The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
NATO nukes in Ukraine is Russian disinformation, and should not be taken seriously. Ukraine was very far from becoming a NATO member in the first place, at least until Putin invaded.

Putin is becoming desperate, things are not going according to plan. He has fundamentally changed German defense policy in a few days, he has united NATO, he has united EU, and he has brought Sweden and Finland even closer to NATO than before.

EU, the UK, the US, Canada, and several other countries are going after the oligarchs in a way that was unthinkable just a few days ago. They are not used to feeling any kind of pain. They could fly their private jets to Miami, London, or Nice. Now that's not possible anymore, their fortunes abroad are being frozen, and start to realize that the "deal" they had with Putin is not looking so attractive anymore.
Yes, I am aware Ukraine was a long way away from NATO membership (they were recently told they are at least ten years away). My putting words in Putin's mouth was just a guess at what I imagine *he* might be saying with this "referendum" not what *I* think. The Belarus referendum was scheduled weeks ago, at least. @Feanor mentioned it some while ago here. I do think it was unfortunate there was loose talk back in 2014 about Ukraine joining NATO and turning Sebastopol into a NATO port.

@Feanor Yes, I should think the Russians would demand the very things they declared as preconditions earlier. It's often done in "peace negotiations" to agree to "no preconditions" and then impose the same conditions for peace that were previously imposed for "talks". It's a waste of everyone's time and is just a bit of "see everybody, we want peace, but they would not agree" PR theater. This is something I do have professional experience with, unfortunately.
 

the concerned

Active Member
I personally think Nuclear weapons in Belarus should also be a red line for NATO. I also think if Belarus does deploy forces to attack Ukraine then NATO would be justified in eliminating Belarus military capability.
 

Steinmetz

Active Member
I personally think Nuclear weapons in Belarus should also be a red line for NATO. I also think if Belarus does deploy forces to attack Ukraine then NATO would be justified in eliminating Belarus military capability.
Although NATO would win WW3, I still wouldn't want to be irradiated and wake up to a changed world with life-changing effects. War his hell, this has shown it. Being irradiated would be the ultimate form of hell on earth. That's what would happen if NATO pursued that.
 

Steinmetz

Active Member
Would it? If Russia deployed nukes in response to a conventional defeat; there would be no winner. Europe would be a wasteland and inhabitable for countless number of years.
I personally believe so, but yes it's still M-A-D. We would all be losers, world wide. Plus unknown actors getting involved, possibly China. It's messy, something I don't want to contemplate whatsoever. Any victory from that would be Pyrrhic, if even that.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I doubt China would get involved in what's essentially a European/Russian fight. It has nothing to gain by doing so. Contrary to the views that many previously expressed; China has distanced itself from Russia with regards to the current crisis.
 
I doubt China would get involved in what's essentially a European/Russian fight. It has nothing to gain by doing so. Contrary to the views that many previously expressed; China has distanced itself from Russia with regards to the current crisis.
IMO China - in this scenario - would be a winner just doing nothing. Resource supplier with common border (RF) and greatest enemy (USA) in a war - there's no need to get involved. China can just wait and see and count the losses on both sides. And after all this comes to an end - offer "a help" for ruined states/economies.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe this is a bit out of topic, but apparently there's a little controversy caused by an oopsie by a CBS reporter, when he attempted to compare the situation in Ukraine with the wars in the middle east.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/t2adp9
Then I found out there's a whole article in Al Jazeera about this very topic. here.
I just thought it's interesting that there has been places at war for decades, but it is so out of sight and out of mind for most westerners, that it becomes almost a norm. It's kind of sad actually.

They really find it hard to believe that European city can be turned into a battlefield. Did they actually forgot about Sarajevo?
They forgot the two World Wars it seems.
 
In NYT article:

“What happened up to now is only a beginning for both the Russian expansionism by force and the Chinese economic and financial support to Russia,” Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, said in a text message. “This does not mean that China directly supports in any degree that expansionism — this only means that Beijing strongly feels the necessity to maintain and boost strategic partnership with Moscow.”

The United States and the European Union are hoping that sanctions force Russia to reconsider its policies. But Wang Wenbin, the Chinese foreign ministry’s spokesman, said at a briefing on Friday that China opposed the use of sanctions.
“Sanctions are never an effective way to solve the problems,” he said. “I hope relevant parties will still try to solve the problem through dialogue and consultation.” (...)

Mr. Xi and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia spoke by phone on Friday. An official Chinese statement said afterward that Mr. Xi had expressed support for Russia in negotiating an agreement with Ukraine — a stance that Mr. Putin has also favored, provided that Ukraine accepts his terms.
Until now, much of China’s energy and food imports came across seas patrolled by the U.S. or Indian navies. As China’s leaders have focused lately on the possibility of conflict, with military spending last year growing four times as fast as other government spending, they have emphasized greater reliance on Russia for crucial supplies.

China and Russia share a nearly 2,700-mile border, and in recent years China has become Russia’s largest source of imports and the biggest destination for its exports.
“Given the geopolitical tensions, Russia is a very natural geopolitical partner,” said Andy Mok, a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing. (...)

A new cornerstone of relations between China and Russia is a statement that some Western officials say is effectively a Sino-Russian nonaggression pact. It was released by Beijing and Moscow on Feb. 4, when Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin met before the opening ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics. The statement said the countries’ friendship “has no bounds.”
The two nations have been growing their ties for years, and the strength of the bond appeared to give Mr. Putin the confidence to move troops and military equipment from Russia’s border with China and other parts of Siberia earlier this winter to Russia’s border with Ukraine and Belarus. The more robust relationship is also ushering in closer economic cooperation.

“The joint statement is strong and has lasting consequences for the new world order,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a research professor of political science at Hong Kong Baptist University.
Russia and China Cemented Economic Ties Before Ukraine Invasion - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
So one can see things pretty clearly and another is/pretends to be blind?
I, neither being a military man nor politician, often come to conclusion that military matters are much more "rational" and predictable domain for an observer with non-insider-capability than politics.

Post edited because of unwanted, random link in NYT text.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
elieve so, but yes it's still M-A-D. We would all be losers, world wide. Plus unknown actors getting involved, possibly China. It's messy, something I don't want to contemplate whatsoever. Any victory from that would be Pyrrhic, if even th
Not really. I always felt that the deployment of a tac nuke will not lead to escalation ala MAD. This is why it is scary. The Russians might think the same way.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You say that, but he's just put his nuclear forces on a special alert status. That does not sound like someone who is seeing events unfold as he expects but rather scrabbling around for some way to get us to back off from helping Ukraine.
Why are you conflating both issues? Are you suggesting that Putin putting his nuclear forces on alert means they'll eventually be used?

Disagree or not but him putting his nuclear assets on alert is intended as a strong political message to show his displeasure and to remind the West that Russia has the beans to strike back if the West takes things to a new level. It is not intended to make the West back of and is not a sign that Putin underestimated how determined and united the West is to stand behind the Ukraine.
Putin placing his nuclear forces on alert is a very dangerous and stupid move. There is no reason or excuse for it. He is at war with a non nuclear power and even if Russia is extremis on the battlefield he has no reason to threaten nuclear war. These are weapons that you don't play political games with and everyone knows that. Jeez, even Kim Il Jong doesn't play silly buggers with his nukes and he's not exactly the most stable of leaders in the world. When has a Soviet / Russian leader ever threatened to use a nuke in a war before? When has an American / British / French leader ever threatened to use a nuke in a war after WW2? Even in the 1973 Yom Kippur War the Israelis never used or threaten to use their nukes and they were getting lose to extremis on the battlefield.

You simply don't play games with nuclear forces and nuclear weapons because it is very easy for your actions to be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and an accident to happen. That has been the rule / understanding since the 1950s and it is has worked especially during the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1983 Able Archer misunderstanding. To suggest anything different is false and ludicrous. Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons and to place his nuclear forces on alert for no valid reason, brings the world to the same threat level of nuclear war as either the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Able Archer episode. There is absolutely no excuse for it.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Finally seeing the T-90s and Su-34s in play. Does this mean that Russia is ready to go for the final push?

Also how effective are UCAVs at taking out mobile anti tank groups?
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Indeed it's a very dangerous move, one that should not have been done or excusese. I merely pointed the reason he saw fit to do it is to send a message to NATO. Also, as Feanor pointed out, could also have been in response to certain Intel which indicates the West is planning a notch things up - I find this unlikely.

As for trhe Israelis in 1973, I have no idea how accurate it is but a number of sources do mention that a message via a 3rd party was sent that had the Syrians broken out of the Golan into the Galilee, Israel would deploy nukes.
 

Steinmetz

Active Member
Negotiations have formally started in Belarus, despite prior Ukrainian refusal. From the news I see and hear today, Russia has made a lot of progress along the fronts. Might of felt some pressure now. We have to keep in mind their own supply and logistics situation. How much food? How much water? How much munitions? How much medicine? President Zelensky's office says "The delegation of Ukraine will not sign the surrender, and the powers are given only for the suspension of hostilities, a truce and humanitarian corridors. All other conditions will be discussed after consultation with the West."

 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The problem isn't Russia's refusal to talk. Russia is willing to talk. It's the conditions Russia wants as part of any settlement that are the problem. What Russia asked for requires pretty much a total Ukrainian defeat, or giving up hope. Not sure Israel can help with this.
I know. And in politics - this is pretty much the universal phrase for "I don't want to talk". And the truthfulness of that will vary depending on how different entities, politicians, people, will see those terms - realistic or not. Said in good faith or not.

The fact Russia still does not want to talk (i.e not on realistic terms that will keep Ukraine a democratic sovereign) means it still has something to add to this fight, and they're not broken just yet.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Even in the 1973 Yom Kippur War the Israelis never used or threaten to use their nukes and they were getting lose to extremis on the battlefield.
The popular knowledge is that Israel deployed its ballistic missiles exactly when American satellites were scheduled to pass above them, in a signal only to the US that it's either an emergency restocking operation, or nukes on its enemies.

My source? Internet literature that I can try to dig up if you cast doubt.


On topic, Israeli media reports Germany will not need any Israeli approval for the transfer of Panzerfaust 3 rocket systems, as they were developed prior to the manufacturer's acquisition by Israeli defense giant Rafael.


This is good news. And IMO Israel should rework this deal in the future if Ukraine enters NATO. We will need Israeli weapons in Ukraine, and Ukraine needs interoperability with its neighboring allies that use a lot of such tech.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Indeed it's a very dangerous move, one that should not have been done or excusese. I merely pointed the reason he saw fit to do it is to send a message to NATO. Also, as Feanor pointed out, could also have been in response to certain Intel which indicates the West is planning a notch things up - I find this unlikely.

As for trhe Israelis in 1973, I have no idea how accurate it is but a number of sources do mention that a message via a 3rd party was sent that had the Syrians broken out of the Golan into the Galilee, Israel would deploy nukes.
A huge, and hugely dangerous move, as the announcement would most likely have been a trigger to cause the US, UK, and/or France (or possibly all three) to raise the alert status of their respective nuclear forces, regardless of whether they make an announcement confirming such a change in alert status.

Russia has in the past announced that, in the event of conventional conflict between Russia and NATO, Russia will make use of nuclear weapons.

Following Russia's current invasion of Ukraine, this could very well cause a number of nations to opt out of the NPT, since they might see the ability to use nuclear weapons as the only to ensure their own sovereignty

That is of course also assuming that no one does anything stupid, and that there are no accidents which result in a nuclear exchange.
 
Top