Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

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.

 

Which once again illustrates how useless treaties are between countries.

 

Of course Russia did not know at that time that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. It would be a bit odd for Russia to adhere to a security guarantee for Ukraine, whilst Ukraine is becoming a member of NATO and putting Russia's security at risk, don't you think?

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Sad you are ok with Ukraine being nuked.

 

I did not say that at all. I was merely expressing the view that should Russia drop a nuclear device on Ukraine, then the US would not risk retaliating and thereby become involved in a nuclear war with Russia.

 

 

 

[Roo Island]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Which once again illustrates how useless treaties are between countries.

 

Of course Russia did not know at that time that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. It would be a bit odd for Russia to adhere to a security guarantee for Ukraine, whilst Ukraine is becoming a member of NATO and putting Russia's security at risk, don't you think?

Ask Moldova. Georgia. Armenia. What they think of Russia. 😝

[Roo Island]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

I did not say that at all. I was merely expressing the view that should Russia drop a nuclear device on Ukraine, then the US would not risk retaliating and thereby become involved in a nuclear war with Russia.

 

 

 

You are recommending nuclear war? Incredible.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

Ask Moldova. Georgia. Armenia. What they think of Russia. 😝

 

I would, except international relaions are not decided by popularity contests.

[Cameroni]

 

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

You are recommending nuclear war? Incredible.

 

Errrr, no, I was thinking through one of the possible outcomes that could take place.

[Roo Island]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

 

Errrr, no, I was thinking through one of the possible outcomes that could take place.

Worth a read

 

https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-weapons-testing/

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Worth a read

 

https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-weapons-testing/

 

Agreed, very interesting. Who would have thought that in Russia Putin can't launch nukes alone but has to get 2 people to agree, where as Biden could do it alone.

 

 “Russia has a robust nuclear capacity. They refurbish their warheads often,” says Amy Woolf, a US specialist in nuclear weapons policy. Schneider, too, is confident that Russia’s nukes are serviceable."

 

 

[Roo Island]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Agreed, very interesting. Who would have thought that in Russia Putin can't launch nukes alone but has to get 2 people to agree, where as Biden could do it alone.

 

 “Russia has a robust nuclear capacity. They refurbish their warheads often,” says Amy Woolf, a US specialist in nuclear weapons policy. Schneider, too, is confident that Russia’s nukes are serviceable."

 

 

If they were brought into operation, multiple things could in theory go wrong with these weapons. For one thing, the delivery systems themselves might not be reliable. Mark Schneider, formerly of the US Department of Defense’s senior executive service, has written about the many problems Russia has faced with its missiles so far during the war with Ukraine. Last spring, US officials said between 20 and 60 percent of Russian missiles were failing, either in terms of not launching or not hitting the intended target.

[zmisha]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

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. 

But you can see that your opponents here are not afraid of Russian nuclear weapons at all. Nobody fears. Please open your eyes to see it finally. If you have a brain you should find out that Russia is doing something wrong that makes Americans sure that Russian nuclear weapons are just toys or so that could never be used.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours 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.

Ah, so the same reason as the Americans sending a nuclear-powered missile sub and warships to a different place while "negotiating" a ceasefire?

 

I doubt Putin will risk MAD unless he sees a direct American / Euro threat to Russia, in which case anything goes.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Roo Island said:

If they were brought into operation, multiple things could in theory go wrong with these weapons. For one thing, the delivery systems themselves might not be reliable. Mark Schneider, formerly of the US Department of Defense’s senior executive service, has written about the many problems Russia has faced with its missiles so far during the war with Ukraine. Last spring, US officials said between 20 and 60 percent of Russian missiles were failing, either in terms of not launching or not hitting the intended target.

Soooo, on that basis you would support a first strike on Russia? LOL.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Roo Island said:

You are recommending nuclear war? Incredible.

Where did he say that?

[zmisha]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, so the same reason as the Americans sending a nuclear-powered missile sub and warships to a different place while "negotiating" a ceasefire?

Exactly!

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours 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.

LOL. If the US allows Europe to be destroyed while all snuggly and safe, they will not be popular, so while they may survive nuclear war, they won't escape the aftermath. In any event nuclear winter doesn't stay in one location.

[zmisha]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. If the US allows Europe to be destroyed while all snuggly and safe, they will not be popular, so while they may survive nuclear war, they won't escape the aftermath. In any event nuclear winter doesn't stay in one location.

The main aftermath will be the fact that the entire world will be destroyed and returned to the 8th century or so and America will be the only oasis of life and the US dollar will be the only currency that can be used.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Roo Island said:

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.

That was before Ukraine looked like being able to join NATO. There were assurances that Ukraine would not join, back then too, as discussed many times on here.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, zmisha said:

The main aftermath will be the fact that the entire world will be destroyed and returned to the 8th century or so and America will be the only oasis of life and the US dollar will be the only currency that can be used.

LOL. The entire planet will not be destroyed, though it's unlikely any humans will survive nuclear winter. It's been there before after the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs, and there is time for another go before the sun dies.

[kwonitoy]

 

One bomb, one bridge. 

There are two more bridges over the Semy River, if they get the same treatment it leaves a very large area open to occupation with no ability to send reinforcements.

[zmisha]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The entire planet will not be destroyed, though it's unlikely any humans will survive nuclear winter. It's been there before after the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs, and there is time for another go before the sun dies.

Nuclear winter cannot happen in case of nuclear war between Russia and Europe. America will not give that much nukes for its European partners. Nuclear winter can only happen in case of a direct war between the US and Russia - but this war is almost impossible.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

 

One bomb, one bridge. 

There are two more bridges over the Semy River, if they get the same treatment it leaves a very large area open to occupation with no ability to send reinforcements.

On youtube now too. Great hit!

 

 

[stevenl]

The thread is about recent events, not the speculation that is dominant now.

[Yellowtail]

Given the Afghanistan debacle, and the state of the USN fleet, I would be somewhat concerned about the readiness of our nuclear weapons systems. 

[NowNow]

8 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I did not say that at all. I was merely expressing the view that should Russia drop a nuclear device on Ukraine, then the US would not risk retaliating and thereby become involved in a nuclear war with Russia.

 

 

 

 

Another one having wet dreams....

[NowNow]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was before Ukraine looked like being able to join NATO. There were assurances that Ukraine would not join, back then too, as discussed many times on here.

 

You love to make excuses for the Russians, don't you? 

[NowNow]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, so the same reason as the Americans sending a nuclear-powered missile sub and warships to a different place while "negotiating" a ceasefire?

 

I doubt Putin will risk MAD unless he sees a direct American / Euro threat to Russia, in which case anything goes.

 

Why do you keep writing this rubbish, based on nothing at all but your imagination? 

[Denim]

Good summary of the situation today and where things might develop in the coming week.

 

 

[Cameroni]

Military analyst George Barros:

 

“To pull off this operation, they had to take some of their most experienced forces from the line in the Donbas, where the Russians already had an upper-hand, something that increases the likelihood of a more territorial gain by Russia there. There are also real questions about their ability to hold captured Kursk territory over the long term as leverage in future negotiations with Russia, given the lack of fortifications and trenches there.” 

 

The offensive could also provide an unexpected boost to Putin by giving him a new justification to increase the size of his forces, Alperovich said."

 

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/08/russia-pulling-some-troops-out-ukraine-fight-ukranians-russia/398884/?oref=d1-featured-river-top

 

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Military analyst George Barros:

 

“To pull off this operation, they had to take some of their most experienced forces from the line in the Donbas, where the Russians already had an upper-hand, something that increases the likelihood of a more territorial gain by Russia there. There are also real questions about their ability to hold captured Kursk territory over the long term as leverage in future negotiations with Russia, given the lack of fortifications and trenches there.” 

 

The offensive could also provide an unexpected boost to Putin by giving him a new justification to increase the size of his forces, Alperovich said."

 

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/08/russia-pulling-some-troops-out-ukraine-fight-ukranians-russia/398884/?oref=d1-featured-river-top

 

 

..............from N.Korea.........😂

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, transam said:

..............from N.Korea.........😂

 

No, Defense One, whom George Barros works for is an American news outlet for US military personnel. It's based in Washington.

 

https://www.defenseone.com/about/?oref=d1-nav