Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
An excellent post above. I do think that, as with Covid, the media are out of control. The nuclear scaremongering is doing Putin's work for him. The Times article on that "nuclear train" was a prime example. I also seem to remember it was the Times that said in 2021 that "sources" had said the vaccine programme was a failure, and we were looking at semi permanent lockdown.
It would also help enormously if the US stopped publishing lists of weapons it was sending. That would help maintain the element of surprise. Can you imagine the panic in the Kremlin if they didn't know Ukraine had HIMARS, but suddenly they were being attacked way behind the front line.
An excellent post above. I do think that, as with Covid, the media are out of control. The nuclear scaremongering is doing Putin's work for him. The Times article on that "nuclear train" was a prime example. I also seem to remember it was the Times that said in 2021 that "sources" had said the vaccine programme was a failure, and we were looking at semi permanent lockdown.
It would also help enormously if the US stopped publishing lists of weapons it was sending. That would help maintain the element of surprise. Can you imagine the panic in the Kremlin if they didn't know Ukraine had HIMARS, but suddenly they were being attacked way behind the front line.
It's possibly part of the strategy to ensure that the Kremlin knows that such armaments have been provided to Ukraine, as opposed to being operated by American forces on the ground.
It would also help enormously if the US stopped publishing lists of weapons it was sending. That would help maintain the element of surprise. Can you imagine the panic in the Kremlin if they didn't know Ukraine had HIMARS, but suddenly they were being attacked way behind the front line.
I imagine it would be almost as bad as the fear among the Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine when they hear that the enemy are getting shiny new Western weapons and that their army can't even supply body armour, helmets or boots.
@phildstewart
(Reuters) - The United States has no indication that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons, despite "nuclear saber-rattling" by Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday.
The United States has no indication that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons, despite "nuclear saber-rattling" by Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday.
Having talked to my parents about this, who lived through the height of the Cold War they are not even slightly worried about Vlad. Their opinion seems to be as long as NATO isn't sabre rattling it's nuclear weapons back then there really isn't too much to worry about.
Oh, yes! Yesterday, this was a very important news piece in Portuguese media. The tone was like this: "Russia is preparing to send their young men into the Ukrainian meat mincer".
I don't agree with that analysis. I think the risk of usage in Ukraine is elevated. What we cant judge is HOW elevated. Is it going to happen tomorrow? Doubtful. Could it happen next week? Perhaps. especially if Russian forces continue to be defeated
I don't agree with that analysis either. I think the western powers are concerned about the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine and in particular their response to that action. I agree that they wont be worried about a first strike against the western world. They DO have to take the threats seriously though. That is their job! The quote from Yes Minster sum it up:
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.
Despite threats from Putin, various western countries and other countries continue to supply and support Ukraine with weapons and other help, including high tech weapons that are directly having an effect on Russian military forces and equipment.
The situation in Ukraine for the Russian military is as bad as it has ever been. So if Russia was inclined to use nuclear weapons, surely it would be now
Putin and Russia are just as afraid of a Nuclear war as the west is. And Putin and Russia know that there is only one country where the western nuclear weapons are being targeted at - Russia. Meanwhile Russian nuclear weapons have to target the U.K., France, the U.S.A. and likely other western countries that have capable military forces. Because the danger to Russia is not just from nuclear weapons, but from conventional weapons as well. Putin and Russia know that there is no way that there would be much left of Russian cites or their military if nuclear war occurs.
Agreed - but there isn't going to be a Dr Strangelove esque release of nuclear weapons. It is going to ramp up in tit for tat escalations until there is no where left to go from a starting point of a tactical weapon somewhere in Ukraine.
There may only be a small risk ( although a higher small risk than we have known for some time) but there is a risk
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Having talked to my parents about this, who lived through the height of the Cold War they are not even slightly worried about Vlad. Their opinion seems to be as long as NATO isn't sabre rattling it's nuclear weapons back then there really isn't too much to worry about.
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.
That applies for both ‘sides’ though. Neither the western powers or Russia know for absolute certain. Indeed, there is no way for anyone or anything to know for certain. There will always be a risk as long as anyone has any nuclear weapons.
Just because there is more talk and threats does not change the situation or the risks one jot. There is no significant threat to Russia (as in the internationally recognised country within the internationally recognised borders) and there is not likely to be from any western country or from Ukraine.
Russian military doctrine said:
The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.
There it’s set out very clearly when Russia may use nuclear weapons.
Now you may argue that the annexation of some Ukrainian territory changes things. I’m not so sure. Even within Russia they can’t decide on where the new borders will be… So how can this be clearly described in Russian law?
And whatever happens, there is no way that Russia will treat these annexed areas the same as Russia proper.
Hence fighting in these areas cannot reasonably be described as threatening the the very existence of Russia.
That applies for both ‘sides’ though. Neither the western powers or Russia know for absolute certain. Indeed, there is no way for anyone or anything to know for certain. There will always be a risk as long as anyone has any nuclear weapons.
I agree with your central point & I think we agree the risk is low but I do feel that risk is elevated, even if just by a small amount. It is also something new for lots of people too young to have lived through the cold war. They don't have history and experience to fall back on. I think we need to acknowledge that but keep a sense of perspective. Is the situation today worse than 1983 ( Operation RYAN) or 1961 ( where Russian and American tanks were literally face to face at Checkpoint Charlie) or 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The whole situation does stand as an example of the concept of deterrence mind you!
Just because there is more talk and threats does not change the situation or the risks one jot. There is no significant threat to Russia (as in the internationally recognised country within the internationally recognised borders) and there is not likely to be from any western country or from Ukraine.
Agree - however the bit i have emboldened is the key aspect for me. We may rationally describe Russia as you set out. Putin may not. He may determine a threat to, say, Crimea as a threat to Russia. It is, of course, a matter of interpterion!
I heard a story that a regular group of army personnel had to lock themselves in a room after they demanded the newly arrived conscripts hand over their equipment. The conscripts were not having that.
I heard a story that a regular group of army personnel had to lock themselves in a room after they demanded the newly arrived conscripts hand over their equipment. The conscripts were not having that.
Probably forgot that the conscripts are the grandfather's in this situation rather than the usual young guys that can be brutalised. These conscripts have already been at the top of the hazing pyramid and were hardly likely to take a step down...
Probably forgot that the conscripts are the grandfather's in this situation rather than the usual young guys that can be brutalised. These conscripts have already been at the top of the hazing pyramid and were hardly likely to take a step down...
Crimea is a different story to the other territories, and I think Russia and Ukraine both understand that. I could see, for instance, Ukraine taking out the Kerch Bridge and then agreeing to return to 'the administrative borders of 23rd February in respect to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. They would then effectively hold Crimea by the proverbial testicles, controlling both the water supply and the ports there.
However, things have been going boom in Crimea for a while now, and Russia has barely reacted. I wouldn't be surprised if some elements of the Russian leadership view Crimea as a liability, given how difficult and expensive it has been for Russia to govern.
To be fair to them, cutting output is pretty much standard fare for when economies start to slow down. Prices were lower now than they were pre-invasion and on a sharp downward trajectory.
We also know, or can at least assume, that a western power, probably the US, has some very well placed intelligence within the Russian Government and/or military. The way the invasion was trailed well in advance, and the way Ukraine has seemingly predicted almost every Russian tactical move, and also taken advantage of weak points in the Russian defences at the best time… all of that is not just luck.
To be fair to them, cutting output is pretty much standard fare for when economies start to slow down. Prices were lower now than they were pre-invasion and on a sharp downward trajectory.
They are also committing long term suicide, as they are making alternative energy sources much cheaper in comparison for longer, further speeding up the transition. Russia invading Ukraine has also raised awareness of need to avoid being beholden to dodgy regimes, so everything OPEC does is amplifying this point of view.
One interesting point that I have not seen being discussed, is when the war is over, and investment is flowing into Ukraine, how much is going to be renewable electricity generation in this vast country.
Occasionally Ukraines natural gas reserves are spoken about. And sometimes their nuclear power. But it does also appear to be a good place for wind turbines and other renewable energy systems.
And furthermore, any new buildings, or substantial repair/renovation of existing buildings should include super insulation and all the other energy saving measures that are worthwhile.
But this is only going to happen if we, the west, help them.
They are also committing long term suicide, as they are making alternative energy sources much cheaper in comparison for longer, further speeding up the transition.
On the other hand, making money now in the short term so that they can invest into other industries makes sense. Look at Norway and their massive sovereign wealth fund - over 1 trillion petrodollars invested into non-petroleum assets. Saudi is apparently following suit, not so sure about other oil-producing countries.
On the other hand, making money now in the short term so that they can invest into other industries makes sense. Look at Norway and their massive sovereign wealth fund - over 1 trillion petrodollars invested into non-petroleum assets. Saudi is apparently following suit, not so sure about other oil-producing countries.
One interesting point that I have not seen being discussed, is when the war is over, and investment is flowing into Ukraine, how much is going to be renewable electricity generation in this vast country.
Occasionally Ukraines natural gas reserves are spoken about. And sometimes their nuclear power. But it does also appear to be a good place for wind turbines and other renewable energy systems.
And furthermore, any new buildings, or substantial repair/renovation of existing buildings should include super insulation and all the other energy saving measures that are worthwhile.
But this is only going to happen if we, the west, help them.
It's clearly a secondary or even tertiary issue, but does anyone have a view on what will happen to Russia socially and demographically when the war is over (assuming nothing even more terrible occurs)?
It already had an ageing population problem and has just killed, maimed or traumatised a non-trivial number of working age men. (And probably made some people with foreign language and other skills more likely to want to work elsewhere.)
It's clearly a secondary or even tertiary issue, but does anyone have a view on what will happen to Russia socially and demographically when the war is over (assuming nothing even more terrible occurs)?
It already had an ageing population problem and has just killed, maimed or traumatised a non-trivial number of working age men. (And probably made some people with foreign language and other skills more likely to want to work elsewhere.)
If Russia are smart they will pull themselves together, become a democracy and join the rest of Europe in the 21st century. A Russia on the west's side will certainly help in containing China.
I would say that it’s totally impossible to predict what will happen inside Russia after their war with Ukraine ends.
Far too many variables. For a start, how and when the war ends.
Who takes over from Putin.
How the other regions of Russia view matters.
How any trouble with Russia’s southern neighbours plays out.
And that’s even before we consider western relations with them.
Whilst it's thrilling to see Ukraine getting it's territory back, the fate of many ordinary Russian soldiers is also a tragedy (albeit some seem to be guilty of appalling crimes).
Could it? Are there any serious independence movements in any parts of Russia? Or any regions where the population tends to see themselves as some nationality other than Russian? (That's a genuine question - I don't know the answer).
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/7LLELYSHZ5OEXLCQOMOU5JEPWY.jpg)
