not exist.

Russia used their veto this past Friday to block a Security Council resolution meant to condemn the annexation of those four Ukrainian regions, while China and three other member states decided to abstain.

The draft put forward by the United States and Albania actually pulled in 10 votes in favor, though they had four abstentions from China, India, Brazil, and Gabon.

Washington has already signaled that once this clears the Security Council, they’re taking the text straight to the General Assembly, where none of the 193 member nations hold any veto power.

Honestly, I have no clue why on earth they even let them stay in there when they're basically trampling over every single foundation the UN was built upon. 🙄

"Putin’s whole aggression against Ukraine has basically backfired on him. You could see it in his reactions after talking to Xi Jinping—it was obvious he got a harsh reality check. Now, he’s going to pivot toward peace negotiations. Most likely, Xi told him to just wrap this thing up, as fast as possible. He needs to save face in front of his inner circle and any potential rivals back in Russia—so he'll try to frame it as a win by claiming he grabbed enough territory to call it a success, making further fighting unnecessary. In my opinion, that's the real reason behind this entire parade circus."

Solid interview from Pusicka, especially that part. I’d also agree—there’s zero chance they’re joining NATO anytime soon.

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.

Look, if that madman actually pulls the trigger, NATO's first move might just be absorbing free Ukrainian territory into the alliance right after those warning bombs drop.
And honestly? That might be the end of it. If the Ukrainians can make it that far, we'll take it—hopefully they at least push halfway through Crimea and the Donbas by then.

Zachary Booth36 said: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.

That would be considered a NATO and USA attack on Russia. It gives Putin the perfect alibi for whatever he does next. Is a tactical nuclear strike on Ukrainian military sites actually an attack on NATO or the USA?

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said:"Putin’s whole aggression against Ukraine has basically backfired on him. You could see it in his reactions after talking to Xi Jinping—it was obvious he got a harsh reality check. Now, he’s going to pivot toward peace negotiations. Most likely, Xi told him to just wrap this thing up, as fast as possible. He needs to save face in front of his inner circle and any potential rivals back in Russia—so he'll try to frame it as a win by claiming he grabbed enough territory to call it a success, making further fighting unnecessary. In my opinion, that's the real reason behind this entire parade circus."

Solid interview from Pusicka, especially that part. I’d also agree—there’s zero chance they’re joining NATO anytime soon.

The crying and wailing will only intensify. They’ll start making those empty nuclear threats once they realize the Ukrainians aren't going to stop reclaiming their occupied territory.

wiredseal7 said:Nah, if they struck at all, it would be strictly against Russian positions and units inside Ukraine (excluding Crimea)—since, technically, they don't view that as Russian territory.

My take? In any scenario involving an attack on Russian troops—even a conventional one—Putin would likely retaliate with a tactical nuke against some NATO military site. It's simple math for him; he knows he’d lose a conventional exchange, so he'd look for the shortcut.

From there, you're just guessing how it ends—but after a few tactical strikes, they'd probably decide it's better to just call the other side and negotiate a ceasefire everywhere, including Ukraine itself. The wildcard would be Zelenskyy—he might feel played and just refuse to play ball.

That wouldn't be a problem. He's been a puppet since day one... just like that regime over there.

They know perfectly well that the second the West decides to stop the talking, both the Kyiv regime and Ukraine itself mean nothing compared to the comfort and peace the West enjoys. ☕

So, they'd just abandon them to their fate. Kyiv knows this, obviously.
They have zero autonomy.

Ironically, that’s exactly why you see Ukrainian flags everywhere in the West. It’s not about caring for Ukraine; it’s about signaling Western ideals. Period.

Chloe Jackson15 said: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.

That isn't how this works. You don't build nuclear disasters based on prejudice, fear, or paranoia.

Gerald Torres84 said:The crying and wailing will only intensify. They’ll start making those empty nuclear threats once they realize the Ukrainians aren't going to stop reclaiming their occupied territory.

Putin just can't stomach admitting he lost the war. That leaves us facing a new kind of danger—terrorist sabotage. For instance, that gas pipeline between Norway and Poland could easily become a target. Russia is going down the drain regardless (and honestly, only after he's gone), so the real question is just how much damage they can inflict on the rest of the world before they go.

A column of at least six Russian T-90M tanks spotted near the border in Belgorod Oblast, roughly 4.4 miles from the Ukrainian border. This photo was taken yesterday.
https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/...33904627736577
Check out those cope cages. 🤣 🤣 🤣

Anyway, I don't think the nuclear threat is actually the primary driver behind the annexation. It seems more like Putin just wanted to boost his approval ratings at home—plus, he effectively blocked any chance of a sudden regime collapse that might have landed some peace-loving amateur in charge. If someone else were to stumble into power after an accidental vacuum, how on earth would they even begin to reclaim those territories? It’s not exactly a walk in the park, is it? lol