Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

James Chavez91 said:Someone mentioned this a few pages back, and I honestly see it as a brilliant way to de-escalate things—basically moving the whole mess off the global stage and tucking it strictly into the backyard of the US/Russia conflict...
Since all those guarantees regarding the integrity of Ukraine's borders and their very sovereignty have basically been trampled, it might make sense to just return what was originally given to ensure those protections hold up.
Give them back the nukes and whatever else was part of that deal, and just call it a day.

Besides, they’ve got enough resources and know-how to build their own stuff if they really had to.

Why does it end there?
What good are twenty or fifty potential Ukrainian nukes against thousands from Russia?
Nothing.

It still boils down to X thousand Americans versus X thousand Russians.

If we are talking about full-scale nuclear madness.
A handful of nukes in Ukraine won't change a thing. And let's not even get into why this is in NOBODY'S interest... for countless reasons.

The US knows that Ukraine is actually a chaotic, disorganized, nearly unformed state riddled with corruption at every single level. They don't need fools like that holding nukes.

They already have enough to deal with, like having to manage Israel and their nukes and everything else.

Kuarnyaj said:as soon as you start tripping on drugs

One nuke on Moscow and a few million people turn to dust.

Stop talking nonsense. If Ukraine still had its nukes from the 90s, none of this would be happening.

It doesn't work like that.

If you think that’s how it works, then why hasn't Israel turned millions in Tehran to ash yet? Why hasn't Pakistan crushed India? 😁

You can't just trigger a global nuclear war under the guise of "self-defense." That isn't how things work post-1950s, ☕ even if you are a nuclear power.

Sure, the truth is that nukes are a deterrent... and they would stop the cowards in Moscow from doing this.
Dammit.

edit: My point was that it's ALREADY too late. Since everything has already happened and they weren't a nuclear power, getting nukes now solves nothing. It's post-factum.
If they had them before the attack, there wouldn't have been an attack.

Russia needs a hard factory reset

Spot on breakdown of why this is all going down...

David Smith Breaks down The Reasons Russia Invaded Ukraine

By the way... that bizarre decision to strip a massive neighbor—one packed with resources and one that Russia has always historically obsessed over as their own "homeland"—of its nuclear capabilities through some 90s paperwork and "agreements"... it smells like a West game plan.

It’s like they're just teasing the Russians, driving them mad. They deliberately left the door open for exactly this scenario today. Why? It isn't obvious at first glance, but the motive is pretty clear.
To humiliate Russia... during their moment of madness... and wipe them off the historical stage entirely.

It's the same reason they ensured China became intensely tied to the West after the 80s, riding the wave of prosperity that followed.

You toss a bone to one group (the Russians) so they can attack aimlessly and flex those pathetic Slavic muscles 😁 while you buy off another group with unprecedented prosperity for hundreds of millions of people. From zero to 124 miles/h in just 30 years.

Edit: The point is that Americans have maintained an absolutely dominant position through all these combinations.
They let China grow exactly where they wanted it to.
They removed the nukes from Ukraine. They could have insisted back in the 90s when they had total dominance over the Russians 😁 that the nukes stay put... but they didn't.

Samuel Lee14 said:Spot on breakdown of why this is all going down...

David Smith Breaks down The Reasons Russia Invaded Ukraine

Pure propaganda garbage for those who worship Russian fascism.

Anthony Jones15 said:

Bottom line: stop falling for Russia's intimidation tactics. Russia isn't actually going to touch their nuclear arsenal in this conflict.

We thought they wouldn't invade Ukraine, either. We thought they wouldn't cut Russia off from the West, wouldn't wreck their own country, wouldn't commit inhumane war crimes on a daily basis, wouldn't...
But here we are, living through all of it.
The only people with any sense fled Russia long ago. Now, all that's left is a bunch of idiots brainwashed by propaganda and the poor folks who have nowhere else to go and zero cash to escape. So now they're stuck choosing between starving at home or heading to the front lines. They're going to war without even knowing why, who they're fighting, or what the hell is even happening.
I have never, in my entire life, seen a more pathetic group of wretches than these mobilized soldiers. I wouldn't trust them to watch a flock of sheep, let alone hold a weapon.

The takeaway: we can expect just about anything, and we should prepare to be blindsided. Putin has proven he is willing to do absolutely any disgusting thing just to feed his own narcissistic ego.

The fiasco in Ukraine is easily explained in hindsight through corruption, incompetence, and the delusional thinking of the Russian leadership. However, it should be noted that a vast majority of Western analysts and politicians also believed Ukraine would fall very quickly.

What actually occurred was a rather unusual confluence of circumstances: from an uncharacteristically swift and sharp response from the West at a very inconvenient moment, to an incredibly effective Ukrainian defense, and finally, the almost comedic ineptitude of the Russian military.

But this is different now; Russia knows the potential consequences. No nuclear scenario allows them to escape what they have stepped into. Perhaps they are still naively hoping to stabilize the front, declare the mission accomplished, and somehow dodge sanctions enough to establish additional export corridors toward Asia. A drastic escalation currently serves Russia the least.

Melissa Peterson19 said:Maybe, but they certainly won't allow the Russian Federation to collapse or let the West seize their Siberian resources. They would rather impose the harshest possible dictatorship and trigger a global nuclear catastrophe—letting everything burn if necessary—on the gamble that their massive territory will offer them some level of protection.

Nobody wants Russia to collapse. The West, especially, does not want that; they learned their lesson in America. Look at the Iraqi clusterfuck—Shiites, Sunnis, Iran, Kurds, ISIS; every minor player in the Middle East tried to carve out some state there, so Americans obsessively insisted on borders that were far more unnatural than these European ones.

A Russian collapse is an unfathomably large problem. Who would control the resource-rich territories? Who would inherit the nuclear codes? Who would ensure that nuclear, chemical, biological, and all other weaponry doesn't end up where it shouldn't? And who, exactly, would pacify the Russians, who remain the most populous nation in Europe even without their minorities?

It is a Pandora's box that absolutely nobody on this planet needs. There are resources elsewhere.

Grace Jones86 said:Why does it end there?
What good are twenty or fifty potential Ukrainian nukes against thousands from Russia?
Nothing.

It still boils down to X thousand Americans versus X thousand Russians.

If we are talking about full-scale nuclear madness.
A handful of nukes in Ukraine won't change a thing. And let's not even get into why this is in NOBODY'S interest... for countless reasons.

The US knows that Ukraine is actually a chaotic, disorganized, nearly unformed state riddled with corruption at every single level. They don't need fools like that holding nukes.

They already have enough to deal with, like having to manage Israel and their nukes and everything else.

And why should I care?
Even if Ukraine had zero nuclear weapons, it would still be Russia's neighbor.
Ukraine with a "billion mushrooms" equals Russia with a billion mushrooms.
The wind carries radiation everywhere—you know.

Samuel Lee14 said:Spot on breakdown of why this is all going down...

David Smith Breaks down The Reasons Russia Invaded Ukraine

Typical trashy Russian propaganda.
Still, thanks for sharing
(this marks my 300th person added to my ignore list since Feb 24, 2022—and before that, I hadn't added a single soul in 20 years. It’s a minor miracle this forum is still even usable 😍).

These referendums are a total sham—just like everything else Russian propaganda has pushed over the last few decades, especially since the invasion of Ukraine.
No legitimate nation is going to recognize an annexation, and if that little tyrant thinks his signature actually carries weight, well—that's his own problem.

There’s this idea floating around about who actually needs nuclear weapons

a) Everyone
b) Absolutely nobody
c) Only certain people—if we're talking about someone like the Dalai Lama or that guy Xi Jinping from "Gods Fell on Their Heads"

Rachel Richardson said:And why should I care?
Even if Ukraine had zero nuclear weapons, it would still be Russia's neighbor.
Ukraine with a "billion mushrooms" equals Russia with a billion mushrooms.
The wind carries radiation everywhere—you know.

I don't follow your logic.

By the way... in case it needs repeating: radiation spread is FAR less after a nuke explodes than after a nuclear power plant accident (and even then, the radiation isn't nearly as bad as they claim).

Also... the oil/Russian lobby has always pumped fear regarding nuclear energy. 😉
Don't fall for propaganda.

Rachel Richardson said:Exactly. 👍

@Grace Jones86, nobody has occupied a single inch of Israeli territory.
Not even Iranian territory, if we're being honest...

Yeah, they just "happened" to be pummeled from above for decades on end.

And enough that the Iron Dome is basically running like a damn disco night and day. 😁

Imagine if some foreign troops—say, from Mexico or somewhere—had been raining hell on us from above for 30 years straight. 😁

northernsailor8 said:Russia definitely won't reach for nuclear weapons, for several reasons.

1. Tactical nukes aren't particularly effective against a highly mobile enemy on the 932 miles front. I guess they don't offer much more direct military impact than the conventional gear Russia already has, like FOAB or hypersonic missiles. Plus, hitting populated cities would be a massive war crime—one you can't really hide or spin as propaganda, even back home.

2. Any detection of elevated radiation levels near the NATO border would likely trigger Article 5 automatically.

3. They run the risk that NATO isn't bluffing and actually follows through with a military response.

4. The economic fallout would be devastating. If Russia faces total isolation at every level—which could include a complete naval blockade of key transit corridors like the GIUK, Dover, Denmark Strait, Bosphorus, or the Japanese archipelago—their access to warm waters and oceans would vanish. In retaliation, Ukrainians would probably just blow up any remaining pipelines. That would strip Russia of its energy profits from Europe, which accounts for about 25% of their GDP and 33% of the state budget. It would effectively kill all maritime trade right when their economy is already stumbling.

5. China and India would likely distance themselves from Russia to protect their own image, especially if the West imposes draconian conditions. Maybe even Iran would pull away, given they have plenty of their own internal issues to deal with instead of sharing Russia's fate.

6. Using nuclear weapons without an immediate response would probably lead to a double-digit increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations in the world. Ukraine might still possess the technical expertise and hardware for some kind of nuclear or radiological device. But honestly, I suspect Russia would worry more about Germany or Poland potentially doing the same.

7. Deciding to use nuclear weapons isn't just up to Putin. According to doctrine, there are three layers: the President, the joint chiefs, and the commander of the silo, airbase, or submarine. It wouldn't be the first time a Russian officer refused a launch order. Disobeying such a command would likely signal the imminent collapse of an already shaky military chain of command.

Conclusion: ignore the Russian intimidation tactics. Russia isn't going to touch nuclear weapons in this conflict.

The FOAB is basically 44 tons of TNT. A tactical nuke is several orders of magnitude larger than that.
And while you can deliver a nuke via missile, you have to fly a bomber to drop a FOAB—which is pretty much a suicide mission given the current air defenses.

2. Any detection of dangerous radiation levels near the NATO border would trigger Article 5 automatically.

A nuclear blast somewhere in Donbas isn't likely to push radiation levels high enough to hit NATO borders.

4. The economic fallout would be catastrophic. If Russia faces total isolation—potentially including a full maritime blockade of vital transit corridors like the >, or the waters around the Japanese archipelago—to cut them off from warm-water ports and oceans... well, the Ukrainians would likely retaliate by blowing up any remaining pipelines. That would wipe out every cent of Russia's energy profits from Europe—about 25% of their GDP and 33% of the state budget—and kill all maritime trade right when their economy is already teetering on the edge of collapse.

Sure, the West has enough naval power to pull it off, but a blockade would be a direct violation of UNCLOS. If things turn violent, we’re looking at an actual war between them, and in those situations, things move fast—nobody cares about how many tankers were sold once the shooting starts.

5. China and India would distance themselves from Russia to protect their image, especially if the West imposes draconian conditions. Even Iran might stay away, considering they have plenty of their own problems to deal with instead of sharing Russia's fate.

That’s a real risk for Putin, but also a huge risk for the West, which could lose access to Chinese and Indian goods (especially since they're already feeling the squeeze from energy issues). Honestly, I don't think tactical nukes alone would be enough to trigger that level of total isolation.

Forget about Iran—you see how "happily" they supply drones? Even China wouldn't dare go that far.

7. Deciding to use nuclear weapons isn't just up to Putin; Russian doctrine requires three layers of approval—the President, the joint chiefs, and then the commander of the silo, airbase, or submarine. It wouldn't be the first time a Russian officer refused a launch order. And if that happened, it would be a clear sign that the already shaky Russian command structure had finally collapsed.

The lower-level tactical leads will probably check in with the rest of the military brass before making any moves.

Grace Jones86 said: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.

Honestly, calling a democratically elected government a "regime" pretty much gives away which side of the fence you're sitting on.

But hey, go ahead and try explaining to Germans that they don't actually care about Ukraine—since you clearly know better than they do.

https://twitter.com/meyer_resende/st...CqxZ2NmN4rAAAA

Oh wait, look at this—support for Ukraine actually went up by 4% in the last 30 days, hitting 74%.

I guess you should try explaining to the rest of Europe and America that they don't really support UA either, just because "Grace Jones86 knows best."™

Russophiles have finally come to terms with the fact that their supposedly invincible military just got humiliated in Ukraine. Now, all they can do is whine about nukes.
You're pathetic.

casualtiger2 said:Typical trashy Russian propaganda.
Still, thanks for sharing
(this marks my 300th person added to my ignore list since Feb 24, 2022—and before that, I hadn't added a single soul in 20 years. It’s a minor miracle this forum is still even usable 😍).

These referendums are a total sham—just like everything else Russian propaganda has pushed over the last few decades, especially since the invasion of Ukraine.
No legitimate nation is going to recognize an annexation, and if that little tyrant thinks his signature actually carries weight, well—that's his own problem.

Actually, it's true. I suspected this from the very start, and now it's finally being proven...

About 38% of Chinese exports are headed toward the West and Japan, while roughly 30% of what China imports comes from the West and Japan—keep in mind that Japan coordinates its sanctions against Russia alongside the West. Now, when you look at the figures for Russia, we’re talking about a mere 2% or 3%. Even though Russian imports might actually hold more strategic weight than that tiny 3% figure would suggest to a casual observer, the reality is that the Chinese economy is far more dependent on the West. It isn't as if the West isn't reliant on China—certainly not German industry, which leans heavily on exports and, quite frankly, much of its business comes from the Chinese market. But on a global scale? China is merely a junior partner here—though, granted, that could change in 25 to 40 years. The West accounts for half of the global economy, whereas China sits at around 16-17%.

The impact of Corona and those irrational zero-COVID policies—where entire cities of millions were slapped with draconian lockdowns—has already dealt some massive blows to the Chinese economy (not to mention fueling widespread discontent). If the West were to leverage its full economic might, I’d argue that China simply wouldn't be able to commit to Russia. The CCP is far too terrified of an economic collapse or seeing angry masses flooding the streets; after all, there are still hundreds of millions of people living on the absolute edge of survival there—and even those who are doing better aren't exactly eager to give up a lifestyle that is, for all intents and purposes, modeled after the West.

Grace Jones86 said:By the way... that bizarre decision to strip a massive neighbor—one packed with resources and one that Russia has always historically obsessed over as their own "homeland"—of its nuclear capabilities through some 90s paperwork and "agreements"... it smells like a West game plan.

It’s like they're just teasing the Russians, driving them mad. They deliberately left the door open for exactly this scenario today. Why? It isn't obvious at first glance, but the motive is pretty clear.
To humiliate Russia... during their moment of madness... and wipe them off the historical stage entirely.

It's the same reason they ensured China became intensely tied to the West after the 80s, riding the wave of prosperity that followed.

You toss a bone to one group (the Russians) so they can attack aimlessly and flex those pathetic Slavic muscles 😁 while you buy off another group with unprecedented prosperity for hundreds of millions of people. From zero to 124 miles/h in just 30 years.

Edit: The point is that Americans have maintained an absolutely dominant position through all these combinations.
They let China grow exactly where they wanted it to.
They removed the nukes from Ukraine. They could have insisted back in the 90s when they had total dominance over the Russians 😁 that the nukes stay put... but they didn't.

Right, because Russia wasn't a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, no, no—it was just the "evil West" forcing UA into it. 🙏

Grace Jones86 said:I don't follow your logic.

By the way... in case it needs repeating: radiation spread is FAR less after a nuke explodes than after a nuclear power plant accident (and even then, the radiation isn't nearly as bad as they claim).

Also... the oil/Russian lobby has always pumped fear regarding nuclear energy. 😉
Don't fall for propaganda.

What I mean is that, in such a scenario, Russia would end up irradiating itself.

Regarding the power plant accident—half the children in Belarus dealt with some form of cancer following Chernobyl.
Even if that number is lower, it’s still far from a stroke of luck.

Grace Jones86 said:Yeah, they just "happened" to be pummeled from above for decades on end.

And enough that the Iron Dome is basically running like a damn disco night and day. 😁

Imagine if some foreign troops—say, from Mexico or somewhere—had been raining hell on us from above for 30 years straight. 😁

And that perfectly illustrates my point about nuclear weapons.
They are doomsday weapons—tools used only when the end is truly imminent.
Not exactly something for rock n' roll.😉

loneskipper3 said:About 38% of Chinese exports are headed toward the West and Japan, while roughly 30% of what China imports comes from the West and Japan—keep in mind that Japan coordinates its sanctions against Russia alongside the West. Now, when you look at the figures for Russia, we’re talking about a mere 2% or 3%. Even though Russian imports might actually hold more strategic weight than that tiny 3% figure would suggest to a casual observer, the reality is that the Chinese economy is far more dependent on the West. It isn't as if the West isn't reliant on China—certainly not German industry, which leans heavily on exports and, quite frankly, much of its business comes from the Chinese market. But on a global scale? China is merely a junior partner here—though, granted, that could change in 25 to 40 years. The West accounts for half of the global economy, whereas China sits at around 16-17%.

The impact of Corona and those irrational zero-COVID policies—where entire cities of millions were slapped with draconian lockdowns—has already dealt some massive blows to the Chinese economy (not to mention fueling widespread discontent). If the West were to leverage its full economic might, I’d argue that China simply wouldn't be able to commit to Russia. The CCP is far too terrified of an economic collapse or seeing angry masses flooding the streets; after all, there are still hundreds of millions of people living on the absolute edge of survival there—and even those who are doing better aren't exactly eager to give up a lifestyle that is, for all intents and purposes, modeled after the West.

Another massive construction firm just went into default.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/euro...es-2022-09-28/

This entire Ponzi scheme known as the Chinese construction sector is basically a row of falling dominoes. One giant company after another is defaulting ever since Evergrande started this whole avalanche.