Russia invades Ukraine

[GS250]

I think you're misunderstanding. A nuclear deterrent isn't just about deterring nuclear attack, it's about deterring any attack.

For Russia, their nuclear deterrent is preventing the West getting directly involved in the war. Were it not for that I'm sure boots would have been on the ground and planes in the sky over a year ago.

Possibly. There was no Western intervention in previous Russian 'special military operations' mind. Ukraine was obviously higher profile but I'm not 100% convinced there would have been a definite fightback. NATO nations wouldn't have felt obliged to do so as none of its territory was actually compromised. The USA would have maybe considered action and no doubt Britain would have blindly followed. If we did live in a 'non nuclear' World then conventional forces would probably be bigger all round. The chance of Russia firing conventional weapons onto British Cities would no doubt be a given should there have been some kind of fightback involving UK forces. Politically, for a situation that a lot of Brits are probably apathetic about that would be suicide.

 

[DustyBin]

Possibly. There was no Western intervention in previous Russian 'special military operations' mind. Ukraine was obviously higher profile but I'm not 100% convinced there would have been a definite fightback. NATO nations wouldn't have felt obliged to do so as none of its territory was actually compromised. The USA would have maybe considered action and no doubt Britain would have blindly followed. If we did live in a 'non nuclear' World then conventional forces would probably be bigger all round. The chance of Russia firing conventional weapons onto British Cities would no doubt be a given should there have been some kind of fightback involving UK forces. Politically, for a situation that a lot of Brits are probably apathetic about that would be suicide.

I'm not sure about either point.

Attacking the UK mainland is a significant escalation that would guarantee a response in kind. In addition, the attacking forces would likely suffer a high rate of attrition.

Similarly, I don't think there's as much apathy concerning the war as you suggest. In a "non-nuclear" world you could actually see more support for direct involvement (that's not a given, granted). How the public would react to an attack on the UK mainland is difficult to predict; it could go either way. However, there's a lesson or two from history in this regard....

 

[Annetts key]

Possibly. There was no Western intervention in previous Russian 'special military operations' mind. Ukraine was obviously higher profile but I'm not 100% convinced there would have been a definite fightback. NATO nations wouldn't have felt obliged to do so as none of its territory was actually compromised. The USA would have maybe considered action and no doubt Britain would have blindly followed. If we did live in a 'non nuclear' World then conventional forces would probably be bigger all round. The chance of Russia firing conventional weapons onto British Cities would no doubt be a given should there have been some kind of fightback involving UK forces. Politically, for a situation that a lot of Brits are probably apathetic about that would be suicide.

In a world with or without any nuclear weapons, in defence of Ukraine, do you think that the U.K. armed forces would attack Russian forces in Russian territory? I don’t think we would unless there was an extremely good reason.

However, in a world without any nuclear weapons, it is possible that we may have assisted Ukraine in the defence of their country by providing some military assistance. And, yes, that may have included attacking Russian forces in Ukraine or in “international” airspace / waters.

Given the support of Ukraine by the public, if the government had decided to provide military assistance by using some of our forces, I don’t think that would have changed the public support much. Especially as the most likely support would have been air support, air defence and logistics.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

How the public would react to an attack on the UK mainland is difficult to predict; it could go either way. However, there's a lesson or two from history in this regard....

If Russia did conduct any significant attack on any part of the U.K. or other territories that we are responsible for defending, Russia knows that it’s extremely likely that the U.S.A. and our other N.A.T.O. partners would also respond. And despite the rhetoric from Russia, they know that they do not want to take on the U.S.A. or N.A.T.O. regardless of the Nuclear weapons deterrent.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wasn't this the case during that infamous 'Able' exercise in the early 80s? The Russian paranoia regarding a military exercise was only pretty much dampened by spies on either side effectively suggesting none of the above was actually happening?

Able Archer 83 was ‘defused’ by some very well placed Russian spies, including Oleg Gordievsky, advising Western intelligence agencies that the Russian assessment included the possibility of using an exercise such as this to hide a real first strike. This then caused NATO to overtly contact Russia to say this was not the case.

 

[edwin_m]

Able Archer 83 was ‘defused’ by some very well placed Russian spies, including Oleg Gordievsky, advising Western intelligence agencies that the Russian assessment included the possibility of using an exercise such as this to hide a real first strike. This then caused NATO to overtly contact Russia to say this was not the case.

Then again, if that was really NATO's intention, then wouldn't they have said the same thing in any case?

 

[ainsworth74]

Then again, if that was really NATO's intention, then wouldn't they have said the same thing in any case?

It was less that we communicated to them that it wasn't real and more that a) NATO didn't respond to Warsaw Pact military preparations (who were responding to the exercise) and b) that the exercise finished and NATO went back to our usual alert postures demonstrating to the Warsaw Pact that it was just an exercise.

 

[najaB]

In a very slightly worrying micro-escalation, Russia has said that they intend to stop cooperation with the USA under the START treaty and the USA has responded in kind.

The United States has told Russia it will cease exchanging detailed data on its nuclear weapons stockpiles, the White House said, calling the move a response to Russia’s suspension of participation in the New START nuclear arms treaty.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin has not formally withdrawn from the treaty, his suspension from participating in it announced in February has endangered the last pillar of US-Russian nuclear arms control.

US stops sharing nuclear arms data with Russia under START Treaty

Under terms of the New START treaty, both countries should share data on deployed nuclear warheads on a biannual basis.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Sm5]

Crimea is really the only contentious issue for Russian nuclear attack.
Theyve drawn it as a redline, consider it their territory.

If Ukraine goes in to reclaim it how will the Russians respond in an attack on “their” domestic territory as they see it ?

Personally my thoughts are Ukraine should engineer a situation where they dont need to enter Crimea to win in it…

A full on rush to Melitopol and Tokmak or perhaps alternatively a rush from Vuledar to Mariupol splices Russias transit route to Crimea (which is the prize Russia has ultimately been seeking since 2014). With this route cut, the war at this stage becomes motiveless for Russia.

A similar ground advance a few miles west to Enerhodar, and literally 1 mile across the dam at Kherson could bring the war to close.. Enerhodar takes away power, Kherson takes Crimeas Water, and either Melitopol or Mariupol cuts the short cut from Russia to Crimea… any coordinated action on the Crimea bridge and the whole peninsula right upto Kherson city and to whereever Ukraine attacked would starve in a couple of weeks… 47 miles and but just down 3 roads to take.

Imo the Russian troops towards Kherson and Enerhodar would run back to Crimea, they are most exposed to supply vulnerabilities and have least to defend.. much of that area is swamp land. Crimea itself would be in panic, any Russian threat would be from the East, but would look pretty pointless, with Russian troops to the west at risk of starvation, or surrender… faced with that situation Russias looking at capitulation and has two options.. negotiate and take the off ramp.. or more worringly maybe nuke Crimea, or the land towards Enerhodar (that power station) so no one has it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In a very slightly worrying micro-escalation, Russia has said that they intend to stop cooperation with the USA under the START treaty and the USA has responded in kind.

US stops sharing nuclear arms data with Russia under START Treaty

Under terms of the New START treaty, both countries should share data on deployed nuclear warheads on a biannual basis.

www.aljazeera.com

Given what we've learned about the Russian Government over the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised if any data Russia had been providing the USA under the START treaty was basically a pack of lies anyway. (And even if it was intended to be truthful, it could be wildly inaccurate due to corruption meaning the top brass themselves have very inaccurate data about their own capabilities etc.) I'm therefore not convinced that ending data sharing is going to make much difference.

 

[357]

would starve in a couple of weeks

There are many Ukrainians still in Crimea though, and a good percentage support Ukraine (even if they can't publicly).

It's where things get tricky for Ukraine, as they have their own people there too, any plans to starve Crimea needs to take this into account.

 

[najaB]

Given what we've learned about the Russian Government over the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised if any data Russia had been providing the USA under the START treaty was basically a pack of lies anyway. (And even if it was intended to be truthful, it could be wildly inaccurate due to corruption meaning the top brass themselves have very inaccurate data about their own capabilities etc.) I'm therefore not convinced that ending data sharing is going to make much difference.

It's not going to make much practical difference, but the erosion of the relationship is problematic. I have no doubt whatsoever that both sides regularly 'accidentally' over-shared just enough information to reassure each other that everything was normal and there was no reason to worry.

They've already stopped having the regular scheduled calls between the Russian and US military leadership, lack of communication can lead to an unintended war.

 

[DustyBin]

Is it just me or has it all gone very quiet? We’ve seen this before, prior to Ukraine launching an offensive. Purely conjecture on my part obviously!

 

[Killingworth]

Is it just me or has it all gone very quiet? We’ve seen this before, prior to Ukraine launching an offensive. Purely conjecture on my part obviously!

It seems Russian forces are inching forwards in places like Bakhmut but the total area being taken is very small. Both sides are experiencing similar conditions to the Western front in WW1 in the countryside and Stalingrad in WW2 in built up areas. Bakhmut may be Ukraine's equivalent of Verdun. How to overcome well prepared and firmly entrenched forces is still a big issue even with massive artillery support.

 

[Yew]

It seems Russian forces are inching forwards in places like Bakhmut but the total area being taken is very small. Both sides are experiencing similar conditions to the Western front in WW1 in the countryside and Stalingrad in WW2 in built up areas. Bakhmut may be Ukraine's equivalent of Verdun. How to overcome well prepared and firmly entrenched forces is still a big issue even with massive artillery support.

Indeed, I get the impression that Ukraine is losing very small amounts of ground, in exchange for very large numbers of Russian Casualties.

 

[wilbers]

Not an April Fool joke unfortunately, but Russia kinda in charge of world peace.

Russia assumes UN Security Council presidency despite Ukrainian anger

Ukraine's foreign minister said Russia leading the UN Security Council is "the worst joke ever".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed, I get the impression that Ukraine is losing very small amounts of ground, in exchange for very large numbers of Russian Casualties.

This is why I’m not totally convinced Putin can afford a long war. As well as being militarily problematic, this kind of attrition will eventually cause problems for Putin at home. There’s already talk of “coerced” conscription to bolster numbers which seems a risky strategy. I’m sure the Ukrainians are mindful of this, and whilst they’ll want to defeat the Russians as quickly as possible and bring an end to the suffering and destruction, they can afford to be patient. No one’s going to march on Kyiv and overthrow Zelensky because he won’t surrender.

 

[najaB]

This is why I’m not totally convinced Putin can afford a long war. As well as being militarily problematic, this kind of attrition will eventually cause problems for Putin at home.

I was watching a video the other day which made the point that losses in Moscow and Saint Petersburg are something less than 1 per 100,000 head of population, meaning that very few people will actually know somebody who's died. This is in contrast to the less prosperous oblasts and republics where losses are as high as one per every few hundred. Almost everyone will have a friend, relative or workmate who's been injured or killed.

This could lead to trouble in the more restive areas, and no effective military to keep order.

 

[Cloud Strife]

this kind of attrition will eventually cause problems for Putin at home.

There is one 'but' here. The Russians have a long history of throwing countless men into battle, and they will see this as a continuation of previous Soviet glories. So, even 1 million men killed might not be enough, especially if the propaganda machine is working on overtime. It's also clear that Russia is firing on their own men if they try and retreat, which is just insane.

I think though, while there's a lot of talk of the upcoming Ukrainian attack, the only thing that will work is overwhelming force. Melitopol seems to be the obvious target, but there is a very real possibility that the nuclear power plant in Enerhodar goes boom as a result. So, IMO, the only realistic option is to come through the forests of Sviati Hory and try and take Sievierodonetsk followed by an attack towards Luhansk. But this might be too much for them to control, especially without conscription in order to secure the newly liberated territories.

The grim truth here is that Ukraine is perfectly capable of killing Russians in the meat grinder, but any offensive action is going to take a considerable amount of resources that they simply don't have. I hope I'm wrong, and I expect any offensive action to overwhelm the Russians, but numbers are also important here.

 

[najaB]

There is one 'but' here. The Russians have a long history of throwing countless men into battle, and they will see this as a continuation of previous Soviet glories.

The big difference being that those were defensive wars. People will be much more willing to be thrown into that kind of slaughter when it's to defend the motherland against an external aggressor.

No doubt some see this war in the same light, but a not insubstantial portion of the population disagrees. At the moment it's small enough to keep under control, but that will only get harder as losses mount.

 

[edwin_m]

I think though, while there's a lot of talk of the upcoming Ukrainian attack, the only thing that will work is overwhelming force. Melitopol seems to be the obvious target, but there is a very real possibility that the nuclear power plant in Enerhodar goes boom as a result. So, IMO, the only realistic option is to come through the forests of Sviati Hory and try and take Sievierodonetsk followed by an attack towards Luhansk. But this might be too much for them to control, especially without conscription in order to secure the newly liberated territories.

Not sure I see the logic here. An attack could avoid Enoherdar, the Russians might choose to damage it but that could happen as a response to an attack anywhere. A eastward attack in the north has the disadvantage that the Russians have the border at their backs so disrupting their re-supply would involve extensive strikes into Russia itself, which would bolster support for Putin on the "defending the homeland" argument as well as eroding Western support. Striking southwards from somewhere on the southern front to the Sea of Azov cuts off Crimea and the remaining Russian-held part of Kherson oblast, which might ultimately provoke a withdrawal in the same way as happened north of the Dnipro. While I still don't see how this war will end, such a move might be a part of the endgame.

 

[Annetts key]

The nuclear power plant in Enerhodar “going boom” would not help Russia and they know it. I fully expect Russia to try to use the threat of a nuclear incident to their advantage though.

 

[brad465]

Another smoking accident, this time in a cafe:

Vladlen Tatarsky: Killing of pro-Kremlin blogger investigated as murder

A blast at a St Petersburg cafe killed Vladlen Tatarsky, who blogged from the Ukraine front line.

www.bbc.com

(Can't copy text due to being on phone)

 

[Intercity110]

Another smoking accident, this time in a cafe:

Vladlen Tatarsky: Killing of pro-Kremlin blogger investigated as murder

A blast at a St Petersburg cafe killed Vladlen Tatarsky, who blogged from the Ukraine front line.

www.bbc.com

(Can't copy text due to being on phone)

Good.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The nuclear power plant in Enerhodar “going boom” would not help Russia and they know it.

I've actually been wondering what the consequences would be here. Would Ukraine surrender, for instance? Or would they decide that the gloves are off and they'd start blowing up Russia as they have nothing left to lose?

While it might not help Russia, I still think that the Russian perception of 'value of life' means that they couldn't care less about the consequences.

 

[dosxuk]

Another smoking accident, this time in a cafe:

Vladlen Tatarsky: Killing of pro-Kremlin blogger investigated as murder

A blast at a St Petersburg cafe killed Vladlen Tatarsky, who blogged from the Ukraine front line.

www.bbc.com

(Can't copy text due to being on phone)

Not so much as a smoking accident, more of a "bomb hidden inside an Easter statue given as a present" incident. Even the Russian authorities aren't trying to pass this one off as an unfortunate accident.

 

[Gloster]

As it looks to me as if the prevailing wind direction in that area is northerly, so any damage to a nuclear power plant would be likely to infuriate two of Russia’s remaining ‘friends’: Erdogan and Assad. However, it is a bit worrying that things do tend to go bang in the night in Russia nowadays, although I don’t think the Ukrainians would be so stupid.

 

[Annetts key]

I've actually been wondering what the consequences would be here. Would Ukraine surrender, for instance? Or would they decide that the gloves are off and they'd start blowing up Russia as they have nothing left to lose?

While it might not help Russia, I still think that the Russian perception of 'value of life' means that they couldn't care less about the consequences.

I was actually thinking that deliberately damaging a nuclear reactor such that nuclear contamination is released to the atmosphere would annoy “Western” countries (and indeed other countries that are not already aligned with Russia). Hence more likelihood of even worse sanctions and possibly even more military or financial support for Ukraine.

 

[brad465]

While I wouldn't rule out Bakhmut being completely captured in future, planting a flag on a building in the middle of the night in full armour does not look like a full/confident capture:

Bakhmut: Wagner raises Russian flag but Ukraine fights on

The stunt was dismissed by Ukraine, which said its army still holds the embattled eastern city.

www.bbc.com

The head of Russia's Wagner mercenary group says he has raised a Russian flag over Bakhmut's city hall in Ukraine.
In a night-time video, Yevgeny Prigozhin said Bakhmut was now Russian "in a legal sense".
However he admitted Ukrainian forces were still concentrated in western districts.
Ukraine has insisted its army still holds Bakhmut - an eastern city which Russia has spent months trying to capture.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said on Sunday evening that while Russia hadn't stopped its assault on the city, "Ukrainian defenders are courageously holding the city as they repel numerous enemy attacks".
President Volodymyr Zelensky's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, has urged people to "calmly respond to the fakes of those who invent a 'victory' that does not exist in reality".

Ukraine's Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar said the Wagner claim was "a funny fake".
In the video, Mr Prigozhin said a tribute to Russian military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky, who died in an explosion at a St Petersburg cafe on Sunday, had been written on the flag.
The BBC has not been able to verify the footage.
Analysis by the Institute for the Study of War said that, as of Sunday, Ukraine still held much of the city - although Russian troops were attempting to envelop it from the south and east.

 

[najaB]

Feb 2022: Putin launches "special military operation" to counter NATO's encroachment on Russia's border.
April 2023: Nato's border with Russia doubles as Finland joins

The Finnish flag is due to be raised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, as Russia's western neighbour becomes the 31st member of the Western alliance.

Finnish President Sauli Niinisto and the US secretary of state will join Nato ministers for a joining ceremony.

Finland's accession is a setback for Russia's Vladimir Putin, who repeatedly complained of Nato's expansion before his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The length of Russia's border with Nato member states has now doubled.

Good job, Putin. Good job.

 

[ainsworth74]

Good job, Putin. Good job.

NATO Salesmen of the Year 2022