War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Al Terego]

What I want is for NATO to finally show some balls and make a stand or statement against Putin.

When countries show balls and make statements, people die.  Often citizens of said countries, which usually does not go well with the (voting) populace.  It is much easier to make a stand when you are a dictator who does not have to worry about local unrest and dissidents.

If NATO doesn't respond to this, what's the point of NATO in the first place? If NATO doesn't want to go to war when attacked? What's the point of a defensive pact? When they're not even defending their own member states?

No-one in NATO wants an escalation that may lead to a war between nuclear powers over an isolated incident (that almost certainly involved Ukrainian missiles).  Putin knows this and plays it to his advantage.  He would love nothing more than to destabilize the West and dismantle NATO.

And based on what will we all die if we go to war with Russia?

All, no; some, yes.  Putin (like Stalin before him) does not care about people's lives, considering them nothing more than cannon fodder, but I assume that most of Western leaders do.
But if worse comes to worst (from his perspective), and if the alternative to being removed from head of state and tried for war crimes is unleashing WW3, I don't think that he'll hesitate.

The US (and thus NATO) can drop a bomb through a letterbox. Show Putin this. Show him he's crossed a line. Send out that warning that if he continues to mess around, he'll regret it because so far NATO has done VERY little to scare Putin into ending the war.

NATO operates by consensus and I doubt that there is one for starting a war.  I believe that the only time Article 5 was invoked was after September 11, and that wasn't against a state actor.  Now if the US decides to deliver a hypersonic present to Putin's mailbox, it would be doing it on its own, and should Russia retaliate I sincerely doubt that Article 5 could be invoked.  Not that there aren't precedents (the Iraq war comes to mind) but I think that Russia's stockpile makes this scenario unlikely.

[Dashenka]

When countries show balls and make statements, people die. 

Newsflash...



People are dying already. Millions more are suffering.


But those are just Ukrainians right?

[Koekje]

Ukrainians and Russians, mostly.

Neither of which belong to NATO, currently, so that's a possible explanation on why the leaders of NATO (an organisation meant to organise defences and protection instead of attacking) are hesitant to outright attacking a third party. Or going so far as to (attempt to) assassinate a head a state.

Another possible reason could be that if NATO, posing as a defensive organisation for the western coalition, suddenly attacked Russia/Putin "unprovoked", then they'd be playing right into the propagana being used by Russians and other countries that NATO is just a tool to commit war / conquer other countries. Which would very likely further alienate other third parties or, even worse, make them decide to actively and pubicly side with Russia. We definitely dont need Russia being provided with ammo/weapons from other countries (Especially given that those are mostly sold/donated BY the west)

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Everything there, its very sad, for everyone. 

[Al Terego]

But those are just Ukrainians right?

Exactly my point.  Those are "other people".

As I mentioned above, NATO operates by consensus.  It takes just one small NATO member on the Russian border to say "why should we risk getting bombed/invaded just to help some other country?" to block any NATO operation.

We live in a fucked-up world.

[Azuresun]

A fascinating (and darkly funny) look at Russia's culture of lying, and how it meant things went wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?=Fz59GWeTIik

[RedRose]

It will always be Chernobyl for me. Though each country lied in turn ("it stopped at the border")

[Al Terego]

It takes just one small NATO member on the Russian border to say "why should we risk getting bombed/invaded just to help some other country?" to block any NATO operation.

Or, more likely, a country with interests that may align with the Kremlin's.

Such a country could act as a hub for Russian gas or, say, block Finland's and Sweden's NATO applications with unreasonable demands.

Hypothetically speaking of course.

[stormwyrm]

A fascinating (and darkly funny) look at Russia's culture of lying, and how it meant things went wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?=Fz59GWeTIik

I haven't watched the whole thing yet (it's an hour long) but it seems to be basically the famous SNAFU Principle at work. "True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are more consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."  — Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, The Illuminatus Trilogy. Here's an old fable that illustrates the point:

In the beginning was the plan,
       and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
       and the specification was void.
And darkness
       was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
       saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
       and smells as of a sewer."
And the leader took pity on them,
       and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
       and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the project leader
       spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
       and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."
The section head then hurried to his department manager,
       and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
       and none may abide its strength."
The department manager carried these words
      to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
      saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
      and it is very strong."
And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
      and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
      and it is very powerful."
The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
      and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
      will promote the growth of the company!"
And the President looked upon the product,
      and saw that it was very good.

The same thing appears to be what is meant by враньё / vranyo.

[Dashenka]

https://apnews.com/article/europe-spain-madrid-zaragoza-13c5a78403729f02512133574528e4f6


First missiles on Poland, now this...

How long are we all going to deny NATO is involved?

[firepyre]

It's not a question of if NATO is involved or not. The moment they started supplying weapons to ukraine, NATO was involved. The question is what would it take for NATO to openly declare war.

And the answer to that is... Probably nothing short of Russia declaring war on NATO. Why would you when you can just arm somebody else and hide behind a shield of nonagression. A couple of failed parcel bombs is definitely not going to do it.

On another, unrelated note; It amazes me that people seem to think winter is going to be bad for the Russians... Like the Ukrainians somehow don't also have to deal with trenches. There's a big difference between wintering in a nice warm house, and a damp, cold hole in the ground, where lighting a fire gets an artillery shell dropped on your head. Winter doesn't care which side you're on.

[Dashenka]

So now multiple Ukrainian embassies in Europe have received other packages, said to involve animal blood and eyes.


And then this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63832151



What happened to not negotiating with terrorists?

[Vekseid]

Wheels do seem to be turning for designating Russia as a terrorist state. In the EU the legal framework is being drawn up for the concept.

Meanwhile rumors are Russia may be agreeing to withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

On another, unrelated note; It amazes me that people seem to think winter is going to be bad for the Russians... Like the Ukrainians somehow don't also have to deal with trenches. There's a big difference between wintering in a nice warm house, and a damp, cold hole in the ground, where lighting a fire gets an artillery shell dropped on your head. Winter doesn't care which side you're on.

1) Because Ukranian soldiers have been supplied and the Russians haven't.
2) Because a big part of handling mild cold (reports suggesting -20 C which is fairly mild from where I was raised) is food supply, again in Ukraine's favor.
3) Because Ukrainians are defending and have an extreme advantage in morale already.
4) Because Ukrainians are more familiar with their own local weather than many of the invaders.

If Ukraine is planning a winter offensive I would imagine it will begin in 1-3 weeks. We won't be waiting long for news or its absence.

[Vekseid]

Nielsen seems rather keen that Russia doesn't look like it's preparing for a long haul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpNxwzb1rt4

Putin does seem to be betting hard that the US, Europe, and Ukraine will capitulate in the next ~4 months.

Which does not seem like the logical bet.

[firepyre]

If Russian logistics were as bad as western media is making them out to be, the war would be over already. Complaining, looting, families sending soldiers nicer gear... None of that is anything out of the ordinary, and media bias means we're going to hear a lot more about how terrible everything is for Russia, regardless of if the issues are actually systemic, or just isolated  incidents.

Assuming the russian army is somehow incapable of dealing with cold weather seems overly wishful to me. But time will tell.

Regarding the video on a quick war versus a long war. I think you're glossing over a fairly important point. Putin will bet on a quick war, because a long war is political suicide, and he has nuclear weapons to fall back on. He knows the support isn't there for a long war, so why bother trying? I think he'll throw everything he has at Ukraine, and when he runs out, he'll sue for peace, using the threat of nuclear escalation to try to hold onto what he's managed to take. That's very much in line with his MO thus far, he's clearly not above threatening civilian populations, and Hiroshima is a pretty unfortunate example of the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a means to end wars. I really don't think Ukraine has any viable(or sane) option to respond in that scenario either, except to capitulate, so to Putin, it probably seems like a sure bet.

[Vekseid]

The Russian army's logistics outside of their rail network have caused them to fail everywhere their railways couldn't supply.

Russia certainly had forces that were well-trained for the winter. Those are not their mobilized units, and just living in the weather is not the same as conducting operations in it. Camping in -30 degree weather without being able to use fire is bad enough. I can't imagine being willing to do that in a hostile environment unless I was defending my home. Just surviving doing that is fucking miserable. Doing that, plus actual combat operations is another level entirely.

he has nuclear weapons to fall back on.

No he does not. The US has made it clear they will enter the conflict at that point, beginning with erasing Russia's navy. China and India have both made it clear this is not a future they want to see. The only thing Russia filed a diplomatic complaint over was assassination speculation. Meanwhile they have neatly retreated from nuclear power installations without incident, despite threats from some media personalities and Duma members.

There is a reason most forums with discussion on this topic ban the mention of nukes.

Because if Russia escalates to nukes, this changes the geopolitical situation so drastically the world that comes out the other side can only be speculated about. "A lot more countries build nukes" aside.

And Russia has nowhere to escalate from there. It's their final card, they cannot make any greater threat. If it doesn't work, or isn't enough, or their nukes are duds, they have no further options.

[firepyre]

4. The state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence is defensive in nature, aimed at maintaining the potential of nuclear forces at a level sufficient to ensure nuclear deterrence, and guarantees the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, deterring a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies , and in the event of a military conflict, preventing the escalation of hostilities and their termination on terms acceptable to the Russian Federation and (or) its allies.

Taken from the official russian nuclear doctrine. Emphasis mine. Translation by Google.

I would say that pretty clearly suggests that Putin would be willing to resort to nuclear blackmail in the event that it becomes obvious that he can't get what he wants through conventional means. Eastern Ukraine has been annexed, so by the Kremlin's perspective they are defending "Russian" soil.

MAD is a US concept, not universal. Russia has it's own nuclear strategy. A nuclear escalation does not necessarily result in a MAD scenario - Do you really think NATO would be willing to risk that over eastern Ukraine?  I seriously doubt Putin cares a great deal what the USA threatens to do, he seems to have a great deal of contempt for NATO.

I don't think he wants to escalate. But he might be willing to in order to get his win. I simply don't think the Kremlin will accept an end to the war on Ukranian terms. They won't give up till they run out of cards, and those cards include nuclear deterrence.

[firepyre]

Just wanted to add... I don't think any of this comes into play until Russia's conventional options are completely exhausted. A lot could change between now and whenever that happens.

[Vekseid]

Taken from the official russian nuclear doctrine. Emphasis mine. Translation by Google.

This explains why Russia responded with nukes when Ukraine attacked Crimea.

An why Russia responded with nukes when Ukraine retook Kherson.

Oh wait.

I would say that pretty clearly suggests that Putin would be willing to resort to nuclear blackmail in the event that it becomes obvious that he can't get what he wants through conventional means. Eastern Ukraine has been annexed, so by the Kremlin's perspective they are defending "Russian" soil.

As has Kherson.

Even Moscow is in range of Ukranian attacks.

Russia has done nothing.

MAD is a US concept, not universal. Russia has it's own nuclear strategy. A nuclear escalation does not necessarily result in a MAD scenario -

1) MAD is not US concept or policy.

2) I haven't made any reference to the US using nukes either. I honestly have no clue where you are getting this.

Do you really think NATO would be willing to risk that over eastern Ukraine?  I seriously doubt Putin cares a great deal what the USA threatens to do, he seems to have a great deal of contempt for NATO.

This explains why he's invaded the Baltics, and NATO has fallen apart, while the CSTO has remained strong and unified.

And, absolutely, NATO would intervene in the event of Russian nuclear escalation. Poland has said the risk of fallout alone would cause them to trigger article 5. Meanwhile China and India have both condemned the possibility and I would put even odds on China joining in an intervention in such a case.

I don't think he wants to escalate. But he might be willing to in order to get his win.

He has regularly conceded to Western demands regarding nuclear power plants.

We won't know until possibly long after the war is over, of course.

I simply don't think the Kremlin will accept an end to the war on Ukranian terms. They won't give up till they run out of cards, and those cards include nuclear deterrence.

They include the threat of maybe having nuclear capabilities and maybe having the willingness to use them, in increasingly vague and uncertain situations, all the while their only meaningful 'supporters' in this conflict are telling them very clearly they had better fucking not.

[firepyre]

MAD is not a current US policy, but it absolutely is a US concept. A US SoD Robert McNamara proposed it in the 1960s, and it was the official policy for years. It is no longer official policy, at least not openly. The current US policy, as far as I can tell, is basically to just be extremely ambiguous about it, at least publicly.

I also doubt smaller nuclear weapons would have sufficient fallout to for it to drift to Poland, but I don't have any expertise or evidence to back that claim up.

The news of the explosions at the two Russian airbases is definitely interesting, and if Ukraine was behind it... Hitting targets in uncontested Russian territory is quite a shift. I wonder if we will start seeing more of these, and how Russia will react.

[Annaamarth]

And Russia has nowhere to escalate from there. It's their final card, they cannot make any greater threat. If it doesn't work, or isn't enough, or their nukes are duds, they have no further options.

Generally I agree with you but I want to address this bit here.

Under New Start (I believe it was), Russia and the US had 18 inspections of each others hardware per year.  This only stopped regularly in 2019, I think, and Russia put a harder stop on inspections in, like ... June-ish?  August?  Thereabouts.

Regardless, we have seen their nukes, and they have seen ours.  We have counted each others nukes and looked at delivery systems.

I think that this means that unless Russia's systems have degraded very rapidly, they are very likely to work.  Nuclear armageddon remains a threat, and one that should be respected - but only so far as that threat goes.

It is Russia's last threat and not one they are likely to follow through on.  Even their own doctrine says it is unlikely.  I don't intend to fearmonger here - just set realistic expectations on Russian strategic systems being likely to function.  Of course, if Russia deploys so much as a tactical, NATO - will cause the Russian military to cease to be.

[Oniya]

Not being a nuclear engineer, or a government inspector - and indeed unaware that we had even been allowed/allowing these inspections:

We know how many devices they have.  We know that they have a working delivery system.  Can we tell if the devices themselves would detonate?

Ramping this back down a few orders of magnitude:  We've seen the gun, we know there are bullets in it, but are the firing pin and primer intact?  (I'm assuming that a simple radiation detector would eliminate the possibility that the missiles we counted were literal hollow tubes.)

[firepyre]

It would be utterly naive to think Russia would somehow neglect to maintain it's ultimate deterrent. It is a given that their strategic ICBMs will work well enough to do their job.

When talking about nuclear weapons, a lot of people seem to jump straight to a countervalue, MAD style scenario. They imagine radioactive wastelands, and entire cities being razed to the ground. That's quite a stretch though. Just like conventional explosives, nuclear weapons come in a range of sizes, from smaller, artillery launched warheads equivalent to as little as 1KT of TNT up to city destroying weapons on the order of tens of  MT of TNT. If russia was to start using small nuclear devices on the battlefield, America would not react by immediately launching their ICBMs - that would be idiotic. It might well be enough to get NATO to enter the war, but as soon as that decision is made, the stakes go way, way up. I have no doubt that NATO posesses the military capability to neutralise russia's military, but doing it without russia retaliating and neutralizing most of NATO's own capabilities would be difficult in a nuclear scenario. And that's assuming both sides opt for a counter-force approach as opposed to a countervalue approach. In any event, if Russia genuinely decided to use nuclear weapons, I expect they'd telegraph it extremely strongly, and demand Ukraine's unconditional surrender, at the very minimum, before launching anything. So they're definitely not there just yet.

Also there's been indications in the last 24hrs that the Kremlin is finally committing to a more long term mindset, which means the likelihood of a nuclear scenario has gone way, way down, and boy am I happy that my fears were wrong about that one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/briefing/russia-ukraine-war-putin.amp.html

[Annaamarth]

Not being a nuclear engineer, or a government inspector - and indeed unaware that we had even been allowed/allowing these inspections:

We know how many devices they have.  We know that they have a working delivery system.  Can we tell if the devices themselves would detonate?

Ramping this back down a few orders of magnitude:  We've seen the gun, we know there are bullets in it, but are the firing pin and primer intact?  (I'm assuming that a simple radiation detector would eliminate the possibility that the missiles we counted were literal hollow tubes.)

US State Dept.'s info on inspections.  Hard to be certain, but.  If solid intel had come back that Russian nukes were not a threat, someone in the government would have noticed and NATO - and, especially, the US and Poland - would have a freer hand.

[Dashenka]

Meanwhile the first cracks are starting to appear in the collaboration between all those countries.

Firstly there's the IRA, Americans inflation programme thingy. It will cost jobs in Europe, which the EU is not happy about. Then there's the simple fact that the US is playing in Ukraine, Europe's backyard. EU is not too happy that the US has so much influence there. Sounds familiar?

The other, frankly idiotic, thing is that the US has basically told the EU to no longer export computer chips to China anymore. Somehow the battle for world domination is more important than the battle in Ukraine. Not my words, those of the EU. The EU needs the money to keep up the weapon supplies to Ukraine and exporting chips and other things to China is a profitable business.

The other thing is that apparently the US is a little upset that they have to pay for half of the costs to help Ukraine, completely ignoring the fact that the EU are having to deal with the refugee crisis that is crippling a few countries in the EU at the moment. Cause they need housing and housing requires building and building causes pollution which causes a lot of people to be angry. So the refugees have to stay in make shift camps and shelters which cause tensions in the neighbourhoods they are in. Because while the Ukrainian refugees are mostly well behaved, they are mixed in with refugees who are quite simply scum.

So that's just between the EU and the US. Internally, the EU has some cracks as well. They're threatening to cut subsidy budgets to Hungary because the country is corrupt and all that. Fine, says Hungary, we'll look to the East then. Which is something the EU really doesn't want either. They already gave Hungary some freedoms when it came to Russian oil and now have given them a lot more power.

I don't know about Poland but their government was under scrutiny as well from the EU but with Poland now sheltering one or many millions of Ukrainian refugees, said government has a big trump card up their sleeves. 'You let us do our thing, or we close the border and send them back.' I'm not sure how likely this is to happen but the simple fact it's a possibility now shows how fragile those alliances are.

Then there's the inflation. Partly caused by the war, partly caused by utter incompetence but the simple fact of the matter is that countries are spending billions to rescue Ukraine while their own citizens are starving, freezing or becoming homeless. We're criticizing Qatar for their shady human rights around the football world cup, while at the same time spending billions on LNG because we need gas. And obviously building nuclear plants is polluting as well, which causes teenage girls to be upset so we can't do that either. So we need to build more solar panels and windmills which requires oil and with Russia out of the equation for oil, you can easily guess who profits from it.

It's so much hypocrisy it fucking hurts.


So while Ukraine can probably hold out through the winter with all the support they're getting, I'm not sure if political alliances will survive and I'm not sure how many Europeans citizens will not make it through the winter. Who's thinking of these casualties of war? Certainly not the EU or the US. Showing their power to Russia and China is more important than to manage their own people.

Sounds familiar?




Finally, unrelated to the above, everybody saying that Russia is ill prepared for the winter. I kindly ask you to do some research into the Battle of Stalingrad. The Russian army held off the Nazi's in freezing temperatures. Many of those soldiers were drafted as well. And I agree those soldiers are not motivated to fight, not at all. But they are motivated to live. To see their families again. And if that means killing everybody in sight, I find it insulting to think they are somehow less capable than the Ukrainians, who are also drafted. A fact that people seem to forget.

Ukrainians want to defend their homeland, the Russians just want to go home to their families. Saying the Russians are not motivated is a bit silly.