Will Russia invade Ukraine again? (Yes, yes they did)

[Adieu]

Not at all.

Putler is a rat, not an idealist.

If there's a tank army approaching artillery range of his current position, THEN he'll start squealing about nukes for real.

Shitty little border provinces? Nope. He's not willing to die for them.

Nukes are a "nice" threat... but shitty as weapons go. Whoever uses them signs their own death sentence.

 

[philkilla]

Not at all.

Putler is a rat, not an idealist.

If there's a tank army approaching artillery range of his current position, THEN he'll start squealing about nukes for real.

Shitty little border provinces? Nope. He's not willing to die for them.

Nukes are a "nice" threat... but shitty as weapons go. Whoever uses them signs their own death sentence.

Even thinking of the impact of a nuclear weapon is a nightmare. A year ago it was unthinkable that Putin would actually send a force across the Ukraine border again..but here we are.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[oversteve]

Not at all.

Putler is a rat, not an idealist.

If there's a tank army approaching artillery range of his current position, THEN he'll start squealing about nukes for real.

Shitty little border provinces? Nope. He's not willing to die for them.

Nukes are a "nice" threat... but shitty as weapons go. Whoever uses them signs their own death sentence.

He is, but imo he's a cornered rat to some extent, there's basically not much he can do without going nuts since our locals do not want any peace talks without pushing them out of UA territory completely.

Yesterday there was Piontkovsky's interview (you probably know who's that) and I don't know how credible he is as a source but according to him in short there are two "parties" among top ru ranks, one mild and the other one aggressive. Putler was sticking to the mild at first but after the Kharkiv fiasco and after being humiliated by Eastern countries at recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting the milds started thinking of "retiring" him, he got scared of it and turned to aggressives for support and that's why we see all that shit with mobilization, fast paced referendums, threats of nukes etc. At the same time he angered the aggressives as well with the exchange of Azov fighters and marines protecting Mariupol.

 

[DrewH]

He is, but imo he's a cornered rat to some extent, there's basically not much he can do without going nuts since our locals do not want any peace talks without pushing them out of UA territory completely.

Yesterday there was Piontkovsky's interview (you probably know who's that) and I don't know how credible he is as a source but according to him in short there are two "parties" among top ru ranks, one mild and the other one aggressive. Putler was sticking to the mild at first but after the Kharkiv fiasco and after being humiliated by Eastern countries at recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting the milds started thinking of "retiring" him, he got scared of it and turned to aggressives for support and that's why we see all that shit with mobilization, fast paced referendums, threats of nukes etc. At the same time he angered the aggressives as well with the exchange of Azov fighters and marines protecting Mariupol.

One blunder after the other because going aggressive has only lost him more public support with the botched mobilization. They are so screwed up over there that they were mobilizing the wrong people! It doesn't matter how totalitarian you are and how much power you wield, you still need public support and that is something eroding quickly.

 

[Adieu]

He is, but imo he's a cornered rat to some extent, there's basically not much he can do without going nuts since our locals do not want any peace talks without pushing them out of UA territory completely.

Yesterday there was Piontkovsky's interview (you probably know who's that) and I don't know how credible he is as a source but according to him in short there are two "parties" among top ru ranks, one mild and the other one aggressive. Putler was sticking to the mild at first but after the Kharkiv fiasco and after being humiliated by Eastern countries at recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting the milds started thinking of "retiring" him, he got scared of it and turned to aggressives for support and that's why we see all that shit with mobilization, fast paced referendums, threats of nukes etc. At the same time he angered the aggressives as well with the exchange of Azov fighters and marines protecting Mariupol.

Piontkovsky is an 80/10/10 mix of decent analysis/conspiracy theories/senile Soviet grandpa.

The problem with his moderates and hawks analysis is... who are these hawks? Zolotov, Kadyrov, and Prigozhin? They're assclown thugs. Who'd follow them?

Shoigu? Come on, the guy is a village idgit sycophant. The moment he stops brown-nosing Putler is the last day anybody sees him.

Business mogul "oligarchs"? They've become weak and all of them just want this shit to go away.

Of course there's also the Strelkov-Girkin & Co. lot, but they don't have the scale. They could and WILL be dangerous if the central authority of the Russian Federation implodes and he could well end up as a regional warlord (again). But I don't think he has the connections to be top dog federally.

The most dangerous of them is Strelkov-Girkin. He has the looks, swagger, biography, and rhetoric of the Daddy Fuhrer vatniks have always dreamed of... But he's just a retired colonel with no military power. If anybody in Russian security services has *any* common sense left, that guy is first in line to have an "accident" if any suspicious stirring occurs. Even before Navalny.

 

[oversteve]

Piontkovsky is an 80/10/10 mix of decent analysis/conspiracy theories/senile Soviet grandpa.

The problem with his moderates and hawks analysis is... who are these hawks? Zolotov, Kadyrov, and Prigozhin? They're assclown thugs. Who'd follow them?

Shoigu? Come on, the guy is a village idgit sycophant. The moment he stops brown-nosing Putler is the last day anybody sees him.

Business mogul "oligarchs"? They've become weak and all of them just want this shit to go away.

Of course there's also the Strelkov-Girkin & Co. lot, but they don't have the scale. They could and WILL be dangerous if the central authority of the Russian Federation implodes and he could well end up as a regional warlord (again). But I don't think he has the connections to be top dog federally.

The most dangerous of them is Strelkov-Girkin. He has the looks, swagger, biography, and rhetoric of the Daddy Fuhrer vatniks have always dreamed of... But he's just a retired colonel with no military power. If anybody in Russian security services has *any* common sense left, that guy is first in line to have an "accident" if any suspicious stirring occurs. Even before Navalny.

I really do hope you're right
Anyway it's not much till they finish the "referendum" stuff and then we'll see what they will do about it.

 

[Adieu]

I really do hope you're right
Anyway it's not much till they finish the "referendum" stuff and then we'll see what they will do about it.

The "smart" thing would be to wait for winter and lodge the soldiers throughout private houses and apartment blocks interspersed with Ukrainian civilians.

Can't properly attack them/conflict gets frozen along existing lines if you don't.

BUT:
1) referendums don't really go well with kicking people out of their homes two months later
2) could go very sideways with undisciplined green "mobiks"
3) who ever said they were SMART???

 

[Flappydoodle]

It does feel like things are heating up a lot, quite quickly

Mobilisation. Hard to see how it's a sensible strategic move. It's a lot of people - but they're mostly inexperienced and their will to fight is very questionable. If you've been dragged out of your house and sent to Ukraine, your motivation is probably quite low.

It's also not clear whether Russia can actually supplied, feed or transport that many people. I would assume most of them will get put into basic logistical roles, close to the Russian border - like driving trucks, refuelling etc. That means Russia is just seeking to keep the regions they've taken, rather than launching a new assault.

Nordstream pipeline has been blown up by 3 underwater explosions. That's a pretty blatant message that Russia can/will target pipelines to scare Europe. And it's another message of "if I can't have it, nobody can".

"Referendums" will be done and Putin will announce on Friday that the two regions will join the Russian Federation. He's been pretty explicit that attacks on Russia will receive a nuclear response. So that's going to be quite interesting. It is hard to see what options are on the table:

1. Nuke somewhere unimportant in Ukraine as a message.

2. Nuke Ukrainian positions in the contested land? But that's like nuking themselves.

Then what? Would Ukraine just surrender? Would it actually help Russia "win" and achieve what they want to achieve? I don't know. The West probably wouldn't step in and nuke Russia and start an exchange

3. Nuke Kyiv, Odessa or something else important. Similar question - it's not clear what strategic value that is to doing that. Sure, you can then probably take over the land. But Russia will be pariah state for the foreseeable future. Even their "allies" would be outraged. Apparently the US told Russia that if they use nukes, there will be a non-nuclear, but severe, response - such as sinking all Russian vessels, and maybe a no-fly zone enforced over Ukraine.

My worry is that Putin is very much backed into a corner now. Obviously they are losing the conventional military fight, and mobilisation is a domestic political defeat too. He must feel frustrated and embarrassed. But he still has his most powerful weapons that he isn't using. So the temptation to unleash them grows. It's pretty scary IMO.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Russian conventional forces have been an absolute joke, what are the odds their nuclear force is any better? Perhaps not bad enough to be non-functional, but maybe easily deterred?

 

[mmr007]

 

[Adieu]

It does feel like things are heating up a lot, quite quickly

Mobilisation. Hard to see how it's a sensible strategic move. It's a lot of people - but they're mostly inexperienced and their will to fight is very questionable. If you've been dragged out of your house and sent to Ukraine, your motivation is probably quite low.

It's also not clear whether Russia can actually supplied, feed or transport that many people. I would assume most of them will get put into basic logistical roles, close to the Russian border - like driving trucks, refuelling etc. That means Russia is just seeking to keep the regions they've taken, rather than launching a new assault.

Nordstream pipeline has been blown up by 3 underwater explosions. That's a pretty blatant message that Russia can/will target pipelines to scare Europe. And it's another message of "if I can't have it, nobody can".

"Referendums" will be done and Putin will announce on Friday that the two regions will join the Russian Federation. He's been pretty explicit that attacks on Russia will receive a nuclear response. So that's going to be quite interesting. It is hard to see what options are on the table:

1. Nuke somewhere unimportant in Ukraine as a message.

2. Nuke Ukrainian positions in the contested land? But that's like nuking themselves.

Then what? Would Ukraine just surrender? Would it actually help Russia "win" and achieve what they want to achieve? I don't know. The West probably wouldn't step in and nuke Russia and start an exchange

3. Nuke Kyiv, Odessa or something else important. Similar question - it's not clear what strategic value that is to doing that. Sure, you can then probably take over the land. But Russia will be pariah state for the foreseeable future. Even their "allies" would be outraged. Apparently the US told Russia that if they use nukes, there will be a non-nuclear, but severe, response - such as sinking all Russian vessels, and maybe a no-fly zone enforced over Ukraine.

My worry is that Putin is very much backed into a corner now. Obviously they are losing the conventional military fight, and mobilisation is a domestic political defeat too. He must feel frustrated and embarrassed. But he still has his most powerful weapons that he isn't using. So the temptation to unleash them grows. It's pretty scary IMO.

Many mistakes here.

4 "referendums", not 2. Including about areas that Russia most certainly DOES NOT control.

They're trying to referendum-then-demand Zaporizhzhia, where 50+% of the population is in Zaporizhzhia City and its suburbs, safely across the Dnipro River and thoroughly under Ukrainian control.

This is NOT some "flip de facto to de jure" in Donetsk and Luhansk, for which no such warfare was needed at all. They could have just done the deed and taken far milder sanctions without any shots fired back last winter for that.

This is a brazen attempt to BEG for control of territories far out of reach of the Russian invasion.

Also, mobiks are most certainly NOT getting logistics roles. That's some of the highest "skilled" shit in the Ru ground forces.

According to the old logic:
Sorta-smart: artillery gofer
Not too stupid: here's your AK, welcome to infantry
YES too stupid: here's a SHOVEL welcome to the "construction battalion", and no, y'all ain't getting no weapons

 

[oversteve]

Sofar ru mobilization looks pretty intriguing

Plenty of funny videos with recruits getting stuff like rusty AK's, drunken soldiers, bums, men causing some self harm in order not to get mobilized etc.
Some people mobilized on Sep 21 already surrendered/captured in UA on Sep 25-26, so basically no training for the mobs as expected...
Some light protests in Dagestan with people openly calling it a war and that Ru is an invader, at the same time no severe actions against them from police/government and the mobilization was paused at that region.
A military commissar killed while recruiting. Funny thing is that the killer can get an 8-year term for killing while mobilization refusal gets you 10 years....
According to ru FSB around 260k men fled in 3-4 days after mobilization was announced and looking at the lines at their borders now there should be much more atm.

That's porbably not all but simply what I could remeber from the get go since there's plenty of news around.

Atm probably the biggest concern is with the nuclear threats but at the same time Peskov says they are ready to negotiate...

 

[possumkiller]

Atm probably the biggest concern is with the nuclear threats but at the same time Peskov says they are ready to negotiate...

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Everything I've seen showing the state of the rest of their military tells me most of their nukes are probably inoperable due to lack of maintenance or being stripped of parts that were sold off by corrupt officers. Probably don't have enough fuel to get out of Russia.

 

[sleewell]

a nuke would be crazy. the fallout would blow into russia, not that putin really cares about killing his own you have to wonder if his generals would allow it or just kill him.

 

[p0ke]

a nuke would be crazy. the fallout would blow into russia, not that putin really cares about killing his own you have to wonder if his generals would allow it or just kill him.

Yeah, the possible fallout is what I'm most worried about. It's not just a big explosion that kills a lot of people, it'll cause environmental issues for a long time... Anyway, you'd expect their nukes to be more or less non-functional, so maybe they'll just blow up into their hands when they take them out ...

 

[MASS DEFECT]

Seeing Russia's planes, tanks, and drones, I would put my bet that their Nuclear missiles and delivery systems would be equally disappointing. Like Afghan War era stuff. Would definitely threaten Europe or be easily deliverable via Subs. But long-range... they would have a high failure rate and can be easily intercepted.

 

[DiezelMonster]

It's kinda disconcerting that they are ratcheting up Nuke talk, There is nothing to gain for either side but Poutine keeps bringing it up like that annoying co-worker who tells the same story for a week.

It's obvious they are losing, and I love how this 300K mobilization is happening, considering Ukraine has been mobilizing people since the beginning of the war.

Where do we see this going? The US just okay'd sending long range weapons now, so does Ukraine shoot into the heart of Russia now? As stated above, based on how poorly things have been going for russkyville, do their nukes even work?

Is it going to be like the fatboy from fallout 4? does Poutine even have a pipboy?

 

[sleewell]

 

[Flappydoodle]

This is a brazen attempt to BEG for control of territories far out of reach of the Russian invasion.

Not really IMO. It's a way to legitimise escalation. Now Russia can say that Ukraine is attacking the motherland, thus permitting use of bigger weapons.

They formally absorbed those 4 territories into Russia yesterday. Now what?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Everything I've seen showing the state of the rest of their military tells me most of their nukes are probably inoperable due to lack of maintenance or being stripped of parts that were sold off by corrupt officers. Probably don't have enough fuel to get out of Russia.

Sorry but this is totally ridiculous. Sure, there have been some elements of corruption and the Russian military has been disorganised. And their performance has been less than expected.

On the other hand, they have launched hundreds of successful air strikes. They have sent thousands and thousands of guided missiles, most of which have hit their targets just fine. Their tanks are also working fine, and they've caused massive losses to Ukrainian forces. Let's not create some sort of alternative reality where the Russian forces are *totally* incompetent. They've still caused a LOT of destruction and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. Their main problem has been logistics and tactics - neither of which is particularly relevant for nuclear weapons.

And lastly, until Covid the USA *was* inspecting Russian nuclear arsenals, and the Russians were inspecting ours as part of the START program. That even includes taking things apart to verify that they are working. Both sides know that each others' arsenals work just fine.

If you're somehow betting that 6,000 warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed, are *all* broken or just a bluff - you are mistaken and you should discount that idea immediately. This is a very, very dangerous assumption, which is not backed by any evidence. Russia's nuclear arsenal works just fine, and we should be scared of it.

a nuke would be crazy. the fallout would blow into russia, not that putin really cares about killing his own you have to wonder if his generals would allow it or just kill him.

Yeah, the possible fallout is what I'm most worried about. It's not just a big explosion that kills a lot of people, it'll cause environmental issues for a long time... Anyway, you'd expect their nukes to be more or less non-functional, so maybe they'll just blow up into their hands when they take them out ...

Seeing Russia's planes, tanks, and drones, I would put my bet that their Nuclear missiles and delivery systems would be equally disappointing. Like Afghan War era stuff. Would definitely threaten Europe or be easily deliverable via Subs. But long-range... they would have a high failure rate and can be easily intercepted.

Fallout is not really that bad for a modern nuclear weapon. They are very efficient and most of the radioactive material is consumed during the explosion. Of course, it would produce detectable radiation, but it's very unlikely to be a health hazard outside of the blast radius.

This viewpoint of the Russian nukes not working is wrong, and dangerous.

New START - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Americans inspected the Russian nuclear arsenal in 2018. Their nuclear arsenal works just fine and we should take it seriously.

Source for "easily intercepted" ? Unless there's some top secret program we don't know about, you can't really intercept modern ICBMs with MIRVs, which also include decoy warheads.

Source for long-range having high failure rates? Russia has a space program and launches satellites, astronauts and space station components just fine. They can put things into orbit just fine.

 

[philkilla]

Not really IMO. It's a way to legitimise escalation. Now Russia can say that Ukraine is attacking the motherland, thus permitting use of bigger weapons.

They formally absorbed those 4 territories into Russia yesterday. Now what?



Sorry but this is totally ridiculous. Sure, there have been some elements of corruption and the Russian military has been disorganised. And their performance has been less than expected.

On the other hand, they have launched hundreds of successful air strikes. They have sent thousands and thousands of guided missiles, most of which have hit their targets just fine. Their tanks are also working fine, and they've caused massive losses to Ukrainian forces. Let's not create some sort of alternative reality where the Russian forces are *totally* incompetent. They've still caused a LOT of destruction and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. Their main problem has been logistics and tactics - neither of which is particularly relevant for nuclear weapons.

And lastly, until Covid the USA *was* inspecting Russian nuclear arsenals, and the Russians were inspecting ours as part of the START program. That even includes taking things apart to verify that they are working. Both sides know that each others' arsenals work just fine.

If you're somehow betting that 6,000 warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed, are *all* broken or just a bluff - you are mistaken and you should discount that idea immediately. This is a very, very dangerous assumption, which is not backed by any evidence. Russia's nuclear arsenal works just fine, and we should be scared of it.







Fallout is not really that bad for a modern nuclear weapon. They are very efficient and most of the radioactive material is consumed during the explosion. Of course, it would produce detectable radiation, but it's very unlikely to be a health hazard outside of the blast radius.

This viewpoint of the Russian nukes not working is wrong, and dangerous.

New START - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Americans inspected the Russian nuclear arsenal in 2018. Their nuclear arsenal works just fine and we should take it seriously.

Source for "easily intercepted" ? Unless there's some top secret program we don't know about, you can't really intercept modern ICBMs with MIRVs, which also include decoy warheads.

Source for long-range having high failure rates? Russia has a space program and launches satellites, astronauts and space station components just fine. They can put things into orbit just fine.

If nukes go out pandoras box is going to be opened.