[Political Review]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, launched on February 24, exposed total unpreparedness of Kremlin’s troops for a war of such scale, as well an flawed assessment by Moscow of the real combat capability of the Ukrainian Army. The logistical crisis that the Russian forces are faced with and their tactical defeats on the battlefield since the first days of war have forced Putin to order his forces to practically destroy Ukraine as a country.
An acute shortage of armored vehicles (on March 13, a number of acclaimed western outlets reported that Russia was asking China for military assistance) and huge manpower losses led to intensified cruise missile attacks and air strikes. More than 50 settlements across Ukraine were subjected to shelling, while of them (Borodianka and Volnovakha) were practically wiped out of the earth’s face. Industrial infrastructure, airports, motorways, churches, schools, and hospitals are being systemically attacked. Several thousand households have already been destroyed. Most of the victims are civilians. The civilian death toll and the range of destruction are expanding by the day.
By failing to swiftly capture key cities and declare a blitz victory, Russia found itself entangled in a highly complicated and bloody war of attrition. The Kremlin has neither the military nor the economic, much less the demographic resources to wage such an intense war. There is not a single ally on Russia's side who could provide the aggressor any substantial assistance. Therefore, the Kremlin consistently applies the scorched earth tactics by destroying entire settlements and incapacitating industrial facilities.
According to an anonymous source in Russian diplomatic circles, the Russian forces received from their command a direct order to slaughter Ukrainian civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure. Thus, Russia is trying by coerce Ukraine to capitulation, forcing Kyiv to accept the Kremlin’s ultimatum.
Each new round of talks is preceded by intensified shelling of residential neighborhoods, serving as a psychological lever over Ukraine. The Kremlin is trying to sow panic among civilians and spread defeatist sentiments that could lead to mass protests and public demands that the government in Kyiv accept Moscow’s conditions to just stop the war.
Putin decided to go all in and capture as much of the Ukrainian territory as possible. He takes no account of either the human losses on both sides or the implications of war-related sanctions for Russian economy. In the occupied territories, Russian troops are seizing control of industrial facilities and production capacities, including major factories and power plants. Also, Russia has vast interests in Ukrainian ports. For example, in the strategic port city of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, Russian troops destroyed several thousand apartment blocks, while leaving intact the local factories and the port. The Kremlin is just fine with killing women and children, being driven by its greedy motivations.
The greatest geopolitical and humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century is now unfolding in Ukraine. The civilizational contours of the future world order depend on the outcome of the Ukrainian-Russian war. This war has proved the real prospects for Russia's military intervention in the EU and NATO countries bordering Russia, which are unlikely to receive significant support from the United States and other leading military powers and will be forced to defend themselves.
Putin thus put to a harsh test and actually devalued the very institutional foundation of the supranational structures of the West serving as pillars of their democracies.
If the Kremlin’s totalitarian revanchism faces no major international rebuff, it will trigger the so-called “domino effect,” resulting in various regional conflicts around the world, which in turn could lead to a war of all against all and ultimately destroy the concept of a balance of power in international politics.

[Godstud]

The rest of the world should step in and stop Putin, pushing him back to the old borders of Russia, and going no further. They can stop it, but no one with any courage is willing to do so.

[Skynet]

The rest of the world should step in and stop Putin, pushing him back to the old borders of Russia, and going no further. They can stop it, but no one with any courage is willing to do so.

Man this means nuclear war... During the 1st cold war was the west weaker in conventional arms therefore the west relied on nukes... Why do you think Putin is bluffing???

He never bluffed!

[Godstud]

As long as they don't step foot on Russian soil, there will not be a nuke war, no matter how much you wish it were so, @Sandzak.


Putin's posturing and bluffing. He's not insane, just evil.

[ingliz]

As long as they don't step foot on Russian soil, there will not be a nuke war

Are you sure?

Russia's nuclear deterrence strategy is escalating to de-escalate. The doctrine allows nuclear weapons use " in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

[Potemkin]

As long as they don't step foot on Russian soil, there will not be a nuke war, no matter how much you wish it were so, @Sandzak.


Putin's posturing and bluffing. He's not insane, just evil.

Putin is threatening dire consequences if NATO gets involved in the conflict in order to deter an escalation of the conflict to a wider sphere. However, he's not bluffing. It would be a grave mistake to think that's he's bluffing.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

Are you sure?

Russia's nuclear deterrence strategy is escalating to de-escalate. The doctrine allows nuclear weapons use " in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

We have submarines that have small tactical nuclear warheads mounted on their ballistic missiles to counter this Russian strategy. We did this because the Russians can't locate our submarines and the speed of which ballistic missiles fall are too fast for their air defense systems to shoot down. Thus, this gives the U.S. a credible response to any use by Russia of small tactical nuclear weapons in which we can retaliate upon Russian forces in a similar manner. So, Russia needs to bear in mind that the U.S. does have credible means to respond to this strategy. This article was written in 2019:

The U.S. has begun deploying a new type of low-yield nuclear warhead aboard some ballistic missile submarines, according to a report by an independent monitor.

When the USS Tennessee, an Ohio-class submarine, went on patrol in the final weeks of 2019, it carried "one or two" of the new weapons, according to a post by the Federation of American Scientists.

"It is apparently still out there now and expected to come back sometime in February," says Hans Kristensen, director of the group's nuclear information project. He believes a second submarine carrying the weapon may also be patrolling in the Pacific.

Kristensen says the assessment is based on conversations with government officials, who have spoken to the group about the weapon's deployment.

The Pentagon officially declined to comment on the report: "It is U.S. policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location, as such, we cannot confirm or deny this reporting at this time," it said in a written statement to NPR.

The warheads were produced by the Department of Energy over the past year. An Energy Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR in November that they had been transferred to the U.S. Navy.

The weapon is known as the W76-2, and it appears superficially identical to the much more powerful W76-1 nuclear weapons carried by the same submarines. But unlike those thermonuclear whoppers, the W76-2 has a relatively "small" yield of perhaps, 5 kilotons — or about one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb, according to Kristensen. It was developed in response to the Trump Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which outlined the need for smaller nukes.

Much of that need centers around Russia, which the administration says is preparing to use small nukes in a conflict. The idea is that Russia would use relatively low-yield nuclear weapon to get a superior adversary such as the U.S. or NATO to back down in a conflict, according to Katarzyna Zysk, who studies Russian military doctrine at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in Oslo.

Zysk says that Russia has made a number of vague statements about nuclear use recently, while deploying several systems that are capable of carrying smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons. Deploying a weapon such as the W76-2 undermines any Russian strategy of using small nukes in a conflict, she says, because it gives the U.S. a way to respond without rolling out the big ones. "That's the simple logic," she says.

But critics warn that the strategy carries huge risks. For one thing, there is no way for a potential adversary to tell the difference between the launch of a ballistic missile tipped with a low-yield warhead and one carrying a "large" warhead. The Russians, monitoring U.S. launches, could easily confuse the two.

Perhaps the greater risk, Kristensen warns, is that a tit-for-tat exchange of small nuclear weapons could lead to a larger nuclear war. "Once you start popping nukes, the bets are off," he says.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/29/80093820 ... g-to-group

NPR Podcast On Small Nukes Deployment

[Political Interest]

Putin is threatening dire consequences if NATO gets involved in the conflict in order to deter an escalation of the conflict to a wider sphere. However, he's not bluffing. It would be a grave mistake to think that's he's bluffing.

During the Cold War the US and Soviet Union never went to war, and this is very important. John F Kennedy knew the cost and price of what such a war would entail, that's why he was so reluctant to invade Cuba, despite being under tremendous pressure to do so. Apparently he once whispered to his mistress, "I'd rather my children be red than dead."

America and China fought each other in the Korean war, but never declared war on each other. The Chinese leadership weren't confident of their ability to defeat America and hence were reluctant to get direclty involved. American leadership also didn't want to go all in in China. So both sides were able to restrain it, hence why McArthur was ordered not to cross the Yalu River.

So any war with Russia would be taking us into unchartered territory, very frightening territory.

[ingliz]

@Politics_Observer

Perhaps the greater risk, Kristensen warns, is that a tit-for-tat exchange of small nuclear weapons could lead to a larger nuclear war. "Once you start popping nukes, the bets are off," he says.

So, you agree that @Godstud shouldn't be so smugly complacent in his belief that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable?

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

I think nuclear weapons should be unthinkable. However, the reality of the situation dictates that the use of nuclear weapons is very much a possibility. This is something that responsible world leaders should try to prevent. Nobody can win a nuclear war. Really, in my opinion, there are no real winners in a conventional war either. Everybody loses.

[Godstud]

I am not "smugly complacent" @ingliz, you fear-mongering shmuck.

I just don't think pushing Russia back into their own country(not invading it) will not start a nuclear exchange which Russia would get the worst of. Even Putin knows this, and whereas he might be and evil asshole, he's not insane.

[Skynet]

@Godstud

How to survive a nuclear winter.

The stakes are high too high for my taste.

[Godstud]

@Sandzak Rubbish. You're just a Russian simp hoping that everyone will suck up to Putin's threats.

[Skynet]

@Sandzak Rubbish. You're just a Russian simp hoping that everyone will suck up to Putin's threats.

No man. I fear a nuclear war.

[Potemkin]

No man. I fear a nuclear war.

It's like it's the 1970s and 80s all over again. I'm going to start wearing a mullet, kipper ties and flared trousers to get into the spirit of things!

[ingliz]

It's like it's the 1970s and 80s all over again.

Protect and Survive

[ness31]

I wasn’t aware there was a huge difference between nuclear weapons. I guess it’s one of those instances where size really does matter; but I’d have thought even a ‘smaller’ nuke would be disastrous.

So, just to give me an idea of possible carnage, were the bombs dropped on the poor Japanese big or small?

[Skynet]

I wasn’t aware there was a huge difference between nuclear weapons. I guess it’s one of those instances where size really does matter; but I’d have thought even a ‘smaller’ nuke would be disastrous.

So, just to give me an idea of possible carnage, were the bombs dropped on the poor Japanese big or small?

rather small

[MadMonk]

Zelenskiy says Russia’s position in negotiations is becoming ‘more realistic’ as fears deepen for Mariupol

Anyone want to bet against the Russians caving and be begging for a ceasefire in about a week?

[ness31]

Thanks for the illustration. That’s some serious genie plumage