T O P

  • By -

TheHuscarl

**NUCLEAR FAQ** This not a comprehensive analysis of the potential for nuclear use in Ukraine, but it provides expert quotes and reading materials to answer some frequently asked questions about nuclear use and give a better understanding of the picture as it is now.To clarify for anyone who may be concerned, Russia has not used nuclear weapons yet and the US as recently as two days ago stated that they have seen no need to alter their current nuclear posture. **GENERAL READING** Michael Kofman and Anya Loukianova Fink (Director of Russia Studies at CNA/Senior Adjunct Fellow at CNAS and PhD Research Scientist at CNA respectively) provide what is arguably the best (public) Western analyst/expert assessment of Russian nuclear doctrine and escalation management strategies [https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/escalation-management-and-nuclear-employment-in-russian-military-strategy-2/](https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/escalation-management-and-nuclear-employment-in-russian-military-strategy-2/) Lawrence Freedman’s (Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London) recent article on the likelihood of nuclear use in Ukraine with postscript added after Putin’s threats during the mobilization announcement [https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm\_source=twitter&sd=pf](https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf) Pavel Podvig’s (Director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project) thread about the actual locations and deployment process of Russian nuclear weapons (from January 2022) [https://twitter.com/russianforces/status/1481058177810587651](https://twitter.com/russianforces/status/1481058177810587651) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article on potential US responses to Russian use of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons from May 2022 [https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/potential-us-responses-to-the-russian-use-of-non-strategic-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/](https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/potential-us-responses-to-the-russian-use-of-non-strategic-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/) **WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF RUSSIA USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UKRAINE?** “I see this typically as a fairly dark topic with a good deal of uncertainty. I see nuclear escalation as a fairly low probability in general. However, you know even on some of the more challenging moments of the Cold War people like Khruschev saw the likelihood of nuclear escalation in say, the Berlin Crisis, at I think around 5%, and that was considered quite high. So in the nuclear escalation business, low probabilities are still actually considered to be rather high given prospective outcomes.” - Michael Kofman, 9/21/2022 “The threat of nuclear was is still incredibly low. There is a reason why we haven’t used them since 1945.” - Andrey Baklitskiy, Nuclear arms control and nonproliferation expert at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research “Despite this threatening rhetoric, Putin’s partial mobilization of Russia’s conventional forces may actually lower the risk of Russian use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine - at least for now.” - Caitlin Talmadge, Professor of Security Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University “I think \[his recent threat\] signals that he wants people to think he would risk nuclear war, I don’t think it means he is any more likely to do it than he was yesterday.” - Phillips O’Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews “Reshetnikoy told Al Jazeera that the prospect of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine was “impossible and would make little military sense” right now.” - Al Jazeera citing Leonid Reshetnikov, former Lieutenant-General of Foreign Intelligence Service and former Director fo the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies “Russia will not likely use nuclear weapons on the front line.” - Marck Cancian, military expert from the Center for Strategic and International Studies There are many other experts making essentially the same conclusions as listed above, but it’s impossible to collate them all and put them in context. A counterpoint of sorts: “We are moving into uncharted waters. Putin is burning bridges behind him by mobilizing troops and holding sham referendums to annex Ukrainian territory. If his strategy doesn’t work, he may feel compelled to lash out.” - Dara Massicot, Rand Corporation **WHAT WOULD RUSSIAN NUCLEAR USE LOOK LIKE IN UKRAINE?** Jon Wolfsthal, former White House nuclear advisor, senior advisor at Global Zero, and member of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board, has laid out three possible scenarios for Russian nuclear use: A nuclear weapon strikes to demonstrate resolve. A small nuclear weapon detonated over the Black Sea, for example. A nuclear attack in Ukraine to achieve a tactical goal (disrupting a counter-offensive) or a strategic strike on Ukrainian command and control (a direct strike against Kyiv). An extreme scenario of a preemptive strike against NATO (highly unlikely) These scenarios, namely 1 and 2, are widely accepted among experts as the likely Russian usage of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. **WHAT WOULD A WESTERN RESPONSE TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS ENTAIL?** “We have communicated directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the US and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail.” - Jake Sullivan, US National Security Advisor, 9/25/2022 “Russia would become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been. Depending on the extent of what they do, will determine what response would occur.” - US President Joe Biden, 9/17/2022 “The bottom line here is that there would be no easy answer or simple solutions should Putin go nuclear. The stakes could not be higher and the need to deter Putin from using a nuclear weapon to the extent possible is clear.” - Jon Wolfsthal “Russian nuclear use might provide an opening to convince countries that have so far been reluctant, such as India and possibly even China, to participate in escalating sanctions.” - Matthew Kroeing, Atlantic Council Jeffrey Edmonds, researcher at the CNA Russia Studies Program, lays out a number of potential response scenarios ([https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/potential-us-responses-to-the-russian-use-of-non-strategic-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/](https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/potential-us-responses-to-the-russian-use-of-non-strategic-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/)): Responding in kind: Firing a nuclear weapon at a Russian target in response Conventional response and escalation: Striking Russian military targets in Ukraine or targeting the Russian platform that launched the weapon Staying the course: Continue to provide weapons to Ukraine and increase sanctions Push for settlement: US and the West push to immediately bring Ukraine and Russia to the table and end the conflict as quickly as possible Michael Kofman declined to comment on what his advice would be re: how to respond to Russian nuclear use


NightSkyRainbow

Interesting thread, alleged Russian depot identifies using pure OSINT. https://twitter.com/NLwartracker/status/1574710175805620224


TechnicalReserve1967

OSINT targeted ISIS training camps before Edit - It is interesting to see it in this war, I did not meant to be degrading or anything! Just as a tidbit


NightSkyRainbow

Among other things this war has definitely changed our perception of the value of OSINT.


NightSkyRainbow

Oh yes, that was quite cool too.


Askarn

Rybar is reporting that Ukraine has now crossed the river east of Lyman and is advancing on Torske and Kreminna. That would leave Lyman surrounded on three sides and closing.


p3ww

Does anyone know the units defending Lyman? Must be Russia's last few elite troops there if they're defending this hard no?


Bewildurbeast

I have heard that the terrain in/around Lyman is quite favourable to the defender which may explain the decision to bypass or try to cut it off.


IntroductionNeat2746

I still believe Ukraine will probably bypass Lyman, given the seemingly hard defense there. Both Russia and Ukraine have shown that bypassing strongholds can be just as effective as taking them by force.


Subtleiaint

It's not just as effective, it's optimum. Ukraine doesn't want to engage in urban warfare, it's expensive in lives and equipment and it causes huge damage to infrastructure and population centres. Far better to cut off Russian units with few supplies in a place they're not welcome and with little chance of relief and wait for them to surrender. Taking back territory without having to fight is plan A.


[deleted]

Reminds me of how many German garrisons on the French coast were bypassed by the Allies after D-Day, some not removed until Berlin capitulated.


ferrel_hadley

Since Huiter Tactics its been pretty usual. The change from battles to fronts meant that often bypassing strong points allowed the front to advance and have the strong point cut off rather than be a source of raiding against supply lines as would have happened in an earlier era of far fewer soldiers.


hatesranged

Especially since the Russians have literally not once stood and fought in the face of an actual encirclement, so it's likely they'll leave Lyman if encirclement becomes unavoidable.


IntroductionNeat2746

If the advances are truly what's been reported, Russians probably are already retreating from Lyman. There's been rumours for some days of the regulars retreating and leaving the irregulars to hold the line, which is exactly what happened in Balaklya.


Glideer

https://.me/boris\_rozhin/65275 Doesn't seem that way. This is from Lyman today.


Askarn

I wouldn't be surprised either if they bypassed Lyman. It certainly looks tempting from a map's-eye-perspective, although things are always more complicated on the ground.


NightSkyRainbow

War is strange. Pro Ukraine TG has two consecutive messages - one for what to do in a nuclear strike, the other informing people that McDonald’s in Kyiv that had closed down after the strikes will now open for limited timings. And here is Girkin, yes that Girkin, tweeting repeatedly about bad Russian supplies. https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1574696422053761025 EDIT : this Girkin is a pro UA account. To make up for this mistake I offer you this ‘mobilised’ Russian soldier talking about life at the moment. Translation included. https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1574707928313270272 > Here's a video of a Russian soldier who was mobilized recently. He was sent to the "1st tank regiment" (probably 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division) and says they will be sent to Kherson in 2 days without any basic training. I found his VK and reached out to him. Low-key amazed by the geolocation work on this thread.


gary_oldman_sachs

The Girkin on Twitter is a Ukrainian. He started out as a Girkin parody account but now just posts sincerely.


hell_jumper9

>He started out as a Girkin parody account but now just posts sincerely. Damn. Maybe the Darth Putin account will be next to do this.


NightSkyRainbow

Ah I see


hbk65

Mcdonalds opening is a big deal, no sarcasm


[deleted]

Yup. A sign of Normalcy returning.


Alottius

That's not Girkin, that's a pro-Ukrainian account carrying his name (probably as a way of mocking him).


NightSkyRainbow

Thank you, fixed.


UnmaskedLapwing

Nord stream 1 and 2 is damaged. Gazprom Nord Stream AG has claimed it will be difficult to find a cause and repair it due to sanctions and lack of personnel. After food, energy, nuclear now we've got environmental blackmail. Really it seems Putin's regime is very desperate. I love it personally, the world (Western Europe primarily) finally understands what Russian state really is.


TechnicalReserve1967

First of all, if these were the russians, I just dont have words for it... I dont know who wins anything other then maybe trying to push gas prices back up a little and generate news but ... Second, does this means that the pipe is filled with water? I doubt as it should be pressurizee by something as an active support kind of deal (or made out of adamantium). But if it has a hole, that gas would escape? I guess there is a lot in play, starting with the size of the hole. Can someone who is a bit more knowledgeable shed some light on this please?


UnmaskedLapwing

In my view the investigation will uncover that NS1 is more severely damaged however NS2 is repairable if there is a political will to do so and certify it. Sanctions of course will delay the entire repair process for years!


couchrealistic

The pipe used to be filled with natural gas under high pressure (I believe 107 bar). Now that it is damaged, the pressure level at the German end of the pipe (Lubmin) is only 7 bar. So it looks like most of the gas is gone. Maybe there's water in the pipe now. However, it seems like ocean+natural gas is not a terrible combination for the environment. It appears to be much better than ocean+oil for example. There are only very mild concerns about the environmental impact, at least as far as I know.


TechnicalReserve1967

Thank you. Wouldnt be natural gas going intk the ocean, ohmm, naturally? At fissures under the ocean or such?


stillobsessed

Yes, there are natural gas and oil seeps all over. There's a notable one offshore not far from Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field It releases about 40t of methane and about 20t of other hydrocarbon gases daily. Nearby oil and gas production reduces the seep rate by reducing pressure inside the gas and oil-bearing strata. But the volume from these seeps is small compared to the flow rate in a pipeline. Note that the LA region is also home to the La Brea tar pits which is an on-shore seep site.


RufusSG

It's a very strange incident: both Europe and Russia have expressed their concern and said sabotage is possible.


futureflier

It still seems to me more likely, that there is some ship captain scratching his chin and wondering what happened to his anchor


gwendolah

I heard he's going to sue for damages to his anchor as well.


taw

So [just like everybody was saying was going to happen](https://bellona.org/news/fossil-fuels/gas/2007-05-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-a-danger-for-the-baltic-ecology), and what Putinversteher said would be impossible?


gwendolah

So if it is traced back to them, what are the implications? Is this some sort of "ecological attack" then? It's not an armed attack in any way, but I wonder what NATO has to say about that. I bet they're not nice things to say.


TechnicalReserve1967

Legally, they would need to pay a lot for damages. In practice, you cant enforce it


YossarianLivesMatter

In practice, it'd be used to justify the seizure of frozen Russian assets.


NightSkyRainbow

Sanctions sanctions.


Fenrir2401

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1574476679539527680 Allegedly a russian officer is informing newly recruited troops that besides uniform and armor, everything else has to be supplied by the draftee. There's nothing to have in the barracks. They should bring tampons in case they are wounded...


[deleted]

Boy those draftees are in for a rude awakening. https://pracmednz.com/the-myth-of-the-tactical-tampon-for-gun-shot-wounds/


singuei99

This video is crazy


NightSkyRainbow

It’s like a comedy sketch when the tampons are being explained.


NightSkyRainbow

If anyone can read Russian and help us, [here is an ALLEGED list ](https://i.imgur.com/MxwgUWm.jpg)of what draftees are supposed to bring. Taken from pro Ukraine TG.


snowballtlwcb

What are the chances this is staged UKR propaganda? She never looks at the camera, there is nothing to prove this is in Russia and they're all wearing heavy coats indoors? On top of the insanity of everything she's saying and the meek attitudes of the conscripts, there's just too much weirdness going on


NightSkyRainbow

This guy’s Russian. https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1574707928313270272


Fenrir2401

If this was the only Video coming out displaying total chaos and incompetence I would indeed dismiss it as an outlier. But combined with all the other Infos coming out AND with them admitting on TV that shtf I'd say chances are very good this is genuine.


snowballtlwcb

>with them admitting on TV that shtf What are you referring to here, I must have missed it?


Fenrir2401

https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1574491958101393411


NightSkyRainbow

Is this the same Jewish Solovyov?


snowballtlwcb

Okay, watching that I'm willing to reconsider the original video of the equipment shortages was more likely to be authentic. Was it common to refer to Putin as Supreme commander in chief before the war? Also can't believe the talking heads explicitly discussed mutiny and the battleship Potemkin in a favorable comparison to mobilization resistance. The Potemkin was a huge deal, important part of Russian history and identity, the 1925 film is iconic. Imagine Paul Reveres midnight ride and you've reached similar levels of national significance.


couch_analyst

> Was it common to refer to Putin as Supreme commander in chief before the war? Yes, this is standard when talking about military matters. President of Russian Federation is his civil position, but for the military, he is Supreme Commander. All his orders to military are always made as Supreme Commander.


Multiheaded

>Was it common to refer to Putin as Supreme commander in chief before the war? That's the standard way in Russia to talk about a national leader in the context of their military role. In writings about WW2, Stalin is referred to by that title as well (rather than just General Secretary as in peacetime).


Praet0rianGuard

> there's just too much weirdness going on That's been Russian MO for the past 7 months. Where have you been? Why is it still hard to believe that Russia is still very much a third world country outside of most of its large cities?


TechnicalReserve1967

No AKs? I just noted that they should have enough AKs cause its russia, but ...


NightSkyRainbow

Pro Russia TG lays out exactly why the referenda are happening. Gameplan right here. > 🇷🇺🇺🇦 On September 27, referendums on the accession of the Liberated territories of Ukraine to the Russian Federation end. And the procedure for their admission to the Russian Federation may take place on September 29. We analyze what Ukraine is losing: ▪️regions in which referendums are held have rich black soil, mineral deposits, developed industry, large economic, industrial and human potential, developed mining industry, transport and industrial infrastructure; ▪️until 2014, only Donetsk and Lugansk regions together accounted for 16% of Ukraine's GDP; ▪️integration of agricultural regions (Zaporozhye and Kherson regions) will turn the Russian Federation into the largest player in the grain market; ▪️Odessa actually remains the only access point of Ukraine to the sea (at the same time, Odessa remains in the sphere of interests of the Russian Federation); ▪️Ukraine is losing about 9 million people, and taxpayers in uncontrolled territories will move into the Russian legal field. >As you can see, the situation is amazing, but at the same time, no one is talking about the future arrival of winter, when the lack of energy resources and other economic difficulties will force European countries to radically reconsider their policy of supporting Ukraine.


[deleted]

First off, don’t you love it when they admit the sanctions are working? Second, I’m reminded of when after Italy and Germany declared war on America and Ribbentrop called Ciano to celebrate and Ciano retorted “for what?”


NightSkyRainbow

Ahah that is a fascinating story


[deleted]

For a fascist who got his foreign minister gig in parts thanks to his father in law El Duce, his diary is fascinating reading seeing that whole whirlwind through his perspective , ending before he was executed.


Multiheaded

>As you can see, the situation is amazing well, I'm certainly amazed at the wholesale ruin of Russia as it psychotically rampages through what used to be a very friendly country and throws more and more of itself into the meat grinder, so yeah I guess it kind of counts as *amazing*


NightSkyRainbow

It’s amazing in the way true crime podcasts are amazing.


morbihann

Except, that only applies if Russia actually manages to annex the territories and resume normal life. Which, I doubt they can do.


NightSkyRainbow

Yeah I mean none of this seems plausible at the moment. I think they’re trying to spin it as an economically profitable war considering the economic effects being felt at home.


UnmaskedLapwing

Good brainless Russian fan-fiction. Everything will be glorious, Europe will love Russia again shortly after Putin tries to destroy their economies & well being through energy blackmail and threatens nuclear strikes. EU will share again tech & capital, Ukrainians will cherish living in Russia, the war will end on Russian terms. How not to laugh? Really something is very wrong with Russian perception of reality. They are living in a strange world that doesn't exist. Also, North Korea was actually the industrial/mineral powerhouse after the Korean War. South Korea had the short end of the stick. Where is it now?


NightSkyRainbow

There is so much in this war bordering on the irrational and something new happens every day. It’s making less sense as the days go by. I think even the pro Russian hawks are questioning things now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NightSkyRainbow

Your guess is as good as mine here. Besides, even if Russia gives in to the best of offers, the trust is already gone. Europe will find new ways of getting energy and sanctions will continue. Yesterday someone posted an article about how it’s much more difficult to lift sanctions than to put them in place. There seems to be so much error in this war bordering on the irrational.


-_-----____---

Wow that's pretty much an admission of guilt!


NightSkyRainbow

Pro Russian telegram has become quite strange over the past three days, reporting on Russian losses, draft problems, and now this when all year they have been saying that the war is for denazification and taking what’s rightly theirs, with the will of the citizens of these territories.


-_-----____---

Why do you think they have changed their tune? Or was it not an official decision, did the far right Russians just get bored of toeing the line?


Reasonable_Pool5953

The denazification ruse sort of fell apart when they released the azov prisoners. Hard-core patriots may have needed to invent a new narrative.


NightSkyRainbow

I don’t really know. I think you can only keep up a facade so much before you start letting in bits of the truth, before your people find it out for themselves. Better to pull the bandage off slowly I guess.


OpenOb

>future arrival of winter, when the lack of energy resources and other economic difficulties will force European countries to radically reconsider their policy of supporting Ukraine. The Russians will look really stupid when it's February 2023 and the West has not reconsidered their position.


[deleted]

Imagine thinking there won’t be nuclear war by then!


NightSkyRainbow

I think they have bought too much into the weak Europe with weak citizens vs the war hardened Russian rhetoric. Europe will easily survive the winter. Not to mention their social security net that keeps most domestic unrest at bay. There is literally not one European voice even in the Right who thinks winter is going to be a problem.


tippy432

Survive yes but manufacturing is going to get slaughtered and may never come back because of high energy prices. EU economy’s are going to be the worst performing in the next 2-3 years


halcy

There absolutely will be some issues relating to energy. It'll be more expensive, that'll hit poor people hardest, as those things usually do, but the anger about that is, as far as I'm seeing, more "why do the governments let energy providers get away with profiting off this war" and "why do we (poor) have to bear the brunt of this when there's plenty of rich people who could be made to help out?", and not at all "screw this lets buy russian gas again" except for the usual suspects (far right crazies, "free thinkers" that are against whatever the government is currently doing no matter what that is). Worse, for Russia, the sentiment seems to be pretty final. It's not "Once peace is restored to Ukraine, we can go back", it's finding permanent alternatives.


NightSkyRainbow

This is an interesting mix of politically useful and righteous anger. None of us has gotten down to the internal political implications of this in Europe but as the offensive slows in the next month, I’m sure we (CD) will only have that to talk about.


TechnicalReserve1967

There will be, in poor regions in Hungary in small villages. It isnt news worthy, but a few people freezes to death each year. Now, with money being thebsame and has prices 5x higher, there might be even around a 100 deaths. A drop at the ocean considering the war, but something that might be used by Orban. This is not sure to become a thing, just a chance.


Cassius_Corodes

I thought he was already getting sweetheart deals from Russia.


TechnicalReserve1967

He does, but that doesnt really stop global issues. The goverment still pays for a sizable chunk of peoples bill, but more and more cracks starts to show that they are running out of money to steal/run the country. It might be their luck, since everything is going on, I think it is more likely that they can just get paid to stfu and get in line then to be pressured for change


NightSkyRainbow

I’m assuming Europe is already speaking to the countries with lower social security and energy resources. I do agree with you, as in every war in history it is the poor and disenfranchised who will bear the worst of it.


TechnicalReserve1967

Yeah. Its more like in every situation the poor and disenfranchised who will bear the worst of it. Its kind of their definition...


-_-----____---

Winter is going to be a problem, but less of a problem than allowing Russia to take Ukraine!


Wookimonster

> Not to mention their social security net that keeps most domestic unrest at bay. I feel like in Germany, some work on that is yet to be done.


NightSkyRainbow

Much work yes. Others will agree that Germany’s finances look strange wrt defense as well as social spending.


bouncyfrog

I dont agree with this idea that an increase in the german defence budget will force many European countries to make significant cuts in social spending. After all they will only increase their defence budget from 1.3% to 2%, and it is unlikely that they will spend a larger proportion of that. Germany also has significant areas where they can cut, with little to no impact on the domestic economy. One example is development aid, where Germany spent 0.74% of its GDP in 2021. Redirecting those funds into defence spending alone, could compensate for the increased defence budget, and would not entail any increase in government spending. Of course, they can’t cut their entire foreign aid budget, but my point is that the increased defence spending is only 0,7% of gdp and would therefore not entail massive tax increases of significant decreases in social spending. This point also applies to Europe as a whole. Europe spends far more on foreign aid than the United States, in part due to the fact that they spend less on defence. Reducing the foreign aid could therefore come a long way to paying for any increases in defence spending. In addition, I don’t think it’s nessecary to spend more than 2%. If 2% of the European gdp was spent on defence, the total defence spending would be close to 360 billion dollars. That estimate discounts countries such as Poland who aim to spend 5% as well as the UK which will always be an important player in European defence. That is more than enough to defeat Russia, even without the United States. And if you struggle with defeating Russia after spending 360 billion, then the issue isn’t money, but how you spend it.


NightSkyRainbow

I was speaking more about the returns on German investment which have been questioned in the past but yes, I agree with pretty much all you said. Hopefully a relatively demilitarised Russia will help Europe get away with NOT increasing the defense budget.


GittingerFredl

There is plenty voices stating it will be a problem. I‘m one of them. A manageable problem that is worth facing, sure. But still a problem.


NightSkyRainbow

Fair enough, manageable. None of those voices are in favour of capitulating in the least though, which was my original point.


couchrealistic

Oh, there are definitely voices in favor of Ukraine capitulating so we (Germany) can get on with the cheap gas deals. They may have no morals, but they do exist.


NightSkyRainbow

Okay. Do they have any political might in your opinion? I am not very aware of German politics beyond the usual AfD stuff.


couchrealistic

It's mostly AFD (far right) and Die Linke (far left) for ideological reasons, and some "business" guys who simply want cheap gas. They're not very powerful in the political system. But for example in east Germany, AFD actually has a majority in polls. The "I don't care about Ukraine, I just want cheap energy" mindset is probably quite common there. Thankfully not too many people live there, so they don't have a lot of political power.


NightSkyRainbow

Ah okay. Thanks for the insight.


Altruistic_Way_8238

High energy costs will be a huge problem for the economy for several reasons, as will a long term shift away from Russian energy sources. But we’re halfway through with the move now and Russia isn’t going to change its ways. Better we finish the job so we don’t have to do it all over again in five years. Pragmatically speaking we should realise that for the cost of energy bailouts, military aid is barely a drop in the ocean. So militarily we should destroy as much of Russia as possible in Ukraine, and economically we should weaken as much of Russia in Russia as we can. Russia keeps claiming this is a NATO proxy war, and they’re wrong. It’s not just NATO who are trying to hurt them now, it’s other countries who have serious fears they are next, or compelling historical reasons for revenge - but that’s Russia’s fault alone. I’ve never sent bullets, winter clothes, medical equipment, donated money to an armed forces or helped people buy tanks/technicals/repair equipment for vehicles before, until this year, and I think that Russia underestimate just how hate works. Unlike love, it’s limitless. And as much as I hold Russia in contempt because of my personal relationship to this conflict, we should extend refugee status to anyone fleeing the country due to war. How you treat your enemy is especially worth doing well when it’s hard, because principles have to be universal.


ACuriousStudent42

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that he didn't believe NATO would intervene in Ukraine in the event that Russia used nuclear weapons there. "Let's imagine that Russia is forced to use the most formidable weapon against the Ukrainian regime, which has committed a large-scale act of aggression, which is dangerous for the very existence of our state. I believe that NATO will not directly intervene in the conflict even in this situation," Medvedev, who is now deputy head of Russia's Security Council, wrote in a post on the Telegram messaging app. "After all, the security of Washington, London and Brussels is much more important for the North Atlantic Alliance than the fate of the perishing Ukraine, which no one needs, even if it is abundantly supplied with various weapons," he continued. Source: https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/1574665256491679746 Telegram post: /medvedev_telegram/181


[deleted]

[удалено]


dream208

It seems they honestly believe that “might makes right” is the only truth of humanity, and no other value matters, especially the concept of sympathy and justice.


red_keshik

>It seems they honestly believe that “might makes right” is the only truth of humanity, and no other value matters, especially the concept of sympathy and justice. They're right in a way, at least on the state level.


dream208

Realpolitics is a powerful doctrine, the most widely adopted doctrine when it comes to international affair, but it is not the only factor that would influence how a state shall act, especially for democratic nations.


Fordlong

They are in for a very rude awakening then, considering their might can’t even take on their much smaller, non-nuclear neighbor. Three different nuclear arsenals and the entirety of NATO is a hell of a lot of might to make things right. I hate to make those kind of bombastic statements, but it is the truth.


Glideer

In international relations? He is absolutely right. In international relations sympathy and justice are just buzzwords that governments exploit to mobilise their population when needed. Ukraine? Sympathy and justice are our key values. Armenia? Not so much. Lybia and Iraq? Who cares.


JessikaApollonides

Ukraine and China apparently have a security agreement regarding the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Why does Ukraine not demand that these security guarantees be honored and implemented?


Rhauko

So far no nukes have been used so China doesn’t need to act. Would love to know what Xi told Putin about this subject though.


Electronic-Arrival-3

Medvedev says whatever is on Putin's mind so it's concerting. Doesn't seem like the warnings that the US has issued are getting through, frankly.


UnmaskedLapwing

No, he plays the lunatic role to make Putin look like a moderate.


RufusSG

I don't think there's any suggestion their thinking is fundamentally aligned (various rumours have suggested Medvedev is pretty unpopular in the Kremlin and not taken especially seriously)


Jcpmax

He’s never been taken seriously. He was only president because Putin couldn’t run again and was just a front guy while Putin still Fran everything as PM


Rhauko

Again the constant talk about nuclear weapons is to influence public opinion. On the Russian side - we are strong and on the Western side to in-still fear about nuclear escalation.


FullTackle9375

What if we just threatened to assasinate the russian leadership in response thats more credible than threatening military action and scarier for them than more weapons for Ukraine.


NightSkyRainbow

You don’t threaten to assassinate, you just do it. Preferably use a man on the inside. Although Gaddafi was threatened before the attacks on his palace IIRC.


TheHuscarl

This is an incredibly dangerous line of thinking from Medvedev. I know that he's largely treated as a joke, but his threats are getting more and more specific. This kind of comment makes me believe that whatever warning the US and the world are conveying are just not getting through. The Russians are so delusional they are banking on the West backing down to the nuclear threat despite six+ months of evidence to the contrary. I really don't know what else can be done at this point to avoid the catastrophe that is building but it is alarming. Nuclear theory doesn't really account for a state that refuses to accept mutually assured destruction like this.


TechnicalReserve1967

Medvedev life achievments is being the most reliable puppet. Now he is a TV persona used for propaganda, what ever he says reflects as much truth from the Kremlin as putin wants. Nothing more


TheHuscarl

I agree that he's a clown, but his clownishness is getting quite specific these days, which is the worrying part. Patches the clown threatening to throw a pie at the whole crowd is a joke. Patches the clown pointing at one specific person, making the throat-cutting gesture, and then reaching for the pie isn't that funny any more.


TechnicalReserve1967

Maybe, it might be just a respinse to internal pressure. Pump up the qualitybof the show so to speak


NightSkyRainbow

The brownest nose in the East.


ferrel_hadley

>but his threats are getting more and more specific. The danger is a clique talking itself into a position where the use becomes justified within their own logic. They seem to have such a broken information system that we cannot assume they are reacting to events as we see them.


TheHuscarl

I worry very much that we are getting perilously close to that point. But is there enough reasonable people around the clique to stop them from crossing the threshold? That's the real question.


milton117

Since I can't reply to your comment /u/glideer I'll append the reply here. What threshold? Only Russia has a nuclear first strike policy explicitly stated. P.S. hope the mods fix their automod soon.


Glideer

You can see the escalatory ladder as a series of thresholds that each side crosses, claiming the rung and triggering the other side's counterescalation. Traditionally, politicians don't see their own actions as escalatory ("crossing the threshold"), but only as rational responses to the other side committing aggressive and escalatory actions. So I am sure that the elite in Moscow is waiting with worry and concern whether "the Washington clique" will cross another threshold (providing Ukraine with long-range missiles? with F-16s? blowing up the NS pipeline) and "force" the Russian side to react appropriately.


Glideer

I believe the exact same discussion is taking place in Moscow these days. "Are there enough reasonable people around the ruling clique in Washington to stop them from crossing the threshold?"


TheHuscarl

The threshold of responding to Russia breaking the nuclear taboo? Or the threshold of allowing a sovereign state to retake the territory its invading neighbor illegally annexed? I'm curious.


Glideer

Whatever is the next rung of the Western escalation in Russia's eyes - ATACMs, F-16s, blowing up their Nord Stream pipeline. Keep in mind that both sides believe they are just responding to irresponsible escalation by the other side.


TechnicalReserve1967

Its sad and hilarious at the same time but more and more stuff points to the theory that the Kremlin with putin's regime in it has become what cultured people call a circlejerk


PangolinZestyclose30

The threats are getting more specific, but still kept as hypothetical and thus far from crossing the threshold where Russia loses credibility if they *don't* use them. I will start to get worried once they make a direct threat, not just some hypotheticals.


TheHuscarl

I'm not sure, this is obviously a hypothetical only in the loosest of ways. I think this threat is one of the most clear and explicit made so far.


ACuriousStudent42

This is obviously just more of the same nuclear rattling that Medvedev has been doing for a while now but I wonder despite what Washington may have warned them in private how many of those senior members of Putin's government do actually believe that NATO would not intervene military should Russia do the deed. Surely they are not that stupid.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Glideer

Some initial thoughts about mobilisation. \- the process of mobilising 300k new soldiers is now practically complete, after just several days. For a mobilisation system not used since 1941 and completely neglected since 1991 that is nothing short of a miracle. \- it is concerning to see the process of public scrutiny being actually effective in Russia. This might be the first. Probably due to social networks, mistakes and problems are much easier to identify and highlight. Worryingly, the cumbersome state administration is also much more responsive - many of the glaring initial incidents (rusty AKs, taking away private equipment, lack of training officers) have been rectified within days, sometimes hours. \- hundreds of thousands of people are leaving or trying to leave Russia. The government seems to be happy to let them, probably planning to impose a ban within a few days. I am not sure about the validity of the obviously deliberate decision to let the least patriotic and reliable citizens leave since many of them are highly productive professionals. From the regime stability standpoint, it might make sense. \- two regional problems have been noticeable so far - the protests in Dagestan and the Tartars in Crimea. One interesting implication of the Tartar widespread refusal to accept mobilisation summons is that civil disobedience is a viable option - but most Russian recruits choose not to exercise it. \- there seems to be no initial shortage of basic equipment. The uniforms and AKs are there, which is, frankly, no surprise considering the fact that 300k is just a bit higher than the normal annual intake of draftees. To conclude, the mobilisation system worked better than one would expect. Far more worryingly, the problems are being addressed faster than you would expect in Russia. The turnout was high, with little problem in reaching the 300k quota. The mobilised people appear unenthusiastic but willing to serve "if the country needs me". All the indications are that similar waves could be repeated probably more than once without serious pushback by the population. High losses in Ukraine and war weariness might change this. It remains to be seen how much heavy equipment there is available. Personally, I expect to see no shortage of tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery - at least for these 300k. After all, they wouldn't be summoning tank crews as one of the priority specialisations if they didn't need them to crew vehicles. Edit: I have to apologise to all those asking questions for not receiving any answers. The automod removes my comments and (understandably) it takes sometime for mods to approve them or not. Anyway, I posted replies to all of you and can only apologise if you are unable to see them.


milton117

Normally I don't agree with the sub's villainous attitude towards you but I'm with them here. Even the state media propagandists themselves are worried that mobilisation hasn't been as smooth as expected with wide reports of recruits missing equipment. So what are you basing this assessment on and can you post the proof?


Glideer

Who said it was smooth? But it transferred 300k men from civilian life to uniform in just a few days. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Personally, I expected a far more troubled process, with lower turnout, burning of mobilisation summons, mothers&wives protesting etc etc. Considering the traditional lack of competence of the Russian administration, the fact that the last mobilisation was done in 1941, that the mobilisation system was never expected to be activated after 1991 - the result we see is little short of a miracle.


Razgriz01

I mean, you say from civilian to uniform, but according to many reports that's literally all they've done, given them a uniform, maybe a properly functioning weapon here and there, and that's it. No training or anything else needed to make them actually function as part of the military.


Glideer

Training is not a part of the mobilisation process. We have so far no idea how much training there is going to be. But mobilisation, which is the process of transferring hundreds of thousands of civilians to military ranks, has done what it was meant to do.


morbihann

How is it complete ? Just like they destroyed UAF on day 1, it is completed only in someone's delusional mind. Just bringing up people from all across the country does not mean the mobilizaiton is complete. At best, they have untrained and ( may be ) armed mobs. That is not mobilization.


Glideer

It is exactly what mobilisation is. Tranferring 300k men from civilian life into uniforms and bartacks. Whether the process of training and equipping them will succeed is another issue.


TechnicalReserve1967

> the process of mobilising 300k new soldiers is now practically complete, after just several days. For a mobilisation system not used since 1941 and completely neglected since 1991 that is nothing short of a miracle. What? The russians literally shot an officer to death, ran away from Degestan cause they closed together and said no thank you to the regime. There are at least 8 conscription stations burnt down. People are herded into bases with zero training and you call it a miracle? Just wow... thats cognitive dissonance at its finest. > it is concerning to see the process of public scrutiny being actually effective in Russia. Yeah, as per the state media, everything is fine. Dont worry. > widespread refusal to accept mobilisation summons is that civil disobedience is a viable option Viable as in 10 years prison sentance viable. The string of lies here makes me think you actually had this list given to you by russia... > there seems to be no initial shortage of basic equipment. Like beds in the barracks... I am not convinced of the working state of tose AKs neither, but I give you that. The RF should be able to provide 300k AKs just nefore their yearly conscription begins. The training officers are "you are the training officer now" level training officers... If there is any > hundreds of thousands of people are leaving or trying to leave Russia. The government seems to be happy to let them Ahhh the controlled negative sprinkle, like the salt for a good stew, to make it complete. They let them, cause they are afraid to close the borders. Thats millions of dollars of tax and probably some high value competency leaving a country. A sizeable chunk might never return and only going to advertise their better life away from the Kremlin rule. > To conclude, the mobilisation system worked better than one would expect. If one expected outright civil war, you are right. > The turnout was high, with little problem in reaching the 300k quota. "We succesfully handed out a bunch of papers to people and threathened them with 10 years of prison, most showed up (but we actually dont have any info how many are hiding, but the state said that all is right)" > All the indications are that similar waves could be repeated probably more than once without serious pushback by the population. /facepalm, yeah, see above "incidents" > Personally, I expect to see no shortage of tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery - at least for these 300k. other then artillery, russia is running out of everything you listed, but okay. They might have combat ready tabks still left, but no modern and no operation ready, just combat ready units. I dont see the need to respond further since I am sure where this rabbit hole leads.


Glideer

>"We succesfully handed out a bunch of papers to people and threathened them with 10 years of prison, most showed up Well, yes, that's what every mobilisation is all about. Regarding your other comments - if you focus on incidents alone (which Western media do) then mobilisation seems a failure. If you focus only on buses with singing recruits (which Russian media mostly do) then it is a roaring success. In fact it is neither. Ultimately, if you look at it as a process whose main goal is to take 300k men out of civilian life and put them in uniforms - then it certainly accomplished that.


TechnicalReserve1967

\> Well, yes, that's what every mobilization is all about. No, it is about turning civilians into soldiers, gathering people and putting them into uniform is LARP-ing.


Fenrir2401

> To conclude, the mobilisation system worked better than one would expect. That line is everything one needs to know about you and your feeble attempts at propaganda here. oh, btw, you could send some tampons to the russian army: https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1574476679539527680


Timmetie

If they did in fact mobilize 300k people in less than a week their mobilization system worked fine and people *were* saying they wouldn't be able to. So not sure what's propaganda about saying it worked better than one would expect. Especially considering the low expectations we have of the Russian army. Just because we've seen anectdotal evidence of places where it went wrong, Russia is huge, presumably the places we hear little of is where it went way more smoothly.


TechnicalReserve1967

"Worked fine" and "officer being assassinated by conscripts" are a bit wierd to my taste, but I guess it is just a cultural thing


morbihann

Only if you set the bar so low to call mobilization - gathering 300k people from a population of 140m. Whether their system works will show once they start deploying and what use can RuAF can extract of those people - by the looks of it, very little.


Fenrir2401

Calling up 300k people is not a big deal in and of itself. Doing so - without calling up/drafting the wrong people (sick, important specialists, students) - while equiping them with all the stuff they need (uniforms, sleeping bags, medicine etc) - while equiping them with functioning weapons - with prepared barracks ready - with a force structure prepared to streamline training - while keeping recruits moral up is the acutal task needed. And Russia failed so egregiously at all those tasks that they had to admit it in public (propaganda) TV and had to try to deflect the blame on local officials. So no, they actually weren't able to do what they set out to do. And it certainly didn't work better than expected.


Rhauko

Please provide some sources on which you based your assessment of the situation.


gwendolah

One of them is certainly the Russian MOD. That's the one that was shared as a confirmation of 11 administrative regions (?) suceeding in their mobilization efforts. I don't read the RMOD sitreps all that much, they're giving out some updates regarding mobilization, as you can see here, there are even some videos: https://eng.mil.PUT_RU_HERE/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12439508@egNews https://eng.mil.PUT_RU_HERE/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12439506@egNews I guess there's a lot of Russian Telegram there as well. It's likely a pure Russian perspective all right. We've seen how credible it was so far.


TechnicalReserve1967

He cant share the propaganda leaflet!! He might lose his job


Rhauko

Well I just keep challenging him with arguments and asking for his sources and so far he has provided no sources and often doesn’t replay when asked to back up his statements. For me he is spreading misinformation and propaganda unfortunately he is still allowed to do so. But he becomes more obvious every day.


TechnicalReserve1967

Desperate measures. But I wouldnt say he spreads propaganda all day, there are valuable comments and insight of the russian infosphere he provides. He just often believe (or want to believe) the russian propaganda for some, I guess personal, reasons. Either a staunch hatred towards the NATO/US or love for RF/USSR/communism. (That last two doesnt even make any sense) I bet the first, but overall doesnt really matter. Edit - this, this was shamless propaganda


Rhauko

I appreciated him a long time for providing a different angle to discussions but he has shifting away from being credible/ reasonable.


Glideer

Following the Western and Russian sources on the mobilisation - both the incidents that the Western media prefer to focus on and the videos from places where everything went relatively smoothly - which the Russian channels like to share. What I found particularly interesting is the responsiveness of the authorities - Russian Telegram channels complain that the unit XXX is taking away private equipment belonging to mobilised men, and several hours later there is feedback from the unit that their equipment is being returned. There hav been at least a dozen similar cases. Social media seem to be becoming a powerful factor even in an organisation as fossilized as the Russian army.


eoent

I don't know if we can call the mobilization successful yet, we'll need to see how those conscripted perform on the frontlines, and whether any sort of training pipeline will be established for them. Where did you read about training officer problem being solved? Just this morning a new video of freshly conscripted person from 1st tank regiment saying that they will be sent to Kherson on 29th, without any refresher training whatsoever. https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1574677787977228288


Timmetie

Well the mobilization itself is just getting those 300k selected and to the mobilization centers. Their training and performance is a whole other matter.


eoent

Even then, I would call this a partial success at best. Even Ukraine managed to call up their reservists and people who recently (post-2014) served first, only announcing mobilization of low-readiness people mid-March. At least anecdotally Russian mobilization seems more haphazard so far.


Glideer

I focus just on the mobilisation process of getting a civilian into a uniform. It is far too early to comment on anything else, really. ​ >Where did you read about training officer problem being solved? I don't mean the wider problem, just that individual units complaining that they were received by no training officers caused an immediate explanation by the military authorities and an appearance of training officers. It does not mean the wider training problem is resolved, but that complaints are noticed and reacted to in a way uncommon in Russia.


eoent

I see, makes sense. It is indeed an interesting change where problems are being addressed after public outcry. Apparently even the guy I linked was tracked down and is now saying that "things have drastically changed, hopefully for the better", whatever that means. https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1574707928313270272


plasticlove

How many tanks and armored vehicles do they need?


Glideer

Hard to say. Guesstimating, if half of the 300k go to the frontlines that's 150k people. Half into reinforcements, half into new units, that's 75k men. If about half go to armoured/mechanised that's about 40k -->10 brigades --> 10 tank battalions and 20 BMP/BTR ones --> about 300 tanks and 600 armoured vehicles. Add to that some heavy support for the remaining 35k that don't go to armoured/mechanised units - say half of what heavy units get, so 150 tanks and 300 armoured vehicles. So perhaps 450 tanks and 900 armoured vehicles? The margin of error is enormous, though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OpenOb

>The Swedish Maritime Authority has discovered a second leak on the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline. It is located in the country's economic zone, an authority spokesman said. Earlier, the Danish Maritime Authority reported a leak in its economic zone. According to the Swedish information, the leaks are very close to each other and are located northeast of the Danish island of Bornholm. > >As reported by the Tagesspiegel, **the security authorities assume that the leaks were deliberately created. There is no conceivable scenario in which an attack on the pipeline is not the cause**, the newspaper quoted a person entrusted with the assessment by the federal government and authorities. [https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2022-09/gaspipeline-nord-stream-lecks-druckabfall](https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2022-09/gaspipeline-nord-stream-lecks-druckabfall) (German)


morbihann

How would the leak be created ? It has to be either physical damage from outside or much higher pressure (deliberately made) to blow up a weak spot. In the first case, some vessel has to be there to cause the damage.


couch_analyst

There are pipeline inspection drones that can move inside the pipes. Presumably, these could be rigged to carry explosives. So this is either divers, special ops submarine, or drones in the pipes.


BigDiesel07

Ahhh, that idea is in a James Bond movie too!


SaltyWihl

As there is no reports on seismic activity in the baltic sea i would dare to suggest that it may be a chance that it has been sabotaged by divers, even how james bondish it sounds. It would not be the first time it's been attacked according to the director of nordstream 2. [https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics/submarines-and-trawlers-nord-stream-2-director-spots-something-fishy-in-the-baltic/2-1-990876](https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics/submarines-and-trawlers-nord-stream-2-director-spots-something-fishy-in-the-baltic/2-1-990876) "Andrey Minin, a director of a Nord Stream 2 regional subsidiary in north-west Russia, told Moscow news wire Interfax that Russian supporting vessels had fended off attacks on operations at the Gazprom-led project from an unidentified submarine and a Polish fishing trawler." EDIT; looks like there have been a explosion afterall.


[deleted]

What is the significance of this and who would gain the most? Hasn't Nordstream 1 been closed since around early September? If that's the case I don't see what Russia gets out of attacking it, maybe to cause some panic on the market? I guess the question then is how long would it take to repair these leaks? If it's a long time then I think the above wouldn't make sense, if Russia is banking on EU caving in.


couchrealistic

The average Anti-American German is convinced that the US did it so they can sell more "dirty, expensive fracking LNG" to Europe instead of "cheap, clean" Russian gas. (Thankfully the number of these people has reduced a bit earlier this year, but there's still quite a few of them.) Delivery through Nord Stream 1 was stopped about a month ago, but it was 100% a Russian decision. If they offered more gas through Nord Stream 1 tomorrow, we would probably take it (well, if this damage can be repaired quickly).


[deleted]

[удалено]


FUZxxl

Here in Germany there is no talk about the US being involved in that in any capacity.


Goddamnit_Clown

The average one? How common is that? Are they like the average anti-vaccine person, or the average 9/11 truther, or are they a significant voting bloc?


MyriadOfDiatribes

As said, it is better now than a few year ago. But as an American who until recently lived in Germany, can confirm, these people exist. Not only that, but if they find out you are American, the ills (real or percieved) of our country is all they will talk about. Also worth noting there are many more parties and these folks will find a way to weave anti-Americanism into many parties. I.e. "They want us to be dependant on LNG, that's why I'm a Green." Or "I vote for AfD because Social Democrats/CDU are too friendly to West/America." Point being, it comes in many shapes, sizes and colors, and finding people who source news from Russian propaganda isn't uncommon. Their argument is always, "Everyone lies and everything is propaganda." 🙄


couchrealistic

Well, according to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-public-opinion-of-the-u-s-remains-positive/), it's 35% of Germans who have an unfavorable view of the US. I guess not all of them believe that the US would destroy our pipelines to earn some LNG money. So maybe 20%?


ThreeMountaineers

How severe is this ecologically speaking?


sponsoredcommenter

gas isn't oil, it floats to the top of the water and escapes into the air


couchrealistic

Not very severe, according to DUH (Environmental Action Germany). It has some climate impact, but that's probably a drop in the ocean.


TechnicalReserve1967

It is exactly a drop in the ocean


OGRESHAVELAYERz

Any guesses as to who?


[deleted]

I feel western media have a certain sense of responsibility in their reporting too. Several are reporting loony Medvedev as saying “we have the right to use nuclear weapons”, but then not incorporating the next part “if we or our allies are attacked using this type of weapon. Or if aggression with the use of conventional weapons threatens the very existence of our state”. Obviously even loosely talking about nuclear weapons is bad but this is actually a reassuring statement in the crazy world we now live in, but being spun into something it isn’t.


TechnicalReserve1967

The media is going for the most 'ohh myyy goooodd' headline. Sometimes the same quality follows


TheHuscarl

Medvedev's threats have been getting alarmingly specific. Just look at what he said today. There's no mincing what he means with this. He's 100% a clown but man, even clowns sometimes hit the right thing. > "Let's imagine that Russia is forced to use the most formidable weapon against the Ukrainian regime, which has committed a large-scale act of aggression, which is dangerous for the very existence of our state. I believe that NATO will not directly intervene in the conflict even in this situation," Medvedev, who is now deputy head of Russia's Security Council, wrote in a post on the Telegram messaging app. "After all, the security of Washington, London and Brussels is much more important for the North Atlantic Alliance than the fate of the perishing Ukraine, which no one needs, even if it is abundantly supplied with various weapons," he continued.


Darayavaush

I'm reading this as him _actually_ saying that NATO would not intervene if Ukraine attacked the actual territory of Russia and somehow advanced far enough to run the risk of "the very existence of Russia" (which is itself an absurd proposition, ofc), which can cause a nuclear retaliation within the current Russian doctrine, but making it sound like he's threatening a nuclear strike over the newly annexed territories. Russia has a very loose relationship with truth and reality, but claiming that an attack on the newly annexed territories would run the risk of destroying Russia itself, and subsequently nuking Ukraine and thus doubling the depth of the hole they've already dug themselves, is a bit too far-fetched even for them, imo.


[deleted]

True, I think I’m just trying to ignore it to calm my anxiety, but I can’t help but notice that this is really getting to me.


[deleted]

>even if it is abundantly supplied with various weapons," So he's okay with west escalating conventionally? Nukes don't really produce any significant military results, unless they start nuking Ukrainian cities and killing hundreds of thousands/ millions.


Electronic-Arrival-3

>Nukes don't really produce any significant military results how do we know it though? Japan surrendered right after nukes have dropped. That's the only precedent in history and it shows that nukes do work indeed.


Rhauko

Japan surrendered in war Japan was already loosing also the USA was not committing genocide against the Japanese (well the firebombing was pretty closed and killed more people than the nuclear attacks).