Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Jarhead0331]

I fucking hope not.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov refused Tuesday to say his nation would not use nuclear weapons if it thought Russia could be destroyed.

Peskov said the conditions were consistent with the nations national security concept. "If there's a threat to the very existence of our country, it can be used in accordance with this concept," he stated in response to the question of whether Russia's use of nuclear weapons could be completely ruled out, according to the Russian government-controlled news site TASS."

Russian military doctrine envisions use of nuclear weapons in a first use scenario if it is losing a conventional conflict. Ukraine is exactly the scenario for which this was developed," said Rebekah Koffler, who is a former DIA intelligence officer who specialized in Russia.

"They fear U.S. intervention in Ukraine because they fear we are conventionally superior," she said. "And if they interpret our action as offensive rather than defensive, that is when the viability of Russian statehood would be threatened, in accordance with the Russian national security concept and military doctrine."

[Gusington]

^I just watched that interview on CNN with Peskov a few minutes ago. I pray that the Russians are bluffing. But they weren't bluffing last month with the whole buildup...

...maybe they are considering using tactical nukes?

[GDS_Starfury]

I would argue that when you get down to it there are no tactical nukes.

[MengJiao]

You're watching the beginning of their justification to use nukes.

  Other than NATO bases in Poland, it's hard to see what they might want to nuke.  Trashing stuff with fairly large doses of HE seems to be working okay for them at the moment.  Plus, I suspect using even one itty-bitty nuke is going to get them tossed out of the UN and having lots of forces
turned against them.  I kind of doubt the nuke thing will happen even if the Russians feel it is metaphysically justified.  Seems like a nice deal with Zelensky might clear up the whole problem a lot more easily
than getting kicked out of the UN for nuking some place in western Ukraine (unless they nuke some town close to their own army, or Belarus if it goes unstable, which might not be the best idea).

[al_infierno]

I would argue that when you get down to it there are no tactical nukes.

This may have been discussed on a previous page, but my understanding is that this is basically correct: Most (if not all) nuclear-armed militaries moved away from the idea of allowing nuclear clearance on a tactical level, explicitly the avoid the potential situation of some sergeant escalating a conflict into nuclear war with a heat-of-the-moment decision in the middle of a firefight.

[GDS_Starfury]

most did but not the soviets.
errr russians

[Gusington]

^So then we're back to square one...Russians are feeling metaphysically threatened and because of that...they nuke Lviv?

[GDS_Starfury]

if they use one, and Im still on the fence over that, I dont think it would be anywhere close to where their troops are.
the soviets would want a demonstration somewhere thats not close to NATO and not close to their own people but could have an impact on the
tactical/operational sphere of the war.

[MengJiao]

^So then we're back to square one...Russians are feeling metaphysically threatened and because of that...they nuke Lviv?

  That would be a reasonable target, I guess, though I don't see what it would get them that a few more weeks of blasting away at Eastern Ukraine plus a deal with Zelensky would not provide and with less risk.  I think once they have settled down to blowing things up until they get a deal, they'll get over the obsession with nuking things no matter how satisfying incinerating a lot of people
might be for the metaphysically-challenged Patriarch.  What do they get out of nuking that they won't get out of
a few more weeks of blowing things up and getting a deal?

  The risk of nuking something is just not worth it as far as I can see. 

[GDS_Starfury]

leveling a 1000 year old capital city doesnt fall under the catagory of demonstration.
I think it would be something 50 to 100 km behind the eastern front line that effects both the Donbass and Kharkov.

[Sir Slash]

I could see a guy like Putin who's paranoia's the size of Siberia, not able to capture the Capital of source of his metaphysical torment (Kiev), deciding instead to simply nuke the place to remove the threat. It doesn't have to make sense to be Putin.

[GDS_Starfury]

and thats where the scores of books Ive read on the subject matter can sometimes go off the rails.
hopefully there are people down the chain of command that can just say no.
hopefully there are other people/groups/forces that can stop it closer to the top.
ultimately people operate on enlightened self interest.  how many in putins circle dont want to die or be remembered as todays war criminal nazis.

[GDS_Starfury]

the good news is that we're really looking at only 1200 warheads.  :bd:
6000ish total current soviet nuclear weapons.  1200 are on SSBNs and ICBMs.
not to worried about bombers, arty and lower stuff.
nice chart:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Russian-Strategic-Nuclear-Forces-Under-New-START

not all SSBNs are able to launch overhaul, at pier, corruption.  I cant see why any part of their military would actually work as well as advertised.
the Pentagon expect 10% of our shit to fail at some point in the mission cycle and we spend MONEY!

[Con]

Some interesting footage of the Ukranian people/militia fighting back - this is reporting from the BBC

[GDS_Starfury]

I see your video and raise you a tank duel.

Video from the Azov regiment showing Ukrainian tanks firing on Russian positions reportedly from Mariupol. I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing much snow in Mariupol recently.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1506293554951372803