Russia's War Against Ukraine

[ArizonaTank]

My bet is that the Vatican stays neutral.  They need the tax exemptions.   ;)

You might be right about that...

I think Nato would reject a Vatican bid anyway. Just on the grounds that yellow, red and blue stripes don't really mesh well with other Nato camouflage schemes.

https://vatican.com/Vatican-City-the-Swiss-Guard/

[SirAndrewD]

I'm seriously surprised Putin hadn't moved to annex those breakaway puppet 'republics' years ago.

Why?

Prior to the invasion the Russians only occupied less than half of Luhansk and Donetsk in a perimeter that ran barely outside of the borders of those cities.   They were only in control there because of the cease fire and threats of Russian intervention if the Ukrainian military went in to push out the separatist forces.   Had the Russians tried to annex them the Ukrainians would've attacked with full force and likely made short work of the Mercs and separatist militias they had arrayed against them.

Officially there were no Russian troops even on the ground (though most of the separatists were likely Russian contract troops).  This wasn't the same as the annexation of Crimea where there was no organized resistance and it was quickly supported by Russian troops.

Annexation only became feasible once the oblasts were fully occupied and bolstered by Russian regular army support.   It was probably preferred well after some kind of victory had been achieved.   They're only jumping the gun now because their hand is being forced. 

And apparently Putin is putting off his speech until tomorrow.

[W8taminute]

Putin to go live this evening on Russian tv to give a speech at the Duma.
If I can find an article^* I'll post it.





^*Definition of article = a news story from a generally accepted main stream media outlet

[SirAndrewD]

Putin to go live this evening on Russian tv to give a speech at the Duma.
If I can find an article^* I'll post it.

It's apparently being delayed until the morning in Russia.  That should be 1am Eastern.

[W8taminute]

^Damn it.  Yeah I just saw that. 

[Pete Dero]

There was an announcement early Tuesday that Russia's State Duma passed legislation introducing stricter punishments for any troops who "voluntarily" surrender on the front line or refuse to follow orders.
Deserters would get up to 15 years behind bars, while those who surrender face a 10-year sentence. Those who refuse to follow the orders of their commanders face three years.

The legislation, which for the first time also adds the concepts of "mobilization, martial law and wartime" to the Russian Criminal Code, has widely been seen as the first step to launching full-scale mobilization.
While the move is widely seen as a way for the Kremlin to shore up troops, it was almost immediately met with panicked calls for Russian troops to ditch the war now before it's too late.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlins-new-hail-mary-shows-putin-is-more-panicked-than-ever

[GDS_Starfury]

why did the russians cross the road?


















they were regrouping.  L:-)

[GDS_Starfury]

back to the nuclear issue:

https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

[bobarossa]

back to the nuclear issue:

https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

We could leak to Russia through "reliable sources" that we had transferred a few dozen tactical nukes to Ukraine.  Not saying we should actually give them to Ukraine.  Maybe the uncertainty would make russia show some restraint.

[GDS_Starfury]

that would be a very very bad idea.

[SirAndrewD]

that would be a very very bad idea.

Very very bad.

A consistent element of Russian nuclear policy in the Cold War was the idea that if they felt there was a credible threat of an attack, that they should launch a preemptive strike with full, overwhelming force. 

That was consistently the danger in the Cold War, the Russians were never to the last minute convinced that NATO would not strike first under the cover of a Reforger exercise.  I mean, it's what the Russians would do!

I doubt that mindset has changed much.  If they think someone is directly threatening to use nukes on them, they'll use them first and in such quantity as to assure the threat is eliminated.

[GDS_Starfury]

I mean, it's what the Russians would do!

its literally what they did.

[bobarossa]

back to the nuclear issue:

https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

We could leak to Russia through "reliable sources" that we had transferred a few dozen tactical nukes to Ukraine.  Not saying we should actually give them to Ukraine.  Maybe the uncertainty would make russia show some restraint.

Actually a better (less bad?) idea would be to simply state if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine we will give Ukraine some to return the favor.  That way Ukraine can't do anything first. 

[Gusington]

Is there an actual Russian word for 'restraint?'

[GDS_Starfury]

it used to be called SAC.  ::)