All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Farfromgeneva]

The world doesn’t need any more Putin apologists. What the world needs is a humiliating defeat of Russia in Ukraine and the eventual demise of Putin and his criminal regime.

DocBarrister

...& then what ? Who takes power in Russia ? How do you ensure whoever comes next is not even worse ? Do you expect our Ukrainian proxy army to march to Moscow & occupy the Kremlin ? ...or are you counting on the US & (maybe) NATO doing that ?
Look at what emerged from our attempt to recast the USSR.

Rah. Rah. Let's inflict a humiliating defeat on Russia & ensure future centuries of enmity toward the West, ...& the US in particular.

Bad as he is, Putin is still contained. He does not have the military capacity to take Ukraine, let alone territory in his NATO neighbors.
Ukraine's independence & continued existence is now secured. Crimea, the Donbas & the land bridge connecting them are historically part of Russia.

It's not worth continuing this war to take back ALL of the territory the Russian's now hold. This could be settled along sensible secure borders which allow both nations to co-exist & prosper. Ukraine would still be a US military ally -- a formidable buffer state to deter any further Russian adventurism.

You don’t take action with outcomes guaranteed anywhere in life that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. You do it because the action needs to be taken now.

[Farfromgeneva]

The world doesn’t need any more Putin apologists. What the world needs is a humiliating defeat of Russia in Ukraine and the eventual demise of Putin and his criminal regime.

DocBarrister

...& then what ? Who takes power in Russia ? How do you ensure whoever comes next is not even worse ? Do you expect our Ukrainian proxy army to march to Moscow & occupy the Kremlin ? ...or are you counting on the US & (maybe) NATO doing that ?
Look at what emerged from our attempt to recast the USSR.

Bad as he is, Putin is still contained. He does not have the military capacity to take Ukraine, let alone territory in his NATO neighbors.
Ukraine's independence & continued existence is now secured. Crimea, the Donbas & the land bridge connecting them are historically part of Russia.

It's not worth continuing this war to take back ALL of the territory the Russian's now hold. This could be settled along sensible secure borders which allow both nations to co-exist & prosper. Ukraine would still be a US military ally -- a formidable buffer state to deter any further Russian adventurism.

It’s the people Russia now holds.

Most of them have been living under Russian rule since 2014. The newly taken territory has been devastated. Those who have not already fled can be resettled in other areas of Ukraine or stay & live as Russians, as the residents of Crimea & the separatist controlled areas of the Donbas have.
It's not perfect but it's similar to the NATO engineered settlements in the Balkans, which are still functional.

Un huh.

Sure thing Einstein.
As for downplaying the CPAC, Tucker & Tulsi connection, do you stand when they play the Russian national anthem?

This is the proper salute to Putin and his anthem

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2d25e3b9-1 ... 12315a772a

[old salt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ted-peace/

Opinion Why a negotiated peace with Putin is the safest way out
by David Von Drehle, Columnist, September 30, 2022

I can’t fault anyone who objects to the idea of a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war. Russia started with an unprovoked invasion and moved quickly to war crimes. So why do I advocate negotiation if certain terms can be achieved?

Readers angered by my position equate a settlement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. By this analogy, “appeasement” of Putin will only encourage him to invade more countries and seize more land, much as Hitler grabbed Poland in 1939, touching off World War II in Europe.

The comparison, once apt, is now past its shelf life. The right time to cite Chamberlain was in February, when the Russian tanks rolled. Good news: The lesson of Munich was emphatically learned. Far from appeasing Putin, the United States and its allies stoutly resisted, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stepped into the role of Winston Churchill.

Since then, Putin has been dealt a staggering defeat, from which Russia might never recover. The Ukraine invasion will go down in history as a nearly unparalleled blunder. Over seven months of an optional war have gutted the Russian military, sunk the Russian economy, weakened Russia’s partnership with China, alienated Russia’s trading partners, and touched off a stampede by Russia’s best and brightest to escape a dysfunctional country.

Putin’s attempt to snuff out Ukrainian independence has instead fortified and ennobled it. His effort to weaken NATO instead made NATO bigger and stronger than ever. Hitler’s Germany in 1938 was a rising power bristling with military and industrial might. Putin’s Russia is a broken nation in precipitous decline, leading the world in phishing, porn and not much else.

Russia’s decrepitude has been proved to the world so swiftly that comprehension lags behind. For generations, we’ve thought of Russia as a global power. Now we see that the cream of the Russian army can’t advance more than a few kilometers into a neighboring country without losing thousands of tanks, legions of soldiers and numerous generals.

But having seen it, the world won’t forget it. Russia’s days as an aggressor are over.

Critics of a negotiated peace worry about Putin “rebuilding” his aggressive capacity. How can he rebuild if he can’t build in the first place? His army can’t advance into Ukraine, his air force can’t fly over it, and his navy is rightly scared to approach shore. This, after Putin’s much-touted military buildup.

A nation that cannot build an effective military when the proceeds of fuel sales are sluicing in is no threat to “rebuild” when its economy is puny. Remember: Ukraine, an inspiring but subordinate power, wiped out the premier tank division of a Russian army supposedly built on tanks.

And where would Putin’s imaginary force find its generals? What promising young Russian would waste a career on such a feckless, corrupt force — to be known only for indiscriminate bombing, war crimes and incompetence?

The question we face (urgent and dangerous) is: How many more people must die before the fact of Russia’s defeat seeps through the informational dead zone of the Kremlin? Is it wise to accelerate that seepage? The case for negotiation is that a deal might create space for Russia to deflate rather than explode.

I share the moral outrage at Putin’s unprovoked invasion. I appreciate the visceral wish to see this war continue until even Crimea and Donbas — territory the West did not think worth fighting over before February — are under Ukrainian control. I understand the calls for regime change in Moscow.

But when folks tell me to remember 1938, I urge them to remember 2003. Saddam Hussein was a murderous, kleptocratic war criminal, just like Putin. He boasted of his giant army, just like Putin. And when he was toppled precipitously? We reaped a whirlwind of chaos. A similar chaos in nuclear-armed Russia is too dangerous to risk — if it can be avoided.

Moreover, just as the world could not tolerate Putin in Kyiv, neither can it tolerate mayhem among nuclear powers.

Critics warn against giving Putin room to “rebuild” his capacity. What capacity? We’ve seen the fruits of more than a decade of military buildup, funded by Europe’s thirst for Russian gas. You can’t rebuild what never was.

Vast in resources, deep in culture, Russia is perpetually poor when it comes to government. Nothing better than Putin appears to be waiting in the wings. So I reluctantly support a negotiated settlement, with lines limited to the pre-February status quo *, if we can get that deal, to give time for the next step to emerge. It is the safest way out: for Ukrainians, for Russians and for the rest of us.
* I would limit the line to the Dneiper river in the territory now held by the Russians, with Ukraine to the N & W / Russia to the S & E of the river. That's a natural, defensible border which would allow both nations access to the Black Sea & guarantee a land route & a water supply to Crimea -- all objectives worth continuing the war for Russia.

What do you think of this opinion piece specifically? What do you specifically agree with and do not and why? Just throwing the red print up there doesn’t solve the problem of your playing games with deniability. Use your voice and take a stand like a man.

Agree 100%. This opinion piece reflects my view totally & precisely.
I could have written that if I were as articulate as the author.
I'll add one minor modification to reduce the incentive for Russia to try again.

[old salt]

As for downplaying the CPAC, Tucker & Tulsi connection, do you stand when they play the Russian national anthem?

Only to pisss on keyboard warriors like you. ...& at international hockey games.

[a fan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ted-peace/

Opinion Why a negotiated peace with Putin is the safest way out
by David Von Drehle, Columnist, September 30, 2022

I can’t fault anyone who objects to the idea of a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war. Russia started with an unprovoked invasion and moved quickly to war crimes. So why do I advocate negotiation if certain terms can be achieved?

Readers angered by my position equate a settlement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. By this analogy, “appeasement” of Putin will only encourage him to invade more countries and seize more land, much as Hitler grabbed Poland in 1939, touching off World War II in Europe.

The comparison, once apt, is now past its shelf life. The right time to cite Chamberlain was in February, when the Russian tanks rolled. Good news: The lesson of Munich was emphatically learned. Far from appeasing Putin, the United States and its allies stoutly resisted, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stepped into the role of Winston Churchill.

Since then, Putin has been dealt a staggering defeat, from which Russia might never recover. The Ukraine invasion will go down in history as a nearly unparalleled blunder. Over seven months of an optional war have gutted the Russian military, sunk the Russian economy, weakened Russia’s partnership with China, alienated Russia’s trading partners, and touched off a stampede by Russia’s best and brightest to escape a dysfunctional country.

Putin’s attempt to snuff out Ukrainian independence has instead fortified and ennobled it. His effort to weaken NATO instead made NATO bigger and stronger than ever. Hitler’s Germany in 1938 was a rising power bristling with military and industrial might. Putin’s Russia is a broken nation in precipitous decline, leading the world in phishing, porn and not much else.

Russia’s decrepitude has been proved to the world so swiftly that comprehension lags behind. For generations, we’ve thought of Russia as a global power. Now we see that the cream of the Russian army can’t advance more than a few kilometers into a neighboring country without losing thousands of tanks, legions of soldiers and numerous generals.

But having seen it, the world won’t forget it. Russia’s days as an aggressor are over.

Critics of a negotiated peace worry about Putin “rebuilding” his aggressive capacity. How can he rebuild if he can’t build in the first place? His army can’t advance into Ukraine, his air force can’t fly over it, and his navy is rightly scared to approach shore. This, after Putin’s much-touted military buildup.

A nation that cannot build an effective military when the proceeds of fuel sales are sluicing in is no threat to “rebuild” when its economy is puny. Remember: Ukraine, an inspiring but subordinate power, wiped out the premier tank division of a Russian army supposedly built on tanks.

And where would Putin’s imaginary force find its generals? What promising young Russian would waste a career on such a feckless, corrupt force — to be known only for indiscriminate bombing, war crimes and incompetence?

The question we face (urgent and dangerous) is: How many more people must die before the fact of Russia’s defeat seeps through the informational dead zone of the Kremlin? Is it wise to accelerate that seepage? The case for negotiation is that a deal might create space for Russia to deflate rather than explode.

I share the moral outrage at Putin’s unprovoked invasion. I appreciate the visceral wish to see this war continue until even Crimea and Donbas — territory the West did not think worth fighting over before February — are under Ukrainian control. I understand the calls for regime change in Moscow.

But when folks tell me to remember 1938, I urge them to remember 2003. Saddam Hussein was a murderous, kleptocratic war criminal, just like Putin. He boasted of his giant army, just like Putin. And when he was toppled precipitously? We reaped a whirlwind of chaos. A similar chaos in nuclear-armed Russia is too dangerous to risk — if it can be avoided.

Moreover, just as the world could not tolerate Putin in Kyiv, neither can it tolerate mayhem among nuclear powers.

Critics warn against giving Putin room to “rebuild” his capacity. What capacity? We’ve seen the fruits of more than a decade of military buildup, funded by Europe’s thirst for Russian gas. You can’t rebuild what never was.

Vast in resources, deep in culture, Russia is perpetually poor when it comes to government. Nothing better than Putin appears to be waiting in the wings. So I reluctantly support a negotiated settlement, with lines limited to the pre-February status quo *, if we can get that deal, to give time for the next step to emerge. It is the safest way out: for Ukrainians, for Russians and for the rest of us.
* I would limit the line to the Dneiper river in the territory now held by the Russians, with Ukraine to the N & W / Russia to the S & E of the river. That's a natural, defensible border which would allow both nations access to the Black Sea & guarantee a land route & a water supply to Crimea -- all objectives worth continuing the war for Russia.

What do you think of this opinion piece specifically? What do you specifically agree with and do not and why? Just throwing the red print up there doesn’t solve the problem of your playing games with deniability. Use your voice and take a stand like a man.

Agree 100%. This opinion piece reflects my view totally & precisely.
I could have written that if I were as articulate as the author.
I'll add one minor modification to reduce the incentive for Russia to try again.

That's what Biden is doing. But he needs Putin and Zelensky to get on board.

[old salt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ted-peace/

Opinion Why a negotiated peace with Putin is the safest way out
by David Von Drehle, Columnist, September 30, 2022

I can’t fault anyone who objects to the idea of a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war. Russia started with an unprovoked invasion and moved quickly to war crimes. So why do I advocate negotiation if certain terms can be achieved?

Readers angered by my position equate a settlement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. By this analogy, “appeasement” of Putin will only encourage him to invade more countries and seize more land, much as Hitler grabbed Poland in 1939, touching off World War II in Europe.

The comparison, once apt, is now past its shelf life. The right time to cite Chamberlain was in February, when the Russian tanks rolled. Good news: The lesson of Munich was emphatically learned. Far from appeasing Putin, the United States and its allies stoutly resisted, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stepped into the role of Winston Churchill.

Since then, Putin has been dealt a staggering defeat, from which Russia might never recover. The Ukraine invasion will go down in history as a nearly unparalleled blunder. Over seven months of an optional war have gutted the Russian military, sunk the Russian economy, weakened Russia’s partnership with China, alienated Russia’s trading partners, and touched off a stampede by Russia’s best and brightest to escape a dysfunctional country.

Putin’s attempt to snuff out Ukrainian independence has instead fortified and ennobled it. His effort to weaken NATO instead made NATO bigger and stronger than ever. Hitler’s Germany in 1938 was a rising power bristling with military and industrial might. Putin’s Russia is a broken nation in precipitous decline, leading the world in phishing, porn and not much else.

Russia’s decrepitude has been proved to the world so swiftly that comprehension lags behind. For generations, we’ve thought of Russia as a global power. Now we see that the cream of the Russian army can’t advance more than a few kilometers into a neighboring country without losing thousands of tanks, legions of soldiers and numerous generals.

But having seen it, the world won’t forget it. Russia’s days as an aggressor are over.

Critics of a negotiated peace worry about Putin “rebuilding” his aggressive capacity. How can he rebuild if he can’t build in the first place? His army can’t advance into Ukraine, his air force can’t fly over it, and his navy is rightly scared to approach shore. This, after Putin’s much-touted military buildup.

A nation that cannot build an effective military when the proceeds of fuel sales are sluicing in is no threat to “rebuild” when its economy is puny. Remember: Ukraine, an inspiring but subordinate power, wiped out the premier tank division of a Russian army supposedly built on tanks.

And where would Putin’s imaginary force find its generals? What promising young Russian would waste a career on such a feckless, corrupt force — to be known only for indiscriminate bombing, war crimes and incompetence?

The question we face (urgent and dangerous) is: How many more people must die before the fact of Russia’s defeat seeps through the informational dead zone of the Kremlin? Is it wise to accelerate that seepage? The case for negotiation is that a deal might create space for Russia to deflate rather than explode.

I share the moral outrage at Putin’s unprovoked invasion. I appreciate the visceral wish to see this war continue until even Crimea and Donbas — territory the West did not think worth fighting over before February — are under Ukrainian control. I understand the calls for regime change in Moscow.

But when folks tell me to remember 1938, I urge them to remember 2003. Saddam Hussein was a murderous, kleptocratic war criminal, just like Putin. He boasted of his giant army, just like Putin. And when he was toppled precipitously? We reaped a whirlwind of chaos. A similar chaos in nuclear-armed Russia is too dangerous to risk — if it can be avoided.

Moreover, just as the world could not tolerate Putin in Kyiv, neither can it tolerate mayhem among nuclear powers.

Critics warn against giving Putin room to “rebuild” his capacity. What capacity? We’ve seen the fruits of more than a decade of military buildup, funded by Europe’s thirst for Russian gas. You can’t rebuild what never was.

Vast in resources, deep in culture, Russia is perpetually poor when it comes to government. Nothing better than Putin appears to be waiting in the wings. So I reluctantly support a negotiated settlement, with lines limited to the pre-February status quo *, if we can get that deal, to give time for the next step to emerge. It is the safest way out: for Ukrainians, for Russians and for the rest of us.
* I would limit the line to the Dneiper river in the territory now held by the Russians, with Ukraine to the N & W / Russia to the S & E of the river. That's a natural, defensible border which would allow both nations access to the Black Sea & guarantee a land route & a water supply to Crimea -- all objectives worth continuing the war for Russia.

What do you think of this opinion piece specifically? What do you specifically agree with and do not and why? Just throwing the red print up there doesn’t solve the problem of your playing games with deniability. Use your voice and take a stand like a man.

Agree 100%. This opinion piece reflects my view totally & precisely.
I could have written that if I were as articulate as the author.
I'll add one minor modification to reduce the incentive for Russia to try again.

That's what Biden is doing. But he needs Putin and Zelensky to get on board.

I hope that's what's happening in the back channel negotiations, along with nucs, pipe line sabotage & what weapons will provoke an escalation.

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc. If the Russian forces are able to retreat intact back across the Dneiper, imo, that would be the time to push for a cease fire.

[Kismet]

As for downplaying the CPAC, Tucker & Tulsi connection, do you stand when they play the Russian national anthem?

Only to pisss on keyboard warriors like you. ...& at international hockey games.

Good look tough guy. If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
Popeye must have had his spinach!!!!!!!!

[MDlaxfan76]

Ain't gonna happen and it would be an enormous mistake to pressure such.

Ukraine is determined to take back all of its territory, freeing all of its people including the return of those taken or driven from those lands.

Likely won't be entirely accomplished before winter, but it's going to happen as long as we and the EU/NATO remain steadfast in support.

Re tac nuke, the response from NATO and the US would indeed be rapidly catastrophic for the Russian military in Ukraine.

The boundaries to be maintained will be those pre 2014. They can be maintained just fine going forward.

[Farfromgeneva]

As for downplaying the CPAC, Tucker & Tulsi connection, do you stand when they play the Russian national anthem?

Only to pisss on keyboard warriors like you. ...& at international hockey games.

Good look tough guy. If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
Popeye must have had his spinach!!!!!!!!

He gives stock advice. You should’ve totally pushed the chips in on Nasdaq about a year ago.

[a fan]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

[MDlaxfan76]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.

[DocBarrister]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.

Any use of a tactical nuclear weapon could result in catastrophic soil and water contamination. Not good when Ukraine is considered the breadbasket for much of the world.

If you want to watch a 1953 U.S. test of a “small” 15 kiloton tactical nuclear weapon (fired like artillery), check this out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

It’s absolutely nuts that Putin and his murderous cronies are even making the threat to use such weapons.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Elon being the egotistical jerk that he is.
Re-captured by the right wing media.

Response:
"F— off is my very diplomatic reply to you,” Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andrij Melnyk wrote in response to Musk’s Twitter thread."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/tech/elo ... index.html

[DocBarrister]

Elon being the egotistical jerk that he is.
Re-captured by the right wing media.

Response:
"F— off is my very diplomatic reply to you,” Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andrij Melnyk wrote in response to Musk’s Twitter thread."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/tech/elo ... index.html

Unfortunately, California subsidized this monster and his company to the tune of over $3 billion.

https://www.govtech.com/policy/gov-news ... ?_amp=true

Anyone who even suggests that Elon Musk is some sort of self-made billionaire is an ignoramus. The guy got rich off of a lot of CA taxpayer dollars.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

[MDlaxfan76]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

Yup, and it means that we MUST decimate their forces in order to prevent ANY future attempts at such blackmail. Fortunately, we have the capacity to do so.

My understanding is that we've built consensus in NATO that this will be our response and that we've been very clear in a whole variety of channels to get Russia (and its military) to know that as well.

And yes, we can expect nuclear fallout not contained.
Way less than a strategic nuke, but there's no complete containment.

But hey, you do you...

[old salt]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

Yup, and it means that we MUST decimate their forces in order to prevent ANY future attempts at such blackmail. Fortunately, we have the capacity to do so.

My understanding is that we've built consensus in NATO that this will be our response and that we've been very clear in a whole variety of channels to get Russia (and its military) to know that as well.

And yes, we can expect nuclear fallout not contained.
Way less than a strategic nuke, but there's no complete containment.

But hey, you do you...

Right. It could never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169
The smallest tactical nuclear weapons can be one kiloton or less
By comparison, the atomic bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was 15 kilotons.

FWIW -- during the Cold War our ASW helos carried low yield nuc depth bombs to drop on Soviet subs. It was a pita.

[PizzaSnake]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

Vlad “Strangelove” Putin. Of course he’ll poison the world.

Russia’s inextricably fncked if they don’t out him down like a mad dog. They’ll be an international pariah state.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

Yup, and it means that we MUST decimate their forces in order to prevent ANY future attempts at such blackmail. Fortunately, we have the capacity to do so.

My understanding is that we've built consensus in NATO that this will be our response and that we've been very clear in a whole variety of channels to get Russia (and its military) to know that as well.

And yes, we can expect nuclear fallout not contained.
Way less than a strategic nuke, but there's no complete containment.

But hey, you do you...

Right. It could never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169
The smallest tactical nuclear weapons can be one kiloton or less
By comparison, the atomic bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was 15 kilotons.

FWIW -- during the Cold War our ASW helos carried low yield nuc depth bombs to drop on Soviet subs. It was a pita.

Thanks Marko…..how is the Pirozhki?

[MDlaxfan76]

If the Russian forces are trapped N & W of the Dneiper, I'm concerned that Putin might play the tac nuc card -- not necessarily there but someplace else in Ukraine (like a supply hub) -- escalate to de-escalate -- hit it with a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead & threaten the next one will be a tac nuc.

Hit what? Where could he hit that wouldn't have long term downsides? He can't hit territory he wants to occupy.

And he can't hit anywhere near where Russians are fighting.

So where would he hit?

And anywhere he hits, the fallout is sure to drift...including into NATO territories...and, if not, only if the prevailing winds are toward Russia instead...
Not necessarily. Low yield, burrowing warhead for underground detonation.

Again, the response from NATO would be catastrophic for the Russian military. All conventional.
Decimated.Sure about that ? Opinion stated as fact.

And Putin would truly be a pariah, including with India and China.
He already is.

Russian low yield tac nucs. Escalate to deescalate.

Yup, and it means that we MUST decimate their forces in order to prevent ANY future attempts at such blackmail. Fortunately, we have the capacity to do so.

My understanding is that we've built consensus in NATO that this will be our response and that we've been very clear in a whole variety of channels to get Russia (and its military) to know that as well.

And yes, we can expect nuclear fallout not contained.
Way less than a strategic nuke, but there's no complete containment.

But hey, you do you...

Right. It could never happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169
The smallest tactical nuclear weapons can be one kiloton or less
By comparison, the atomic bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was 15 kilotons.

FWIW -- during the Cold War our ASW helos carried low yield nuc depth bombs to drop on Soviet subs. It was a pita.

I didn't say it couldn't happen.

What I said is that the consequences would be overwhelmingly catastrophic for the Russian military; decimated...and I've said, now, that we MUST respond this way to prevent ANY future such attempt at blackmail.

But, yes, it could happen...what will not happen is for it to work out well for Russia or Putin.