Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

[Mavideol]

Ukraine gambled on an incursion deep into Russian territory. The bold move changed the battlefield

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-gambled-incursion-deep-russian-042802109.html

[Mavideol]

23 hours ago, zmisha said:

So bad news for Z guys like me today. Drinking today's morning coffee at 7-11 store in a sad mood. Russia is facing unprecedented aggression.

are you sure it was coffee that you drank... making a "confusing" statement like that mean the coffee must have been contaminated .... maybe lots of vodka and very little coffee, but good try to divert

[zmisha]

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

are you sure it was coffee that you drank... making a "confusing" statement like that mean the coffee must have been contaminated .... maybe lots of vodka and very little coffee, but good try to divert

Thank God the situation is not yet so bad that it is necessary to drink vodka.

[Bkk Brian]

40 minutes ago, zmisha said:

In case of nuclear war in Europe, America will quickly step aside (but continue to provide weapons) to become the only winner of the WW3. Launch a nuke towards Europe/Ukraine == make America great again. Putin is not that stupid.

Oh I don't believe the nuclear option narrative either, it was just the poster was I responding to that claimed it was in Putin's favour

[zmisha]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh I don't believe the nuclear option narrative either, it was just the poster was I responding to that claimed it was in Putin's favour

Do you remember what happened just before Putin put forward his peace proposals for the Ukrainian conflict?
He laid his cards on the table. And this was not a nuclear threat towards Europe.
"Russian nuclear-powered sub, warships arrive in Cuba" - for googling.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, zmisha said:

Do you remember what happened just before Putin put forward his peace proposals for the Ukrainian conflict?
He laid his cards on the table. And this was not a nuclear threat towards Europe.
"Russian nuclear-powered sub, warships arrive in Cuba" - for googling.

Not interested what Putin has to say to be honest, I don't believe he has ever put his cards on the table either.

[zmisha]

19 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not interested what Putin has to say to be honest, I don't believe he has ever put his cards on the table either.

OK but I found it very strange - All this media hype about Putin's strikes on Europe at the same time that Putin is sending nuclear submarines to the shores of America. Maybe some media resources have gotten too carried away with reality engineering?

Edited August 16 by zmisha

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

If the war criminal Putin unleased a tactical nuke in Ukraine the US could indeed lob one back, preferably into Crimea.

 

No, the US could not do that, because the US would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Americans want to live. They will not  risk their cities and millions of Americans being wiped out because  of Ukraine.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

Edited August 16 by Cameroni

[Bkk Brian]

55 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, the US could not do that, because the US would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Americans want to live. They will not  risk their cities and millions of Americans being wiped out because  of Ukraine.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

Why would I be disappointed with your pure speculation that Putin has the upper hand in this. It's your narrative all your posts 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why would I be disappointed with your pure speculation that Putin has the upper hand in this. It's your narrative all your posts 

 

Because Putin does have the upper hand. He is winning the war in the Donbas region very clearly. The Kursk incursion will be dealth with. And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia. So Putin has nuclear insurance. He can not lose. No matter what happens. 10000 troops hiding in Kursk villages won't change that.

[zmisha]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia.

In this case, James Cameron will come to Kyiv to shoot a film about how Zelensky accidentally found an old Soviet nuclear bomb in the basement.

[tgw]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Because Putin does have the upper hand. He is winning the war in the Donbas region very clearly. The Kursk incursion will be dealth with. And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia. So Putin has nuclear insurance. He can not lose. No matter what happens. 10000 troops hiding in Kursk villages won't change that.

 

there are huge mistakes in your calculations.

 

firstly, a nuclear missile will not defeat Ukraine. big nuke or small nuke, Putin will lose on both fronts. a small nuke will in the best case (best for NAZI Ruzzia) cause 5000 to 10.000 military casualties, which can be replaced. But even a small nuke will cause Putin's accomplices to turn away from him, India and China, gone, no more supplies from there, that will cripple Ruzzia.

Also, the US and NATO will probably respond with a crippling conventional strike against Ruzzia's offensive capabilities.

I also believe such a strike, far from motivating Ukraine to give up will on the contrary enrage Ukraine and also all neighboring countries and more.

If Putin does this, Ruzzia goes straight to hell.

 

[Bkk Brian]

36 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because Putin does have the upper hand. He is winning the war in the Donbas region very clearly. The Kursk incursion will be dealth with. And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia. So Putin has nuclear insurance. He can not lose. No matter what happens. 10000 troops hiding in Kursk villages won't change that.

A Russian apologist dreaming that Putin has the upper hand  and parroting the nuclear rhetoric line.

[Cameroni]

25 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

there are huge mistakes in your calculations.

 

firstly, a nuclear missile will not defeat Ukraine. big nuke or small nuke, Putin will lose on both fronts. a small nuke will in the best case (best for NAZI Ruzzia) cause 5000 to 10.000 military casualties, which can be replaced. But even a small nuke will cause Putin's accomplices to turn away from him, India and China, gone, no more supplies from there, that will cripple Ruzzia.

Also, the US and NATO will probably respond with a crippling conventional strike against Ruzzia's offensive capabilities.

I also believe such a strike, far from motivating Ukraine to give up will on the contrary enrage Ukraine and also all neighboring countries and more.

If Putin does this, Ruzzia goes straight to hell.

 

 

I think there are mistakes in your calculations, Russia does not have one or two nuclear bombs, it has over 5000. More than enough to defeat Ukraine.

 

Indeed India and China may put sanctions on Russia then, but if Russia were to use a nuclear bomb then only because it felt its territorial integrity and survival as a nation long term are endangered. In that scenario economic concerns would take a back seat, as they often do in Russia.

 

Your notion that the US and NATO would hit Russia with conventional strikes is misguided, because that would potentially mean the US would put itself in a state of war with Russia, which as you can tell Biden is very careful to avoid. Americans know they can not afford to be at war with Russia, lest they risk a nuclear conflict.

Edited August 16 by Cameroni

[tgw]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Your notion that the US and NATO would hit Russia with conventional strikes is misguided, because that would potentially mean the US would put itself in a state of war with Russia, which as you can tell Biden is very careful to avoid. Americans know they can not afford to be at war with Russia, lest they risk a nuclear conflict.

 

the situation was played in strategic simulations, the conventional strike was the scenario that won everyone's favour as being the best response.

 

of course Ruzzia has the means to retake the Kursk territories - but it might be more difficult with its forces engaged in the Donbass.

the incursion is in no way a threat to Ruzzian statehood.

It's time for Putler to quit his Hitler-reenactment cosplay and stop the stupid games. Ruzzia leave Ukraine be, go home.

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

the situation was played in strategic simulations, the conventional strike was the scenario that won everyone's favour as being the best response.

 

of course Ruzzia has the means to retake the Kursk territories - but it might be more difficult with its forces engaged in the Donbass.

the incursion is in no way a threat to Ruzzian statehood.

It's time for Putler to quit his Hitler-reenactment cosplay and stop the stupid games. Ruzzia leave Ukraine be, go home.

 

I quite agree, the Kursk incursion does not represent a risk to Russian statehood. Which is why Putin has not even declared martial law, as he very well could in this situation, but only a counter terrorist operation. I suspect Ukraine could hold on to territory for 4 months or so, best case scenario for Ukraine, because the Ukrainian troops there are highly trained and have western weaponry to disrupt Russian air superiority.

 

Russia wants to go home, the Russians were keen to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine, flush with American supplies thought it preferable to fight.  At the latest before the election a peace negotiation should commence, I suspect. 

 

If the US, btw, would hit Russia with conventional strikes, as you know that would unleash a state of war with Russia. Why would the US risk entering into a nuclear conflict with Russia, thus risking its own survival, just for Ukraine? You don't think this will happen, surely?

[zmisha]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Why would the US risk entering into a nuclear conflict with Russia, thus risking its own survival, just for Ukraine? You don't think this will happen, surely?

According to the Russian nuclear doctrine if the US launch a nuclear bomb towards Moscow from its military base in Germany or Turkey, the response nukes from Russia will be launched towards Germany or Turkey. So I positively think It may happen. Because the USA is absolutely safe in this situation.

[tgw]

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia wants to go home, the Russians were keen to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine, flush with American supplies thought it preferable to fight.  At the latest before the election a peace negotiation should commence, I suspect.

 

this is simply not true, at no moment was Putler ready to negotiate realistic terms, always making ridiculous demands.
It's all well explained for anyone who want to read and know the truth:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations.html

 

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

If the US, btw, would hit Russia with conventional strikes, as you know that would unleash a state of war with Russia. Why would the US risk entering into a nuclear conflict with Russia, thus risking its own survival, just for Ukraine? You don't think this will happen, surely?

 

Once Ruzzia has launched a nuke, the US will already be in a nuclear conflict with Ruzzia.

Because what would it mean ?

NATO and US back down in the face of a serious nuclear threat, and Ruzzia can go ahead invading other countries. And hey, India, Iran, North Korea, China can do the same.

nope.

the principle of mutually assured destruction is still valid.

allowing Ruzzia to win by using a nuke is way more dangerous than any other scenario.

even allowing people and Putler to think they could get away with it is very dangerous. so no, you can be assured that Ruzzia will suffer a conventional strike crippling its offensive capabilities. and there will be more. no-fly zones, NATO planes over Ukraine, probably destruction of one of Ruzzia's naval fleets.
tit for tat. and NATO not directly responding with a nuke would be even the "nice tit for tat" strategy.

 

so you can forget your dreams about Putler nuking Ukraine and getting away with it.

Strategy 101.

Edited August 16 by tgw

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, zmisha said:

According to the Russian nuclear doctrine if the US launch a nuclear bomb towards Moscow from its military base in Germany or Turkey, the response nukes from Russia will be launched towards Germany or Turkey. So I positively think It may happen. Because the USA is absolutely safe in this situation.

 

If the US launch a nuclear missile towards Moscow I sincerely doubt the USA will absolutely safe in that situation.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

this is simply not true, at no moment was Putler ready to negotiate realistic terms, always making ridiculous demands.
It's all well explained for anyone who want to read and know the truth:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations.html

 

 

Once Ruzzia has launched a nuke, the US will already be in a nuclear conflict with Ruzzia.

Because what would it mean ?

NATO and US back down in the face of a serious nuclear threat, and Ruzzia can go ahead invading other countries. And hey, India, Iran, North Korea, China can do the same.

nope.

the principle of mutually assured destruction is still valid.

allowing Ruzzia to win by using a nuke is way more dangerous than any other scenario.

even allowing people and Putler to think they could get away with it is very dangerous. so no, you can be assured that Ruzzia will suffer a conventional strike crippling its offensive capabilities.
tit for tat. and not directly responding with a nuke would be even the "nice tit for tat" strategy.

 

so you can forget your dreams about Putler nuking Ukraine and getting away with it.

Strategy 101.

 

Okay, let's leave the negotation spin to one side. What would be realistic terms for you? Only Russia leaves and keeps nothing I presume, so nothing would be realistic in your eyes?

 

If Russia drops a nucear bomb on Ukraine the US will not be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Why do you think the West is not giving Ukraine NATO membership now? Because that would mean NATO going to war against Russia, and NATO an the US do not want that.

 

NATO has made sure, specifically, that it has no obligation to aid Ukraine if she is hit with a nuclear bomb, by not granting Ukraine NATO membership. NATO might aid Ukraine with all manner of supplies but it will not put troops on the ground or strike at Russia. Why? Because Americans want to live, and a conflict with Russia could get nuclear and Americans do no want a nuclear conflict with Russia.

 

MAD only works with USA vs Russia. Not Russia vs Ukraine.

 

The West would have no option but to let Putin win if he uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, because the alternative is NATO herself being in a conflict with Russia. NATO wants war between Ukraine and Russia, but it does not want to be involved itself with troops or conventional or nuclear strikes

 

This is all hypothetical of course, because I do not think Putin wants to use nuclear bombs, which is indeed very risky, and they can win by conventional means as well.

 

Far be it from me to dream of Russia using a nuclear bomb against Ukraine, I would not wish that on anyone and least of all Ukraine. I am just realistically pointing out that the US will not risk nuclear, conventional or any war with Russia, apart from a cold war. Even if Russia were forced to use a nuclear bomb, which they are not at the moment.

 

[candide]

4 hours ago, zmisha said:

OK but I found it very strange - All this media hype about Putin's strikes on Europe at the same time that Putin is sending nuclear submarines to the shores of America. Maybe some media resources have gotten too carried away with reality engineering?

There has always been Russian nuclear subs near the U.S. (and vice versa).

The only difference is that Russia has shown (some of) them.

[kwonitoy]

 

[zmisha]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

If the US launch a nuclear missile towards Moscow I sincerely doubt the USA will absolutely safe in that situation.

And how do you think WHY do the USA seriously develop their Preemptive Nuclear Strike doctrine? It is absolutely nonsense if the nuclear response is possible. So they are sure that there will be no response sent to the US territory. That's why they are planning Preemptive Nuclear Strike which was impossible in the soviet times. Because the USSR would have launched a response missile at Washington regardless of which country hit it.

[tgw]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Okay, let's leave the negotation spin to one side. What would be realistic terms for you? Only Russia leaves and keeps nothing I presume, so nothing would be realistic in your eyes?

 

If Russia drops a nucear bomb on Ukraine the US will not be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Why do you think the West is not giving Ukraine NATO membership now? Because that would mean NATO going to war against Russia, and NATO an the US do not want that.

 

NATO has made sure, specifically, that it has no obligation to aid Ukraine if she is hit with a nuclear bomb, by not granting Ukraine NATO membership. NATO might aid Ukraine with all manner of supplies but it will not put troops on the ground or strike at Russia. Why? Because Americans want to live, and a conflict with Russia could get nuclear and Americans do no want a nuclear conflict with Russia.

 

MAD only works with USA vs Russia. Not Russia vs Ukraine.

 

The West would have no option but to let Putin win if he uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, because the alternative is NATO herself being in a conflict with Russia. NATO wants war between Ukraine and Russia, but it does not want to be involved itself with troops or conventional or nuclear strikes

 

This is all hypothetical of course, because I do not think Putin wants to use nuclear bombs, which is indeed very risky, and they can win by conventional means as well.

 

Far be it from me to dream of Russia using a nuclear bomb against Ukraine, I would not wish that on anyone and least of all Ukraine. I am just realistically pointing out that the US will not risk nuclear, conventional or any war with Russia, apart from a cold war. Even if Russia were forced to use a nuclear bomb, which they are not at the moment.

 

 

MAD is the next step after the conventional counterstrike.

Putler is more intelligent than you and won't make the same mistake in his calculations.

 

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

MAD is the next step after the conventional counterstrike.

Putler is more intelligent than you and won't make the same mistake in his calculations.

 

MAD is between USA and Russia.

 

Not Ukraine and Russia.  I think you're getting confused.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, zmisha said:

And how do you think WHY do the USA seriously develop their Preemptive Nuclear Strike doctrine? It is absolutely nonsense if the nuclear response is possible. So they are sure that there will be no response sent to the US territory. That's why they are planning Preemptive Nuclear Strike which was impossible in the soviet times. Because the USSR would have launched a response missile at Washington regardless of which country hit it.

 

The nuclear arsenals of both US and Russia have the  ability to survive a wide range of counterforce attacks and carry out a second strike in response. 

 

Russia has too many missiles and submarines, the US could never destroy them in one strike. It's impossible.

Edited August 16 by Cameroni

[Roo Island]

8 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, the US could not do that, because the US would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Americans want to live. They will not  risk their cities and millions of Americans being wiped out because  of Ukraine.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.

And Russia doesn't want to be in a nuclear conflict with NATO. Millions of Russians would be wiped out.

 

Sorry to disappoint you

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

And Russia doesn't want to be in a nuclear conflict with NATO. Millions of Russians would be wiped out.

 

Sorry to disappoint you

 

But it doesn't have to be if Russia nukes Ukraine since Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

 

Sorry to diappoint you.

[Roo Island]

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because Putin does have the upper hand. He is winning the war in the Donbas region very clearly. The Kursk incursion will be dealth with. And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia. So Putin has nuclear insurance. He can not lose. No matter what happens. 10000 troops hiding in Kursk villages won't change that.

Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. But.

According to the Budapest Memorandum, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom undertook (summary):

    Respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine;
    No weapon of these countries will ever be used against Ukraine, except for self-defense;
    Seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to assist Ukraine if it becomes a victim of an act of aggression or the object of a threat of attack with nuclear weapons.
    Not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and other states participating in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

[Roo Island]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

But it doesn't have to be if Russia nukes Ukraine since Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

 

Sorry to diappoint you.

Sad you are ok with Ukraine being nuked.