All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Kismet]

Helpful multi-media tactical presentation.

https://ig.ft.com/russias-war-in-ukraine-mapped/

I'd recommend following Lt. Gen.(Ret) Mark Hertling on Twitter - former Commanding General of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army. He served in Armor, Cavalry, planning, operations and training positions, and commanded every organization from Platoon to Field Army and commanded the 1st Armored Division and Task Force Iron/Multinational Division-North in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008.

Also of note from Russian dissident and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov

"Putin doesn't need anything from the West except for cash for oil & gas. Xi & China depend far more on its relationship with the West, because economic disruption could lead to political turmoil. But the free world is afraid to use that leverage. Now it's exposed."

Another sobering take on what Putin could or might do if things continue to not go well for Russia in Ukraine and perhaps some kind of line is going to need to be drawn before this is all over

https://www.greatpower.us/p/escalating- ... -might?s=w

[Essexfenwick]

Helpful multi-media tactical presentation.

https://ig.ft.com/russias-war-in-ukraine-mapped/

I'd recommend following Lt. Gen.(Ret) Mark Hertling on Twitter - former Commanding General of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army. He served in Armor, Cavalry, planning, operations and training positions, and commanded every organization from Platoon to Field Army and commanded the 1st Armored Division and Task Force Iron/Multinational Division-North in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008.

Also of note from Russian dissident and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov

"Putin doesn't need anything from the West except for cash for oil & gas. Xi & China depend far more on its relationship with the West, because economic disruption could lead to political turmoil. But the free world is afraid to use that leverage. Now it's exposed."

Another sobering take on what Putin could or might do if things continue to not go well for Russia in Ukraine and perhaps some kind of line is going to need to be drawn before this is all over

https://www.greatpower.us/p/escalating- ... -might?s=w

Nice going Joe and his stupid voters

Trump had all this under control and one year into the dementia addled usurper and we are supposed to start planning for tactical nukes and WW3.

It’s the worst administration in history.

[MDlaxfan76]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the bufer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

[DocBarrister]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the bufer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine, that is the end of him. That is the end of Russia. May be the end of us, too.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

[SCLaxAttack]

Make Russia Great Again. Straight out of Trump's playbook - nothing's more important than the size of your rallies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-holds- ... 58609.html

https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/statu ... CtoeIpAAAA

Thanks for posting context/truth seacoaster.

Sure. I was just trying to supplement what SCLaxAttack had provided. It appears to be, at least in part, an enforced rally -- reminiscent of the long hours sitting and standing listening to Castro harangue his "faithful."

That's fine but frankly, that guy is once again making it all about Trump. And, it most certainly isn't.

The context is, regardless of the reason/s the crowd was there, Russian media plays the video with the intent by Putin to influence the population's opinion. The Trump playbook. Autocrats and wannabes learn from each other.

blah blah blah... the partisan playbook.

Well I’ll be damned, look who said the same thing:

“Sean Hannity Says Putin 'Channeling His Inner Donald Trump' With Pro-War Rally
The stadium event was the Russian president's “best attempt to look like Donald Trump," said the Fox News personality.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-han ... c938dc0365

[Kismet]

According to Ukraine’s Armed Forces, Russian Lieutenant-General Andrei Mordvichev, who commanded the 8th Guards Combined Arms Army, was killed in action in southern Ukraine.

For the military minds here, it seems unusual that FIVE general officers would be killed in combat in three weeks, no? Plus a commander colonel of a parachute regiment.

and then there's this -

"Three Russian cosmonauts arrived at the International Space Station last night in flight suits made in the yellow and blue of the Ukrainian flag, in what appeared to be a daring statement against the war"

[tech37]

Make Russia Great Again. Straight out of Trump's playbook - nothing's more important than the size of your rallies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-holds- ... 58609.html

https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/statu ... CtoeIpAAAA

Thanks for posting context/truth seacoaster.

Sure. I was just trying to supplement what SCLaxAttack had provided. It appears to be, at least in part, an enforced rally -- reminiscent of the long hours sitting and standing listening to Castro harangue his "faithful."

That's fine but frankly, that guy is once again making it all about Trump. And, it most certainly isn't.

The context is, regardless of the reason/s the crowd was there, Russian media plays the video with the intent by Putin to influence the population's opinion. The Trump playbook. Autocrats and wannabes learn from each other.

blah blah blah... the partisan playbook.

Well I’ll be damned, look who said the same thing:

“Sean Hannity Says Putin 'Channeling His Inner Donald Trump' With Pro-War Rally
The stadium event was the Russian president's “best attempt to look like Donald Trump," said the Fox News personality.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-han ... c938dc0365

I wouldn't know, I don't watch Hannity. Like yourself, he's just another hyper-partisan.

[cradleandshoot]

Make Russia Great Again. Straight out of Trump's playbook - nothing's more important than the size of your rallies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-holds- ... 58609.html

https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/statu ... CtoeIpAAAA

Thanks for posting context/truth seacoaster.

Sure. I was just trying to supplement what SCLaxAttack had provided. It appears to be, at least in part, an enforced rally -- reminiscent of the long hours sitting and standing listening to Castro harangue his "faithful."

That's fine but frankly, that guy is once again making it all about Trump. And, it most certainly isn't.

The context is, regardless of the reason/s the crowd was there, Russian media plays the video with the intent by Putin to influence the population's opinion. The Trump playbook. Autocrats and wannabes learn from each other.

blah blah blah... the partisan playbook.

Well I’ll be damned, look who said the same thing:

“Sean Hannity Says Putin 'Channeling His Inner Donald Trump' With Pro-War Rally
The stadium event was the Russian president's “best attempt to look like Donald Trump," said the Fox News personality.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-han ... c938dc0365

I wouldn't know, I don't watch Hannity. Like yourself, he's just another hyper-partisan.

I'm certain the mad Irishman is using subliminal messaging to influence your thought process. If you ask any of the FLP usual suspects on this forum they will concur...

[MDlaxfan76]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

[old salt]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

[MDlaxfan76]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

Perhaps you're not following what I said..no nukes by us...very important that we show restraint in any such, despite what Russia does. But complete decimation of their forces in and immediately threatening Ukraine can be accomplished pretty darn quickly albeit not without cost to our side. But don't go nuclear...same for chemical/biological...give them 12-24 hours to lay down their arms, start going the other direction, surrender, or get pummeled...anyone shooting at a NATO or Ukrainian force, annihilation of that direct threat.

[DocBarrister]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

This whole discussion is mad.

If Putin uses nukes, I think even China would support a complete shutdown of Russia’s economy and military forces of scores of nations would go on high alert worldwide.

The use of nukes is a line that NATO would not tolerate.

It would also be a clear sign that Putin is mentally unstable and his elimination would become a priority for the U.S. and its allies.

I don’t think you understand what a red line the use of any nukes of any kind would be. No understanding at all.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

Perhaps you're not following what I said..no nukes by us...very important that we show restraint in any such, despite what Russia does. But complete decimation of their forces in and immediately threatening Ukraine can be accomplished pretty darn quickly albeit not without cost to our side. But don't go nuclear...same for chemical/biological...give them 12-24 hours to lay down their arms, start going the other direction, surrender, or get pummeled...anyone shooting at a NATO or Ukrainian force, annihilation of that direct threat.

Not without the use of NATO allies bases & airspace. Don't assume that is a given if Russia uses a tac nuc in Ukraine.

[old salt]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

This whole discussion is mad.

If Putin uses nukes, I think even China would support a complete shutdown of Russia’s economy and military forces of scores of nations would go on high alert worldwide.

The use of nukes is a line that NATO would not tolerate.

It would also be a clear sign that Putin is mentally unstable and his elimination would become a priority for the U.S. and its allies.

I don’t think you understand what a red line the use of any nukes of any kind would be. No understanding at all.

DocBarrister

It's not my understanding that matters. What matters is what Putin & his Generals are willing to risk.

[CU88]

An interesting thread on Russian "military truck" problems:

"Alright Lady's & Gentlemen, boys and girls, it is time for another Truck logistics thread for this latest Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
In it we are going to discuss the concept of "Operational Attrition" as applied to the Russian Army truck fleet in combat."

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 1091801094

[MDlaxfan76]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

Perhaps you're not following what I said..no nukes by us...very important that we show restraint in any such, despite what Russia does. But complete decimation of their forces in and immediately threatening Ukraine can be accomplished pretty darn quickly albeit not without cost to our side. But don't go nuclear...same for chemical/biological...give them 12-24 hours to lay down their arms, start going the other direction, surrender, or get pummeled...anyone shooting at a NATO or Ukrainian force, annihilation of that direct threat.

Not without the use of NATO allies bases & airspace. Don't assume that is a given if Russia uses a tac nuc in Ukraine.

I think it's exactly the opposite reaction.
Indications are that they are actually more ready to go to direct confrontation, now, than we are. And that's building with every horror in Ukraine.

Poland, for instance, is calling for ground forces, now. An "international peacekeeping mission".

I think they know that what is happening in Ukraine will happen to them if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine. And backing off because Putin uses a nuke will only invite more.

On the other hand, use of a nuke will galvanize the world in horror.

I think we need to be the ones with the most public restraint. But preparing.

[MDlaxfan76]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

This whole discussion is mad.

If Putin uses nukes, I think even China would support a complete shutdown of Russia’s economy and military forces of scores of nations would go on high alert worldwide.

The use of nukes is a line that NATO would not tolerate.

It would also be a clear sign that Putin is mentally unstable and his elimination would become a priority for the U.S. and its allies.

I don’t think you understand what a red line the use of any nukes of any kind would be. No understanding at all.

DocBarrister

It's not my understanding that matters. What matters is what Putin & his Generals are willing to risk.

I think Doc is referring to world reaction, not the madness that Putin could perpetrate by crossing that red line. It's accepted that Putin may well be crazy. But the reaction would be overwhelming...that's when I think we need to have cool heads and restrain the rage the world will feel. Give the Russian military a chance to put down their weapons.

We need to win the peace.

[Kismet]

Another Russian General officer liquidated - Top Russian naval chief (who ironically was born in Kyiv) Deputy Captain Black Sea Fleet Andrey Paliy was shot dead by a Ukrainians near Mariupol while leading Russian marines.

That's #6 in the course of three weeks. Not a good sign.

[old salt]

Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.

Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.

mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.

The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.

We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.

limit, not eliminate.

I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.

I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.

No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.

Perhaps you're not following what I said..no nukes by us...very important that we show restraint in any such, despite what Russia does. But complete decimation of their forces in and immediately threatening Ukraine can be accomplished pretty darn quickly albeit not without cost to our side. But don't go nuclear...same for chemical/biological...give them 12-24 hours to lay down their arms, start going the other direction, surrender, or get pummeled...anyone shooting at a NATO or Ukrainian force, annihilation of that direct threat.

Not without the use of NATO allies bases & airspace. Don't assume that is a given if Russia uses a tac nuc in Ukraine.

I think it's exactly the opposite reaction.
Indications are that they are actually more ready to go to direct confrontation, now, than we are. And that's building with every horror in Ukraine.

Poland, for instance, is calling for ground forces, now. An "international peacekeeping mission".

I think they know that what is happening in Ukraine will happen to them if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine. And backing off because Putin uses a nuke will only invite more.

On the other hand, use of a nuke will galvanize the world in horror.

I think we need to be the ones with the most public restraint. But preparing.

An international peacekeeping force means somebody else's troops.
Poland was afraid to let their giveaway Migs launch from their air base,
can we count on launching a USAF air war from their bases ?
The Polish leaders keep blindsiding us with their public statements.
NATO may be horrified, but will they go to war if a tac nuc is used in Ukraine ?
I would not count on it.