Nukes, Imperial Ambitions, and more random noise from: Kiev Is Burning

[Huba]

10 minutes ago, Inhapi said:

You maern, the elite as in : all the way to op top dog ?

No, you can't criticize the Tsar, it is all boyars fault. But let's make an experiment.

In all seriousness, it is Putin who is ultimately responsible for this whole debacle, more than anyone else. He made initial decision, he refused to mobilize in time, he screwed everything up. Should he eat the bullet for it? Or at least be moved to the assisted living facility? The fact that Roman won't ever agree with this or even criticize him personally( both due to risk of repression, and probably internalized taboo) shows how repressive, totalitarian state Russia is. Wanna prove me wrong Roman? Come on, spit it out: "Putin should go!". 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Huba

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Sometimes I wonder if for Putin, we will eventually see a Milošević solution. Arrest him and send him to The Hague in exchange for eventual normalisation of relations and sanctions relief.

That's the one thing we shouldn't do. They will just make some crazy fucker like Dugin President and rearm.

 

 

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

No, and if he's replaced, it's likely that the replacement will be far more 'imperial', anti-Western etc. If we're unlucky, also somewhat competent.

They could bring in the craziest military junta, it still wouldn't change the overall situation Russia finds itself in.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

They could bring in the craziest military junta, it still wouldn't change the overall situation Russia finds itself in.

True, at least not in the short to medium term.

[Josh]

16 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Sometimes I wonder if for Putin, we will eventually see a Milošević solution. Arrest him and send him to The Hague in exchange for eventual normalisation of relations and sanctions relief.

Never happen; as Stuart noted and Roman's posts attest to, any replacement would likely be more even more nationalistic than Putin.

[Der Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

Never happen; as Stuart noted and Roman's posts attest to, any replacement would likely be more even more nationalistic than Putin.

I'm not buying it yet. In a way, @Roman Alymov is probably right. The Appeasement of the West party always wins. 😊

[Roman Alymov]

12 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Sometimes I wonder if for Putin, we will eventually see a Milošević solution. Arrest him and send him to The Hague in exchange for eventual normalisation of relations and sanctions relief.

That is exactly, almos word-to-word, what Strelkov is repeatedly warning Putin about: continue like this, and your own Appeasement of the West party will sent you to "The Hague" in illusionary hope to buy back own lives and may be their palaces in London. 

  Meanwhile about an hour ago there was a second strike on majour power plant in Ukraine (previous one was on Sunday - i will tell about it later as it seems like passed unnoticed here, despite it was very important event both in terms of military meaning and relations with public opinion in RF and Ukr). Seems like power plant in Krivoy Rog was hit by. as believed, X-101 missiles from Tu-95 bomber (as far as i understand, it is based on salvo count).  Pro-Ukrainians are in process of kissing goodbye electric power (and it means significant reduction of rail capacity, problems with water supply, heating, all types of communication and so on, not mentioning industry). Reduction of rail capacity means the speed of their forces movement from Kharkov region to South front will fall.  Also, by the same strike floodgates at Karachunskoye water reservoir on Ingulets river were damaged, resulting in pro-Ukr river crossings washed away - for some time their bridgehead on left bank of Ingulets is isokated. Will see how Rus command will use this opportunity.

Video of water flow in Ingulets

https://t.me/yurasumy/4894

[seahawk]

14 hours ago, glenn239 said:

IMO, Russia will not exit this war until either it or Ukraine is defeated.  

The Ukraine can not defeat Russia. Russia has the escalation privilege and it should be considering the nuclear option at this moment. A strategic nuke strike of about 20 warheads, would turn the conflict in Russia's favour and put Russia back on top of the global powers.

[crazyinsane105]

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The Ukraine can not defeat Russia. Russia has the escalation privilege and it should be considering the nuclear option at this moment. A strategic nuke strike of about 20 warheads, would turn the conflict in Russia's favour and put Russia back on top of the global powers.

20 nukes would cause much of Europe to fall under radioactive winter and initiate a third world war, one in which everyone (and I mean everyone) loses. So no, that’s not an option unless Putin and his circle are absolutely suicidal 

A few weeks ago I would have agreed that Ukraine would not be able to military defeat Russia in this war. Now, things are looking very different and anything is a possibility. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by crazyinsane105

[Perun]

27 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

I admit your media is deliberately misinforming their audience - for political reasons or just to make profit of ad sales.

Dont take him seriously

[seahawk]

3 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

20 nukes would cause much of Europe to fall under radioactive winter and initiate a third world war, one in which everyone (and I mean everyone) loses. So no, that’s not a option unless Putin and his circle are absolutely suicidal 

Only if the US is willing to die for the Ukraine, which I doubt. 10-20 low yield hits in the Ukraine, would surely end the resistance. 

[Roman Alymov]

6 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The Ukraine can not defeat Russia. Russia has the escalation privilege and it should be considering the nuclear option at this moment. A strategic nuke strike of about 20 warheads, would turn the conflict in Russia's favour and put Russia back on top of the global powers.

Russia is not in war with Ukraine. Russia is in Civil War. Ukraine is just part of Russia supported by West against another part of Russia, the same like it was in early XX century. Western tanks? Nothing new, even Western troops stepping in are not something new for Russia.

[glenn239]

9 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The Ukraine can not defeat Russia. Russia has the escalation privilege and it should be considering the nuclear option at this moment. A strategic nuke strike of about 20 warheads, would turn the conflict in Russia's favour and put Russia back on top of the global powers.

No, but they can exhaust their will by putting up a fight where the Russians just don't want to continue with the casualty ratio.  That, IMO, is why the Russians will abandon any amount of equipment to save lives, because no one in Russia cares if they surrender 500 tanks, (thousands more where they came from), but lives are a different story.

 

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

Only if the US is willing to die for the Ukraine, which I doubt. 10-20 low yield hits in the Ukraine, would surely end the resistance. 

How could we seriously debate nuclear striles on Ukraine while Russian natural gas not only still pumped into Ukraine, but Russia also paying Ukraine for transit? Simple turn of tap will do more harm to Ukraine than 20 tactical nukes.

[crazyinsane105]

Just now, seahawk said:

Only if the US is willing to die for the Ukraine, which I doubt. 10-20 low yield hits in the Ukraine, would surely end the resistance. 

Tactical nukes are good at taking out extremely large military units, division sized or corps sized. The Ukrainians aren’t even massing that many troops on one front, and instead scattering them around until the very beginning of an offensive. Which makes targeting any multi brigade formation very difficult with a tactical nuke. 
 

Hence tactical nukes aren’t a magical weapon for Russia. Hell if they were, they’d used them by now. Imagine if they did drop two dozen tactical nukes and still failed to neutralize various Ukrainian military units (which is a very real possibility). Imagine how much damage that will do to Russia’s nuclear deterrence 

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, glenn239 said:

No, but they can exhaust their will by putting up a fight where the Russians just don't want to continue with the casualty ratio.  That, IMO, is why the Russians will abandon any amount of equipment to save lives, because no one in Russia cares if they surrender 500 tanks, (thousands more where they came from), but lives are a different story.

This statement is wrong for simple reason: the problem is not abandoning territory, the problem is abandoning people, civilian population. Actually now Russian public opinion is boiling on reports of teachers, schoolcholdren, local officials and just regular people (some of them allready with Russian citizenship) abandoned during retreat from Kharkov region. Awkward attempts of meida (controlled by pro-Western liberals) and Gov officials to downplay that are only increasing the anger.

[Sardaukar]

"Russian Civil War"

Roman is only after more washing mashines.

How about getting back to Russia, mate?

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Hence tactical nukes aren’t a magical weapon for Russia. Hell if they were, they’d used them by now. Imagine if they did drop two dozen tactical nukes and still failed to neutralize various Ukrainian military units (which is a very real possibility). Imagine how much damage that will do to Russia’s nuclear deterrence 

Depending on how they are used. If 20 tactical nukes used for tactical targets - it will be only cost pro-Ukrainians about 20 battalions. Almost nothing compared to their current cannon fodder stock. 

   But if used against, for example, Dniper bridges - it will change course of war by de-facto changing geography of the battlefield. 

     Still, Ukraine is part of Russia, and it is stupid to nuke own territory and people just because some people in Kremlin walue their dreams of keeping junior partnership with West above Russian interests.

[glenn239]

54 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never happen; as Stuart noted and Roman's posts attest to, any replacement would likely be more even more nationalistic than Putin.

Not only that, but they'd promote Putin to "Hero Of All The Russias", or whatever, even while sidelining him under house arrest.  

[seahawk]

12 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Russia is not in war with Ukraine. Russia is in Civil War. Ukraine is just part of Russia supported by West against another part of Russia, the same like it was in early XX century. Western tanks? Nothing new, even Western troops stepping in are not something new for Russia.

Russia is fighting a proxy war against NATO. Sadly most soldiers on the NATO side are Russians too, who have been indoctrinated to believe they are not.

[glenn239]

22 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

20 nukes would cause much of Europe to fall under radioactive winter and initiate a third world war, one in which everyone (and I mean everyone) loses.

Baby nukes.  Nukies.  Much more environmentally friendly.   Green energy.

[R E lee]

The Budapest Memorandum was signed by Russia and others and contains " “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. So, no no civil war, not even a slick advertising campaign researched by the factually challenged.

[Inhapi]

21 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Russia is not in war with Ukraine. Russia is in Civil War. Ukraine is just part of Russia supported by West against another part of Russia, the same like it was in early XX century. Western tanks? Nothing new, even Western troops stepping in are not something new for Russia.

oh please....do you even take your own words seriously ?

so you blatantly deny Ukraine is an independent soverieign state ?

Putiboo ? anyone ?

[Inhapi]

.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Inhapi

[Yama]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

Russia is not in war with Ukraine. Russia is in Civil War. Ukraine is just part of Russia supported by West against another part of Russia, the same like it was in early XX century.

I don't see the point of trying to convince another nationality that they are actually part of your nationality, they just need to be made to understand it. It didn't work when Japanese tried with Koreans, it didn't work when Turks tried it with Kurds, it didn't work when we tried with Karelians...twice. We eventually explained our failure by Karelians being "too degenerate" and "russified", but of course from their perspective, it was us who were "degenerated".