Russia - General Discussion.

[Todjaeger]

Mainly due to public opinion I guess. It would be uncomfortable if a concerned public stated pushing governments to cut back on aid to the Ukraine due to the nuke angle. People are aware but don't necessarily like to be reminded of what can happen if things reach the stage where nukes are used.

I think most of are here are of the opinion that if Russia deploys a tactical nuke; NATO would intervene in the Ukraine but the question that then arises is how would Russia respond?

Another uncomfortable consideration is what the potential outcome might be if a nuclear-armed state is permitted to seize territory from another by virtue of it's status as a nuclear-armed state. Such an outcome could lead to a shredding of the NPT and a worldwide nuclear arms race between different nations with territorial disputes.

 

[seaspear]

It might but what comes after that? Will Putin be replaced by someone who declares that a new strategy will be pursued or will a new government declare an immediate end to hostilities.

Its not that Putin would be replaced but his defence minister Sergei Shoigu who may be the target certainly no love lost between the owner of the Wagner group and Russia's defence ministry ,but to have a mercenary army dictate military strategy because of political power plays could be very unusual

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu would quit if he could claims former Putin official

The Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu would quit his position now if he could claims a former Putin official

euroweeklynews.com

...
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (euroweeklynews.com)
‘Someone will fall victim’: insiders reveal elite anguish as Russia’s war falters | Russia | The Guardian

 

[Señor Pomidor]

Another uncomfortable consideration is what the potential outcome might be if a nuclear-armed state is permitted to seize territory from another by virtue of it's status as a nuclear-armed state. Such an outcome could lead to a shredding of the NPT and a worldwide nuclear arms race between different nations with territorial disputes.

Thats very on point. MAD works between two nuclear powers, but if Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine what do western nuclear powers do? More aid to Ukraine and more sanctions to Russia? Direct intervention with conventional forces? Are they willing to risk Paris, London or New York for Ukraine? It´s a very complicated issue...

 

[STURM]

Thats very on point. MAD works between two nuclear powers, but if Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine what do western nuclear powers do? More aid to Ukraine and more sanctions to Russia? Direct intervention with conventional forces? Are they willing to risk Paris, London or New York for Ukraine? It´s a very complicated issue...

My guess is that the use of tactical nuke would see direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine resulting in the defeat of Russia in the Ukraine. What happens after that is the question. NATO intervention in the Ukraine will give Putin the justification he needs to respond in certain ways and the Russian public - even those who are against him - might see NATO intervention as a threat towards Russia.

 

[2007yellow430]

My guess is that the use of tactical nuke would see direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine resulting in the defeat of Russia in the Ukraine. What happens after that is the question. NATO intervention in the Ukraine will give Putin the justification he needs to respond in certain ways and the Russian public - even those who are against him - might see NATO intervention as a threat towards Russia.

unless he is suicidal, that would not happen. Question is, is he willing to go that far. My bet is no, but you will see, I guess.

Art

 

[ngatimozart]

I know what you mean.
It’s difficult to determine at what point we regard Putin et al as rational actors and when we decide that they are just doing more Maskirovka.

I doubt that there is any benefit in trying to placate a madman, so our best response is to proceed on the assumption that someone in the Kremlin is rational.
Which means making it clear that (a) deploying nuclear weapons will not get them what they want, and (b) it will get them a great deal of what they don’t want.
There are no better options.

According to Putin's #1 foreign enemy, Bill Browder, Putin doesn't negotiate and he's a psychopath. So that's how we must treat him because the war with Ukraine is existential with him; he either wins the war or if he loses he dies. There's no wiggle room between the two in Putin's mind. ‘He doesn’t negotiate’: Russia’s foreign enemy No.1 on what makes Vladimir Putin tick. The psychopath in him won't care about the impacts of a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine. Yes, the US and others have told him and Russia that the response will be catastrophic, but unless Putin's personal safety and / or wellbeing is threatened, the threats mean nothing to him.

However is Browder's assessment of Putin correct? I ain't betting the farm on it but I would suggest that he may not be far off the mark. My brother reckons Putin's got short man's syndrome. Little bro and I both exceed 6ft in height.

I do not understand people (often Ukrainian propagandist) saying that Russia should negotiate a truce and withdraw to it’s borders. Why would they give away all the leverage they have in exchange of nothing?

The Russians have no leverage at all and no choice because they started a war of wanton aggression. No amount of sophistry by their supporters can alter that fact. They fanned the winds of war so they must reap the whirlwind. Chapter One, Article Two of the United Nations Charter would be well worth reading. Chapter I: Purposes and Principles (Articles 1-2) | United Nations

If Russia lost the war, would western sanctions be lifted? I do not think so, the current level of economical escalation is hard to undo and probably the repairs demanded by the west would be astronomical (much like Germany after WWI). I think that in the current status of the war Russia too is fighting for survival.

Maquiavelo famous quote “The end justifies the means” has a second part often omitted: “…only if the end is achieved”.

IIRC the history of the WW1 aftermath and the Versailles Treaty, it was the French who really pushed for harsh reparations. In the end the Allied intractability created the breeding ground for WW2 or as I sometimes call it WW1 part 2. One would think that if Russia was beaten and had to pay reparations to Ukraine, then wiser heads would prevail, with sanctions being cancelled in order for the Russian economy to recover in order that reparations are capable of being paid. Also that the victors would not be as intractable as the allies were 100 years ago. Russia isn't the one fighting for its survival; Ukraine is.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thats very on point. MAD works between two nuclear powers, but if Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine what do western nuclear powers do? More aid to Ukraine and more sanctions to Russia? Direct intervention with conventional forces? Are they willing to risk Paris, London or New York for Ukraine? It´s a very complicated issue...

It is potentially both more complicated and more dangerous than that. The situation is certainly much more complex than 'just Ukraine' after all, a presenter on Russian state TV suggested that Russia should have launched a surprise nuclear strike on London during the recent state funeral for Queen Elizabeth II in part due to the presence of so many world leaders.

Similarly, a member of the Russian Duma has stated that Russia should seek reparations and the return of Alaska from the US, which the Russian Empire under Alexander II sold to the US in 1867, rather than risk Russian colonies in North America being lost to the British Empire following the Crimean War.

That suggests to me that unless or until current Russian state (as opposed to the Russian people) ambitions are checked, there will be attempts to seize whatever is felt can be taken and threats directed at anyone or anything which is believed to be in the way. With that in mind, it becomes much more than a question of risking Paris, London, or New York for the Ukraine and becomes more of question on whether Russia will attack nations that thwart it's leader's ambitions and risk the destruction which would come with a nuclear exchange. I have little doubt that ordinary Russians have no desire to be on the receiving end of a US, UK, or French nuclear response, but there is some question on whether or not elements of the Russian leadership are willing to risk such a response, and whether those same leaders are willing to gamble that they could locate themselves somewhere so that they would survive a counterstrike targeting Russian military and political centres.

 

[Larso66]

"My guess is that the use of tactical nuke would see direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine resulting in the defeat of Russia in the Ukraine. What happens after that is the question. NATO intervention in the Ukraine will give Putin the justification he needs to respond in certain ways and the Russian public - even those who are against him - might see NATO intervention as a threat towards Russia."

I don't share that view. I think it highly likely that if he is not replaced (unlikely itself) Putin will use tactical nukes to retain the key parts of Ukraine he has taken if they seem likely to be lost. I would be astounded if the Crimea was threatened and he didn't use them then. It is easy to think of other totalitarian leaders who would have done so in the same situation. However, any deployments by NATO in response, would certainly escalate the war and I frankly don't see public opinion or political will for that. Support would continue, probably enhanced, particularly with medical help. Russia will be even more of a pariah state and Putin will go down in history as a monster somewhere near Hitler.

 

[hauritz]

Another uncomfortable consideration is what the potential outcome might be if a nuclear-armed state is permitted to seize territory from another by virtue of it's status as a nuclear-armed state. Such an outcome could lead to a shredding of the NPT and a worldwide nuclear arms race between different nations with territorial disputes.

There is a lot at stake. Other players like China will be looking at this. It maybe double jeopardy as far as China is concerned. If the West were to back down then the kid gloves could come off with Taiwan. If Russia backs down than the Chinese attention might turn to historical Chinese territorial claims in Siberia.

This could see the Non-Proliferation Treaty tossed onto the scrapheap a well.

The US, UK and Russia did make security guarantees to the Ukraine when they surrendered their nuclear weapons to Russia. It now appears that Budapest Memorandum is barely worth the paper on which it is written with Russia clearly choosing it ignore it and the US making it clear that they do not consider this document legally binding.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I imagine that a number of nations will question the worth of any guarantees they might have received in return for them becoming signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

[Ananda]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1581307783441313793

Western media or pundits make many comments on how Russian, or Chinese increasingly shown intentions that are against the rest of 'international community' need.

Then this kind of thing come, and remind of us the 'jungle' people how not only we have to be carefull with China and Russia intentions, but we also have to be carefull with the collective west intentions.

I put this in this thread, as it remind me a conversation I have with a colleugue of mine from Euro Market desk in London. He ask me why many outside collective west still not isolating Russia, after they are officialy annexing part of Ukraine. Isn't it it is proof enough the real intentions of Russian on invading Ukraine ?

I answer him that from begining of the war many of us outside collective west allready knows well what real intentions of Russia. However we also not convince with the 'pure' intentions of collective west toward this war. Thus why many outside collective west/Eurozone (or as this EU official put as 'jungle'), are sitting in the fence.

This is why most of the 'jungle' people will not going to follow the 'garden' people demand to isolate Russia right away. Afterall we are just 'jungle' people, thus why we have to follow the 'garden' people intentions ? It is not as if the garden intention will also think the benefits to jungle people.

This kind of comment shown why most the 'jungle' people in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, decide to follow their own intentions. After all we have to take care our own 'jungle' needs. Which in this moment seems more on more on this conflict, to bebetter just wait and see and keep 'sitting in the fence'.

 

[STURM]

However, any deployments by NATO in response, would certainly escalate the war and I frankly don't see public opinion or political will for that. Support would continue, probably enhanced, particularly with medical help. Russia will be even more of a pariah state and Putin will go down in history as a monster somewhere near Hitler.

When NATO or was in the U.S. spoke of there being consequences if Putin used nukes; what do you think they meant; if not direct NATO conventional involvement in the Ukraine?

 

[ngatimozart]

There has been a shooting at a Russian military base in the small town of Soloti, close to the Ukrainian border and about 105km (65 miles) southeast of Belgorod. A group of "volunteers" were under going military training when two of then opened fire on the rest of the group killing 11 and wounding 15. The two shooters were shot dead. There are, so far, unsubstantiated claims that the two shooters were from a CIS nation. Of course the Russian govt have labelled it a terrorist incident.

Shooting at Russian military base kills 11, wounds 15

Russia says 11 killed after gunmen opened fire on volunteer soldiers at a military training ground in Belgorod.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[ngatimozart]

There's been a shooting at a Russian military base in the small town of Soloti, close to the Ukrainian border and about 105km (65 miles) southeast of Belgorod. 11 dead and 15 wounded. The

Shooting at Russian military base kills 11, wounds 15

Russia says 11 killed after gunmen opened fire on volunteer soldiers at a military training ground in Belgorod.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

There's been a shooting at a Russian military base in the small town of Soloti, close to the Ukrainian border and about 105km (65 miles) southeast of Belgorod. 11 dead and 15 wounded.

Shooting at Russian military base kills 11, wounds 15

Russia says 11 killed after gunmen opened fire on volunteer soldiers at a military training ground in Belgorod.

www.aljazeera.com

What a word deleted if the reporting is accurate.

Elisabeth Braw, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the shooting showed how much anger there is at Putin’s mobilisation from inside Russia, and other former Soviet states.

“Regardless of who the perpetrator was, it shows how poorly protected Russian military bases are if somebody can just turn up and kill 11 soldiers at the base. And it also shows how unprepared the Russian authorities are. They didn’t even manage to kill them after one soldier was shot. The perpetrators shot 11 soldiers,” Braw told Al Jazeera.

“So it is really extremely embarrassing … You can imagine that if you are somebody who’s about to be called up or worried that you’d be called up you look at this and say: ‘Well, I better make my way out of the country through any means at my disposal because I don’t want to end up like this,'” she added.

A good assessment. How on earth can the Russians allow two bitter recruits to kill and wound 26 volunteers on a base?

@Musashi_kenshin Obscene language is not acceptable. Don't do it again. 3 demerit awarded points for 3 months.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Larso66]

Larso66 said:
However, any deployments by NATO in response, would certainly escalate the war and I frankly don't see public opinion or political will for that. Support would continue, probably enhanced, particularly with medical help. Russia will be even more of a pariah state and Putin will go down in history as a monster somewhere near Hitler.

When NATO or was in the U.S. spoke of there being consequences if Putin used nukes; what do you think they meant; if not direct NATO conventional involvement in the Ukraine?" - Sorry I don't know how to use the quote function?

I think it's meant to sound tough and deter Putin. It would certainly invite tighter sanctions (possibly indicting Putin for war-crimes) but I cannot see NATO contributing any actual soldiers. That would cross a red line and basically validate Putin's paranoia. The war would spread and escalate in the scariest way. France has already said its nukes won't be available. Again, the NATO publics would not support their forces going to Ukraine.

 

[STURM]

A good assessment. How on earth can the Russians allow two bitter recruits to kill and wound 26 volunteers on a base?

A major embarrassing cockup for sure but looked objectively; apart from maybe having armed guards and strict vetting how does on ensure that such an incident does not occur at the numerous bases where people are being mobilised?

This incident brings to mind the shooting - by disgruntled Afghans - of foreign trainers. It got so bad and hard to prevent that it reached a point where Afghans who were being trained had to be unarmed. Slightly different circumstances I know but in 2003 a 101st Airborne Division chap in Kuwait threw some grenades and opened fire on fellow troops killing and injuring several. In 2009 in Iraq an American soldier shot and killed 5 others. Attacks like these are hard to prevent; especially if the attack is from within.

Eleven Russian soldiers killed in mass shooting by fellow volunteers

Defence minister says two assailants shot dead after attack at training ground in region bordering Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

 

[King Wally]

My guess is that the use of tactical nuke would see direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine resulting in the defeat of Russia in the Ukraine. What happens after that is the question. NATO intervention in the Ukraine will give Putin the justification he needs to respond in certain ways and the Russian public - even those who are against him - might see NATO intervention as a threat towards Russia.

My main concern is that Putin will conduct a nuclear "test" above the black sea... perhaps within comfortable viewing distance of media in Odesa. I think everyone agrees that use of a tactical nuke on Ukrainian soil would cause a NATO response. But what about if it's over the sea? A zero casualty stunt to cause fear and panic?

 

[koxinga]

I agree that we have not really examine what are the "nuclear options" that Putin / Russia can bring to the table, and we made this assumption that it would be a simple tactical nuclear strike against a Ukrainian target. I can see several levels that Russia can choose to do.

Option 1: Nuclear demonstration on Russian territory

Even within this option, there are several possibilities, with an atmospheric test being the most provocative since none has been done since the 1970s. It would be the sort of "demonstration of resolve" act that is intended to send a signal.

Option 2: Tactical nuke on unpopulated Ukrainian territory
Option 3: Tactical nuke on Ukrainian military formation
Option 4: Tactical nuke on Ukrainian population center

I would have some question marks if Option 1 draws a direct NATO response, especially if the test was underground. Above surface, maybe but it depends where.

Option 2 - 4 are on Ukrainian terrority and and it represents an massive escalation, regardless on the people losses. But in Putin's and Russian minds, they might well see it as different levels of escalation, drawing different level of responses. Would NATO see the same way?

 

[STURM]

Option 2: Tactical nuke on unpopulated Ukrainian territory

I know it's a big country but is there any Ukrainian territory which is unpopulated per see and even if there is and it was nuked; would the fall out spread to populated areas? There is also the chance that instead of a lot yield weapon; Putin might decide on a chemical option.

Prior to dropping the bomb Truman and his advisors looked at a list of options, including dropping it on some small unpopulated island but decided that it wouldn't be enough to convince the Japanese.

Whether or not Putin decides to use a nuke and how he actually uses it is dependent on how desperate he is; in turn dependent on how bad things get on the battlefield. If it got to a stage where the Crimea was being entered by Ukrainian troops; I'm sure he would resort to something very drastic.

If I was in his shoes I'd invite camera teams from BBC, Al Jazeera and others to an undisclosed location to show a live feed of a tactical nuclear device being redied for use against an unspecified target; in the hope that this would lead to the Ukraine's backers persuading it to back off.

 

[John Fedup]

I know it's a big country but is there any Ukrainian territory which is unpopulated per see and even if there is and it was nuked; would the fall out spread to populated areas? There is also the chance that instead of a lot yield weapon; Putin might decide on a chemical option.

Prior to dropping the bomb Truman and his advisors looked at a list of options, including dropping it on some small unpopulated island but decided that it wouldn't be enough to convince the Japanese.

Whether or not Putin decides to use a nuke and how he actually uses it is dependent on how desperate he is; in turn dependent on how bad things get on the battlefield. If it got to a stage where the Crimea was being entered by Ukrainian troops; I'm sure he would resort to something very drastic.

If I was in his shoes I'd invite camera teams from BBC, Al Jazeera and others to an undisclosed location to show a live feed of a tactical nuclear device being redied for use against an unspecified target; in the hope that this would lead to the Ukraine's backers persuading it to back off.

So are you willing to allow Russia to have Crimea? At the end of the day, leaving Crimea to Russia in exchange for massive war reparation payment is a decent solution for the West. Doubt Russia or the Ukraine would though. The West might force a Crimea amputation if Russia provides significant financial compensation for war damage and the illegal seizure of territory. While the two parties are thinking about this, a massive increase in ATACMS and PrSM production would be prudent. Good for the Taiwan situation as well.