Russia invades Ukraine

[Ediswan]

Lets say that the failure rate is 98% so only 2% of those deployed warheads reach their targets and detonate. That's still 34 warheads reaching targets. Now the scattergun effect of that will reduce the damage. It will likely be spread over Europe and the US. But are you (again a general you) willing to accept 34 nuclear detonations? Even one will likely overwhelm the ability of a single country to respond effectively to. Big risk. And I don't think the failure rate would be 98%.

There is a huge range of possible outcomes for the duds. Ranging from a 'fizzle' (reduced yield), to hitting the ground and staying in one piece. They all cause a problem.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ta da! https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/radioactive-waste.273090/

Thanks, I'm not the most IT literate!

 

[ainsworth74]

There is a huge range of possible outcomes for the duds. Ranging from a 'fizzle' (reduced yield), to hitting the ground and staying in one piece. They all cause a problem.

Absolutely, in my crude scenario it would be 34 successful nuclear detonations but 1,000+ other warheads with all sorts of other problems. Some would indeed 'fizzle', how do we feel about a 15kt explosion rather than 150kt (the possible result of a fission primary detonating but the fusion secondary failing, or if the tritium in a boosted weapon has soured due to nuclear decay, it has a fairly short half-life meaning it needs replacing not infrequently) over say Berlin? Hiroshima was 15kt for reference. Or how about where the detonators go off but fail to produce a nuclear detonation (perhaps faulty wiring meant one of the explosive lenses failed) spreading uranium or plutonium over a wide area? This also, of course, excludes the effects of the NATO nuclear response on Russia and I don't think our failure rate would be as high as theirs...

Reality is that relying on the idea that Russia's nukes are unusable due to corruption simply isn't an option. Even in a scenario with a, I think an implausibly, high failure rate the consequences would still be dire.

 

[najaB]

Reality is that relying on the idea that Russia's nukes are unusable due to corruption simply isn't an option. Even in a scenario with a, I think an implausibly, high failure rate the consequences would still be dire.

That said, at least some of the delivery systems are as likely as not to fail so they'd also be nuking themselves!

 

[Belperpete]

I think one thing that NATO still doesn't really understand is that Russia is terrified of being invaded by NATO. This fear was present in the Soviet Union and it's still present today. This line of thinking is also why the Belarusian Army has a pacifist stance, because they know that they have no chance in a conventional conflict and that Belarus will be flattened if they try and resist. For them, the most logical thing is to simply let NATO through without fighting.

I am not convinced that those in power were, but having an enemy that you can demonise can come in very useful. Especially for the military, who can justify lots of state spendiing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Now set up.

Thanks

 

[ScotRail158725]

Remove if unrelated but Whats the policy on British people travelling to Belarus? Are we even allowed in? If we are are their restrictions?

 

[ainsworth74]

Remove if unrelated but Whats the policy on British people travelling to Belarus? Are we even allowed in? If we are are their restrictions?

Basically the same as Russia. FCDO advise against all travel therefore you will have little or no consular assistance and you will require specialist travel insurance as normal consumer travel insurance companies would not cover you. Getting to Belarus will be difficult and probably require flying via Turkey. Some land borders remain open so it could be possible to get to Belarus via a land crossing from Poland, Latvia or Lithuania but likely there will be significant delays and crossings could be closed at short notice. Whilst I think the danger of being used as a bargaining chip and being arrested on trumped up charges are lower in Belarus than Russia I would still suggest that a British is national would be at significant risk of such a thing.

On the plus side Belarus do not require British citizens to get a visa prior to arrival and will allow you to remain for up to 30 days without needing a visa!

There's also the issue that any border guards in other countries that see your Belarus entry/exit stamps are more likely to take a very close interest in you and your reasons for visiting their country. Though probably less likely to lead to an outright rejection which I suspect having a Russian visa might cause.

 

[simonw]

Remove if unrelated but Whats the policy on British people travelling to Belarus? Are we even allowed in? If we are are their restrictions?

The government here advises against travel

Belarus travel advice

FCDO travel advice for Belarus. Includes safety and security, insurance, entry requirements and legal differences.

www.gov.uk

 

[Pete_uk]

Residential area of Kharkiv was hit this afternoon. Several dead including a child.

Good job we don't escalate it by hitting the bomber bases!

 

[brad465]

Situation doesn't appear to be looking good for Ukraine in the Donbas, with Pokrovsk under significant threat as a key logistics' point for Ukraine's frontline in the area:

Russia pushes on key Ukraine city of Pokrovsk while Kyiv's Kursk incursion slows

Russia is poised to assault Pokrovsk, a crucial supply and reinforcement hub for Ukraine's frontline troops.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russia has made sweeping advances in recent days that threaten to outweigh the gains made by Ukraine in its cross-border attack into the Kursk region.
Russian forces are just a few kilometres from the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk, a crucial logistics hub used by the Ukrainian military.
Home to a key railway station and major roads, Pokrovsk is an essential supply and reinforcement point for Ukraine’s troops on the eastern front line.
Critics in Kyiv fear that the country's military has made a serious miscalculation.
By sending troops into Kursk instead of reinforcing the eastern frontline, the military has left Pokrovsk and other important Ukrainian towns exposed, these critics say.
Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
On a visit to the front line, Ukraine's armed forces chief Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi said Russia was throwing “everything that can move” into its assault.
“The situation is extremely difficult,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky conceded on Wednesday.
“If we lose Pokrovsk,” military expert Mykhaylo Zhyrokhov warned, “the entire front line will crumble."

Pokrovsk is next to another town, Myrnohrad. Together, the two settlements had a pre-war population of over 100,000, most of whom have now fled. They are the last major cities in that part of the Donetsk region that remain under Ukrainian control.

The battle for Pokrovsk is really a continuation of the battle for Avdiivka, which Ukraine lost in February after months of bloody fighting.

Avdiivka, which is about 40km (25 miles) south-east of Pokrovsk, was seen as a fortress that protected the settlements and roads to its west - helping to bolster Ukraine’s presence along the entire frontline.

When it finally fell, Avdiivka was left in ruins. It was a serious loss for Ukraine.

It meant that Russia could move its focus to Pokrovsk and the key hilltop town of Chasiv Yar, which overlooks some of the important cities in Donetsk still under Ukrainian control. Intense fighting there on Saturday left five people dead.

 

[RailWonderer]

Situation doesn't appear to be looking good for Ukraine in the Donbas, with Pokrovsk under significant threat as a key logistics' point for Ukraine's frontline in the area:

Russia pushes on key Ukraine city of Pokrovsk while Kyiv's Kursk incursion slows

Russia is poised to assault Pokrovsk, a crucial supply and reinforcement hub for Ukraine's frontline troops.

www.bbc.co.uk

Realistically Ukraine has to admit they won't ever get the four oblasts back that Russia has annexed, but will not admit Russian soverignty over them. My guess is they will become unrecognised autonomous Rsussian regions, since even allies like China and friendly countries like India and South Africa won't recognise the occupied oblasts, and the majority of the world won't either.

You have to wonder if anybody in the west ran war simulations to ascertain if, with a given amount of western assistance, Ukraine would ever beat Russia who still outnumbers them in artillery, jets and troop numbers at least 4 to 1. The worst thing Zelensky did was to listen to Boris Johnson and not negotiate in April 2022 in Istanbul when Ukraine was in a far better position. Declaring international military neutrality would have given both east and west the security guarantees they wanted under better terms than now.

 

[DustyBin]

Realistically Ukraine has to admit they won't ever get the four oblasts back that Russia has annexed, but will not admit Russian soverignty over them. My guess is they will become unrecognised autonomous Rsussian regions, since even allies like China and friendly countries like India and South Africa won't recognise the occupied oblasts, and the majority of the world won't either.

I think it’s fair to say Ukraine are unlikely to eject Russia’s forces altogether in a straight fight. However, I don’t think a full Russian withdrawal following regime change can be ruled out. (When said regime change will come about and what will follow are complete unknowns at this point, obviously).

You have to wonder if anybody in the west ran war simulations to ascertain if, with a given amount of western assistance, Ukraine would ever beat Russia who still outnumbers them in artillery, jets and troop numbers at least 4 to 1. The worst thing Zelensky did was to listen to Boris Johnson and not negotiate in April 2022 in Istanbul when Ukraine was in a far better position. Declaring international military neutrality would have given both east and west the security guarantees they wanted under better terms than now.

I disagree on the basis that any kind of peace deal would have been effectively appeasement. Whilst the SMO had clearly gone awry by April 2022, Putin was still a scary guy with a largely intact military, and any peace deal would have been on his terms (and likely to be reneged upon when the time was right).

I’m also not sure Ukraine were in a stronger position in April 2022; they’ve smashed Putin’s military since then and the war is now very much a peer conflict. When this war ends Russia won’t be invading Ukraine (or anyone else) for a very long time. The cost to Ukraine has been enormous, but they clearly see the benefit in terms of long term security.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree on the basis that any kind of peace deal would have been effectively appeasement. Whilst the SMO had clearly gone awry by April 2022, Putin was still a scary guy with a largely intact military, and any peace deal would have been on his terms (and likely to reneged upon when the time was right).

I’m also not sure Ukraine were in a stronger position in April 2022; they’ve smashed Putin’s military since then and the war is now very much a peer conflict. When this war ends Russia won’t be invading Ukraine (or anyone else) for a very long time. The cost to Ukraine has been enormous, but they clearly see the benefit in terms of long term security.

indeed. A ceasefire at that time would have led to a race between Ukraine building defences and Russia amassing enough forces to re-start the conflict. Without the offensives of later in 2022, Kherson and much of Kharkiv oblast would still have been in Russian hands, with the latter providing a foothold north of the Dnipro that could easily have been a jumping off point for a future phase. Western support at the time was much less than it is now, so it's unlikely Ukraine would have been reinforced enough to resist a second wave.

 

[najaB]

You have to wonder if anybody in the west ran war simulations to ascertain if, with a given amount of western assistance, Ukraine would ever beat Russia who still outnumbers them in artillery, jets and troop numbers at least 4 to 1.

On paper, yes. However we've seen time and time again that those weapons are either not actually there, or haven't been maintained and many of the troops have very low morale such that the actual advantage is much closer to 2:1 on a good day.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes the low morale of Russian troops is definitely an overlooked factor imho.

 

[Yew]

Realistically Ukraine has to admit they won't ever get the four oblasts back that Russia has annexed, but will not admit Russian soverignty over them. My guess is they will become unrecognised autonomous Rsussian regions, since even allies like China and friendly countries like India and South Africa won't recognise the occupied oblasts, and the majority of the world won't either.

You have to wonder if anybody in the west ran war simulations to ascertain if, with a given amount of western assistance, Ukraine would ever beat Russia who still outnumbers them in artillery, jets and troop numbers at least 4 to 1. The worst thing Zelensky did was to listen to Boris Johnson and not negotiate in April 2022 in Istanbul when Ukraine was in a far better position. Declaring international military neutrality would have given both east and west the security guarantees they wanted under better terms than now.

Doesn’t Ukraine have international security guarantees from both NATO and Russia already?
It got them in exchange for giving up its vast pile of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons..

 

[JamesT]

Doesn’t Ukraine have international security guarantees from both NATO and Russia already?
It got them in exchange for giving up its vast pile of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons..

Yes, the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994. The first obligation of which is to respect the independence and sovereignty of the signatories.

 

[wilbers]

This one :

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The memoranda prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

 

[Dent]

This one :

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Someone should remind Russia of this, the current invasion is a clear breach of the agreement.

 

[JamesT]

Someone should remind Russia of this, the current invasion is a clear breach of the agreement.

The 2014 annexation of Crimea was a clear breach, but the lack of any significant consequences have led to where we are now.

 

[spyinthesky]

It would be interesting to hear some opinions from Russians to how and if their lives have changed, even down to the lack of sporting events they can take part in such as the Olympics.

 

[edwin_m]

Someone should remind Russia of this, the current invasion is a clear breach of the agreement.

The response will be something along the lines of "Ф ОФФ".

 

[Dent]

The response will be something along the lines of "Ф ОФФ".

I don't know what that means, but the point remains that the current invasion clearly breaches the terms that prohibits threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't know what that means, but the point remains that the current invasion clearly breaches the terms that prohibits threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.

That would be "F OFF" but in Cyrillic text. Ironically I don't think they use that insult all that much. Not enough homophobia.

 

[RailWonderer]

The 2014 annexation of Crimea was a clear breach, but the lack of any significant consequences have led to where we are now.

Putin claimed that because the maidan revolution was orchestrated by the west (to some degree it was if you look at the Soros and western backed pro democracy NGOs that promoted the maidan) the Poroshenko govt formed a new state where their existing agreement with was voided i.e. because the state was and still is western aligned, the agreement no longer holds water according to him. Laughable I know but this is the KGB playbook. Being the most corrupt country in Europe after Russia and an oligarchy, Ukrainians have every right to be upset about being the poorest nation in Europe because of the rampant corruption and theft of state and private assets in the 1990s.

Crimea itself though was always Russian until the 1950s the USSR donated it to the Ukrainean autonomous region which they had no idea would become an independant state later. The rest of Ukraine is a whole other story and because of that the west let it ride in 2014, besides a few more sanctions.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That would be "F OFF" but in Cyrillic text. Ironically I don't think they use that insult all that much. Not enough homophobia.

I don't want to drift too far OT, but it shows how naive I have become/am/was. I did not realize Putin/Russia were very homophobic.

 

[JamesT]

Crimea itself though was always Russian until the 1950s the USSR donated it to the Ukrainean autonomous region which they had no idea would become an independant state later. The rest of Ukraine is a whole other story and because of that the west let it ride in 2014, besides a few more sanctions.

Depends how far back you’re going to claim it was always Russian. The majority of the population was Crimean Tatar in the 19th century though they were ethnically cleansed by Stalin.

 

[Giugiaro]

I did not realize Putin/Russia were very homophobic.

Pussy Riot comes immediately to mind.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't want to drift too far OT, but it shows how naive I have become/am/was. I did not realize Putin/Russia were very homophobic.

Very much so:

Galvanising issues​

It is at face value extraordinary that the rights of members of a small minority, in this case LGBT+ individuals, should come to hold such symbolic resonance. Yet as the anthropologist Gayle Rubin has observed, ‘Disputes over sexual behaviour often become the vehicles for displacing social anxieties and discharging their attendant emotional intensity. Consequently, sexuality should be treated with special respect in times of great social stress.’

Contestations around gender and sexuality are thus galvanising issues of our time, intersecting with broader geopolitical conflicts in novel and unlikely ways. And the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and the Orthodox patriarch, Kirill I, have mobilised the rhetoric of ‘traditional values’ to legitimise the war in Ukraine.

In a televised address announcing the invasion in February last year, Putin represented the ‘so-called collective West’ as a neo-colonial, existential threat:

‘They sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature.’

In endorsing the invasion, the patriarch was still more explicit:

‘Donbas has fundamentally refused to accept the so-called values that are being offered by those aspiring for worldwide power. There is a specific test of loyalty to these powers, a requirement for being permitted into the happy world of excessive consuming and apparent freedom. This test is very straightforward and at the same time horrifying—the gay parade … It is about something different and much more important than politics. It is about human salvation, about on which side of God the Saviour humankind will end up.’

Russia, Homophobia and the Battle for ‘Traditional Values’

In December 2022, ten months into the full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, the Duma extended the scope of Russia’s ‘gay propaganda’ law forbidding the public portrayal of ‘non-traditional sexual relations’.

www.hrw.org

Background

The Ministry of Justice’s petition is scheduled to be heard on 30 November in the Supreme Court in closed-door proceedings.

Recognizing an organization as “extremist” carries severe legal consequences for everyone involved in its activities. Its “organizer” may face up to 10 years in prison under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code. Under the same article, those who participate in the activities of such organizations face criminal liability – and face from two to six years in prison.

Being on the “extremist” list would entail a ban on the organization’s symbols. Anyone found displaying these symbols risks administrative arrest of up to 15 days under Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Those facing investigation or prosecution for being involved in “extremist” activities typically have their bank accounts blocked, and face employment restrictions and restriction of other rights, including being banned for various periods of time from standing in elections at all levels.

Russia: Legal bid to recognize “LGBT movement” as extremist opens floodgates to persecution

Proposal would leave any LGBTI person in Russia at the mercy of arbitrary measures from the authorities and make any step in defence of LGBTI rights a crime

www.amnesty.org

Two Russian courts have meted out the first convictions in connection with what the government calls the “international LGBT social movement” and which was designated as extremist last year.

On Thursday, a court in the southern region of Volgograd found a man guilty of “displaying the symbols of an extremist organization” after he posted a photograph of an LGBTQ flag online, according to the court’s press service.

Artyom P., who was ordered to pay a fine of 1,000 rubles, admitted guilt and repented, saying he had posted the image “out of stupidity,” the court said.

On Monday, a court in Nizhny Novgorod, east of Moscow, sentenced to five days in administrative detention a woman who had been in a cafe when a man approached her and demanded she remove her frog-shaped earrings displaying an image of a rainbow, said Aegis, an LGBTQ rights group.

The woman was called to the police station after the man, who filmed the encounter, posted it online.

Russia makes first convictions for ‘LGBT extremism’ following ban

Russia’s Supreme Court banned the “LGBT movement” in November, continuing a pattern of increasing restrictions on expressions of sexual orientation and gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

And this bleeds into their insults with all sorts of horrific language being used when they're swearing on the battlefield or elsewhere.

Not that Ukraine is LGBT friendly, the FCDO advice for Ukraine states:

LGBT+ travellers​

Although same-sex relationships are not illegal, public attitudes are less tolerant than in the UK and showing affection in public may receive negative attention. There’s no provision under Ukrainian legislation guaranteeing freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

But you're probably far safer in general if you're LGBT in Ukraine than in Russia. They're on a journey of their own. Indeed apparently to some degree the weaponization by Russia of homophobia may be helping to drive more pro-LGBT views in Ukraine. Being homophobic is seen as being Russian therefore anti-Ukrainian.

While Ukraine has made progress in recent years to become more supportive of the LGBT community, it still lags behind many western European countries.

Same-sex relationships are still not formally recognised and discrimination and prejudice remained rife throughout society before the war.

But activists say the conflict has drawn attention to the inequalities the community faces and many feel more visible than ever.

And as Ukrainians become "more united", and the country tries to distance itself from Mr Putin's version of Russian values, the war has become a catalyst for change.

"Many Ukrainians have opened their eyes suddenly," Sofiia Lapina, president of NGO UKRAINEPRIDE, told the ABC.

"I don't think it will ever be the same as it was previously."

'Ukrainians don't want to be aligned with Russia'​

Like many Ukrainians, at the start of the war LGBT people took to the front lines, started volunteering and became active in the humanitarian response.

Ms Lapina said there had been LGBT military personnel fighting for Ukraine since 2014, but back then it wasn't safe for them to be open about their sexuality.

Now, not only are they coming out because "they could die any day", but it has become usual to face homophobia on the front lines.

"Right now, Ukrainians are much more united than ever," Ms Lapina said.

"When the war started, Ukrainians generally and people on the front lines started to understand that homophobic rhetoric is a Russian discourse.

"Ukrainians don't want to be aligned with Russia and they see that homophobia is a Russian world view."

'Many Ukrainians have opened their eyes suddenly': How Russia's invasion has impacted Ukraine's LGBT community

The war poses special risks and challenges for Ukraine's LGBT community, but as Ukrainians become "more united", and try to distance themselves from Russian values, the conflict has become a catalyst for change.

www.abc.net.au

But obviously still a long way to go!

Depends how far back you’re going to claim it was always Russian. The majority of the population was Crimean Tatar in the 19th century though they were ethnically cleansed by Stalin.

Indeed, plus there was a referendum in 1991 on Ukrainian independence and even Crimea voted in favour, narrowly, but the vote was in favour of Ukrainian independence.