Ukraine
-
Anyone else still following this? I read daily kos every day, find the updates very interesting. It seems to be turning into a rout. Ukraine appear organised motivated disciplined well-informed increasingly well armed. Russia are a rabble. Ukraine currently have no reason to negotiate, quite the opposite. It might get trickier if they reach the 2014 boundaries as those parts are more well fortified. But they have more accurate artillery with longer ranges. This war will change the geopolitical landscape of Europe the likes of which we haven’t seen since Berlin Wall went down. Russia is a spent force - if you’re relying on Iran for drones and North Korea for support you’re in deep shit.
-
@Billy-Tell Ukraine hacked and landed a Iranian drone recently. I think Iranian tech is based on a US drone they captured a few years back, but that's another win.
Given how Ukraine have approached their psy-ops I'm thinking they are well geared up to push hard through winter, where a lot of the messaging is winter will see both sides consolidating. If Ukraine can keep pushing why would they stop... tactical nukes aside. -
Article from the Oz today
Paranoid, deluded Putin on the brink of nuclear horror
The Russian President would probably use a nuclear weapon rather than endure total defeat in Ukraine, especially if he thinks defeat means the end of his rule.By GREG SHERIDAN
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ultra-nationalist Russian ideology gives him an excuse for territorial aggression, but he also believes it.
Vladimir Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon, as he’s threatened, rather than endure total defeat in Ukraine, especially if he thinks defeat means the end of his rule, and possibly threatens his own physical security.
One 2014 Putin interaction with then prime minister Tony Abbott demonstrates his paranoid personality and deluded ideology. At the APEC leaders’ meeting in Beijing, Abbott told Putin they need to talk about the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17. They went outside during morning tea. Abbott told Putin he didn’t believe the Russian had personally authorised the missile shooting but the missile and its launcher had come into Ukraine from Russia for use by pro-Russian separatists.
This could only happen with the Russian government’s broad agreement, which means Putin’s agreement. So Abbott told Putin he should apologise to the grieving families and pay them reparations.
Putin reacted with hostility. He raved about Ukrainians being nazis and that they had no right to exist as a nation because they were really part of Russia. The conversation was intense but civil and occurred through an interpreter, even though Putin speaks English.
As they walked back to the meeting, Putin, highly agitated, grabbed Abbott by his suit lapels, dragged him in close and said, furiously, in English: “You are not a native Australian. I am a native Russian!”
This is Putin’s “blood and soil” doctrine of Russian nationhood. Putin’s ultra-nationalist Russian ideology gives him an excuse for territorial aggression, but he also believes it. This makes it even more likely that he can’t bear explicit defeat.
Putin, like many dictators, is alert to how he looks. He’s just annexed 15 per cent of Ukraine’s territory and already Ukraine’s military has taken back a significant chunk of this territory.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine proclaims Moscow can use nuclear weapons to repel conventional military attacks on its territory. The annexation theoretically, absurdly, means Ukraine is now attacking Russian territory.
Putin’s nuclear threats so far have constrained NATO support for Ukraine. But recently the US and allies have given more and better weapons to Kyiv.
There must now be a chance the Russian military simply breaks in the field. The poorly trained Russian troops have no motivation, no plausible purpose for being in Ukraine and limited chances of clear success.
An army that is competent, and apparently brave enough to keep fighting one week, can, the next week, suddenly lose its nerve. It was to prevent this that Putin called up 300,000 reservists, to convince his soldiers reinforcements are on their way.
Putin could see tactical nuclear weapons as one of the only ways he can change the dynamics on the battlefield.
Russia has 1500 strategic nuclear warheads deployed, 3000 more in reserve, and has kept 2000 tactical nuclear weapons.
Using a strategic weapon is unthinkable, even for the Russians. Using a tactical weapon should be too. Some tactical nuclear weapons are still horrifically large, similar to the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
But others are extremely small, comparable to the largest conventional weapons. It’s not clear they would transform the battlefield. Ukraine’s forces are dispersed. But they could have a massive psycho-military effect.
They might cause Putin’s few important friends, especially China and India, to abandon him. They could also cause nervous West Europeans to push for a “dirty deal”, whereby Putin keeps a chunk of captured Ukrainian territory.
The US has far fewer tactical nukes, but any NATO response would surely be conventional.
It’s still likely nuclear weapons won’t be used, but it’s now more possible than ever in this grisly and dangerous conflict.
-
A very low (around 0%) chance of this being done. Musk must know this so wonder what's he's doing??
Musk also crossed red lines for Ukraine and its supporters by suggesting that four regions Russia is moving to annex following Kremlin-orchestrated “referendums” denounced by the West as a sham should hold repeat votes organised by the United Nations.
-
@antipodean someone asked him why he doesn't just allow and support union voting at Tesla sites... I don't think he bit on that one
-
I don’t think Putin will use a nuc. He can kiss goodbye to his Black Sea fleet and so on if he does. I think he will try and keep Crimea at all costs and and the 2 rebel areas. But they seem a really terrible army.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Ukraine:
I don’t think Putin will use a nuc. He can kiss goodbye to his Black Sea fleet and so on if he does. I think he will try and keep Crimea at all costs and and the 2 rebel areas. But they seem a really terrible army.
Threat of Russia is far bigger than capability of Russia. Without nukes they're basically a tinpot dictatorship.
The Russian military is about a month's pay away from total collapse.
-
Interesting take from General David Petraeus - former head of the CIA.
Basically saying Putin has already lost militarily and if he uses a nuke or attacks a NATO country, he can kiss goodbye to his navy and his conventional forces in Ukraine, inc. Crimea
-
@Victor-Meldrew I'm not saying he's wrong because the underlying premise that a nation can't use nuclear weapons without considerable consequence is one I agree with.
But it's hard to take anything seriously from a bloke with a gazillion medals who first "saw combat" as a major general.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@Victor-Meldrew I'm not saying he's wrong because the underlying premise that a nation can't use nuclear weapons without considerable consequence is one I agree with.
But it's hard to take anything seriously from a bloke with a gazillion medals who first "saw combat" as a major general.
An awful lot of military had lots of medals but never actually see combat until later in their career - e.g. Admiral Sandy Woodard - but that doesn't mean they are poor officers or less worthwhile listening to.
He's a lot closer than we are, I guess, and you'd reckon he's pretty plugged in still I wonder if it's also a convenient way to issue a warning to Putin without it being official and still maintain a lot of ambiguity.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@Victor-Meldrew I'm not saying he's wrong because the underlying premise that a nation can't use nuclear weapons without considerable consequence is one I agree with.
But it's hard to take anything seriously from a bloke with a gazillion medals who first "saw combat" as a major general.
An awful lot of military had lots of medals but never actually see combat until later in their career - e.g. Admiral Sandy Woodard - but that doesn't mean they are poor officers or less worthwhile listening to.
Poor example. Sandy had bugger all ,medals. And the senior service by its very nature weeds out the poor and average. Stomping about in the weeds is different when your leadership has never met an angry man in their lives.
He's a lot closer than we are, I guess, and you'd reckon he's pretty plugged in still I wonder if it's also a convenient way to issue a warning to Putin without it being official and still maintain a lot of ambiguity.
He's on the after-dinner circuit. He's not aligned with the current administration so IMO they wouldn't be using him.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@Victor-Meldrew I'm not saying he's wrong because the underlying premise that a nation can't use nuclear weapons without considerable consequence is one I agree with.
But it's hard to take anything seriously from a bloke with a gazillion medals who first "saw combat" as a major general.
An awful lot of military had lots of medals but never actually see combat until later in their career - e.g. Admiral Sandy Woodard - but that doesn't mean they are poor officers or less worthwhile listening to.
Poor example. Sandy had bugger all ,medals. And the senior service by its very nature weeds out the poor and average. Stomping about in the weeds is different when your leadership has never met an angry man in their lives.
He's a lot closer than we are, I guess, and you'd reckon he's pretty plugged in still I wonder if it's also a convenient way to issue a warning to Putin without it being official and still maintain a lot of ambiguity.
He's on the after-dinner circuit. He's not aligned with the current administration so IMO they wouldn't be using him.
Well maybe. But just because a former Director of the CIA and US Army General wasn't shot at when he was a junior army officer doesn't make his views on the Ukraine conflict any less relevant.
-
-
Finnish PM. I swear I was concentrating on the message.