-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
Lyman will be encircled by tomorrow it seems.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
There are two ways to go when placed on a front line. You can retreat into your own blocking brigades or move forward. If you move forward, you can do so shooting or waiving. The least amount of carnage will occur if they are waiving a white flag. I am hopeful those on the Russian side show their disagreement by refusing to kill their neighbor and simply walking across the line. Vote with their feet.
petit_bateau
Active Member
We need to be realistic - It is difficult to surrender to an artillery duel or mortar fire. It is difficult to surrender to an ATGM or tank engagement at 2-km range. It is difficult to leave one's own position and walk forwards waving a white flag unless you've cleared that move with everyone within range on either flank, and you know where all the minefields are. In fact that is why the Soviets set up the blocking brigades back in the day, because it is easier to give up backwards than to give up forwards. (And blocking brigades are not a purely Soviet thing, just the West uses different terminology for that function). Don't get me wrong, I'd like nothing more than to see a lot of surrendering going on by the Russians, but there are issues. So absent relatively large organised surrenders, it is likely to be very limited pockets/squads/individuals. But the Russian conscripts simply not trying very hard will in itself be a very helpful thing and I doubt they are very motivated.
What do you guys think is the chance of a WW3 event? Maybe some older people then me can chime in. In my 27 years on this planet I have never seen geopolitical tensions this high. To me it seems that anything stupid can happen at any moment, like Putin using a small tactical nuke or something.
Of course my TSLA position will be one of my least concerns if a big war breaks out but in my opinion this situation does pose a threat to the future I envision for myself.
Of course my TSLA position will be one of my least concerns if a big war breaks out but in my opinion this situation does pose a threat to the future I envision for myself.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Mine was more wishful thinking than a viable strategy.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
It seems Russia is loosing support amongst its allies for just those concerns. The will to grow the conflict may be there at some point but there will be no support which would act to contain Russia.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Given the current tensions within Russia, I think Putin is probably more worried about what his own people would do to him if he used a nuke, than what NATO would do.
That is probably what is giving him pause on pulling that trigger.
What I referenced last week (and others too). Somebody in Russia is paying attention too. In my opinion it's just the setup not the fatal punch but the effective thing about a real setup is that you have to respond to it as if it were deadly.
Reading this from 1983 may ease your mind. Also the Cuban missile crisis was much closer to WWIII than we are now.
The chance of a conventional WW3 are pretty much zero. Russia is burning up everything they have in a desperate attempt to hold on against Ukraine. Despite the talk, Russia is completely incapable of taking on anyone else. Probably for the next few decades.
There is a risk that the war could turn nuclear. I think Putin still has enough sense left not to launch nukes, but if he is removed and a warhawk takes his place, that person may be stupid enough to believe that a few nukes would turn the war in their favor.
Putin got into this war due to a massive miscalculation of the west's resolve and Ukraine's preparedness. He also is not a military guy and lost a degree of control when the shooting started. But Putin has made few political mistakes like he did at the start of this war. He's generally pretty good at reading the difference between a sincere threat and a bluff. I think most of the larger western powers have made it clear the threats are real.
One thing the US possesses is a very potent cyber warfare capability, The US may have dormant viruses deep in many Russian systems awaiting orders. The US is careful about using any of these abilities because they do lead to blow back. The US ans Israel crippled Iran's nuclear program about ten years ago with a virus that ripped apart the centrifuges used to enrich uranium, but that code got reverse engineered and now every machine in the world that uses that controller has become vulnerable.
Launching a cyber attack on Russia would unleash a number of potential weapons that could come back and haunt the west. But it would probably completely cripple Russia short term.
It would take more than just a leader stupid enough to launch a nuke to actually have a nuke launched. It would take everyone in the chain of command being stupid enough to follow the order (and everyone up and down the chain of command should know what the consequences will be for them and their families if they follow that order), plus it would also require that the nuke actually work better than the tanks and other equipment they've sent to Ukraine, which isn't a given because we're dealing with a kleptocracy.
How could they use nukes in Ukraine without having radiation problems in Russia. Prevailing winds make that a terminally stupid bet.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Low-yield tactical ones. Less fall out (but there still is some).
Plus, Russian leaders appear to not care about their citizens or soldiers, so there would not be a lot of pause given for "would this hurt our people?"
Not only Russia, but Belarus, Iran and potentially India and China, hence the pressure those 'friends' will be putting on Putin not to do it.
There's no tactical advantage in using one or two tactical nukes in Ukraine and the likely result would be an awfully big amount of convential exploding stuff being chucked at all sorts of Russian military targets.
Also, the more mobilized Russian 'troops' sent into Ukraine would mean more of them being affected by any resulting radiation in their area, so that won't go down well back home. If they nuked somewhere in west Ukraine just to make a point, it would mean a massive escalation for virtually zero strategic gain.
None of it really makes sense but neither does a lot of what's been happening which is why it can't be completely discounted.
I feel there's going to be a 'deciding moment' in all of this but what it's going to be is very hard to predict. I'm certainly not convinced it's the use of nukes though.
bobby g
Member
Cuban missile crisis was the closest I can remember and Russia saved us not jfk
petit_bateau
Active Member
On the subject of terminal stupidity I had to laugh at this one, which is actually relevant,
"Its being reported that Liz Truss called Volodmyr Zelensky to discuss further support for the country. Apparently Zelensky thanked her for the call but told her his country was a bit preoccupied and couldn't really spare the cash."
www.theguardian.com
"Its being reported that Liz Truss called Volodmyr Zelensky to discuss further support for the country. Apparently Zelensky thanked her for the call but told her his country was a bit preoccupied and couldn't really spare the cash."
Bank’s intervention may not mark the end of market mayhem
Bank of England’s fourth round of QE could still fail to calm markets and be followed by an emergency interest rate rise
www.theguardian.com
As we consider the last half-dozen posts we all are debating about horrible possibilities.
The Cuban missile crisis old only have had the positive outcome by virtue of rational thought in the USSR it was USSR not Russia. N. Khrushchev had been rewarded handsomely for his service as head of the Ukrainian SSR. The real reason he could have made such a positive decision with the Cuban Missle Crisis stems from his basic thought process. For example:
stalin-denounced-nikita-khrushchev
None of that attitude is present today. Whatever the outcome nobody would accuse Putin of being 'rational'.
I find myself agreeing with mutually impossible posts here. That is terrifying.
Well, comedy was his day job until things got real serious. Good to throw in some light heartedness in these times.On the subject of terminal stupidity I had to laugh at this one, which is actually relevant,
"Its being reported that Liz Truss called Volodmyr Zelensky to discuss further support for the country. Apparently Zelensky thanked her for the call but told her his country was a bit preoccupied and couldn't really spare the cash."
Bank’s intervention may not mark the end of market mayhem
Bank of England’s fourth round of QE could still fail to calm markets and be followed by an emergency interest rate rise
