Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Morpheus 7 said:
Seizing control on infrastructure is one thing, shelling a nuclear power plant isn't on any plan. The most wreckless thing I've seen in a long, long time.
Click to expand...

pauldyson1uk said:
I get that, TV radio and power, but a nuclear power station !!
Click to expand...

I think its just how the Russians (and probably Chinese) are -- following and executing a doctrine to the letter is the measurement of success regardless of the situation.
 
Rightnr said:
What's the point of a tactical nuke? Or rather why use a nuke than the next thing down i.e. thermobaric bombs (if I'm not mistaken).

Are even tactical nukes bigger then the biggest non-nuke weapon or is the radiation 'bonus' from a nuke that's seen as 'benefiical' when employing nukes?
Click to expand...

Totally different scale. The largest conventional bomb in the US armoury has a blast energy of the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT, the smallest nuclear warhead in its smallest configuration is 300 tons. The largest is over 1,000,000.
 
Drainy said:
Imagine if Trump had taken the US out of NATO

Shit would be fecked beyond repair in Eastern Europe.

Hopefully with Germany getting back in the game that will help protect our neighbours.
Click to expand...

Trump would have been gaslight the rest of the world and would be singing off the same hymn sheet as the Russian media/gov't.

''The denazification of Ukraine is a good thing.''
'' Putin had to go in there because the Nazi Ukrainians were killing millions of his people. He had to.''

He would probably have got his own troops to go into Ukraine to support the Russians in a couple of years time.
 
sglowrider said:
Trump would have been gaslight the rest of the world and would be singing off the same hymn sheet as the Russian media/gov't.

''The denazification of Ukraine is a good thing.''
'' Putin had to go in there because the Nazi Ukrainians were killing millions of his people. He had to.''

He would probably have got his own troops to go into Ukraine to support the Russians in a couple of years time.
Click to expand...
We really don’t know. He also pressured European countries to spend more in defense which is a fundamentally good thing for NATO and a bad thing for Russia.
 
Josep Dowling said:
At what point does NATO actually get involved? Now they are bombing nuclear power plants. I’m stunned at the lack of action by all. What’s the point in providing aid when you could actually stop Ukrainians lives being turned upside down.
Click to expand...

The is very little benefit in NATO getting involved at this point. The invasion is going terribly, the economy is being crippled, the whole world is turning against them, and all this against a third tier army. Let him die on his own sword. All NATO getting involved gives him is an excuse.
 
Revan said:
We really don’t know. He also pressured European countries to spend more in defense which is a fundamentally good thing for NATO and a bad thing for Russia.
Click to expand...

Reading the post-trump books, i doubt he even looked at it in geo-political terms. From my reading, he simply thought Europe was freeloading on the US. Much like how he made comments about shutting down X military bases around the world because "its too expensive".
 
Revan said:
We really don’t know. He also pressured European countries to spend more in defense which is a fundamentally good thing for NATO and a bad thing for Russia.
Click to expand...

There is no way he could have got a coalition together for this comprehensive sanctions package. He just wouldn't do it to start with --- and if the Europeans put one together the loophole will be the US and the US$.
 
Report in German news suggesting that Zelenski has survived another assasination attempt thanks to someone in the russian secret service who is against the war.

Could be propaganda, would be nice if it was true though.
 
horsechoker said:
I just can't see the benefit of Russia using nukes when NATO combined could retaliate and destroy Russia with nukes.

Would Putin devestate Ukraine with nukes or would he try to launch an attack on London, New York, Berlin etc?

Whatever the case I could only see it being the end of Russia as a habitable place.
Click to expand...
There is no benefit unless you apply modern psychology regarding the thought processes of psychopathic narcissists like Putin.

Essentially it goes like this:. Putin sees himself as Russia. Russia is him and everyone belongs to him in it including the Ukraine. This is part of the "allure" of narcissistics - if you're empathic you get swept up in the feeling of being part of his success and his world.

If Russia loses, Putin suffers. If Putin suffers then why does he care if Russia suffers - Russia is him. So if he's suffering, and Russia is suffering, why not make the world suffer in response, and inflict MAXIMUM suffering on everyone else. So thermonuclear war and the end of everything is an option for him to that end.
 
Last edited:
Morpheus 7 said:
Seizing control on infrastructure is one thing, shelling a nuclear power plant isn't on any plan. The most wreckless thing I've seen in a long, long time.
Click to expand...
They are reckless, so that may be the story here. It's also possible that their initial intentions were/are to do enough to force the shutdown of the reactors. Disable key infrastructure without actually destroying it. Just a guess.
 
Revan said:
We really don’t know. He also pressured European countries to spend more in defense which is a fundamentally good thing for NATO and a bad thing for Russia.
Click to expand...

That was just part of his strategy to discredit NATO and pave the road to taking the US out of it, which he publicly stated was on the agenda for his 2nd term.
 
RoyH1 said:
I don't think people like him think about individuals when they take decisions. It's all about the 'state', 'nation', 'strategic security', 'sovereignty' ... When they think about humans it's the "people" which becomes a massed stereotypical concept of what people are, deprived of individuality and differing opinions or characteristics.
Click to expand...

It is primarily about Putin himself showing the world and his people how strong he is.
 
Zen86 said:
NATO aren’t going to militarily get involved, the window of opportunity for that has passed. They could roll in and wipe out this much publicised military column heading for Kyiv if they really wanted to, but imagine what the ramifications of that would be. If anything, they’re banking on and enabling the inevitable insurgency to eventually push Russia out.
Click to expand...

Agree with that.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Russia is already now starting to call-up reservists. If a general call-up follows, as rumoured, I wonder how Putin's propaganda will square all this with his pretence to the Russian public of a limited military engagement - and definitely not an "invasion"?
Click to expand...

They won't have to. They will be giving up to15 years for anyone who spreads "fake information" about the army. There are also rumors about them imposing martial law.
 
Rightnr said:
Indeed but that's just signalling. I was more thinking whether it makes sense beyond scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Apparently Russia have a strategy called 'escalate to deescalate' which essentially means using a tactical nuke to show their enemy that they're ready to push a conflict further than their enemy is willing to. The idea that their enemy will then come to the table to negotiate rather than risk escalating into a full nuclear war.

Personally I tend to agree that the west that we wouldn't escalate in such a case. The ultimate question becomes are we going to end our own civilisation (I'm talking about the actual nuclear armed states here) for another country. I'm even sceptical that the like of the US, France and UK would escalate for most non-nuclear NATO states.
 
Last edited:
Schools and ambulances are the most dangerous places

They are the first targets by the russians

 
Dans said:
Report in German news suggesting that Zelenski has survived another assasination attempt thanks to someone in the russian secret service who is against the war.

Could be propaganda, would be nice if it was true though.
Click to expand...

Makes hope.


GazTheLegend said:
There is no benefit unless you apply modern psychology regarding the thought processes of psychopathic narcissists like Putin.

Essentially it goes like this:. Putin sees himself as Russia. Russia is him and everyone belongs to him in it including the Ukraine. This is part of the "allure" of narcissistics - if you're empathic you get swept up in the feeling of being part of his success and his world.

If Russia loses, Putin suffers. If Putin suffers then why does he care if Russia suffers - Russia is him. So if he's suffering, and Russia is suffering, why not make the world suffer in response, and inflict MAXIMUM suffering on everyone else. So thermonuclear war and the end of everything is an option for him to that end. To punish everyone for his suffering. And thus the end of everything because of one pathetic man and his fragile ego.
Click to expand...

Which is why we should consider always leaving him something to lose, shouldn't we? At least unless we're very, very sure we can finish him before he can press the kamikaze button
 
Spark said:
“Tactical” nukes are still 5x larger than Hiroshima (like 100kt - Little Boy and Fat Man were 21kt).

There’s nothing small about tactical, it’s just that they’re usually aimed at “tactical” targets rather than strategic nuclear bombs that target cities.

They are smaller than strategic, which are significantly more powerful than the WW2 bombs.

Putin drops any nuke, it’ll be met with a proportionate response regardless if it’s in NATO or not.
Click to expand...

Not that I think he will use nuclear weapons of any sort.
But just to point out that the bombs used on Japan were Atomic Bombs.
Whereas modern nuclear weapons, including tactical ones are Thermonuclear or Hydrogen Bombs. Because they are smaller and significantly more powerful than an Atomic Bomb.
 
11101 said:
The is very little benefit in NATO getting involved at this point. The invasion is going terribly, the economy is being crippled, the whole world is turning against them, and all this against a third tier army. Let him die on his own sword. All NATO getting involved gives him is an excuse.
Click to expand...

Sad but true I am afraid.
I just hate seeing innocent people being murdered and a democratic nation being bombed and starved into submission, for no good reason at all.
 
People seem very assured that Putin won't use a nuke, presumably those with such a belief think none of the western states would ever use a nuke if losing a war against Russia?
 
Mike Smalling said:
I can’t figure out what the motive is in shelling the nuclear plant.

Are they trying to bait NATO to join the fight, and what would they gain from that? Or are they simply just that stupid?

Seems completely irrational, which is scary.
Click to expand...
Personally, i think they have been trying to bait NATO in to fight, and not just for this reason. There have been numerous examples
 
Smores said:
People seem very assured that Putin won't use a nuke, presumably those with such a belief think none of the western states would ever use a nuke if losing a war against Russia?
Click to expand...

Russia isn't losing a war against us. Nobody has invaded them. There is no threat to the country.

If somebody actually invaded Russia they would be well within their rights to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

golden_blunder said:
Personally, i think they have been trying to bait NATO in to fight, and not just for this reason. There have been numerous examples
Click to expand...

I said upthread Nato joining gives Putin an excuse. At the moment they're being embarrassed on the global stage by a third tier military. Nato countries are providing quite a lot of important assistance in terms of modern weaponry and intelligence but it's on the quiet, if Nato get openly involved he can shift blame for the Russian military's failures to them and stoke up nationalism domestically.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Apparently Russia have a strategy called 'escalate to deescalate' which essentially means using a tactical nuke to show their enemy that they're ready to push a conflict further than their enemy is willing to. The idea that their enemy will then come to the table to negotiate rather than risk escalating into a full nuclear war.

Personally I tend to agree that the west that we wouldn't escalate in such a case. The ultimate question becomes are we going to end our own civilisation (I'm talking about the actual nuclear armed states here) for another country. I'm even sceptical that the like of the US, France and UK would escalate for most non-nuclear NATO states.
Click to expand...
Correct. Apparently developed by Putin, after the Kosovo war where the US air-force was able to easily neutralize important parts of Yugoslavian defense/forces, that before was thought to be possible by using only nukes.

Putin realized that they cannot win a war with NATO and that the balance of power now is completely in favor of US/NATO, so if Russia is put into a corner (be it invasion, or something extremely strategic for them like Ukraine), the idea is to escalate (e.g., use a tactical nuke) to bring NATO to the negotiation table to end the conflict (de-escalate).
 
Buster15 said:
Not that I think he will use nuclear weapons of any sort.
But just to point out that the bombs used on Japan were Atomic Bombs.
Whereas modern nuclear weapons, including tactical ones are Thermonuclear or Hydrogen Bombs. Because they are smaller and significantly more powerful than an Atomic Bomb.
Click to expand...
Both fission (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) and fusion (thermonuclear) are called atomic bombs. I think that nowadays most countries use fusion ones cause they are significantly more powerful.
 
Citizens from the west: Putin knows he ain't winning a war against us

Putin: Captures biggest nuclear facility in Europe.



This shit isn't making sense. Been told everyday that Russia is losing this war by the worst figures ever, and now this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.