Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Sean Watson3 said:I’m not sure why my input is being dismissed as useless.

Why push for an immediate referendum when you're losing ground on the battlefield and stuck in such a hopeless spot?

The only logic I see behind a move like that is annexation—triggering that clause about protecting the Russian Federation's existence.

As long as Donetsk and Luhansk remain outside the Russian Federation, that clause simply can't be invoked.
You can't drop nukes on Ukraine, but on a country that attacked the Russian Federation? That's a different story.

And I'm talking tactical bombs here, not strategic ones; surely you know the difference.

Russia already considers Crimea part of the federation, so they basically have that excuse ready since they're hitting Crimea.

Besides, there have been strikes on Belgorod and a few other spots in Russia too.

Sean Watson3 said:I’m not sure why my input is being dismissed as useless.

Why push for an immediate referendum when you're losing ground on the battlefield and stuck in such a hopeless spot?

The only logic I see behind a move like that is annexation—triggering that clause about protecting the Russian Federation's existence.

As long as Donetsk and Luhansk remain outside the Russian Federation, that clause simply can't be invoked.
You can't drop nukes on Ukraine, but on a country that attacked the Russian Federation? That's a different story.

And I'm talking tactical bombs here, not strategic ones; surely you know the difference.

Both types are completely useless in a conflict like this.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Nobody takes these Russian threats regarding referendums or nuclear weapons seriously. Any use of nuclear weapons would simply bury the Russian Federation even deeper. They’ve already dug their own grave in this conventional conflict; they don't need this too. They know it, but they can't help themselves because they are trying to win through brute force a conflict they sparked—a conflict they clearly haven't mastered given the current balance of power (the West versus the Russian Federation, with Ukrainians acting as the boots on the ground).

I don't know, I see it differently. They'll definitely push through a referendum if they think they can get away with it, but the whole nuclear thing? Like, dropping a bomb on the UK or Germany to wipe them out? Probably not gonna happen. They know that would be the end of Russia without NATO even having to lift a finger. Once that happens, British nuclear subs would just launch dozens of missiles at everything important in Russia west of the Ural, and that'd be it for them and their little "special operations."

COD2 said:The situation is dire. The diagnosis is grim. The prognosis remains uncertain.

https://www.nytimes.com/world/news/war-update...

Dugin lost his daughter, so now he’s calling for World War III as if it were some kind of remedy. It’s a classic coping mechanism. If we invaded Ukraine and proved ourselves utterly incompetent and incapable of handling the conflict, then fine—let’s just trigger a global war. Because the idea that we "supermen" could lose a fight to a nation that supposedly doesn't even exist? That’s an unacceptable reality. If they can be better fighters than us Russians, it’s easier to burn the whole world down than to let history record that failure.

swiftjackal11 said:It feels like Russia is stuck in the past. It’s like they think they’re the only ones with nuclear weapons, ignoring how much more advanced everyone else's tech has become lately.

Spot on.
Russian nukes could miss their target by twenty or fifty feet, while American tech hits a dime from miles away. 🤦

We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I don't know, I see it differently. They'll definitely push through a referendum if they think they can get away with it, but the whole nuclear thing? Like, dropping a bomb on the UK or Germany to wipe them out? Probably not gonna happen. They know that would be the end of Russia without NATO even having to lift a finger. Once that happens, British nuclear subs would just launch dozens of missiles at everything important in Russia west of the Ural, and that'd be it for them and their little "special operations."

If any kind of referendum actually happens, it’ll pass—provided they wait to announce the results until after the polls close. They’ll probably have international observers from Belarus, Mexico, and North Korea; maybe some folks from Venezuela or Cuba if they can manage the trip, though that's a long way to drag people in.
And it’s all for nothing. No sane person under these circumstances is going to recognize that sham as a legitimate vote. The Russians view this as a mere formality, a box to check before they start waving it around, failing to grasp that legitimacy requires a baseline level of quality for anyone serious to even consider it an argument. You can't explain that distinction to a group that entered this war with such reckless indifference.

Sean Watson3 said:We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

But man, that's dead wrong, and if that scenario actually played out, it would pretty much lead straight to Armageddon.

Like, what would even stop North Korea from dropping one of those on their southern brothers in that situation?
Or China launching a couple over toward Taiwan or Japan?

There is seriously zero point zero zero zero one percent chance that people wouldn't react, and the Russians know that better than anyone..

Sean Watson3 said:We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

Why on earth would Ukrainians even consider nuking their own cities? Seriously? Do you even hear yourself? If I were in the position of the Ukrainians, I’d be looking at striking somewhere deep within the Russian interior, maybe just one 280 miles along my border... Play it safe if you want, but let the enemy deal with the fallout, not me. That is why the people in Russia won't pull the trigger—they know full well it would come right back at them. They have proven to be ruthlessly cold-blooded so far, but only when it's someone else dying, not themselves. It is a group that is extremely protective of its own skin.

Ever since this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive kicked off, it feels like every second comment I see is just someone obsessing over tactical nukes.

When you're losing at chess, just smash the board—scatter the pieces everywhere and blow yourself and everyone else up, partners included.

Makes total sense for the Russians.

Sean Watson3 said:We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

After a move like that, real negotiations will be nearly impossible. Desperate people are capable of anything, sure, but this isn't some 17th-century monarchy where one guy calls all the shots.

Melissa Rivera5 said:dugin: "We didn't choose this war, we didn't want it."

That’s kind of like a rapist claiming they didn't actually want to do it or pick that moment. I mean, geez, the lipstick was just too bright, the outfit was too cute... Your Honor, she really wanted it!

And this guy is supposed to be their big intellectual...

It’s just like some crazy ex who can't handle being dumped, and the second his "ex" goes out for a drink with someone else, he feels entitled to kill the god inside her just to show her the right way to live.
Pathetic.

analogbear5 said:When you're losing at chess, just smash the board—scatter the pieces everywhere and blow yourself and everyone else up, partners included.

Makes total sense for the Russians.

Sure. Those are the kind of moves only the most elite grandmasters of 27D chess would pull.

gentlerider7 said:Ever since this latest Ukrainian counteroffensive kicked off, it feels like every second comment I see is just someone obsessing over tactical nukes.

You hit the nail on the head there.
It’s a textbook example of how media propaganda can spoon-feed a narrative to the public so effectively that people start swallowing it whole—even when basic common sense tells you something just doesn't add up...

stormybear25 said:The occupation authorities in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine are claiming that "members of public chambers" are calling for an immediate referendum to annex everything to the Russian Federation

Stremousov checked in regarding Kherson—apparently, people there are expecting this move and hoping it provides some assurance that Russia isn't leaving. Honestly, everyone in Kherson despises them right now—fingers crossed they show some actual good faith soon.

Nancy Gomez26 said:If any kind of referendum actually happens, it’ll pass—provided they wait to announce the results until after the polls close. They’ll probably have international observers from Belarus, Mexico, and North Korea; maybe some folks from Venezuela or Cuba if they can manage the trip, though that's a long way to drag people in.
And it’s all for nothing. No sane person under these circumstances is going to recognize that sham as a legitimate vote. The Russians view this as a mere formality, a box to check before they start waving it around, failing to grasp that legitimacy requires a baseline level of quality for anyone serious to even consider it an argument. You can't explain that distinction to a group that entered this war with such reckless indifference.

And Iran 😁. Most of these nuclear threats are really just theater for their domestic audience. They go on TV threatening to hit Germany or the United Kingdom, then pivot to debating why NATO wouldn't react—since, in their narrative, those countries won't even exist anymore. It's basically fairy tales for their most loyal followers. Things aren't going great on the ground, so they have to do whatever it takes to keep support for the "special operation" high and prevent any internal unrest. That's why you hear them talking about mushrooms growing on islands after the UK goes underwater, or why Dugin claims they're fighting everyone and need to stay united in a state of wartime footing. If they're "fighting everyone," including NATO, then losing becomes easier to swallow—because, as someone once put it, how can you admit to losing to non-existent Ukrainians?
Anyone following the Russian media will notice they also claim they won't attack Ukraine because "they'll eventually have to live there anyway." They frame it as if all the soldiers are actually NATO troops—which sends a subconscious message to their base: that Ukrainians aren't actually fighting us, we're brothers, and the Ukrainians are just hostages of the evil West and NATO waiting for us to liberate them. Back when things were happening in Kharkiv, they were quick to churn out "evidence" claiming the offensive was carried out by Black soldiers—local people would call the Russians and complain about "colored militants" and things like that.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...C-0dX43tArAAAA

Looks like the propaganda playbook just got an update. Suddenly, it’s not about those 50 busted HIMARS units anymore—now they're claiming the whole US system is junk and that the Smerch is actually superior.

Oh, sure, now all of a sudden HIMARS is amazing and NATO is looking totally unstoppable. 🙏 🙏 🤣

And of course, we've hit the predictable part of the script where everyone claims NATO SOF was operating on the Kharkiv front, and that's why things fell apart there.

I’d like to ask the admin to split this up into two separate threads—one specifically for tactical nuclear scenarios and another for doomsday stuff. It would just prevent this particular discussion from getting buried every time Russ loses ground in occupied territories.

wiredtiger8 said:Spot on.
Russian nukes could miss their target by twenty or fifty feet, while American tech hits a dime from miles away. 🤦

About a third of the Russian strikes aren't even hitting their marks. On top of that, it takes days to scout and fix those target coordinates—which isn't exactly ideal when you're trying to hit high-priority strategic military targets in real time.