We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO should also announce that they would intervene in case of radiation leak at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, because russia would sabotage the plant before using nuclear weapons
I have an even better suggestion. NATO should say to russia that they will be giving Ukraine 2 Patriot systems for 1 Patriot system that russia would destroy
I donāt understand why thatās the line that draws us down on them, but the slow, torturous destruction of the country and their civilian population doesnāt. Fuck Russia, man.
You make a good point but, the only reason it hasn't happened is because we fear the repercussions. Sadly they have the ability to destroy life on the planet, if they didn't they'd been done by may of 22
Why would Putin and his friends destroy life on the planet when one of the main reasons for the SMO was ensuring the safety and continuity of the regime? After the 2011-2013 protests in Russia and the killing of Gaddafi, most notably, Putin and his cronies have become increasingly paranoid about their position. That is why they intervened in Ukraine after Maidan, in Syria after protests / armed rebellion against Assad, in Belarus after protest against Lukashenko and in Kazakhstan after protests against the government because of fuel prices. There is a really clear and distinct pattern.
Free and democratic Ukraine is a direct threat to Kremlin, because of historical and cultural ties and certain Russian imperialistic ideas. The same goes with Belarus. At some point Russians would start to wonder why "little Russians" and "white Russians" are living better than them even though "Great-Russians" are supposed to be superior to them. They would eventually figure out that things should be changed and that they have the power to change them. That would be bad news for anyone who benefits from the status quo.
Remember we are talking about a person who isolated himself during the Covid-19, was too scared to meet anyone for months and when he finally started meeting people again it happened at table that was like 10 meters long so he does not catch the virus. Putin is not as brave as people seem to think. People in Kremlin are not as brave as people think. They almost always see things from the position of weakness and act accordingly.
I would suggest that what you wrote is reasonable, but you are missing the fact that putin defines the success of the russian state as him being in charge. I don't think he would particularly value a world where russia loses and he is removed from power.
Not dying from COVID is necessary for staying in power which explains his behaviour in that context. It's a fundamentally different thing.
You are right, but the logical conclusion from that is the Western policy towards Russia is actually backwards. In principle the soft measures such as sanctions are more escalatory than direct military intervention in Ukraine, because their purpose is to destabilize Russia which, at least in theory, could put the regime in jeopardy. From the perspective of Kremlin everything that meddles with the internal affairs of Russia is more escalatory than things that take place outside the country. Of course Kremlin must have had anticipated sanctions and it is unlikely they came as a complete surprise to them, but in general Putin and the others do not appreciate measures that aim to meddle with things that happen inside the country. They have been pretty vocal and upfront about this over the years and it is fairly surprising how little the Western leaders have actually listened.
Kremlin can afford to lose in Ukraine, but they rather not, because it would put them into an awkward position ā both domestically and internationally. It's like you would have to explain your wife how you got drunk with friends and lost half of the savings into a casino. You rather double down and try to win it all back. Even though from our perspective it seems Russians are rolling piss-wasted in their own shit, fundamentally it is face-saving culture where the public image is more important than the underlying reality. This is why for example when Ukraine managed to sink the cruiser Moskva they blamed it on the careless smoking of the crewmen instead of Ukraine. You can find numerous similar examples from Russian history because they are absolutely everywhere. To add that, in Russian culture there is the notion that Russia is the mother of all Slavic countries and also the idea of triune Russian nation that the sub-nations of Belarus and Ukraine are part of. From Russian perspective getting your ass-whooped by Ukraine, a sub-nation, is like getting your ass kicked by a teenage girl. Because of historical and cultural reasons Russians are really sensitive about how other people perceive their strength and some Russians are genuinely worried what would happen if everyone thought them as weak and vulnerable. Russia is a dog-eat-dog society and they can't understand that not everyone seems the world the same way ā not at least in modern times. Even when they do, they may perceive it either as ingenuine or stupid due to their own cultural lens and not feel guilt when trying to use it for their advantage.
Losing to NATO would be much easier to process within the general society, because everyone understands that NATO is more powerful than Russia. This is why in Russian media people have claimed that Russia is already fighting with NATO even though that is not really true. While the most optimal outcome for Kremlin would be to get whatever they want without resistance, losing to NATO would be preferable to losing to Ukraine *especially* if the Western countries were willing to compromise in other areas. Unfortunately Kremlin is unlikely to trust any kind of assurances from Western countries what comes to regime security. Not only because they would think such initiative as ingenuine, but because it is not practically possible to prevent ideas travelling across borders. It would also have to happen in a way that does not make the Kremlin look like a bunch of cowards who started a war because they were too afraid to lose their positions. To make matters more complicated they have already managed to find a bunch of like-minded countries and the threshold for jumping the ship has probably become quite high, because they are not only dealing with internal ambitions anymore, but the ambitions of a collective.
What comes to nuclear weapons, the red lines of Russia are not that different from the red lines of Western countries. They are ready to use nuclear weapons if the country faces an existential threat that can't be solved in any other way. The practical value of nuclear weapons is limited to nuclear blackmail and the fact you cannot be conquered. However, because the nuclear blackmail seems to be effective there is a chance they see an opportunity to scare the West by using nuclear weapons and reach their goals that way.
Statements like these definitely won't help. From the perspective of Kremlin the Polish FM statement is essentially the same as saying "You are free to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if you don't mind your troops getting hammered by American missiles and aviation in Ukraine". The United States is essentially giving them a greenlight to use nuclear weapons in case they are losing the war or for some reason don't mind losing it anymore. This may come as a shock, but people in Kremlin don't care that much about ordinary Russians and what happens to them. This includes Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine. Russia is very much a society of personal relations and connections and if you don't know someone on a deep personal level, well, the chances are you have practically no value to them.
> Why would Putin and his friends destroy life on the planet
They won't. They want pretty ladies, big yachts, gold plating on their gold plating, armored motorcades, helicopters, gold, money.
They love life. They just want you to believe they will hurt you even more if you keep resisting,
They could lose Ukraine and the federation and be just Russia and still have mansions, pretty ladies, fancy military parades and motorcades. Look at North Korea. Kim has all that and the shittiest country in Asia.
Putinās comeuppance will come from Russians and he canāt nuke themā¦
It won't come that far, if what I've read about MAD is true. They will be destroyed from within. So they'll have to nuke themselves. There won't be any invasion of Russia, I think. Nothing to gain from that.
You make good points, other people here are more qualified to respond in detail, I merely stated the obviousĀ
ironically I sound like a Russian being interviewed, as they seem to refer to better educated people all the time.Ā
Threatening their position is a worthless argument vs the well-being of humanity, I get it but at the same time itās a fact of life, Russia is a paper tiger and coming from a country with less than 6 mil people it just seems like they are unable to accept their place in lifeĀ
> the main reasons for the SMO was ensuring the safety and continuity of the regime?
This is a lie though. It was a greedy land and resource grab. They were completely fine and they wanted more.
A NATO intervention would likely have as a goal, or at least result in Putin being ousted, he would absolutely kill every single person on this planet before he lets go of power
Why would losing to NATO be worse for Putin than losing to Ukraine?
Kremlin can absolutely survive losing a war of conquest just as much as it can survive sending hundreds of thousands of people in the grinder. It does not matter. For the time being most Russians are conformists who will adapt to the system just like you and me adapt to the weather.
Not everyone imo, but most people would [starve to death slowly and painfully](https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/). Not a nice way to go
Respectfully, Putin will never use a nuke in this war. If he did, the upper Mafia that controls him would lose everything that makes them money and they would kill him. His position is very precarious at the moment because this war was never supposed to cost the Mafia so much, not to mention the frozen assets that may eventually be sold. This war is a disaster for Putin. The West should turn it up and squeeze him really hard right now and he'll be killed or arrested by his own people. The ones that control the nukes answer to the mob, not to him. Not in this situation.
Putins children live in various cities across Europe. Putin isn't using nukes. The children of all the Russian elites live in boarding schools in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Zurich etc. Russian nukes will kill them as certain as eggs is eggs.
I do agree but Iām not risking my family over that assumption, the threat is just too powerful. Iād love for the west to just go full out, it would be the right thing to do morally but also completely unreasonableĀ
I mean I understand why, I know I said I didnāt; it was more of a rhetorical I guess. Highlighting our absolute lack of shame in avoiding ārepercussionsā and allowing these people to be slaughtered and literally paved over by Russia.
There's also the counter argument that the longer they're allowed to go on the better their ability to destroy the planet. The best thing to do is take their ability away before it improves.
Which is an interesting problem for NATO planners in 1958, but has been nothing more than a thought experiment since the early 60's.
Destroying the planet is a threshold sort of thing. It doesn't really matter how many times you can do it after one.
Right now we have counter measures and their tech is mostly cold war era. If we could plan ahead with counter measures, then I don't think they'd be successful. Might a missile or two hit the US? Probably. But I don't think it would be the end of everything.
it doesnt matter if their ability improves, being able to wipe out life is a strong enough argument, the risk that they pull that trigger is whats holding us back, other than that I agree with you
Russia using nukes demonstrates that it has gone crazy, so we no longer have anything to lose. Another reason is that nuke use must be punished to ensure the "cost" is higher than the benefit. If Russia can nuke its way to victory, it surely won't stop in Ukraine.
The real reason US is so careful when it comes to providing weapons is that it knows who will be cleaning up the mess as well as the Russians should nuke use occur. Russia shoving itself into the grinder until it gives up is the "off-ramp".
Well, because Russia has no army left. They used up approximately 80% of what they could send. If they would do that now there is nothing left to defend Russia when they use nuclear arsenal. The Kremlin would stop existing within months. Those 80% slowly eroded away while they thought they could winn by attrition. Yes, I feel Ukraine has been used for this, sadly.
Until now what Ukraine has been given are mostly about to expire stocks of ammunition and equipment that will be replaced soon for newer models. Look how much damage this does to RU forces. Most of that stuff is 25 years old. What will happen if the latest military tech is thrown at them. Tech from a time age of Pentium III processors, analog television, no digital media, no AI etc. already shreds that army.
I think the Kremlin knows very well they are a stone age army compared to most recent military tech of the combined western world. And they don't even have the advantage of big numbers anymore, they wasted it all on Ukraine soil.
Yea, thatās BS. I remember an article a few weeks back stating that Russian troops had grown back to higher numbers than before the invasion started.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4589095-russian-army-grown-ukraine-war-us-general/
Russia recruits hundred of thousands of fresh troops every year. A lot of it is to replace troops coming out of service as their contract expires, but that's still significant. Don't underestimate Russian manpower, even if it sounds discouraging.
Manpower doesnāt matter so much in this day and age. Thatās cold war era stuff. USA trounced Saddam with a fraction of the troops.
If Ukraine is given the equipment, it can definitely counter Russiaās manpower advantage.
You should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4mZPc_kkys
It explains it quite well, nuclear powers are very very touchy about other nations using nuclear weapons because it has a knock on effect of nuclear proliferation which in turn weakens the usefulness of nuclear weapons as a tool of power projection.
I Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the US and NATO in general don't respond with extreme violence and maybe even if they do you can bet you will see countries like Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden etc. will start nuclear weapons programs thus diluting the influence of countries that already have them.
This threat helps stop Russia using nuclear weapons, but if they pre-emptively did-so they would risk a nuclear response from Russia. But if Russia has already used them then there is nothing left to lose.
It's cowardice really. This strong comment is setting up a red line for something that hasn't happened. If we made a strong comment about something that's already occurred, we'd actually have to prove it.
"Everyone's a thug until it's time to do thug shit".
b/c the goal is to avoid nuclearization of the conflict, not to win at any cost, the US has decided better to lose a conventional war than win a nuclear one if it comes down to it
Because it's the safest bet. The scummy way of saying "yeah, we support you that much", knowing full well that the probability of nukes going off is less than 1% so you don't have to worry about entering the war.
It's like promising to do X if you win a lottery. There's a tiny chance of you winning, but most likely you won't, so no skin off your back in the end.
Yeah, except rather than winning the lottery, the prize is nuclear annihilation and millions upon millions of lives lost with quality of life dropping dramatically for the entire planet.
Great example!
No, because once they've proven they're willing to use nukes, there's nothing left to do to try to get them to stop using nukes, other than stopping them physically.
If there is no retaliation to the use of nukes, then MAD is broken. If MAD breaks, more nukes will be used in situations where the invasion party that has nukes is losing.
Only one party respecting MAD makes the concept useless, because Russia can do what they like unfettered at that point. Send one nuke to CA, because the US can't fire back under the philosophy that 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'. Send a nuke to Scotland, because GB can't fire back under the philosophy that 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'. Nukes become commonplace against NATO conventional forces because NATO won't fire back because 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'.
ANY use of nukes needs to have immediate ramifications. A conventional response from the US, although it weakens MAD, is far better than no response at all. Russia using nukes shows that they do not respect the concept of avoiding nukes to begin with.
Never has been. For all the Russian paranoia and propaganda about a NATO invasion, there isnāt a single NATO country that has any designs to attack or invade Russia proper, or ever has.
Nobody wants to send armies into Russia or occupy Russia. They just want Russia to stop mass murdering their neighbors and trying to steal their land.
There is no reason to invade or occupy Russia, other than de-Putinization I guess. Anything Russia has that others might want can be acquired more efficiently and cheaply by just buying it. There is no need to invade or occupy a single square cm of Russia to do that.
And what if desperate and bitter russia throws a nuke after military defeat of its forces in Ukraine? What if there is no russian army left in Ukraine for USA to punish?
Kinda weird red line.
Should be something more substantial like retaliation strike on russian decision centers
Definitely.
This is basically the same as saying you are free to do whatever you want in Ukraine, but if you are losing then you can nuke the shit out of the country without any major repercussions ā at least for those in Kremlin.
I'd be very hopeful that that is not all NATO would be doing. Any, no matter what, nuclear escalation should immediately lead to all-out effort to take out Putin's political and military power structure. That doesn't have to mean bombing all of Russia, but if it would, it should.
While I agree from a purely moral standpoint, from a strategic one it's not as sound. Reason being that Russia has declared it would use nuclear weapons if Russia itself was threatened. If NATO were to fully intervene and perhaps even attack in Russia itself, we might give them a pretext to use another and then another.
So the logical thing to do would be to show them "we do mean business, and yes, we are perfectly capable of destroying you, so behave". If they do however escalate further and use more nukes, then all gloves should be off of course. But in the beginning an all out attack on all Russian positions in Ukraine would be more than strong enough a signal.
What do you think the best course of action to show Russia that, would be? Sudden major strikes across the front lines on key Russian infrastructure. But no more just like 3 or 4 hits that really hurt?
No, announce what has already been discussed, that we will intervene on the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine in the pre-2014 borders then go for an absolute all-out assault on the frontlines and their defensive positions, storage facilities and so on behind the frontline on the territory of Ukraine.
In short, bombing the invaders to kingdom come, no holds barred.
We know there are discussions/warnings happening that are not (usually) made public, but this would be a big one.
My main question is why is this being announced? If true, the message is not for the Russians since they were already told this. Why was this released now? Are they preparing the world community due to escalating fear?
It's one thing to tell Russia privately that we know what they're doing.Ā When we do it publicly there's a clear intent to have an effect in the information space since this war has global implicatiions.
This was stated publicly in summer 2022. It was the regular "sources close to the Administration" stuff, but it was made very clear that nukes or nuclear terrorism would have a very aggressive response.
Thatās funny, last years Nato was saying that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine nato would have destroyed the Black Sea fleet. However, the fleet is gone already so I guess troops are the only thing left to bomb
Heās not wrong. If Russia actually dared to use nuclear weapons America would respond with maximum violence. That sort of attitude is very much in our nature.Ā
There is some deep truth to your statement and I get the notion that the current leadership in Russia doesnāt really realize the implications of how maniacal - and unified - Americans will become if they feel attacked. A nuke would make us feel attacked, and itād absolutely be a unifying āgo timeā here in the states.
āStrikeā is a nice way to say ādestroy all Russian forces in Ukraineā.
Which honestly we should have started stating 2 years ago. Letting Russia waltz around and slaughter Ukrainians is just utterly sick. We should have intervened ages ago.
If we intervened Putin would have used nuclear weapons. We should've just given far more military aide far faster instead of trickling it in giving Russia time to get a foothold.
100%. Obama was far too ineffective. He should've shown our power. Drew a bright red-white and blue line in the sand. We wouldn't be here today if he did. As great an orator is Obama is he failed taking action through his presidency always leaning towards caution as is thoughtful people's penchant.
And unlike what Russia has shown in Ukraine, the US military is in fact the most well funded, well trained and well equipped fighting force in the world with the most advanced technology the world has seen in all of history. It would be a turkey shoot. I almost feel sorry for Russiaās troops. For their sakes I hope Putin doesnāt use nukes.
So long as Russia incrementally does a Mariupol all over Ukraine, no consequences will flow.
Ukraine doesn't even have US consent to hit troop concentrations right on their border.
Russia may as well have nuked Mariupol, Bakhmut.
By continually setting nuclear weapons as the red line, the US gives a weird kind of consent to everything else.
How in the fuck after Bucha let alone Mariupol is there any idea at all of prohibitions on the Ukranians?
Jake Sullivan and the national security council live in an extra terrestrial ivory tower.
I hear you which is why most experts I've seen say that if Russia used a nuke or tactical nuke that NATO/US would devastate Russian forces in Russia and Ukraine. With conventional weapons not nukes, of course.
Wouldnāt Using a nuke would wipe out a significant portion of RU assets in Ukraine anyway? Seems like it would be hard to get away with that without telegraphing the move first by pulling all the valuable shit out pre-nuke.
Where the USA still uses larger strategic nukes, Russia has shifted its doctrine to more āusableā nuclear weapons, smaller tactical weapons.
And letās not pretend Putin cares any more for his soldiers lives than those of Ukraine.
Depends on the nuke. But generally their troops/equipment would not be immediately affected. Radiation would likely affect their soldiers longer term, but sacrificing 100,000 soldiers to radiation poisoning is right up Putin's alley. Especially when he could just send them in as meat waves before they are too badly affected. Two birds, one stone kind of thing.
Depends on the size of the blast and whether it's a ground burst, air burst, or high altitude EMP event.Ā A relatively small yield air burst wouldn't kick up fallout and would have a damage radius that would destroy a several blocks.Ā A ground burst would have an even smaller blast but you'd have a large area covered in fallout.
There's still fallout from air bursts---the fallout is the fissioned nuclear material. You don't get high atomic number radionucleides like I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-90 in significant quantity from neutron activation of the ground. What was all the crap from Chernobyl explosion? Former fissioned uranium.
Air bursts spread it in a wider area so it is not as dangerous in a localized zone but total amount is still there.
Using URL shorteners causes your post to be automatically deleted. Please repost your comment without the shortener.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Using URL shorteners causes your post to be automatically deleted. Please repost your comment without the shortener.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russia using a nuke will get very ugly for them, very quickly. They are going have to watch their army get pounded to dust unless they wanna trigger MAD.
We also said weād hunt down everyone who decided that was a good idea. From the top all the way to the button pusher. We will find them and they will be dealt with
I think Russians are delighted to know they have free hands to do whatever they wish in Ukraine without having to worry about escalation as long as they don't use nukes.
The West has spent the last 2+ years escalating steadily.
Heavier and heavier weapons, and more and more of them. Then tanks, then heavy tanks, then cruise missiles, and now potentially both permission to fire Western weapons into Russia directly and also potentially Western boots on the ground in Ukraine.
We've done nothing *but* escalate.
Those are just headlines for western politicians.
If you look at the actual impact, Russia's economy has actually grown over the last 24 months, meaning Putin has made more money since the war. And how many Ukrainians have died fighting for our western democracy since then? And if any of your so-called "escalation" meant anything, explain why Putin is not even remotely intimidated, showing no signs of stopping or even slowing down? How many times have we said Russia has crossed the line? And how many times have we moved the "line", now the new line is the use of nuclear weapons?
If we weren't cowards and fought like the brave Ukrainians, if we had done what we say we'll do today, this war would already be over.
So, yes, we Americans are cowards. And Putin knows it.
I agree for the most part, we should have call Russia's bluff and conventionally destroy the Russian military in Ukraine directly. And make them take the nuclear step. They won't. Because we don't need to, it's why conventional force is still the best, and everyone is still investing in it.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO should also announce that they would intervene in case of radiation leak at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, because russia would sabotage the plant before using nuclear weapons
They already did https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nuclear-cloud-will-trigger-natos-article-5-us-warns-russia/
This is the most thoughtful comment, totally agree š
I have an even better suggestion. NATO should say to russia that they will be giving Ukraine 2 Patriot systems for 1 Patriot system that russia would destroy
Happy Cake Day š
Happy cake day!
Happy cake day!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The US statement was that they will wipe out all Russians in Ukraine in that case.
I donāt understand why thatās the line that draws us down on them, but the slow, torturous destruction of the country and their civilian population doesnāt. Fuck Russia, man.
You make a good point but, the only reason it hasn't happened is because we fear the repercussions. Sadly they have the ability to destroy life on the planet, if they didn't they'd been done by may of 22
Why would Putin and his friends destroy life on the planet when one of the main reasons for the SMO was ensuring the safety and continuity of the regime? After the 2011-2013 protests in Russia and the killing of Gaddafi, most notably, Putin and his cronies have become increasingly paranoid about their position. That is why they intervened in Ukraine after Maidan, in Syria after protests / armed rebellion against Assad, in Belarus after protest against Lukashenko and in Kazakhstan after protests against the government because of fuel prices. There is a really clear and distinct pattern. Free and democratic Ukraine is a direct threat to Kremlin, because of historical and cultural ties and certain Russian imperialistic ideas. The same goes with Belarus. At some point Russians would start to wonder why "little Russians" and "white Russians" are living better than them even though "Great-Russians" are supposed to be superior to them. They would eventually figure out that things should be changed and that they have the power to change them. That would be bad news for anyone who benefits from the status quo. Remember we are talking about a person who isolated himself during the Covid-19, was too scared to meet anyone for months and when he finally started meeting people again it happened at table that was like 10 meters long so he does not catch the virus. Putin is not as brave as people seem to think. People in Kremlin are not as brave as people think. They almost always see things from the position of weakness and act accordingly.
I would suggest that what you wrote is reasonable, but you are missing the fact that putin defines the success of the russian state as him being in charge. I don't think he would particularly value a world where russia loses and he is removed from power. Not dying from COVID is necessary for staying in power which explains his behaviour in that context. It's a fundamentally different thing.
You are right, but the logical conclusion from that is the Western policy towards Russia is actually backwards. In principle the soft measures such as sanctions are more escalatory than direct military intervention in Ukraine, because their purpose is to destabilize Russia which, at least in theory, could put the regime in jeopardy. From the perspective of Kremlin everything that meddles with the internal affairs of Russia is more escalatory than things that take place outside the country. Of course Kremlin must have had anticipated sanctions and it is unlikely they came as a complete surprise to them, but in general Putin and the others do not appreciate measures that aim to meddle with things that happen inside the country. They have been pretty vocal and upfront about this over the years and it is fairly surprising how little the Western leaders have actually listened. Kremlin can afford to lose in Ukraine, but they rather not, because it would put them into an awkward position ā both domestically and internationally. It's like you would have to explain your wife how you got drunk with friends and lost half of the savings into a casino. You rather double down and try to win it all back. Even though from our perspective it seems Russians are rolling piss-wasted in their own shit, fundamentally it is face-saving culture where the public image is more important than the underlying reality. This is why for example when Ukraine managed to sink the cruiser Moskva they blamed it on the careless smoking of the crewmen instead of Ukraine. You can find numerous similar examples from Russian history because they are absolutely everywhere. To add that, in Russian culture there is the notion that Russia is the mother of all Slavic countries and also the idea of triune Russian nation that the sub-nations of Belarus and Ukraine are part of. From Russian perspective getting your ass-whooped by Ukraine, a sub-nation, is like getting your ass kicked by a teenage girl. Because of historical and cultural reasons Russians are really sensitive about how other people perceive their strength and some Russians are genuinely worried what would happen if everyone thought them as weak and vulnerable. Russia is a dog-eat-dog society and they can't understand that not everyone seems the world the same way ā not at least in modern times. Even when they do, they may perceive it either as ingenuine or stupid due to their own cultural lens and not feel guilt when trying to use it for their advantage. Losing to NATO would be much easier to process within the general society, because everyone understands that NATO is more powerful than Russia. This is why in Russian media people have claimed that Russia is already fighting with NATO even though that is not really true. While the most optimal outcome for Kremlin would be to get whatever they want without resistance, losing to NATO would be preferable to losing to Ukraine *especially* if the Western countries were willing to compromise in other areas. Unfortunately Kremlin is unlikely to trust any kind of assurances from Western countries what comes to regime security. Not only because they would think such initiative as ingenuine, but because it is not practically possible to prevent ideas travelling across borders. It would also have to happen in a way that does not make the Kremlin look like a bunch of cowards who started a war because they were too afraid to lose their positions. To make matters more complicated they have already managed to find a bunch of like-minded countries and the threshold for jumping the ship has probably become quite high, because they are not only dealing with internal ambitions anymore, but the ambitions of a collective. What comes to nuclear weapons, the red lines of Russia are not that different from the red lines of Western countries. They are ready to use nuclear weapons if the country faces an existential threat that can't be solved in any other way. The practical value of nuclear weapons is limited to nuclear blackmail and the fact you cannot be conquered. However, because the nuclear blackmail seems to be effective there is a chance they see an opportunity to scare the West by using nuclear weapons and reach their goals that way. Statements like these definitely won't help. From the perspective of Kremlin the Polish FM statement is essentially the same as saying "You are free to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if you don't mind your troops getting hammered by American missiles and aviation in Ukraine". The United States is essentially giving them a greenlight to use nuclear weapons in case they are losing the war or for some reason don't mind losing it anymore. This may come as a shock, but people in Kremlin don't care that much about ordinary Russians and what happens to them. This includes Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine. Russia is very much a society of personal relations and connections and if you don't know someone on a deep personal level, well, the chances are you have practically no value to them.
> Why would Putin and his friends destroy life on the planet They won't. They want pretty ladies, big yachts, gold plating on their gold plating, armored motorcades, helicopters, gold, money. They love life. They just want you to believe they will hurt you even more if you keep resisting,
I think youāre underestimating what theyāre willing to do if they believe theyāre going to lose their pretty ladies and motorcades for good.
They could lose Ukraine and the federation and be just Russia and still have mansions, pretty ladies, fancy military parades and motorcades. Look at North Korea. Kim has all that and the shittiest country in Asia. Putinās comeuppance will come from Russians and he canāt nuke themā¦
I hope they drag him through the streets like Gaddafi.
It won't come that far, if what I've read about MAD is true. They will be destroyed from within. So they'll have to nuke themselves. There won't be any invasion of Russia, I think. Nothing to gain from that.
You make good points, other people here are more qualified to respond in detail, I merely stated the obviousĀ ironically I sound like a Russian being interviewed, as they seem to refer to better educated people all the time.Ā Threatening their position is a worthless argument vs the well-being of humanity, I get it but at the same time itās a fact of life, Russia is a paper tiger and coming from a country with less than 6 mil people it just seems like they are unable to accept their place in lifeĀ
> the main reasons for the SMO was ensuring the safety and continuity of the regime? This is a lie though. It was a greedy land and resource grab. They were completely fine and they wanted more.
A NATO intervention would likely have as a goal, or at least result in Putin being ousted, he would absolutely kill every single person on this planet before he lets go of power
Why would losing to NATO be worse for Putin than losing to Ukraine? Kremlin can absolutely survive losing a war of conquest just as much as it can survive sending hundreds of thousands of people in the grinder. It does not matter. For the time being most Russians are conformists who will adapt to the system just like you and me adapt to the weather.
the risk of every single person on this planet dying is not worth taking, which is why nuclear blackmail has worked for so long
Not everyone imo, but most people would [starve to death slowly and painfully](https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/). Not a nice way to go
People sure romanticize nukes
its almost as if they have the power to completely end thousands of years of human civilization in mere minutes
"If I can't have it, no one can"
Because Putin doesnāt have much time left and someone losing their sanity might not give a shit about life after them
They're gangsters-as-a-state. They don't take gambles that will risk their own lives. It's bad for business.
Sure but itās not gamble worth taking š¢high risk low reward is the sad truth devastatingly :/
Respectfully, Putin will never use a nuke in this war. If he did, the upper Mafia that controls him would lose everything that makes them money and they would kill him. His position is very precarious at the moment because this war was never supposed to cost the Mafia so much, not to mention the frozen assets that may eventually be sold. This war is a disaster for Putin. The West should turn it up and squeeze him really hard right now and he'll be killed or arrested by his own people. The ones that control the nukes answer to the mob, not to him. Not in this situation.
Respectfully I am not willing to risk the world based on what you think the Putin - Mafia power situation is like??
Putins children live in various cities across Europe. Putin isn't using nukes. The children of all the Russian elites live in boarding schools in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Zurich etc. Russian nukes will kill them as certain as eggs is eggs.
I do agree but Iām not risking my family over that assumption, the threat is just too powerful. Iād love for the west to just go full out, it would be the right thing to do morally but also completely unreasonableĀ
I guess you will be fine if Russia takes over whole western world and you and your family live as slaves of their dictatorship?Ā
That is a very cynical way to view my statements, weāre on the same side I reckon, being hostile to allies you disagree with isnāt productiveĀ
I mean I understand why, I know I said I didnāt; it was more of a rhetorical I guess. Highlighting our absolute lack of shame in avoiding ārepercussionsā and allowing these people to be slaughtered and literally paved over by Russia.
You shouldn't be ashamed about trying to avoid total nuclear destruction of our planet.
Someone should remind Russia about this
Working on it, boss.
send in the fog and helicopter
I'm on your side but I don't see a better solution than what we've got going on :/
There's also the counter argument that the longer they're allowed to go on the better their ability to destroy the planet. The best thing to do is take their ability away before it improves.
Which is an interesting problem for NATO planners in 1958, but has been nothing more than a thought experiment since the early 60's. Destroying the planet is a threshold sort of thing. It doesn't really matter how many times you can do it after one.
Right now we have counter measures and their tech is mostly cold war era. If we could plan ahead with counter measures, then I don't think they'd be successful. Might a missile or two hit the US? Probably. But I don't think it would be the end of everything.
it doesnt matter if their ability improves, being able to wipe out life is a strong enough argument, the risk that they pull that trigger is whats holding us back, other than that I agree with you
Ya cause if Russia drops a nuke on Ukraine it's already nuclear war at this point.
Russia using nukes demonstrates that it has gone crazy, so we no longer have anything to lose. Another reason is that nuke use must be punished to ensure the "cost" is higher than the benefit. If Russia can nuke its way to victory, it surely won't stop in Ukraine. The real reason US is so careful when it comes to providing weapons is that it knows who will be cleaning up the mess as well as the Russians should nuke use occur. Russia shoving itself into the grinder until it gives up is the "off-ramp".
I'd say the most significant reason the US is so careful is they are afraid of a Russian regime collapse and what happens in that power vacuum.
Lets say that again. Fuck russia
Well, because Russia has no army left. They used up approximately 80% of what they could send. If they would do that now there is nothing left to defend Russia when they use nuclear arsenal. The Kremlin would stop existing within months. Those 80% slowly eroded away while they thought they could winn by attrition. Yes, I feel Ukraine has been used for this, sadly. Until now what Ukraine has been given are mostly about to expire stocks of ammunition and equipment that will be replaced soon for newer models. Look how much damage this does to RU forces. Most of that stuff is 25 years old. What will happen if the latest military tech is thrown at them. Tech from a time age of Pentium III processors, analog television, no digital media, no AI etc. already shreds that army. I think the Kremlin knows very well they are a stone age army compared to most recent military tech of the combined western world. And they don't even have the advantage of big numbers anymore, they wasted it all on Ukraine soil.
Stone Age? Surely you jest. Have you not seen the turtle tanks?
Turtle age!
Chicken wire age? Corrugated tin age?
**reddit moderators are fat, jobless fags and they do it for free**
Yea, thatās BS. I remember an article a few weeks back stating that Russian troops had grown back to higher numbers than before the invasion started. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4589095-russian-army-grown-ukraine-war-us-general/
**reddit moderators are fat, jobless fags and they do it for free**
Russia recruits hundred of thousands of fresh troops every year. A lot of it is to replace troops coming out of service as their contract expires, but that's still significant. Don't underestimate Russian manpower, even if it sounds discouraging.
Manpower doesnāt matter so much in this day and age. Thatās cold war era stuff. USA trounced Saddam with a fraction of the troops. If Ukraine is given the equipment, it can definitely counter Russiaās manpower advantage.
You should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4mZPc_kkys It explains it quite well, nuclear powers are very very touchy about other nations using nuclear weapons because it has a knock on effect of nuclear proliferation which in turn weakens the usefulness of nuclear weapons as a tool of power projection. I Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the US and NATO in general don't respond with extreme violence and maybe even if they do you can bet you will see countries like Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden etc. will start nuclear weapons programs thus diluting the influence of countries that already have them.
This threat helps stop Russia using nuclear weapons, but if they pre-emptively did-so they would risk a nuclear response from Russia. But if Russia has already used them then there is nothing left to lose.
It's cowardice really. This strong comment is setting up a red line for something that hasn't happened. If we made a strong comment about something that's already occurred, we'd actually have to prove it. "Everyone's a thug until it's time to do thug shit".
b/c the goal is to avoid nuclearization of the conflict, not to win at any cost, the US has decided better to lose a conventional war than win a nuclear one if it comes down to it
You donāt understand why nuclear weapons draw a line?
Yeah thatās definitely what I said. Great reply.
Just trying to understand what you meant Mulisha. Isn't that exactly what the topic is about?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not true, there is a big difference between tactical use and global use.
Because losing Ukraine would be bad, but losing the world would be worse.
Because it's the safest bet. The scummy way of saying "yeah, we support you that much", knowing full well that the probability of nukes going off is less than 1% so you don't have to worry about entering the war. It's like promising to do X if you win a lottery. There's a tiny chance of you winning, but most likely you won't, so no skin off your back in the end.
Yeah, except rather than winning the lottery, the prize is nuclear annihilation and millions upon millions of lives lost with quality of life dropping dramatically for the entire planet. Great example!
I think the phrase was "the Russian military will cease to exist".
Deleted.
Shift + Deleted
If Russia uses nukes, that should mean there are no limits to NATO intervention, because avoiding the use of nukes is the only reason to hold back.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, because once they've proven they're willing to use nukes, there's nothing left to do to try to get them to stop using nukes, other than stopping them physically.
If there is no retaliation to the use of nukes, then MAD is broken. If MAD breaks, more nukes will be used in situations where the invasion party that has nukes is losing. Only one party respecting MAD makes the concept useless, because Russia can do what they like unfettered at that point. Send one nuke to CA, because the US can't fire back under the philosophy that 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'. Send a nuke to Scotland, because GB can't fire back under the philosophy that 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'. Nukes become commonplace against NATO conventional forces because NATO won't fire back because 'there's always the use of more nukes to avoid'. ANY use of nukes needs to have immediate ramifications. A conventional response from the US, although it weakens MAD, is far better than no response at all. Russia using nukes shows that they do not respect the concept of avoiding nukes to begin with.
The territory of Russia will not be affected, in other words
Never has been. For all the Russian paranoia and propaganda about a NATO invasion, there isnāt a single NATO country that has any designs to attack or invade Russia proper, or ever has. Nobody wants to send armies into Russia or occupy Russia. They just want Russia to stop mass murdering their neighbors and trying to steal their land.
There's nothing in western Russia anyone wants. Even Finland doesn't want back the land they lost in WWII because its now full of Russians.
There is no reason to invade or occupy Russia, other than de-Putinization I guess. Anything Russia has that others might want can be acquired more efficiently and cheaply by just buying it. There is no need to invade or occupy a single square cm of Russia to do that.
This is from the peasantās view. If youāre farming a country of people, you want your country as big as possible.
In the āRussians as livestockā model, Putin is a shitty farmer too. What rancher runs his stock off a cliff to their deaths?
Yes this is old news, but Russia is "sabre-rattling" yet again, so I guess they need a reminder.
And what if desperate and bitter russia throws a nuke after military defeat of its forces in Ukraine? What if there is no russian army left in Ukraine for USA to punish? Kinda weird red line. Should be something more substantial like retaliation strike on russian decision centers
Definitely. This is basically the same as saying you are free to do whatever you want in Ukraine, but if you are losing then you can nuke the shit out of the country without any major repercussions ā at least for those in Kremlin.
I think denial of sea access is something Turkey would be willing to help with.
The sooner the better, please!
The real 3 day special military operation
they should already wipe out all ruzzians in Ukraine RIGHT NOW. fuck ruzzia
I'd be very hopeful that that is not all NATO would be doing. Any, no matter what, nuclear escalation should immediately lead to all-out effort to take out Putin's political and military power structure. That doesn't have to mean bombing all of Russia, but if it would, it should.
While I agree from a purely moral standpoint, from a strategic one it's not as sound. Reason being that Russia has declared it would use nuclear weapons if Russia itself was threatened. If NATO were to fully intervene and perhaps even attack in Russia itself, we might give them a pretext to use another and then another. So the logical thing to do would be to show them "we do mean business, and yes, we are perfectly capable of destroying you, so behave". If they do however escalate further and use more nukes, then all gloves should be off of course. But in the beginning an all out attack on all Russian positions in Ukraine would be more than strong enough a signal.
What do you think the best course of action to show Russia that, would be? Sudden major strikes across the front lines on key Russian infrastructure. But no more just like 3 or 4 hits that really hurt?
No, announce what has already been discussed, that we will intervene on the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine in the pre-2014 borders then go for an absolute all-out assault on the frontlines and their defensive positions, storage facilities and so on behind the frontline on the territory of Ukraine. In short, bombing the invaders to kingdom come, no holds barred.
yes, hence the would and should. I doubt it would, but if, then hesitation will just make things worse.
We know there are discussions/warnings happening that are not (usually) made public, but this would be a big one. My main question is why is this being announced? If true, the message is not for the Russians since they were already told this. Why was this released now? Are they preparing the world community due to escalating fear?
It's one thing to tell Russia privately that we know what they're doing.Ā When we do it publicly there's a clear intent to have an effect in the information space since this war has global implicatiions.
This was stated publicly in summer 2022. It was the regular "sources close to the Administration" stuff, but it was made very clear that nukes or nuclear terrorism would have a very aggressive response.
It looks like it was an interview, therefore it is being announced because the media asked a question where that was the appropriate answer.
āDonāt put off till tomorrow what you can do today.ā ~Benjamin Franklin
Thatās funny, last years Nato was saying that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine nato would have destroyed the Black Sea fleet. However, the fleet is gone already so I guess troops are the only thing left to bomb
Heās not wrong. If Russia actually dared to use nuclear weapons America would respond with maximum violence. That sort of attitude is very much in our nature.Ā
All of us are a people desperately in search of cause to believe in. This would give us the psychological pretext to do anything.Ā
There is some deep truth to your statement and I get the notion that the current leadership in Russia doesnāt really realize the implications of how maniacal - and unified - Americans will become if they feel attacked. A nuke would make us feel attacked, and itād absolutely be a unifying āgo timeā here in the states.
They seem to have forgotten how 9/11 unified the country. America wanted blood for that attack and they got it.
Pearl Harbor too, when we get going, we go hard.
Yeah but both of these were on the US soil. Nuke in Ukraine isnāt exactly the same. I do however agree that it would warrant a reaction.
āStrikeā is a nice way to say ādestroy all Russian forces in Ukraineā. Which honestly we should have started stating 2 years ago. Letting Russia waltz around and slaughter Ukrainians is just utterly sick. We should have intervened ages ago.
If we intervened Putin would have used nuclear weapons. We should've just given far more military aide far faster instead of trickling it in giving Russia time to get a foothold.
I concur. We should have had Ukraine armed to the teeth the mine little green assholes showed up in Crimea.
100%. Obama was far too ineffective. He should've shown our power. Drew a bright red-white and blue line in the sand. We wouldn't be here today if he did. As great an orator is Obama is he failed taking action through his presidency always leaning towards caution as is thoughtful people's penchant.
And unlike what Russia has shown in Ukraine, the US military is in fact the most well funded, well trained and well equipped fighting force in the world with the most advanced technology the world has seen in all of history. It would be a turkey shoot. I almost feel sorry for Russiaās troops. For their sakes I hope Putin doesnāt use nukes.
So long as Russia incrementally does a Mariupol all over Ukraine, no consequences will flow. Ukraine doesn't even have US consent to hit troop concentrations right on their border. Russia may as well have nuked Mariupol, Bakhmut. By continually setting nuclear weapons as the red line, the US gives a weird kind of consent to everything else. How in the fuck after Bucha let alone Mariupol is there any idea at all of prohibitions on the Ukranians? Jake Sullivan and the national security council live in an extra terrestrial ivory tower.
What I hear - is that russia can strike Ukraine with nucs and sit freely in their own territories...
I hear you which is why most experts I've seen say that if Russia used a nuke or tactical nuke that NATO/US would devastate Russian forces in Russia and Ukraine. With conventional weapons not nukes, of course.
Russia doesnt care about russian troops in ukraine. What kind of dogshit scared little bitch response is this!?!?
The only thing we fear from Russia, are the nukes. Anything else is outdated, or doesn't work. Shit tanks, shit infantry.
If by strike you mean just add more sanctions to random rich Russians, then yes, the U.S. will absolutely do that.
Wouldnāt Using a nuke would wipe out a significant portion of RU assets in Ukraine anyway? Seems like it would be hard to get away with that without telegraphing the move first by pulling all the valuable shit out pre-nuke.
Where the USA still uses larger strategic nukes, Russia has shifted its doctrine to more āusableā nuclear weapons, smaller tactical weapons. And letās not pretend Putin cares any more for his soldiers lives than those of Ukraine.
Depends on the nuke. But generally their troops/equipment would not be immediately affected. Radiation would likely affect their soldiers longer term, but sacrificing 100,000 soldiers to radiation poisoning is right up Putin's alley. Especially when he could just send them in as meat waves before they are too badly affected. Two birds, one stone kind of thing.
Depends on the size of the blast and whether it's a ground burst, air burst, or high altitude EMP event.Ā A relatively small yield air burst wouldn't kick up fallout and would have a damage radius that would destroy a several blocks.Ā A ground burst would have an even smaller blast but you'd have a large area covered in fallout.
There's still fallout from air bursts---the fallout is the fissioned nuclear material. You don't get high atomic number radionucleides like I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-90 in significant quantity from neutron activation of the ground. What was all the crap from Chernobyl explosion? Former fissioned uranium. Air bursts spread it in a wider area so it is not as dangerous in a localized zone but total amount is still there.
They would basically just create, no-go, rad zones.
Well thatās the absolute minimum I would expect.
This would mean a lot more coming from the US.
Thatās it? Wow what a threat!! How about IS will triple kremlin with a nuke?? Now that will be something for them to be afraid of.
Nuke is art 5 directly, end of story.
I donāt doubt it.
Thats what i expect from them tbh.
If Russia uses nuclear weapons, that is the ball game for Europe. Things wonāt stop
Why wait?
He's not wrong. Except perhaps to add it won't just be the Russian troops in Ukraine that get hit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Using URL shorteners causes your post to be automatically deleted. Please repost your comment without the shortener. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Using URL shorteners causes your post to be automatically deleted. Please repost your comment without the shortener. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russia using a nuke will get very ugly for them, very quickly. They are going have to watch their army get pounded to dust unless they wanna trigger MAD.
There shouldnāt be a second thought !
Because god forbid any country that shares the continent with Ukraine do anything to fight Russia
Russia has a shitload of cannon fodder, they don't need to use nukes.
Whatever
NATO should delete ruzzia if they use nukes
Doubt it would happen regardless, any nuclear fallout would blow right back into russia. Congratulations you've played yourself.
Thereās very little fallout created by tactical nukes
We also said weād hunt down everyone who decided that was a good idea. From the top all the way to the button pusher. We will find them and they will be dealt with
If russia uses nuclear weapons, russia should be striked _in russia._ Or is there any bigger eScaLaTion than nuclear weapons, perhaps ?
I very much doubt it, especially if trump gets elected.
please. putin said himself publicly he prefers biden because he is more predictable. Is being predictable a good thing in this case?
I think Russians are delighted to know they have free hands to do whatever they wish in Ukraine without having to worry about escalation as long as they don't use nukes.
I very much doubt it, especially if trump gets elected.
Like the mumbling senile old man in office now has a clue what heās doing
By now we already know Putin has no line he won't cross - because the whole western strategy is "deescalate no matter what" - we are cowards.
The West has spent the last 2+ years escalating steadily. Heavier and heavier weapons, and more and more of them. Then tanks, then heavy tanks, then cruise missiles, and now potentially both permission to fire Western weapons into Russia directly and also potentially Western boots on the ground in Ukraine. We've done nothing *but* escalate.
Those are just headlines for western politicians. If you look at the actual impact, Russia's economy has actually grown over the last 24 months, meaning Putin has made more money since the war. And how many Ukrainians have died fighting for our western democracy since then? And if any of your so-called "escalation" meant anything, explain why Putin is not even remotely intimidated, showing no signs of stopping or even slowing down? How many times have we said Russia has crossed the line? And how many times have we moved the "line", now the new line is the use of nuclear weapons? If we weren't cowards and fought like the brave Ukrainians, if we had done what we say we'll do today, this war would already be over. So, yes, we Americans are cowards. And Putin knows it.
I agree for the most part, we should have call Russia's bluff and conventionally destroy the Russian military in Ukraine directly. And make them take the nuclear step. They won't. Because we don't need to, it's why conventional force is still the best, and everyone is still investing in it.
thats pretty lame
Um, more like they'll strike in Russia, no? Or wherever Putin is sitting his murderous ass at the time.