Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Paulie97]

3. And finally, Putin knows his days in power (and likely his own life) are over when the war is over.

If he can come up with a convincing way to declare victory after certain outcomes he has a real chance of surviving in power. In spite of all the embarrassments, he's still there, right? In lessor scenarios put out to pasture, like previous failed Russian leaders is also a possibility.

[Jmsuttr]

I agree that Putin's unlikely to deliberately start a nuclear war, but there is a lot of internal pressure on him along with his own inclinations to escalate.

1. There is a thriving nationalist movement in Russia, which is even more belligerent than Putin himself. Girkin, for example, used to urge caution about nuclear rhetoric. Well, he's not anymore.

2. Putin's propagandists are consistently pushing tactical nuclear strikes against Kyiv.

3. And finally, Putin knows his days in power (and likely his own life) are over when the war is over.

So if he keeps ratcheting up, then at some point in the future things just might go wrong. Fateful mistakes are far from impossible, especially at the times of heightened tensions, and we've been there before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_close_calls

I haven't researched the subject, so I'm not sure how much is known about the nuts and bolts of how the Russian nuclear arsenal is maintained and how different kinds of strikes (tactical vs strategic) would be ordered and carried out. In other words, how many people are in the actual chain of command and would need to affirmatively move the order forward? However long those chains are, any single link could cause it to fail.

With all due respect to whoever put that Wikipedia article together, some of the reported "incidents" are a bit of a stretch. And most are over 40 years old, during the height of the Cold War. That's not to say there's no need for concern, but just noting that things like communications and radar mishaps were dealt with at the time. And I would hope that each incident would have led to an investigation of what happened and necessary adjustments to procedures. At least that's what generally happens with the US military. I have no idea how the USSR or Russia handles things.

Again, I'm not arguing that there's no cause for concern. But the root cause of the problem is Putin himself. If you take Ukraine out of the equation then you can simply insert Moldova, Georgia, Poland, etc. And, because we have a track record of Putin's behavior, I would argue that the real danger would be for the West to display any kind of weakness. What we clearly understand now is that the concern will be there for as long as the murderous imperialist thug remains in power.

Also, getting back to my earlier point, it's a huge unknown as to what China will do if a true crisis were to present itself. Aside from a genuine unforeseeable accident, it's hard to believe that China would not have some kind of advance warning. And, if you accept the premise that China absolutely does NOT want the instability that would result from a nuclear incident, then it's logical to assume they have plans in place to prevent that from happening.

Regarding your other points, I would argue that propaganda is just fodder for the masses and no serious power player in Russia believes it. And, if Putin realizes his days are numbered, so will everyone around him. Even if he wants to go out in a blaze of glory, I have my doubts that others in the power structure will share that sentiment. What those players will want is to position themselves to benefit from any coming regime changes.

About the nationalists, it's unclear how deep and wide their power base is. Prighozin has already used up political capital fighting against the Defense Ministry, and Girkin is a gadfly who (for the moment) is being tolerated. Putin has spent decades ensuring that no true rivals can exist. If he dies, or is removed, whoever assumes leadership will need to make consolidation of power their top priority. That makes it more likely (IMO) that they'd recall the military from Ukraine so it would be available to subdue any rivals and any domestic unrest. That doesn't mean a nationalist won't still be a long-term problem, but it could have the paradoxical effect of reducing the near-term threat. A smart nationalist would figure out a way of blaming Putin for the failed campaign. Or, if that isn't feasible, find other scapegoats.

The bottom-line is that there's really no policy path that will make the problem go away. Ukraine or no Ukraine, Putin has shown that he will rattle the nuclear saber to try to get concessions from the West. And if nationalists succeed him, it'll be the same rhetoric from a different set of lips. Only a fundamental change of mindset in Russia will truly solve things. Absent that, a firm resolve that shows both Russia and China that they will experience clear and profound consequences is the best insurance. MAD worked during the Cold War and, despite what many thought, it appears it's still needed. At least that's how I see it. If anyone has a better solution, I'm all ears.

[Jmsuttr]

BTW. China didn't assimilate Hong Kong, The UK captured in in a war (over "trading rights") and signed a document for its return after a period of 100 years. In the second, "Arrow War, the French and British were victorious and gained commercial privileges and "legal" and territorial concessions in China ". Some believe that nuclear weapons belonging to the Americans are stationed in South Korea and Japan.

Hence the use of "assimilated" to describe the situation. The territorial issue wasn't my primary point. Rather it was that China's "One country, two systems" commitment was a false promise. It's a myth promulgated by China, and China supporters, nothing more. The truth is that, with respect to HK, the CCP gets whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

And the Chinese are masters at using various ingenious ways to make sure everything remains under their thumb, no matter what facade they try to display for the outside world. One obvious tactic is to simply control who is allowed to hold office:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hong-k...tion-1.6443779

Another is to crack down on peaceful protests using the "security" rationale.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-63778871

Isn't it interesting that the "Blank Paper" protest movement originated in Hong Kong (in 2020) before being adopted in Mainland China?

And those are just a couple of examples. So, considering the actual facts of the situation, I would argue that assimilated is a perfectly justifiable word to use. If you think otherwise, why don't you take a trip to Hong Kong, stand on a busy sidewalk, and shout loudly that Comrade Xi looks like Winnie the Pooh? After you're released from jail (or deported if they feel like being merciful) you can come back to the forum to let us know how that worked out for you.

P.S. My primary point, which you seem to have missed, was to draw a distinction between the way China likes to do things vs the way Russia does things. And, despite your issue with the use of a single word, that point remains valid.

[Xpartan]

When the US and USSR were the only superpowers, China didn't even enter into the discussion. And even after China became an economic power you didn't hear or read much about them in the context of nuclear weapons equilibrium. But now, with Russia so dependent on staying in China's good graces, it's become clear that China is a limiting force (on Russia) in a way that's never existed before.

I agree that Putin's unlikely to deliberately start a nuclear war, but there is a lot of internal pressure on him along with his own inclinations to escalate.

1. There is a thriving nationalist movement in Russia, which is even more belligerent than Putin himself. Girkin, for example, used to urge caution about nuclear rhetoric. Well, he's not anymore.

2. Putin's propagandists are consistently pushing tactical nuclear strikes against Kyiv.

3. And finally, Putin knows his days in power (and likely his own life) are over when the war is over.

So if he keeps ratcheting up, then at some point in the future things just might go wrong. Fateful mistakes are far from impossible, especially at the times of heightened tensions, and we've been there before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_close_calls

[Xpartan]

Looks like you and your Filipina ho have comparable IQs and are on about the same education level, while you are even dumb enough to brag about it. With that I'll refer you back to Chicago85's post.

Even if we pretend to think it's just a number game (it isn't), the geographical map of Russia means exactly dick. Russia has 143 million people vs. Ukraine's 40 millions. Not terrible odds, considering that Russia, as an aggressor, is bound to spend (waste) more cannon fodder than Ukrainians. Around Bakhmut the ratio is 7:1. That's even before taking into account that the whole world is behind Ukraine. And before we consider how many able-bodied Russian men have left the country already.

[Beijing4987]

BTW. China didn't assimilate Hong Kong, The UK captured in in a war (over "trading rights") and signed a document for its return after a period of 100 years. In the second, "Arrow War, the French and British were victorious and gained commercial privileges and "legal" and territorial concessions in China ". Some believe that nuclear weapons belonging to the Americans are stationed in South Korea and Japan.

[Jmsuttr]

Putin still believes the West will blink first. The nukes are the last argument he has.

His instinct, which has worked for him in the past, is to escalate at every sight of trouble. He knows the West doesn't have much tolerance for the loss of life. He sees it as a huge weakness. That's what his nuclear blackmail means.

Of course, he's bluffing. But the problem with nuclear rhetoric is even talking about it is dangerous. Things can simply go wrong. Statements misunderstood. There are plenty of nervous people everywhere.

Gerontocrats from Soviet Politburos are probably turning nonstop in their graves.

When the US and USSR were the only superpowers, China didn't even enter into the discussion. And even after China became an economic power you didn't hear or read much about them in the context of nuclear weapons equilibrium. But now, with Russia so dependent on staying in China's good graces, it's become clear that China is a limiting force (on Russia) in a way that's never existed before.

China hates chaos and loves stability, while Putin has demonstrated that he's the ultimate merchant of chaos. China seeks domination, don't get me wrong, but they're happy to move slowly, deliberately, and with minimal risk. They'd love to assimilate Taiwan the way they did Hong Kong. And they'd love to be economically dominant in Asia (and beyond) such that they become the predominant world power without ever needing to fire a shot or drop a bomb.

China is happy to allow Russia to serve as a distraction and thorn in the side of NATO and the West. But they're not happy with the potential for instability as a result of Putin's saber-rattling. After Russia declared an intent to relocate some nuclear assets to Belarus, China made a public statement widely seen as critical of that decision. And I'm pretty sure more frank criticisms were expressed through private channels.

All of this means that Putin's bluster is more transparently a bluff, and empty threat, than would otherwise be the case. Russia can't afford to piss off or alienate their new master, and China has multiple screws they can tighten to keep Russia on a leash. Rhetoric might be tolerated but not anything that significantly turns up the nuclear thermostat.

If anyone doubts this line of reasoning, consider what would happen if Russia actually used a nuke (tactical or otherwise) or realistically appeared to be on the brink of doing so. One probable outcome would be the collapse of any non-proliferation policies, with countries like Japan and South Korea racing to arm themselves. That's a scenario China desperately wants to avoid. There are other scenarios of instability one can think of, but the main point remains the same. China will simply not allow Russia to push the world down that path. And it's important to remember that, despite all the BFF talk, there's no love lost between Russia and China. Which means that China won't be slow about yanking on the leash to bring their dog to heel. And, with the way the Chinese like to think and work, it's my guess they already have a contingency plan in place that involves replacing Putin.

[VinDici]

April Fool's Day. A professional holiday for the wretched jester and the spare macabre camarilla around the puppet.

Are things not working out for you? Maybe have a sip of uncle Vladimir's Polonium tea?

[Xpartan]

What you fail to note is that 'that little country' is backed by the USA, E.U. , and NATO. At least for now. The only way that Russia wins is if Trump, or maybe DeSantis wins in the next election and convinces congress to stop funding.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a stalemate without any tanks, very few planes, and USA Tech from the early 90's. Once the 150+ promised advanced tanks arrive, a few pilots get trained on F-16's, and the US sends some things from more recent than 30 YEARS AGO! . Stuff will move.

Russia's supposed trump card is their nuclear stockpile. Even if they were to deploy one of those, and it miraculously worked, they'd be 10x worse off and it would lead to the ware being ended by 'the adults in the room.' Putin knows that it would be his downfall as the USA Would respond with overwhelming firepower and likely boots on the ground. Russia would be out of the occupied territories in a week, and should the US want to, we'd be in Red Square within a month. Putin would be overthrown and likely killed.

You can call this hubris, and there is a good dose of that, but more so my position is based upon the absolute shit show of a performance that has been Russia so far.

Putin still believes the West will blink first. The nukes are the last argument he has.

His instinct, which has worked for him in the past, is to escalate at every sight of trouble. He knows the West doesn't have much tolerance for the loss of life. He sees it as a huge weakness. That's what his nuclear blackmail means.

Of course, he's bluffing. But the problem with nuclear rhetoric is even talking about it is dangerous. Things can simply go wrong. Statements misunderstood. There are plenty of nervous people everywhere.

Gerontocrats from Soviet Politburos are probably turning nonstop in their graves.

[Jmsuttr]

What you fail to note is that 'that little country' is backed by the USA, E.U. , and NATO. At least for now. The only way that Russia wins is if Trump, or maybe DeSantis wins in the next election and convinces congress to stop funding.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a stalemate without any tanks, very few planes, and USA Tech from the early 90's. Once the 150+ promised advanced tanks arrive, a few pilots get trained on F-16's, and the US sends some things from more recent than 30 YEARS AGO! . Stuff will move.

Russia's supposed trump card is their nuclear stockpile. Even if they were to deploy one of those, and it miraculously worked, they'd be 10x worse off and it would lead to the ware being ended by 'the adults in the room.' Putin knows that it would be his downfall as the USA Would respond with overwhelming firepower and likely boots on the ground. Russia would be out of the occupied territories in a week, and should the US want to, we'd be in Red Square within a month. Putin would be overthrown and likely killed.

You can call this hubris, and there is a good dose of that, but more so my position is based upon the absolute shit show of a performance that has been Russia so far.

1. No matter who wins the 2024 election, Biden doesn't leave office until Jan 20th, 2025. That's nearly 2 years from now, and Biden can pre-fund and front-load support for Ukraine in ways that will be resistant to any attempts by the next administration to reverse or cancel.

2. If either Trump or DeSantis take office, they'll immediately be confronted with the difference between governing and criticizing the policies of others. Europe is remarkably united in their support of Ukraine. And other nations like Canada, Australia, and Japan are firmly on board. A Republican administration might want to make changes but I doubt they would pull the plug or be willing to piss off so many important allies. They might try to pressure Ukraine to negotiate but Putin's war criminal status and Russia's continued atrocities make that a tough sell. And most of Europe will also take Ukraine's side on that issue.

3. If the US does throttle back on support, it wouldn't surprise me to see other countries throttle up. Poland, for example, has the ability to transfer more equipment if they choose to do so. Most NATO countries have been allowing the US to take the lead. But, if that leadership wanes, I fully expect others to step up. Russian aggression is an existential threat for the Baltics, Nordics, Poland, and others. They will adapt to any changing circumstances because supporting Ukraine is the best way to ensure their own security.

[Paulie97]

She is looking at map and I could see her thinking. Hmm she says that little country is trying to beat that giant one, that is stupid. You are correct dear but many do not see what you see in 5 minutes.

Looks like you and your Filipina ho have comparable IQs and are on about the same education level, while you are even dumb enough to brag about it. With that I'll refer you back to Chicago85's post.

[Jmsuttr]

Unfortunately this is not a fable from the bible, this is reality.

Some of you are smoking crack or are delusional. The latest today Bakhmut is about surrounded and should fall soon. Ukraine claims a resurgent push in the spring mud, yeah that will be interesting. As I said before this is over. Maybe not today or tomorrow but this is over. Even one of my girls this past week in Philippine's,we were watching US news and she knows very little about this or has very much education. She is looking at map and I could see her thinking. Hmm she says that little country is trying to beat that giant one, that is stupid. You are correct dear but many do not see what you see in 5 minutes.

Those who are pro-Russia (or anti-Ukraine) can find an endless supply of opinions, online or otherwise, that they can use to confirm their preferred narrative. And, to be completely fair, those who are pro-Ukraine (or anti-Russia) can do exactly the same.

But facts are stubborn things and they don't give a shit about either side's narrative. Reality is what actually happens on the battlefield, and that reality has not been kind to Russia, which occupies much less territory today than they did one year ago.

Let's take Bakhmut, as just one example. It's been "about to fall" for many months. And, even if it does fall, there are fortifications nearby that Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. And, even if it does fall, what if (as some have reported) it's cost Russia a hugely disproportionate amount of eqp and personnel losses? And, even if it does fall, will the Russians be able to hold it or will it be retaken by Ukraine, as happened with Lysychansk?

So what happens over the next few months? Will it be the case that Russia has shot their offensive wad and will only be able to wage defensive warfare? Will Ukraine be able to mount an effective offensive? I don't have the answers to those questions, and I'm not in the business of making predictions. But any honest observer of the current situation can see that Russia is currently at a near-standstill. And that's true no matter what happens in Bakhmut.

Not only are their ground forces moving at a snail's pace (where they're moving at all) but they no longer seem capable of mounting the kinds of massive missile attacks they did before. In fact, there's not one militarily significant area in which Russia's efforts haven't decreased in tempo and intensity.

And, if Russia is such a giant and powerful country, why can't they replace their lost equipment (tanks, etc.) with equivalent models? Instead, they're refurbishing WW-II era tanks and trying to buy drones and other weapons from countries like Iran.

Oh, and that "giant" country has a GDP less than the state of California. So, while it's massive when it comes to geographic size, it's below average when it comes to economic heft. Meanwhile, all of the US and all of Europe are firm in their support of Ukraine. And, in Asia and the Pacific, both Japan and Australia are supporting Ukraine. Russia was hoping for China's help but, at least so far, that's been more talk than anything else.

So, go right ahead and smoke your crack while patting yourself on the back about the "accuracy" of your crystal ball. I prefer to observe the facts on the ground and let those inform my assessments. And, as I noted above, reality has not been kind to Russia. But go ahead and buy your girl another lumpia. That should make everything better.

[Chicago85]

Unfortunately this is not a fable from the bible, this is reality.

Some of you are smoking crack or are delusional. The latest today Bakhmut is about surrounded and should fall soon. Ukraine claims a resurgent push in the spring mud, yeah that will be interesting. As I said before this is over. Maybe not today or tomorrow but this is over. Even one of my girls this past week in Philippine's,we were watching US news and she knows very little about this or has very much education. She is looking at map and I could see her thinking. Hmm she says that little country is trying to beat that giant one, that is stupid. You are correct dear but many do not see what you see in 5 minutes.

What you fail to note is that 'that little country' is backed by the USA, E.U. , and NATO. At least for now. The only way that Russia wins is if Trump, or maybe DeSantis wins in the next election and convinces congress to stop funding.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a stalemate without any tanks, very few planes, and USA Tech from the early 90's. Once the 150+ promised advanced tanks arrive, a few pilots get trained on F-16's, and the US sends some things from more recent than 30 YEARS AGO! . Stuff will move.

Russia's supposed trump card is their nuclear stockpile. Even if they were to deploy one of those, and it miraculously worked, they'd be 10x worse off and it would lead to the ware being ended by 'the adults in the room.' Putin knows that it would be his downfall as the USA Would respond with overwhelming firepower and likely boots on the ground. Russia would be out of the occupied territories in a week, and should the US want to, we'd be in Red Square within a month. Putin would be overthrown and likely killed.

You can call this hubris, and there is a good dose of that, but more so my position is based upon the absolute shit show of a performance that has been Russia so far.

[Questner]

April Fool's Day. A professional holiday for the wretched jester and the spare macabre camarilla around the puppet.

[Paulie97]

Oh, and the 'provocation' BS is pure Russian propaganda. Ukraine never posed a threat to Russia. Ukraine simply wants to be left alone. And NATO, a defensive alliance of 30 countries, never posed a threat of offensive action against Russia. Consider that, at least prior to Russia's aggression, several NATO countries were on good terms with Russia and would NEVER have voted in favor of any NATO action against that country. Once again, Russia plays the faux victim as an all too transparent facade to excuse its own aggression.

No truer words have ever been spoken.