Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

feralstag7 said:If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

Exactly.

Medvedev is making threats again

"The Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, took to his Telegram channel to claim that the draft 'Kyiv security agreement' presented by the Ukrainian government is essentially just a 'prologue to World War III.'

'The Kyiv camarilla has cooked up this "security guarantees" project, which is basically just a prelude to World War III,' the official wrote, throwing in that 'nobody is going to provide any "guarantees" to the Ukrainian Nazis.'

Medvedev went on to point out that this whole thing is comparable to invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty for Ukraine.

Now, if you don't know, Article 5 basically says that if one NATO member falls victim to an armed attack, all the other alliance members view that act of violence as an attack on the entire alliance and will act accordingly.

Not too long ago, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak, along with former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, laid out recommendations for security guarantees for Ukraine, developed on behalf of the country's leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. Yermak made it clear that Kyiv needs these kinds of guarantees to effectively "discourage the Russians from their desire for revenge."

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Something's brewing over in Moscow 🤔
https://twitter.com/FlippinCoin/stat...01195391942656

Yeah, gridlock.

bluemason3 said:The US wasn't hit by radiation from Fukushima or Chernobyl, so boundaries actually do exist. Sure, we're close to Russia, but if we're talking about those tactical nukes people bring up in these scenarios being dropped somewhere in Ukraine, it wouldn't necessarily be a direct threat to the American population. Nobody is seriously suggesting they'd go after us with strategic nukes. The bigger issue would be the political fallout.

Deploying that kind of weapon triggers an inevitable response. Everyone understands the math, and no rational actor is actually weighing that option. Those who bring it up are merely performing for their domestic audience. Everywhere else, even whispering about such options just puts them in a weaker position.
As it stands, the conflict remains largely contained within the borders of Ukraine; there has been very little activity deep inside the aggressor's territory. It would be a disastrous development for Putin if ammunition depots and military bases within the US-equivalent of the Russian mainland suddenly started taking hits.

stormybear25 said:Here’s a quick timelapse from the last few days—https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/statu...87313381765123.

Have they crossed Oskaloosa and Doncaster yet?
https://i.postimg.cc/L84zRPYH/Fcf9s3ia-AAEuvl-Y.jpg

Rachel Richardson said:Have they crossed Oskaloosa and Doncaster yet?
https://i.postimg.cc/L84zRPYH/Fcf9s3ia-AAEuvl-Y.jpg

What's even the difference between the red and pink zones?
Red is what the Russians are holding, but pink... is that just where the fighting is happening?...

feralstag7 said:If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

The reality is that even with nukes, they aren't going to "win" Ukraine. Using them would only serve to bury themselves and everyone else even deeper. They understand this perfectly well; they just play dumb and issue threats to mask the weakness. The worst part is threatening with an empty gun. It would have been better if they hadn't mentioned it at all. They should focus on their own conventional military capabilities instead. They aren't the only power in history to have fired blindly in a conflict. One learns far more from defeat than from victory.

Larry Sanchez7 said:What's even the difference between the red and pink zones?
Red is what the Russians are holding, but pink... is that just where the fighting is happening?...

https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/statu...918848/photo/1

Purple-Occupied territory before 24/02/22
Red-Occupied territory since 24/02/22
Pink-Forward Russian operating areas

The FBI reported that they've detained several employees from a defense plant located in the Moscow region. They also handed over photos showing fragments of technical drawings for military aircraft components to Ukraine. 😲

The footage coming out after the Russian military and their buddies cleared out of Izium is just straight-up apocalyptic. This used to be a city of maybe 50,000 people, but after being under occupation for almost half a year, it’s pretty obvious that neither the Russian collaborators nor the Russians themselves had any intention of actually helping anyone. They didn't lift a finger to make life easier for the locals; everything just stayed as wrecked as it was when they first seized the place. There's this video showing what happened to a local school, and man, seeing the state of it... it’s hard to wrap your head around the fact that we’re living in 2022. Schools completely trashed by human hands, yet they brought in these "teachers" meant to brainwash Ukrainian kids into believing their own fathers and grandfathers were Nazis. I mean, seriously, educators working with children are supposed to have some kind of moral compass, right? I just can't wrap my brain around how any Russian educator could sign up for such monstrous work. You've got ruined buildings, zero electricity, no water, no sewage—just total devastation in people's homes—but instead, they send in these "educators" to tell Ukrainian kids that their language doesn't exist, that their people don't exist, and that their families need "denazification." And honestly, some people are even backing this behavior over here. I guess this is just the new Russian "peace" they're bringing. It feels like a familiar modus operandi from somewhere.

https://twitter.com/dw_russian/statu...u5e7Oli3owLN9w

feralstag7 said:If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

It’s not just about dropping a bomb, either. Word has been sent to the Russians that if they mess around with the Zaporizhzhia NPP and radiation leaks out toward NATO members, that counts as triggering Article 5. If that happens, they'll be dealing with a massive retaliation right on their own doorstep.

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/s...05699179925509

That’s likely why the IAEA suddenly made a visit to the nuclear plant and why the bombing has dialed back a bit.

Russia is basically your classic neighborhood bully—acting like the big man on campus until someone shows up with a bigger stick.

hollowdriver13 said:It’s not just about dropping a bomb, either. Word has been sent to the Russians that if they mess around with the Zaporizhzhia NPP and radiation leaks out toward NATO members, that counts as triggering Article 5. If that happens, they'll be dealing with a massive retaliation right on their own doorstep.

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/s...05699179925509

That’s likely why the IAEA suddenly made a visit to the nuclear plant and why the bombing has dialed back a bit.

Russia is basically your classic neighborhood bully—acting like the big man on campus until someone shows up with a bigger stick.

I'm curious, though—who exactly gave them that warning?

analogbear5 said:Yeah, gridlock.

Honestly? I've been stuck in traffic there a few times myself, nothing too crazy.
It’s probably worse than being on the Beltway in DC at 8 AM.
https://www.oeamtc.at/autotouring/se...werke-27405489

Michael Davis9 said:I'm curious, though—who exactly gave them that warning?

So you think the communication channels used by top world leaders—the ones actually shaping things—are just going to be available via Instagram clips and YouTube snippets?

Seems naive to me... they only broadcast what serves the propaganda aimed at the masses.
Real answers and deals happen behind closed doors...

Russian gear
https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status...TENHRo5f9SKrVA

Michael Davis9 said:I'm curious, though—who exactly gave them that warning?

Look, you've got a whole bunch of politicians out there claiming that if radiation hits any NATO members, it's an automatic trigger for Article 5.

"Nukes Hitting Ukraine Would be ' Attack on NATO ' duo to Radiation"

https://www.newsweek.com/nukes-hitti...graham-1704598

Even Jens Stoltenberg mentioned that NATO would respond "in full capacity" if there's a leak at Zaporizhzhia or if the Russians drop something and radiation starts drifting into NATO territories.

this War of mina : Chapter, Ukraine 🙏 🙏

Ukraine Quote : Developers fra Ukraine created a Free gama with survival elements that tell stories about russian occupation and performed War crimes Try Ukraine War Stories

https://mobile.twitter.com/l13t/stat...53603635568640

hollowdriver13 said:Look, you've got a whole bunch of politicians out there claiming that if radiation hits any NATO members, it's an automatic trigger for Article 5.

"Nukes Hitting Ukraine Would be ' Attack on NATO ' duo to Radiation"

https://www.newsweek.com/nukes-hitti...graham-1704598

Even Jens Stoltenberg mentioned that NATO would respond "in full capacity" if there's a leak at Zaporizhzhia or if the Russians drop something and radiation starts drifting into NATO territories.

You know, when you really stop to think about it, there are thousands upon thousands of politicians spread across all the different NATO member nations, and it’s fascinating how much weight their words actually carry. It isn't some uniform level of influence, either; the impact of what they say fluctuates wildly depending on which country they represent and what specific role they hold within the alliance. One leader's comment might move markets or shift entire diplomatic strategies, while another's might barely register a ripple, all because of those underlying layers of national importance and official standing.

Senator Lindsey Graham was just laying it out there, making it clear that if Vladimir Putin decides to actually pull the trigger on nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we aren't just looking at a regional crisis—we’re looking at an absolute catastrophe. According to him, such a move would essentially force our hand by triggering Article 5. It's a heavy thought, isn't it? He's basically saying that the moment those nukes are used, it stops being a localized conflict and becomes a direct confrontation that necessitates a full-blown NATO response. It really puts the gravity of the situation into perspective when you hear someone in his position framing it that way.

It’s honestly a bit surprising how the nuclear power plant doesn't even get a single mention in this discussion.

Jens Stoltenberg basically laid it all out there, making it crystal clear that if things go south at Zaporizhzhia—like a leak or if Russia decides to drop something that sends radiation drifting toward NATO members—the Alliance wouldn't just sit idly by. He made it very clear that NATO would respond in its full capacity to handle such a situation.

Can someone please drop a link to the full text?

But even if I were to take you at your word, while you're sitting there talking about:

It really feels like Russia is just leveling the playing field on its own home turf right now.

He’s talking about...
"In full capacity"—honestly, that is a completely different beast altogether.

Joshua Bishop3 said:Oh man, please don't make me laugh, seriously, hahaha!

Crimea belongs to Ukraine, plain and simple, just like Donbas and Luhansk. Almost nobody on this planet actually recognizes the annexation of Crimea. Putin can claim whatever he wants—he can sit there thinking Russian Alaska is actually Russian or that half the world belongs to him for all I care, but you can basically tell him to go jump in a lake regarding his little delusions. 😁

The Russians aren't going to use tactical nukes or any other kind of nuclear weapons, because let's be real—if even a tiny bit of radiation drifts toward a single NATO member, NATO is going to treat that as a full-blown nuclear strike. They said as much right at the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. If a nuclear war actually breaks out, Russia will just be a scorched wasteland that ceases to exist. The population of the "collective West" is way more spread out than the Russians, most of whom are crammed around Moscow and in Western Russia anyway.

Russ doesn't have the guts to start a nuclear war because, newsflash, they’d cease to exist. It's just like how they were blustering about Crimea being part of the RF and threatening to drop nukes if even one shell hit the place, yet they won't touch nukes if Ukraine liberates Crimea. They're getting bombed in Crimea constantly, they've lost half their aviation there, and the Russians are scurrying away like cowards, just moving what's left of their planes back into Russia. Hahahahaha!

Taking Crimea militarily is going to be surprisingly easy. But looking at how things are playing out, the Russians might just hand it over as a gesture of good faith.

Didn't I say it before? It's incredibly easy to scribble down nonsense, but much harder to read it with any actual comprehension. Regarding Russia, they view Crimea as part of their territory, and they believe they get to decide how to react when someone targets their province. In their minds, it's settled history; they held their referendum eight years ago, the people voted for annexation, and to them, the case is closed.

As for the idea that NATO countries will jump into a nuclear conflict over Ukraine—forget it. I'd love to see which Prime Minister or President is actually going to order a nuclear strike on Moscow just because Russia uses a tactical nuke on something in Ukraine. Of course, the Russians swear they won't do it, but nobody with half a brain believes them.