Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

stormybear25 said:They’re shaking in their boots.
The occupation authorities over in Houston are now pushing for an immediate referendum to officially annex everything to Russia.

Even if they vote for it, it’s not like that’s going to stop Ukrainians from coming in there and cleaning house.

Everything needs to be brought back under Ukrainian control, including the RAOs. If anyone has a problem with that, they can grab a tractor and head straight to Moscow.

Yeah. There’s a lot of talk about nukes lately—probably too much. I guess that’s why we should all be praying to God, Krishna, Allah, Buddha, or whoever else—just hoping that some future version of us finds a way to dismantle these massive arsenals. It feels like a stretch to think humanity will ever actually reach that level of maturity, but honestly? It’s just unnatural. It’s plain evil that the power to wipe out the entire world as we know it is held by a handful of people who might not even pass a basic psych eval, let alone be sane.
Just a completely twisted situation.

The correlation is obvious: the closer Russia gets to defeat, the higher the likelihood they'll resort to either a tactical bomb or a general mobilization.

Which path Putin chooses remains anyone's guess.

A mobilization is the safer bet politically, but it risks turning the public against him, making the whole "special operation" look like a massive blunder.

On the other hand, a tactical strike carries a much higher risk of escalation, even if it offers more cover for Putin—provided he can find a pretext, such as

a) a staged Ukrainian attack using unconventional weapons against the mainland,
b) the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk, justifying any strikes on those regions as direct attacks on the US.

Or perhaps a combination of both.

If I were running a country and decided I needed nuclear weapons, my first move would probably be trying to buy them under the table from some Russian general. They’re a bit more careful about guarding their stockpiles these days after everything that's come to light, but honestly, it still feels like the path of least resistance if you really want in.

As for the Ukrainians, they wouldn't even need to bring them into Ukraine; just stash them somewhere near Moscow and call it an insurance policy. Let Putin spend his time wondering which one of his own people sold him out this time.

Regarding any actual use of nuclear weapons by the Russians, I don't see how they gain anything from it. Dropping a nuke on Ukraine wouldn't actually help them achieve any of their strategic goals.

James Chavez91 said:Yeah. There’s a lot of talk about nukes lately—probably too much. I guess that’s why we should all be praying to God, Krishna, Allah, Buddha, or whoever else—just hoping that some future version of us finds a way to dismantle these massive arsenals. It feels like a stretch to think humanity will ever actually reach that level of maturity, but honestly? It’s just unnatural. It’s plain evil that the power to wipe out the entire world as we know it is held by a handful of people who might not even pass a basic psych eval, let alone be sane.
Just a completely twisted situation.

I'm with you on that, though if Russia didn't have these nukes, this conflict would be on a much larger scale—we'd likely see half of NATO involved in Ukraine against Russia, China, and whoever else decides to jump in.

LOL, I just stumbled upon this absolute gem of a comment on a news site about how Erdogan basically told Putin to just hand everything back, including Crimea.

It says: these Russians are exactly like those guys from the North America. They start a war just to grab some extra territory, and then by the end of it, they’ve actually ended up smaller than when they started.

Lyman is probably gonna tie up those Russian forces since, honestly, once they cleared out Izium yesterday, Yarove basically became a total afterthought strategically speaking.

If you really want to hit Lysychansk and Severodonetsk, the move is to grab Svatove—that’s how you’d completely wreck the Russian lines down there.

As of right now, though, we haven't seen any confirmation that the Ukrainians have actually crossed the Oskil.

Paul Anderson7 said:If I were running a country and decided I needed nuclear weapons, my first move would probably be trying to buy them under the table from some Russian general. They’re a bit more careful about guarding their stockpiles these days after everything that's come to light, but honestly, it still feels like the path of least resistance if you really want in.

As for the Ukrainians, they wouldn't even need to bring them into Ukraine; just stash them somewhere near Moscow and call it an insurance policy. Let Putin spend his time wondering which one of his own people sold him out this time.

Regarding any actual use of nuclear weapons by the Russians, I don't see how they gain anything from it. Dropping a nuke on Ukraine wouldn't actually help them achieve any of their strategic goals.

I'm with you on that, though if Russia didn't have these nukes, this conflict would be on a much larger scale—we'd likely see half of NATO involved in Ukraine against Russia, China, and whoever else decides to jump in.

Honestly, I don't think a war would even happen because it'd be pretty obvious to Russia that NATO would just dive straight into it from day one. And if it did start? It probably would've been over by now.

Sean Watson3 said:The correlation is obvious: the closer Russia gets to defeat, the higher the likelihood they'll resort to either a tactical bomb or a general mobilization.

Which path Putin chooses remains anyone's guess.

A mobilization is the safer bet politically, but it risks turning the public against him, making the whole "special operation" look like a massive blunder.

On the other hand, a tactical strike carries a much higher risk of escalation, even if it offers more cover for Putin—provided he can find a pretext, such as

a) a staged Ukrainian attack using unconventional weapons against the mainland,
b) the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk, justifying any strikes on those regions as direct attacks on the US.

Or perhaps a combination of both.

I don't think nuclear escalation could ever be "safer" for Putin. If he goes with mobilization, he loses the public. If he drops a nuke, he’ll have half the intelligence agencies in the world—and probably a good chunk of his own, too—turning on him. He'd literally be terrified to even flip a light switch. Between the strike, his mistress, his kids, Novichok, car bombs, falling out a window, or slipping in the tub, he'd be gone within 24 hours.

The guy is already scared of the lights in front of the Kremlin; he'd be even more terrified of a bomb under his bed.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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.

Check this link regarding Russian allies:

"They are the advocates for a multipolar world—countries like China, Iran, North Korea, Mexico, Syria, Central African Republic, Mali, and even somewhat India, Turkey, along with certain Islamic, African, and Latin American nations (especially Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela)," Dugin claims, adding that it's vital to convince these allies that we are fully committed to a total break from globalism and Western hegemony.

I honestly don't know how anyone can side with that specific group of countries without stopping to ask themselves, are we the baddies?

Hannah Alvarez2 said:Check this link regarding Russian allies:

"They are the advocates for a multipolar world—countries like China, Iran, North Korea, Mexico, Syria, Central African Republic, Mali, and even somewhat India, Turkey, along with certain Islamic, African, and Latin American nations (especially Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela)," Dugin claims, adding that it's vital to convince these allies that we are fully committed to a total break from globalism and Western hegemony.

I honestly don't know how anyone can side with that specific group of countries without stopping to ask themselves, are we the baddies?

I mean, everyone's the hero of their own story, I guess.

It looks like Russia is clearing the decks for mobilization, and honestly, it feels like a done deal at this point.

They’ve already announced referendums for Zaporizhzhia, Donbas, and Kherson.
View on twitter
View on twitter

Over in the Russian Duma, they're already pushing to officially annex those territories once the votes wrap up.
View on twitter

Medvedev is out there claiming that once these areas become part of Russia, the country will have every right to call up a mobilization, since they supposedly act as a buffer protecting Russia from attacks.
https://twitter.com/StratcomCentre/s...86256100003840

Meanwhile, the Duma is even floating a new law to crack down on anyone who fails to show up when called for mobilization.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...046082/photo/1

Sean Watson3 said:The correlation is obvious: the closer Russia gets to defeat, the higher the likelihood they'll resort to either a tactical bomb or a general mobilization.

Which path Putin chooses remains anyone's guess.

A mobilization is the safer bet politically, but it risks turning the public against him, making the whole "special operation" look like a massive blunder.

On the other hand, a tactical strike carries a much higher risk of escalation, even if it offers more cover for Putin—provided he can find a pretext, such as

a) a staged Ukrainian attack using unconventional weapons against the mainland,
b) the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk, justifying any strikes on those regions as direct attacks on the US.

Or perhaps a combination of both.

I’m honestly not even sure about how the public would react. Nuclear weapons carry a massive stigma, especially in former Cold War nations that spent decades living through "nuclear psychosis." I suspect a country like India would find it much easier to sell that concept to its people than Russia would. In fact, using them might serve as a reality check for their own citizens that could actually turn out to be worse than mobilization. 🤔

boldotter2 said:I don't think nuclear escalation could ever be "safer" for Putin. If he goes with mobilization, he loses the public. If he drops a nuke, he’ll have half the intelligence agencies in the world—and probably a good chunk of his own, too—turning on him. He'd literally be terrified to even flip a light switch. Between the strike, his mistress, his kids, Novichok, car bombs, falling out a window, or slipping in the tub, he'd be gone within 24 hours.

The guy is already scared of the lights in front of the Kremlin; he'd be even more terrified of a bomb under his bed.

Maybe he wouldn't, maybe he would. It's hard to say.

But honestly, the fear that we might just swap Putin for someone even worse is totally justified—maybe even more so.
Especially if the regime change happens through chaos and the new guy is some hardliner coming straight from those high-level military-security circles.

gentlestag15 said:It looks like Russia is clearing the decks for mobilization, and honestly, it feels like a done deal at this point.

They’ve already announced referendums for Zaporizhzhia, Donbas, and Kherson.
View on twitter
View on twitter

Over in the Russian Duma, they're already pushing to officially annex those territories once the votes wrap up.
View on twitter

Medvedev is out there claiming that once these areas become part of Russia, the country will have every right to call up a mobilization, since they supposedly act as a buffer protecting Russia from attacks.
https://twitter.com/StratcomCentre/s...86256100003840

Meanwhile, the Duma is even floating a new law to crack down on anyone who fails to show up when called for mobilization.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...046082/photo/1

What can we actually expect if this all goes through and a full-scale mobilization really happens?

Honestly, you'd likely end up with a massive, incompetent army that has zero morale left. I don't see how Putin expects to win this war by triggering a mass mobilization, no matter how he tries to spin the justification to the public. 🤔

Christian Torres3 said:Yeah, the Russians really nail it when it comes to both intelligence work and high-precision weaponry.

The Kinzhal (supposedly) hits within a meter of its target. If Ukrainians were actually working on an A-bomb, even a grandmother at a local farmer's market would have heard about it long before Russian intelligence.

gentlestag15 said:It looks like Russia is clearing the decks for mobilization, and honestly, it feels like a done deal at this point.

They’ve already announced referendums for Zaporizhzhia, Donbas, and Kherson.
View on twitter
View on twitter

Over in the Russian Duma, they're already pushing to officially annex those territories once the votes wrap up.
View on twitter

Medvedev is out there claiming that once these areas become part of Russia, the country will have every right to call up a mobilization, since they supposedly act as a buffer protecting Russia from attacks.
https://twitter.com/StratcomCentre/s...86256100003840

Meanwhile, the Duma is even floating a new law to crack down on anyone who fails to show up when called for mobilization.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...046082/photo/1

This isn't looking good.

If they call up a mobilization, you'll just end up with a bunch of useless junk sitting in Moscow and St. Petersburg while the actual front line doesn't move an inch. Plus, all the rich guys will find ways to dodge service, which is basically just asking for riots.

There’s this thing in stock trading called a stop loss—you cut your losses before they bury you. Russia is already deep in the red with no way to turn the trend around; someone really needs to start thinking about an exit strategy.

Joshua Myers432 said:The Kinzhal (supposedly) hits within a meter of its target. If Ukrainians were actually working on an A-bomb, even a grandmother at a local farmer's market would have heard about it long before Russian intelligence.

Exactly, "supposedly." Just look at the state of the front lines to see how much the Russians actually know.

Christian Torres3 said:Exactly, "supposedly." Just look at the state of the front lines to see how much the Russians actually know.

Underestimating your enemy is generally a brilliant move. 🙂

Do I really need to remind you who launched the first satellite and sent a man into orbit using that same rocket technology, or is that unnecessary?

Here's another one 🤦