who knew that some chap on a football forum was stupid enough to think that another chap on a football forum was deciding “nuclear armageddon” on that very football forum.Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
who knew that some chap on a football forum was stupid enough to think that another chap on a football forum was deciding “nuclear armageddon” on that very football forum.What concerns me - when combined with the views of Vlad Vexler as cited earlier in this thread regarding Putin's gambling willingness to escalate up to and including the use of nukes - is Russia's continually ratcheting up the threats.
They must know that such threats will not deter the West from supplying weapons - so why are they continuing making and intensifying these threats? What purpose does it serve? Might they in fact be psychologically preparing the Russian public for nuclear conflict, as well as geeing up their own nerves to actually do it?
Unlike some, I am much less complacent about all this not escalating to nukes.
It's said that there are three groups amongst observers re. the nuke-threat :
1) Those who say nukes have only been used once in war - and since that was nearly 80 years ago it means they won't ever be used again.
2) Those who believe absolutely that deterrence (Mutually Assured Destruction) will guarantee nukes will never be used again.
3) Those who don't at all accept the complacency of view 1, and are not completely confident about view 2.
I'm in this 3rd group.
It’s not complacency to believe nukes won’t be used.
Unless you believe there is no logic left, even twisted, warped logic, then what would be the reasoning behind using them?
They’re great as a threat, they serve very little use and cause a ton of problems from delivery to tactical reasoning when being deployed.
And MAD is very much a thing, the rest of the world won’t distinguish between a ‘tactical’ nuke and a normal one, they’ll be firing up the silos as soon as Russia go to deploy and at that stage, you’re reliant on everyone under Putin having a deathwish, which they don’t/won’t.
Unless you believe there is no logic left, even twisted, warped logic, then what would be the reasoning behind using them?
They’re great as a threat, they serve very little use and cause a ton of problems from delivery to tactical reasoning when being deployed.
And MAD is very much a thing, the rest of the world won’t distinguish between a ‘tactical’ nuke and a normal one, they’ll be firing up the silos as soon as Russia go to deploy and at that stage, you’re reliant on everyone under Putin having a deathwish, which they don’t/won’t.
If Putin really decided to use nukes, where would he even start? In Ukraine? In a NATO country that has nukes as well?
How would the response of the NATO probably look like?
Calm?
Or total nuclear annihilation of all Russian military bases and places where they have nukes?
These are very sad and crazy times but I still think the chances that this will escalate to a nuclear war are less than 1%.
How would the response of the NATO probably look like?
Calm?
Or total nuclear annihilation of all Russian military bases and places where they have nukes?
These are very sad and crazy times but I still think the chances that this will escalate to a nuclear war are less than 1%.
While I agree the chances are remote, there is a wildcard in all of this and that is Putin and his physical and mental health.
People who are in power for decades unchallenged, have a tendency to feel untouchable. This combined with whisperings that he's in ill health, give me little confidence that the Russian administration will act rationally should their campaign in Ukraine continue to stall and falter.
You just wonder if Liz Truss and her constant provocation would make the UK their primary target. We already know she's pissed them off at least twice.
Then again, if they were to launch at the UK, they'd have to hit the rest of NATO simultaneously and pre-emptively to have any chance of gaining some kind of upper hand. We'd all be fecked in that case.
Putin said multiple times that the worst thing in his life was the downfall of the soviet union.
I think his main motivation in this (and probably eyeing other counties in the next years if he succeeds) is to be hailed as some kind of "creator of the new soviet union" in history.
If he decides to lunch nukes history will only judge him as the worst lunatic and criminal of mankind that is responsible for the (complete?) distruction of Russia and the death of possibly millions around Europe.
Even if he's terminally ill and Russia is on the brink of losing this war he can't see any positive outcome of launching nukes, can he?
Is that the guy whose YouTubes you were spamming earlier? I’d be wary of using him as a reference point in this context.
How would the West always know when a tactical nuke is deployed and made ready to fire? How do you know that the first knowledge of it won't come until the thing detonates?
And how do you know that Putin isn't willing to gamble on a belief that the West won't fire a nuke in return for fear of the consequences? And how do you know that the Russian officers involved in the nuclear launch sequence won't be hard-core and brainwashed nationalists who - perhaps like Putin - might either believe that the West won't retaliate, or else that a nuclear war is winnable?
Last edited:
Aside from not trusting random Youtubers with crap thumbnails, suggesting Putin is planning on trying to nuke a NATO country before using a tactical nuke in Ukraine reduces one’s credibility.
He didn't say that Putin is planning to nuke a NATO country before using a tactical nuke in Ukraine. He said that if Putin uses a tactical nuke, it will not be on Ukraine but on a NATO country, probably a military, non-civilian target. He says that people in West make a mistake in assuming that this is a war primarily against Ukraine, when in fact (he says) this is a prelude to war against his real target - the West.
Nor is he a just a random Youtuber. He was born in Soviet Russia, his channel has nearly 18,000 subscribers, and he comes across as extremely knowledgeable, very articulate, and as having extensive connections. Nor is it a case of my trusting what he says to be true. I'm simply open to listening to a wide range of viewpoints - and find his views to be perhaps more credible than many of us, including myself, would like to believe.
He believes that: "This is a defensive, existential war in Putin's mind - in which either he manages to radically change the international order (he can't) or Russia (not separable from him in his mind) will have no meaningful future. So, there is no necessary upper limit of escalation for him."
I thought Mr. Vexler was saying Putin was interested in using the increased threat of nuclear war to influence the thinking of the West. Not that he thinks he'll launch any.
Does she understand that NATO countries can strike Russian targets within Russia?
They'd be idiots to attack NATO, there's no benefit.
Exactly. You need to play the long game and carefully when you have an egotistic despot like Putin with nukes.
I'm genuinely wondering how these spies managed to kill British citizens in the UK.
Perhaps there is nothing else they can do at this moment. For their public, I mean. They can only utter meaningless threats.
They know they failed to take Kiev. They know they have lost a lot of personnel and equipment. They know that the West is now providing high tech heavy equipment (for example M777 artillery) and soon things may get worse for them in the battlefield.
They had probably learned how to blend in after acquiring all those Sims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...itary-aid-live#block-626a14f68f08c0ca339aa984
Fiona Harvey
Russia has nearly doubled its revenues from selling fossil fuels to the EU during the two months of war in Ukraine, benefiting from soaring prices even as volumes have been reduced, Guardian reporter Fiona Harvey writes for us today.
Russia has received about €62bn from exports of oil, gas and coal in the two months since the invasion began, according to an analysis of shipping movements and cargos by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
For the EU, imports were about €44bn for the past two months, compared with about €140bn for the whole of last year, or roughly €12bn a month.
The findings demonstrate how Russia has continued to benefit from its stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply, even while governments have frantically sought to prevent Vladimir Putin using oil and gas as an economic weapon.
Fiona Harvey
Russia has nearly doubled its revenues from selling fossil fuels to the EU during the two months of war in Ukraine, benefiting from soaring prices even as volumes have been reduced, Guardian reporter Fiona Harvey writes for us today.
Russia has received about €62bn from exports of oil, gas and coal in the two months since the invasion began, according to an analysis of shipping movements and cargos by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
For the EU, imports were about €44bn for the past two months, compared with about €140bn for the whole of last year, or roughly €12bn a month.
The findings demonstrate how Russia has continued to benefit from its stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply, even while governments have frantically sought to prevent Vladimir Putin using oil and gas as an economic weapon.
Someone is playing stupid as an act of resistance. That's the most plausible explanation for this for me.
What the hell happened here? You have the biggest Republican nutters and the supposedly progressive “The Squad”.
Agreed, a healthy Putin is a multi billionaire who gets to do whatever he wants in the world all day long. He doesn't want mutually assured destruction. A Putin on his deathbed and as a Narcissist wants to be remembered throughout history would maybe push the nuclear button. Then there is the question if he simply has to flip a button or if others have to be involved in launching the Nuclear missiles.
If I had to guess I'd say they tried to tag something else on with the bill that they didn't like? Or it's just not true, who knows.
Horseshoe theory. The radical left and right are closer together than mid left/right.
We see this in many countries, it is not specific to the US.
'The Squad' have been corrupted by big money and don't push for any of the progressive policies they ran on. As for this instance who knows.
The Squad, too???
In the 1950s I believe they had a radar first response system for monitoring of any potential missiles. I imagine these days every Russian nuclear weapon is monitored through satelites. Putin takes calculated risks but he lives a very priveldged life. Also let's remember one of the key reasons for this war is because Russia wants to landgrab the oil and gas in the black sea and surrounding areas because they want to sell it to do international business in order to live a privledged lifestyle. You can't fire nuclear weapons and do international business in the forseeable future. He isn't going to shoot himself in the face by launching a nuclear weapon at a country with nuclear weapons who can destroy everything he holds dear unless he's at deaths door and he wants to leave a 'legacy'. I personally think it's bully boy theatrical tactics.
Well, one of them was through sheer incompetence.
US is delivering, quite a lot of cargo flight activity:
Denmark is also promising armoured vehicles etc:
Denmark is also promising armoured vehicles etc:
Does anyone know, or can take an educated guess, as to why they voted as they did? I’m coming from a position of generally respecting and trusting those guys, so I’m inclined to think there is an underlying reason which isn’t as reductive as simply some people on the left downplaying Stalin’s actions etc.
Vexler thinks that "This is a defensive, existential war in Putin's mind - in which either he manages to radically change the international order (he can't) or Russia (not separable from him in his mind) will have no meaningful future. So, there is no necessary upper limit of escalation for him."
So, given that Putin will be unable to succeed in what Vexler says are Putin's war aims, he's saying that Putin will therefore believe there is nothing to lose that is worth saving, and will therefore gamble on nuclear escalation. To put it another way, he's saying that Putin is now totally lost in delusions of grandeur and will go to any lengths to prevent those delusions from being exposed to reality.
Or to boil it right down, he's essentially saying that Putin has gone barking mad and is no longer a rational actor
A decent part of western leftist/progressive organisations and their electorate have been absolutely disgusting since the start of the invasion. There is also a possibility that those politicians are just catching up to them.
my guess would be a protest vote because they think Israel should be treated similarly. Basically a Congressional version of the whataboutism thread.
It's a correct theory in my view. Both the radical right and left don't really want or believe in democracy - what they want is an authoritarian government that will rule by decree in ways that favour their prejudices. This is why it's always essential to hold together the centre ground - ranging from centre-left to centre-right - as a political constituency. Otherwise ....
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity …”
The Second Coming, by W. B. Yeats
Cool story and everything but none of “The Squad” are radical left or even close to it. They’re all centrists by anything other than the American Overton window so applying political theory that is based on the traditional Left/Right spectrum is beyond daft. They’re all a million miles away from Communists.
Good news! I think this marks the point of no return for Germany/Russia relationship. Together with the recent gas blackmail on EU states, Russia won’t be seen as a reliable energy partner any longer even in Germany.
I've seen a suggestion that it could be because of extensive court battles and legal costs expected as a result of such an action. Seizing yachts for example could prove more costly in the long run if they can't prove without doubt a certain Oligarch has a direct connection to the events unfolding in Ukraine.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/rus...his-is-what-happens-after-theyre-seized-.html
I've not seen what is in the bill though, it is completely common practise in the US for unrelated things to be attached on to bills that stop certain people voting for it just so it can be hung over their head for years "look everyone, they didn't vote for this".
Genocide in Europe in 21st century, unbelievable. Imagine the scale had Russia managed to occupy all of Ukraine?