He is ready to use nuclear weapons whenever he wants to. Credit: Contributor/Getty Images
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/blued-ryan-100x100.jpg)
However you try to spin it, the drone strikes that struck Moscow’s wealthiest neighbourhoods on Tuesday night represented a grim turning point in Putin’s flagging campaign against Ukraine. The surprise attacks — which killed eight people, and for which Kyiv has denied all responsibility — were the first against Russian civilians since the war began. They were also the most significant incursion into Russian territory since the Second World War.
Putin was quick to brand the strikes a “terrorist” act, while a rattled Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner mercenaries, gave war chiefs a dressing-down for their inability to prevent three of eight drones from evading Russian air defences. Yet while this all provided a morale boost for the Ukrainian war effort, the question of retaliation hangs in the air.
Fifteen months into the war, Putin’s bombs have not broken Ukraine. An influx of 300,000 new soldiers over the winter has done little to improve the fighting of Russian units, and the reported deployment of tanks from the Fifties has added fuel to the rumour that Russian munitions are running out. Indeed, Russian military commanders appear to have exhausted their ability to effectively respond to Ukrainian escalation. It is becoming clear, in my view, that the only way Russia can meet escalation with escalation is by introducing nuclear weapons.
Many Western experts say they take the threat of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine seriously, but make the mistake of asserting that the odds are low. Last month, for instance, Avril Haines, the US Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate hearing that Putin’s weakened conventional force would make the Russian President more reliant on “asymmetric options” for deterrence, including nuclear capabilities — but he also said it was “very unlikely” that Moscow would do so. Speaking at the same hearing, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, also assessed the chances as “unlikely”.
And yet, there is strong evidence that Putin has resolved to use a tactical nuclear weapon in his war in Ukraine. In recent speeches and interviews, he has argued that Russia faces an existential threat — a situation, under Russian policy, that warrants the use of nuclear weapons. He has also reshuffled his military leadership, so that the three generals responsible for the employment of tactical nuclear weapons now command his “special military operation” in Ukraine.
Moreover, while Nato has made it clear that it will not sanction the use of its members’ nuclear weapons to defend Ukraine, Putin already has tactical reasons to deploy them: to save Russian soldiers’ lives, to shorten the war, to destroy Ukrainian forces. He also has strategic reasons: to rejuvenate the deterrent value of his nuclear arsenal and to prove that he is not a bluffer. We must therefore assume he is ready to use them, most likely in response to his faltering military’s inability to sufficiently escalate by conventional means. In other words, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.
The author says Putin is laying the groundwork for his nation to accept his use of nuclear weapons. I feel something similar is happening to us in the West with respect to our own use of nuclear weapons.
In yesterday’s edition of Unherd, a Ukrainian politician was interviewed by Freddie Sayers. In summary, she said that only victory in this war was acceptable to Ukraine; that Ukraine intended to take back all its territory, including Crimea; and Ukraine was conducting cross-border raids into Russia as tactical moves when needed (she was a bit cagey about the use of US equipment in those raids). When this war started Biden supposedly set clear limits on what Ukrainian actions America would support. One by one those limits have been set aside and attacks on the Russian homeland are now acceptable.
In the current article, a retired US general makes a convincing case, imo, that Putin is ready to use nukes, and even describes a likely scenario for use of nukes. Slowly but surely the use of nukes by Russia is normalized as a real possibility, and the only question (actually, the really big question) is what will the West (meaning the US) do if Putin uses nukes. The unstated answer is they’ll also use nukes, or perhaps unleash a cyberattack that will prompt a stronger response from Putin.
In my opinion, we are being walked one small step at a time to a nuclear conflict. I know this opinion won’t be popular on Unherd, but I blame Biden almost as much as I blame Putin. It’s time he grew up as a statesman and worked toward a negotiated end to the war. Negotiation and compromise are not dirty words.
The problem with that is what happens next? If the US forces the Ukrainians to effectively surrender and lose large swathes of its nation, what’s to stop Putin simply trying again in 5 years once he’s rearmed? He can just threaten to drop a nuke and keep biting off pieces of other nation’s territory whenever the mood takes him.
Ukraine once the conflict has finished already has a massive job repairing the damage caused by Putins reenactment of the blitz. It’s going to be a fine balancing act between rebuilding and keeping its armed forces sufficiently strong to try and guard its borders, the last thing it needs is Putin feeling emboldened to try again in the near future
So what’s the solution then? Keep escalating until Putin surrenders?
I hope and believe there’s something between that extreme and “keep conceding until Putin sates himself and relents”.
How about Russia withdraws it’s troops from Ukraine, internationally observed referendums in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and whatever is left of Ukraine can join NATO, with NATO agreeing not to station battalions or weapons in countries bordering Russia?
NATO does not have battalions or weapons to station or not station in a country – bordering Russia or not. Nato alliance members have their own armed forces and weapons. Russia cannot be allowed to dictate which sovereign countries join the NATO alliance, or what sort of military other countries are allowed to have.
Yes, they can.
There has to be a balance of power.
Threaten Russia and this is what happens.
Actions have consequences.
Agreed. Also, our Undead President in the U.S. and his handlers have escalated this at every turn. The U.S., before the year ends most likely, will have multitudes of troops dying en masse in Ukraine. Even if it doesn’t happen this year, it will happen next.
Jesus, it’s so sickening. But true. We are in a forever war with Russian now. At the same time, we are at our own end of empire. The U.S. is a dystopia as it is where one half of the country hates another and tent cities ring the sidewalks of even our most beautiful cities.
None of this will end well, and I send a tremendous amount of blame for this on the warmongering of Biden, his sycophants and patsies, useful idiots like Blinken, and the whole rotten edifice of the left, which used to have at least a few statesmen who were prescient when it came to these situations.
This conflict has it’s origins back in the Obama era, it’s been going on for a while.
Russia is always at war with its neighbors. No Russia, no wars. What will happen when China takes parts of Siberia?
The only thing the west has done is provide weapons, which I don’t believe can be classed as escalation. Missiles targeting civilian cities and mobilising 300k men however I would class as escalation. It amazes me how Russia seems to escape all blame despite it being the aggressor who has ramped up the conflict at every opportunity
Sadly, many Conservatives hate Biden and have a skewed understanding of this conflict. Because Biden says he wants to help Ukraine, we must therefore oppose it. But that is incorrect.
Biden allowed Putin to invade Ukraine by not stating uncategorically that we will help defend Ukraine, 100%. Obama should have done the same with Crimea.
But that did not happen, so here we are. Angry that our leaders let us into this expensive heartbreaking mess, but still knowing that Putin is 100% the aggressor here. No matter how wrong Biden and Obama were in responding to Putin, the fact remains:
This is Putin’s war and Putin’s evil. Not ours.
Our response has been shameful. IMO. We could have prevented all of this.
But prevention is not the same as being the guilty perpetrator. That mantle is worn by Putin.
Sadly, many Conservatives hate Biden and have a skewed understanding of this conflict. Because Biden says he wants to help Ukraine, we must therefore oppose it. But that is incorrect.
Biden allowed Putin to invade Ukraine by not stating uncategorically that we will help defend Ukraine, 100%. Obama should have done the same with Crimea.
But that did not happen, so here we are. Angry that our leaders let us into this expensive heartbreaking mess, but still knowing that Putin is 100% the aggressor here. No matter how wrong Biden and Obama were in responding to Putin, the fact remains:
This is Putin’s war and Putin’s evil. Not ours.
Our response has been shameful. IMO. We could have prevented all of this.
But prevention is not the same as being the guilty perpetrator. That mantle is worn by Putin.
While I agree with you that President Zombie is incompetent, I don’t agree that Russia can continue this war indefinitely.
First, President Zombie’s efforts to outlaw fossil fuels were a big part of why Putin thought he could afford to invade. Russia’s export earnings are dominated by fossil fuels, and Europe was dependent on Russian natural gas. If a Republican president and Congress changed these policies to drill everywhere, Putin would go broke quickly.
But the most important thing about the length of the war is the state of the Russian Army and its logistics.
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old.
Casualties and equipment losses in Russia’s professional army have been high. Russia invaded with 160,000-180,000 of their most elite soldiers. At least 80,000-90,000 of them are dead or seriously wounded. Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties are double that. Also, proportional amounts of their equipment have been destroyed or captured by Ukraine. The trained soldiers are irreplaceable. Over 3,000 Rusian tanks are visually verified destroyed or captured.
You might think equipment can be replaced from reserve stocks. However, old Soviet tanks are stored in open fields subject to Russian winter weather. After 30-60 years, they need a lot of maintenance, almost complete reassembly to replace engine seals and hoses, to work. Further, many of their valuable parts have been stolen and sold. There was only 1 tank at the most recent May 9 Victory Day Parade in Red Square, a World War II vintage T-34. There are normally dozens of modern tanks.
In short, I think you have vastly over estimated Russian resources.
Now I’m conflicted. I can’t decide which one is best: UnDead President or President Zombie.
Now I’m conflicted. I can’t decide which one is best: UnDead President or President Zombie.
An erudite summary of this catastrophe.
You are absolutely correct.
So, the west shouldn’t have armed or trained the Ukrainians and left them to be over run? What about the Baltic states or Poland? Do the people who live in Eastern Europe have a voice in whether the can join NATO or not? Is the opinion of Russia more important than that of its neighbours?
Biden hasn’t escalated anything. If anything he has taken his time to release weapons and funding.
There is only one source of blame and that is Putin. He chose to take Russia back to a hardline regime and away from detente with the West. His actions in Ukraine justify his removal and we must hope that a coup led by a more moderate faction achieves that.
No one invaded Russia. Our huge mistake was in not defending Ukraine and saying we would from the get go. That would have deterred Russia.
Russia is only one invading anyone. Do not get this turned around in your head. Our Baltic allies are justifiably terrorized. Note Sweden wanting to join NATO after staying out all this time. Not from us pressuring them ..from fear.
The problem with your bleating is that there is no substantive “left” in America. The dems are a centre-right party by any rational analysis, ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPuKVG1teQ
Americans think the dems are “left” purely on the basis that they’re not yet quite as right as the republicans.
Boris also played his part. Persuading Zelensky to take the Russians on, that west would back him all the way.
Boris and Biden, the two warmongers.
This conflict has it’s origins back in the Obama era, it’s been going on for a while.
Russia is always at war with its neighbors. No Russia, no wars. What will happen when China takes parts of Siberia?
The only thing the west has done is provide weapons, which I don’t believe can be classed as escalation. Missiles targeting civilian cities and mobilising 300k men however I would class as escalation. It amazes me how Russia seems to escape all blame despite it being the aggressor who has ramped up the conflict at every opportunity
While I agree with you that President Zombie is incompetent, I don’t agree that Russia can continue this war indefinitely.
First, President Zombie’s efforts to outlaw fossil fuels were a big part of why Putin thought he could afford to invade. Russia’s export earnings are dominated by fossil fuels, and Europe was dependent on Russian natural gas. If a Republican president and Congress changed these policies to drill everywhere, Putin would go broke quickly.
But the most important thing about the length of the war is the state of the Russian Army and its logistics.
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old.
Casualties and equipment losses in Russia’s professional army have been high. Russia invaded with 160,000-180,000 of their most elite soldiers. At least 80,000-90,000 of them are dead or seriously wounded. Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties are double that. Also, proportional amounts of their equipment have been destroyed or captured by Ukraine. The trained soldiers are irreplaceable. Over 3,000 Rusian tanks are visually verified destroyed or captured.
You might think equipment can be replaced from reserve stocks. However, old Soviet tanks are stored in open fields subject to Russian winter weather. After 30-60 years, they need a lot of maintenance, almost complete reassembly to replace engine seals and hoses, to work. Further, many of their valuable parts have been stolen and sold. There was only 1 tank at the most recent May 9 Victory Day Parade in Red Square, a World War II vintage T-34. There are normally dozens of modern tanks.
In short, I think you have vastly over estimated Russian resources.
An erudite summary of this catastrophe.
You are absolutely correct.
So, the west shouldn’t have armed or trained the Ukrainians and left them to be over run? What about the Baltic states or Poland? Do the people who live in Eastern Europe have a voice in whether the can join NATO or not? Is the opinion of Russia more important than that of its neighbours?
Biden hasn’t escalated anything. If anything he has taken his time to release weapons and funding.
There is only one source of blame and that is Putin. He chose to take Russia back to a hardline regime and away from detente with the West. His actions in Ukraine justify his removal and we must hope that a coup led by a more moderate faction achieves that.
No one invaded Russia. Our huge mistake was in not defending Ukraine and saying we would from the get go. That would have deterred Russia.
Russia is only one invading anyone. Do not get this turned around in your head. Our Baltic allies are justifiably terrorized. Note Sweden wanting to join NATO after staying out all this time. Not from us pressuring them ..from fear.
The problem with your bleating is that there is no substantive “left” in America. The dems are a centre-right party by any rational analysis, ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPuKVG1teQ
Americans think the dems are “left” purely on the basis that they’re not yet quite as right as the republicans.
Boris also played his part. Persuading Zelensky to take the Russians on, that west would back him all the way.
Boris and Biden, the two warmongers.
Has NATO really threatened Russia? What did the threat consist in? Did it claim an inch of its territory? Did it try to impose societal change or Russia, remove its leadership or interfere in its internal affairs any more than Russia did in other countries’ ? Nato missiles or nukes are exactly at the same distance from Russia as Russia’s are from those of said Nato member countries, are they not? Nato is not an offensive alliance bent on conquest. I am sick and tired of arguments about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns”. As Dominic Sandbrook wrote in UnHerd, this is called appeasement. WW II has taught us all where that leads.
Amen.
Amen.
Very good, Russian bot. You can collect your five dollars from the FSB now. If there should be a balance of power, that means Ukraine must have its own nuclear weapons.
Our interest is global stability. If Putin successfully annexes more of Ukraine, he will set a precedent that strong nations like China and Iran can successfully conquer neighbors, like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, with no consequences. Putin has claimed the right to defend Russian speakers everywhere, just like Hitler claimed the right to defend German speakers. There are lots of Russian speakers in all of the former Soviet Republics, including NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A Russian victory in Ukraine would touch off a decade of war around the world, with unpredictable consequences.
In 2008, Putin took a bite out of Georgia. The West did nothing. In 2014, Putin took a bite out of Ukraine, and the West again did nothing. Is it any wonder Putin thought he could occupy Ukranine and the West would do nothing? It has nothing to do with how close NATO is to Russia.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
Russia was never threatened!
Threaten Russia? You mean by defending borders and telling Russia it cannot invade sovereign nations? Russia is the only country invading anyone.
We built heavy defenses along the edge of Europe to defend against Russia. Our mistake was not including Ukraine. And look what happened.
Russia is a joke. They have no history of democracy and will never be able to progress out of despotism. Let’s finish the job and carve the rotten place up; give half of it to China.
Agreed. Also, our Undead President in the U.S. and his handlers have escalated this at every turn. The U.S., before the year ends most likely, will have multitudes of troops dying en masse in Ukraine. Even if it doesn’t happen this year, it will happen next.
Jesus, it’s so sickening. But true. We are in a forever war with Russian now. At the same time, we are at our own end of empire. The U.S. is a dystopia as it is where one half of the country hates another and tent cities ring the sidewalks of even our most beautiful cities.
None of this will end well, and I send a tremendous amount of blame for this on the warmongering of Biden, his sycophants and patsies, useful idiots like Blinken, and the whole rotten edifice of the left, which used to have at least a few statesmen who were prescient when it came to these situations.
Has NATO really threatened Russia? What did the threat consist in? Did it claim an inch of its territory? Did it try to impose societal change or Russia, remove its leadership or interfere in its internal affairs any more than Russia did in other countries’ ? Nato missiles or nukes are exactly at the same distance from Russia as Russia’s are from those of said Nato member countries, are they not? Nato is not an offensive alliance bent on conquest. I am sick and tired of arguments about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns”. As Dominic Sandbrook wrote in UnHerd, this is called appeasement. WW II has taught us all where that leads.
Very good, Russian bot. You can collect your five dollars from the FSB now. If there should be a balance of power, that means Ukraine must have its own nuclear weapons.
Our interest is global stability. If Putin successfully annexes more of Ukraine, he will set a precedent that strong nations like China and Iran can successfully conquer neighbors, like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, with no consequences. Putin has claimed the right to defend Russian speakers everywhere, just like Hitler claimed the right to defend German speakers. There are lots of Russian speakers in all of the former Soviet Republics, including NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A Russian victory in Ukraine would touch off a decade of war around the world, with unpredictable consequences.
In 2008, Putin took a bite out of Georgia. The West did nothing. In 2014, Putin took a bite out of Ukraine, and the West again did nothing. Is it any wonder Putin thought he could occupy Ukranine and the West would do nothing? It has nothing to do with how close NATO is to Russia.
Russia was never threatened!
Threaten Russia? You mean by defending borders and telling Russia it cannot invade sovereign nations? Russia is the only country invading anyone.
We built heavy defenses along the edge of Europe to defend against Russia. Our mistake was not including Ukraine. And look what happened.
Russia is a joke. They have no history of democracy and will never be able to progress out of despotism. Let’s finish the job and carve the rotten place up; give half of it to China.
Yes, they can.
There has to be a balance of power.
Threaten Russia and this is what happens.
Actions have consequences.
The following NATO countries have borders with Russia : Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Are you suggesting those countries disband their armed forces ?
No, he said NATO forces specifically.
He’s still wrong of course.
Which one of those is not in NATO?
No-one said they were not.
No-one said they were not.
Which one of those is not in NATO?
No, I’m suggesting that NATO doesn’t station heavy weapons or run exercises in those countries. A similar agreement was in place before Russia invaded Crimea
Poland is a NATO country, it borders Kaliningrad, part of Russia.
If NATO is not allowed to station heavy weapons in bordering countries then the Poles must get rid of their tanks since their tanks are NATO tanks. They must be barred from carrying out exercises in their own country because they are part of NATO.
I can’t see them going for that.
The easiest solution to this is to free Kaliningrad from its Russian colonial status. It had no history as Russian before WWII (hisorically a German/Prussian city) and doesn’t belong in Russia at all. In fact, there are reports that the population there are warming to the idea of leaving Russia.
Well we obviously can’t give it back to the Teutonic Knights so how about Poland offering to buy it back?
There are plenty of precedents, Alaska, Louisiana, Corsica, the Dauphinois for example.
Of course, but we gave it to them. Too late for rational thought. Nothing in Eastern Europe belongs to Russia anymore than some of it might belong to Sweden or Germany or Poland or Lithuania. Russia needs to settle down. If Russia should have control of all the territory controlled during the heighth of tsarist Russia, then I guess England should take back all its old conquered territories as well. Spain too.
Well we obviously can’t give it back to the Teutonic Knights so how about Poland offering to buy it back?
There are plenty of precedents, Alaska, Louisiana, Corsica, the Dauphinois for example.
Of course, but we gave it to them. Too late for rational thought. Nothing in Eastern Europe belongs to Russia anymore than some of it might belong to Sweden or Germany or Poland or Lithuania. Russia needs to settle down. If Russia should have control of all the territory controlled during the heighth of tsarist Russia, then I guess England should take back all its old conquered territories as well. Spain too.
Nor should they.
The easiest solution to this is to free Kaliningrad from its Russian colonial status. It had no history as Russian before WWII (hisorically a German/Prussian city) and doesn’t belong in Russia at all. In fact, there are reports that the population there are warming to the idea of leaving Russia.
Nor should they.
Rubbish! NATO has been running major annual exercises in northern Norway for decades!
And we had dozens of exercises in what was West Germany whilst the Warsaw Pact conducted exercises in the East. And whilst it got tense, Able Archer 85 being a case in point, no one thought that the mere act of running an exercise was unacceptable.
Whilst technically a slither of Norwegian land does touch Russia, the main border in that part of the world is between Russia and Finland. Finland separates Russia from where those exercises took place
And we had dozens of exercises in what was West Germany whilst the Warsaw Pact conducted exercises in the East. And whilst it got tense, Able Archer 85 being a case in point, no one thought that the mere act of running an exercise was unacceptable.
Whilst technically a slither of Norwegian land does touch Russia, the main border in that part of the world is between Russia and Finland. Finland separates Russia from where those exercises took place
So appeasing Russia by not conducting exercises in neighbouring states didn’t work?
But, as everyone knows,those tiny countries cannot defend against a Russian invasion. Putin knows it too. Which is why he wants no NATO troops there. NATO has never indicated or done anything to show intent to invade Russia. That is merely Putin’s excuse. He knows NATO has no stated or unstated objective of taking any part of Russia – though I submit Kaliningrad is ridiculous and we should demand it be returned to Europe. But even that, NATO does not claim. Sheesh.
Poland is a NATO country, it borders Kaliningrad, part of Russia.
If NATO is not allowed to station heavy weapons in bordering countries then the Poles must get rid of their tanks since their tanks are NATO tanks. They must be barred from carrying out exercises in their own country because they are part of NATO.
I can’t see them going for that.
Rubbish! NATO has been running major annual exercises in northern Norway for decades!
So appeasing Russia by not conducting exercises in neighbouring states didn’t work?
But, as everyone knows,those tiny countries cannot defend against a Russian invasion. Putin knows it too. Which is why he wants no NATO troops there. NATO has never indicated or done anything to show intent to invade Russia. That is merely Putin’s excuse. He knows NATO has no stated or unstated objective of taking any part of Russia – though I submit Kaliningrad is ridiculous and we should demand it be returned to Europe. But even that, NATO does not claim. Sheesh.
No, he said NATO forces specifically.
He’s still wrong of course.
No, I’m suggesting that NATO doesn’t station heavy weapons or run exercises in those countries. A similar agreement was in place before Russia invaded Crimea
But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s that NATO ( a stated defensive only pact) would not move 1 inch Eastward. NATO on its borders has always been a stated red line for Putin. We lied. Would it be okay if Russia or China placed missiles in Cuba and pointed them at the US? That’s what we have done all around Russia… Why is one of those provocative, and the other not?
Because we’re good? Why are our troops in Syria? Is the US at war with Syria? where is the UN on that? Are we setting double standards? That is the kind of issues that would come up were we to seek to apply diplomacy in the world. The world is changing… eventually the US will need to actually do diplomacy, not as ones who get to control the narrative, but in a more honest way. As of right now, we are at an extremely dangerous inflection point though. Hopefully the US will actually seek to engage the Russians.
We need to seek peace, not getting rid of the head of a world power at the cost of others lives.
Russia had a written treaty with Ukraine that it would respect its borders and sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Breaching that is much more serious surely? Putin is also on record during a state visit to the UK with Blair as saying he had no objection to Ukraine joining NATO, and that it was up to them to decide their foreign policy
But the militarization of Eastern Ukraine with people hostile to Russia, who were mistreating and killing ethnic Russian speakers was supposed to be settled by the Minsk agreement, right? They were supposed to be able to live in peace, teach their children in the Russian language, and all of that, right?
Yet, we heard straight from Merkle and the French PM who oversaw that peace accord, that it was all a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to militarize up even more, and so NATO set about doing that.
So, I asked this somewhere before, what if Russia were doing that in Mexico? What if they armed up a bunch of America hating Mexicans, and gave them more and more military hardware. Would it be acceptable for the US to enter in and put a stop to that, yes or no? Would it be fair for us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after defeating them, yes or no?
For that to make sense you have to completely believe the Russian narrative that they intervened to protect the locals from Ukrainian Nazis. Just like they intervened in Georgia. Funny how they need to keep on doing that.
If there is a war in Mexico then your point would be relevant, but since there isn’t one it’s useless speculation. Has the US invaded Venezuela? Nope.
And of course the 2014 treaty was about buying time. The invasion of Crimea was an obvious act of aggression. Ukraine needed to have the time to equip and train to repel the next phase. This conflict hasn’t arisen out of nowhere.
By the way, none of the former Soviet Republics or Ukraine were asked if they were okay with their oppressors and invaders staying to live with them and retaining all Russian language and allegiance to Russia.
That is abhorrent. Think about having the people who murdered some of your family or snitched on you to the KGB not only living next door but demanding the right to never learn the language of your country and maintaining Russian citizenship also? Who were moved there by the USSR to weaken your own national claims.
It is horrifying. And now Russia claims that they have the right to protect Russians who have never chosen to live in Russia and many of whom were not even born in Russia and use this as justification to re-invade???
Ouch.
Nonsense
For that to make sense you have to completely believe the Russian narrative that they intervened to protect the locals from Ukrainian Nazis. Just like they intervened in Georgia. Funny how they need to keep on doing that.
If there is a war in Mexico then your point would be relevant, but since there isn’t one it’s useless speculation. Has the US invaded Venezuela? Nope.
And of course the 2014 treaty was about buying time. The invasion of Crimea was an obvious act of aggression. Ukraine needed to have the time to equip and train to repel the next phase. This conflict hasn’t arisen out of nowhere.
By the way, none of the former Soviet Republics or Ukraine were asked if they were okay with their oppressors and invaders staying to live with them and retaining all Russian language and allegiance to Russia.
That is abhorrent. Think about having the people who murdered some of your family or snitched on you to the KGB not only living next door but demanding the right to never learn the language of your country and maintaining Russian citizenship also? Who were moved there by the USSR to weaken your own national claims.
It is horrifying. And now Russia claims that they have the right to protect Russians who have never chosen to live in Russia and many of whom were not even born in Russia and use this as justification to re-invade???
Ouch.
Nonsense
It’s called the Bucharest Memorandum, and it’s not just between Ukraine and Russia. The USA and UK are also guarantors of Ukrainian border integrity if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, which was a legacy of the USSR.
Of course, no-one forsaw that one of the guarantors, Russia, would be the border violator. We thought we were giving a guaranty against a tinpot, non-nuclear aggressor. Mistake.
Now we are on the hook to defend Ukraine against a really dangerous aggressor and we don’t really have the will to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Clearly not on the hook or we would be at war.
Clearly not on the hook or we would be at war.
We also, the US, signed to protect Ukraine if Russia violated this agreement. That makes us jerks.
But the militarization of Eastern Ukraine with people hostile to Russia, who were mistreating and killing ethnic Russian speakers was supposed to be settled by the Minsk agreement, right? They were supposed to be able to live in peace, teach their children in the Russian language, and all of that, right?
Yet, we heard straight from Merkle and the French PM who oversaw that peace accord, that it was all a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to militarize up even more, and so NATO set about doing that.
So, I asked this somewhere before, what if Russia were doing that in Mexico? What if they armed up a bunch of America hating Mexicans, and gave them more and more military hardware. Would it be acceptable for the US to enter in and put a stop to that, yes or no? Would it be fair for us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after defeating them, yes or no?
It’s called the Bucharest Memorandum, and it’s not just between Ukraine and Russia. The USA and UK are also guarantors of Ukrainian border integrity if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, which was a legacy of the USSR.
Of course, no-one forsaw that one of the guarantors, Russia, would be the border violator. We thought we were giving a guaranty against a tinpot, non-nuclear aggressor. Mistake.
Now we are on the hook to defend Ukraine against a really dangerous aggressor and we don’t really have the will to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
We also, the US, signed to protect Ukraine if Russia violated this agreement. That makes us jerks.
“But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s”
Really? What treaty is that in ?
Gorbachev was head of the USSR, that country doesn’t exist anymore.
And many statesmen from the time have very different views on what was said. There was also talk about Russia joining NATO, which looks like an opportunity lost now.
And many statesmen from the time have very different views on what was said. There was also talk about Russia joining NATO, which looks like an opportunity lost now.
Nonsense. First, we didn’t lie, it was Putin who attacked Ukraine without any provocation from NATO. Ukraine did not join NATO and the treaty did not extend an offer to Ukraine. Second, NATO is not the US; it is a coalition of sovereign nation-states each with its own concerns for independence and defenses. And the UN? When was the last time the UN actually solved a single international conflict??? Rwanda? Serbia? Please!
And engaging the Russians? What would be starting point? The guy annexes a foreign country territory, attacks civilian population, threatens to use nukes and you think it’s because he seeks an opportunity to engage in negotiations?
So we negotiated like the Soviet Union, making promises we didn’t keep. Shocking. Only Communists and dictators are allowed to play dirty. The West has to follow the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules, right?
All of the new NATO countries had a well founded fear of Russian reoccupation. Wasn’t protecting their freedom and independence more important than promises we made to Gorbaachev?
Those agreements were largely with the Soviet. It dissolved.
Those agreements were largely with the Soviet. It dissolved.
Good points and in particular the disgraceful US invasion of Syria!
Why has this outrage been so ignored? Even NOW there are about 1000 US troops in Syria, a clear of breach of so called International Law.
The blatant US support for IRA* terrorism via the odious NORAID was bad enough, but this Syrian scandal really does “take the biscuit”.
Assuming one accepts the narrative, is it any wonder that a bunch of mainly Saudi nutters decided to do a Kamikaze on New York City a few years ago?
(* Otherwise known as Council House Killers.)
I agree we should not be in Syria. That does not make Russia right in Ukraine.
False logic.
I agree we should not be in Syria. That does not make Russia right in Ukraine.
False logic.
There is no evidence that this promise was made. Gorbachev has apparently denied that it was made. If it was made, it was to the Head of State of a state that no longer exists.
NATO does not ‘decide’ to expand. Countries apply to join, as Sweden & Finland have recently done, in the face of a perceived threat presumably.
It is reasonable however to address Russia’s perceived security concerns, as well as those of it’s neighbours.. If Russia feels safe, we are all safer. If there are to be limitations of deployment of forces (especially non native forces) in states adjacent to Russia, I expect that Russia must accept similar restrictions.
If this ends up with reduced military spending all around, that’s a win win.
Not where this is heading. And the Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.
If this drags on, the chances of millions Ukrainians who fled returning is almost nil. Plus the hundreds of thousands being killed in war. The destruction of entire towns and parts of cities.
Putin needs to stop, but as this article states, he no longer can. He needs something big to declare victory now and retain his popularity.
Not where this is heading. And the Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.
If this drags on, the chances of millions Ukrainians who fled returning is almost nil. Plus the hundreds of thousands being killed in war. The destruction of entire towns and parts of cities.
Putin needs to stop, but as this article states, he no longer can. He needs something big to declare victory now and retain his popularity.
There was no agreement about NATO expansion.
Countries like Poland and others joined NATO because they had hundreds of years of experience of Russia genocidal imperialism.
Even Sweden and Finland realised now that being neutral is foolish position to adopt when faced with gangster state like Russia.
People like you are in Lenin words “useful idiots”.
The US also promised to protect Ukraine if they gave their nukes to Russia after Soviet dissolved. Woopsies.
A written treaty with the USSR is only binding if the two sides rewrite it and sign it with the newly created countries after that dissolution. Russia IS NOT the USSR. Ask Latvia.
Fair or no.
Plus, lives were lost fighting Russians to gain freedom after that treaty was signed. So, it is not like Gorbachev signed it to dissolve the Soviet. He had no such intention and would tell anyone who listened.
That treaty is therefore no longer valid. The USSR no longer exists.
Russia had a written treaty with Ukraine that it would respect its borders and sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Breaching that is much more serious surely? Putin is also on record during a state visit to the UK with Blair as saying he had no objection to Ukraine joining NATO, and that it was up to them to decide their foreign policy
“But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s”
Really? What treaty is that in ?
Gorbachev was head of the USSR, that country doesn’t exist anymore.
Nonsense. First, we didn’t lie, it was Putin who attacked Ukraine without any provocation from NATO. Ukraine did not join NATO and the treaty did not extend an offer to Ukraine. Second, NATO is not the US; it is a coalition of sovereign nation-states each with its own concerns for independence and defenses. And the UN? When was the last time the UN actually solved a single international conflict??? Rwanda? Serbia? Please!
And engaging the Russians? What would be starting point? The guy annexes a foreign country territory, attacks civilian population, threatens to use nukes and you think it’s because he seeks an opportunity to engage in negotiations?
So we negotiated like the Soviet Union, making promises we didn’t keep. Shocking. Only Communists and dictators are allowed to play dirty. The West has to follow the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules, right?
All of the new NATO countries had a well founded fear of Russian reoccupation. Wasn’t protecting their freedom and independence more important than promises we made to Gorbaachev?
Good points and in particular the disgraceful US invasion of Syria!
Why has this outrage been so ignored? Even NOW there are about 1000 US troops in Syria, a clear of breach of so called International Law.
The blatant US support for IRA* terrorism via the odious NORAID was bad enough, but this Syrian scandal really does “take the biscuit”.
Assuming one accepts the narrative, is it any wonder that a bunch of mainly Saudi nutters decided to do a Kamikaze on New York City a few years ago?
(* Otherwise known as Council House Killers.)
There is no evidence that this promise was made. Gorbachev has apparently denied that it was made. If it was made, it was to the Head of State of a state that no longer exists.
NATO does not ‘decide’ to expand. Countries apply to join, as Sweden & Finland have recently done, in the face of a perceived threat presumably.
It is reasonable however to address Russia’s perceived security concerns, as well as those of it’s neighbours.. If Russia feels safe, we are all safer. If there are to be limitations of deployment of forces (especially non native forces) in states adjacent to Russia, I expect that Russia must accept similar restrictions.
If this ends up with reduced military spending all around, that’s a win win.
There was no agreement about NATO expansion.
Countries like Poland and others joined NATO because they had hundreds of years of experience of Russia genocidal imperialism.
Even Sweden and Finland realised now that being neutral is foolish position to adopt when faced with gangster state like Russia.
People like you are in Lenin words “useful idiots”.
The US also promised to protect Ukraine if they gave their nukes to Russia after Soviet dissolved. Woopsies.
A written treaty with the USSR is only binding if the two sides rewrite it and sign it with the newly created countries after that dissolution. Russia IS NOT the USSR. Ask Latvia.
Fair or no.
Plus, lives were lost fighting Russians to gain freedom after that treaty was signed. So, it is not like Gorbachev signed it to dissolve the Soviet. He had no such intention and would tell anyone who listened.
That treaty is therefore no longer valid. The USSR no longer exists.
One of the main reasons Russia invaded was to stop Ukraine joining NATO and you think that is a solution ?
The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and at the same time NATO needs to be disbanded.
It has no purpose now that the cold war is over.
Russias actions in Ukraine show that NATO is vital for those nations in Eastern Europe
Is that why we broke all our promises and made them NATO nations and pointed a bunch of missles at Russia? What if They did that in Cuba, would we tolorate that?
They were not “made” NATO members. They joined of. their own free will by parliamentary resolution plus referenda. “Open door policy is included in NATO’s charter, meaning that any country can join if it so wishes, provided it meets the conditions of entry.
What treaty with Russia are they talking about? The Soviet is gone.
What treaty with Russia are they talking about? The Soviet is gone.
JFK and Kissinger sure didn’t: see the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which was resolved only when Kennedy agreed to remove the US medium-range ICBMs then stationed in Turkey.
What treaty with Russia are we violating? May I ask?
What treaty with Russia are we violating? May I ask?
No one forced countries like Poland and now Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It is incredible that even after Russian invasion of Ukraine people like you still pretend that it is NATO which is at fault.
Read some history.
Whether it is Tzarism or Communism or Putinism it is always the same Russian genocidal imperialism.
The treaty was with the USSR. The USSR, at the time, still occupied Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, etc.
The USSR dissolved. The treaty is null.
They were not “made” NATO members. They joined of. their own free will by parliamentary resolution plus referenda. “Open door policy is included in NATO’s charter, meaning that any country can join if it so wishes, provided it meets the conditions of entry.
JFK and Kissinger sure didn’t: see the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which was resolved only when Kennedy agreed to remove the US medium-range ICBMs then stationed in Turkey.
No one forced countries like Poland and now Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It is incredible that even after Russian invasion of Ukraine people like you still pretend that it is NATO which is at fault.
Read some history.
Whether it is Tzarism or Communism or Putinism it is always the same Russian genocidal imperialism.
The treaty was with the USSR. The USSR, at the time, still occupied Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, etc.
The USSR dissolved. The treaty is null.
Not so.
It is provocative.
That exactly where we are where we are.
How about asking the nations bordering Russia – the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Finland, Norway, etc – whether they consider NATO valuable ?
But we already know the answer to that. They know from bitter experience that Russia is a bad and untrustworthy neighbour.
How about asking the nations bordering Russia – the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Finland, Norway, etc – whether they consider NATO valuable ?
But we already know the answer to that. They know from bitter experience that Russia is a bad and untrustworthy neighbour.
Is that why we broke all our promises and made them NATO nations and pointed a bunch of missles at Russia? What if They did that in Cuba, would we tolorate that?
Not so.
It is provocative.
That exactly where we are where we are.
Sh_t up bot. Go back to Russia.
It’s been replaced by a ‘hot war’; NATO is more relevant and needed than ever. The Warsaw Pact was ever only Russia (aka USSR) anyway; it hasn’t gone away in threat terms.
The Warsaw Pact and all other agreements with the USSR are null and void. The USSR no longer exists. Treaties are only valid if signed agreements are made to continue said treaties with Russia. We are under no legal obligation to continue treaties that are dangerous to once occupied territories like the Baltics or Ukraine. They are free countries now and can negotiate whatever they want with us and we with them.
The Warsaw Pact and all other agreements with the USSR are null and void. The USSR no longer exists. Treaties are only valid if signed agreements are made to continue said treaties with Russia. We are under no legal obligation to continue treaties that are dangerous to once occupied territories like the Baltics or Ukraine. They are free countries now and can negotiate whatever they want with us and we with them.
Shades of August 1914 again I’m afraid.
Still what else would one expect from a “rather nasty species of African ape”?
We were not letting Ukraine join NATO, but they will now.
Russia invaded to annex parts of Ukraine. With the hopes of taking at least all of Eastern Ukraine back. He has stated he believes in restoring Russia to its true borders.
One of the main reasons Putin invaded is that the cowardly and corrupt little bunker-hunker rat was scared of a democracy on his doorstep, and the other main reason is that he, by his own repeated admissions, considers that Ukraine does not exist, and really are Russians, even if they need to be bombed into changing their minds.
Russias actions in Ukraine show that NATO is vital for those nations in Eastern Europe
Sh_t up bot. Go back to Russia.
It’s been replaced by a ‘hot war’; NATO is more relevant and needed than ever. The Warsaw Pact was ever only Russia (aka USSR) anyway; it hasn’t gone away in threat terms.
Shades of August 1914 again I’m afraid.
Still what else would one expect from a “rather nasty species of African ape”?
We were not letting Ukraine join NATO, but they will now.
Russia invaded to annex parts of Ukraine. With the hopes of taking at least all of Eastern Ukraine back. He has stated he believes in restoring Russia to its true borders.
One of the main reasons Putin invaded is that the cowardly and corrupt little bunker-hunker rat was scared of a democracy on his doorstep, and the other main reason is that he, by his own repeated admissions, considers that Ukraine does not exist, and really are Russians, even if they need to be bombed into changing their minds.
Ironic that the invasion was because Ukraine would not fulfil what you describe, as per the Minsk agmts (excluding NATO, which seems a rather incongruent addition – how about Ukraine remains unaligned?
That will have to happen, it’s not even negotiable.
Agreed, but not according to the extremely incompetent Jake Sullivan who will get us into WW 3 soon enough.
Fortunately, you’re not negotiating. Your opinion counts for nothing here – just as mine does.
What will?
Agreed, but not according to the extremely incompetent Jake Sullivan who will get us into WW 3 soon enough.
Fortunately, you’re not negotiating. Your opinion counts for nothing here – just as mine does.
What will?
Because Ukraine remaining unaligned would leave it under the boot of the Kremlin, something it’s population clearly doesn’t want
some of it’s population….. and I’m not sure you’re right – being non-aligned is being like Switzerland
Exactly.
Russia has zero right to dictate that other countries not join alliances. We see now exactly why Russia tries to force countries to sign such agreements.
People supporting Russia need to just stop. If they think Rissia deserves to take back the land that the USSR held, then just say so and argue for that. Stop pretending that is NOT the goal.
some of it’s population….. and I’m not sure you’re right – being non-aligned is being like Switzerland
Exactly.
Russia has zero right to dictate that other countries not join alliances. We see now exactly why Russia tries to force countries to sign such agreements.
People supporting Russia need to just stop. If they think Rissia deserves to take back the land that the USSR held, then just say so and argue for that. Stop pretending that is NOT the goal.
People bringing up Minsk agreements need to know that Russia had ALREADY invaded Ukraine at this time.
Who started this war again? Not us. Not Ukraine.
That will have to happen, it’s not even negotiable.
Because Ukraine remaining unaligned would leave it under the boot of the Kremlin, something it’s population clearly doesn’t want
People bringing up Minsk agreements need to know that Russia had ALREADY invaded Ukraine at this time.
Who started this war again? Not us. Not Ukraine.
So now it isn’t a simple withdrawal from Ukraine. There must be a referendum in Crimea, which wasn’t on the table before the war. And Ukraine joins NATO, the possibility of which played at least some role in the invasion in the first place.
What’s the goal here? A return to Ukraine prewar or crushing Putin?
Jim says: which wasn’t on the table before the war. A lot of things weren’t on the table before the war, including the war. The collapse of Russia faced with western arms and technique in highly motivated Ukrainian hands, all as a result of Russian aggression, has put a lot of things “on the table”.
So now we’ve moved beyond defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine to the collapse of Russia. And you can’t see how this could go terribly wrong?
Excuse me? No one said that. No one.
Excuse me? No one said that. No one.
What ‘collapse of Russia’ would that be? The rouble’s value is now higher than it was prior to the invasion and western sanctions have barely dented the Russian economy – unlike those of Germany and Britain….
Yes, China and India are good friends to have
Yes, China and India are good friends to have
So now we’ve moved beyond defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine to the collapse of Russia. And you can’t see how this could go terribly wrong?
What ‘collapse of Russia’ would that be? The rouble’s value is now higher than it was prior to the invasion and western sanctions have barely dented the Russian economy – unlike those of Germany and Britain….
I thought you were calling for negotiation to end the conflict? A negotiation involves compromise and both sides offering something up surely? Or are you actually calling for a Ukrainian surrender and for it to give up its foreign policy?
Clearly, Putin can’t survive Ukraine regaining their territories, so both.
I am really puzzled why people keep mentioning referendum.
There was one in 1991 with Crimea voting 54% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Luhansk and Donbas voted over 83% for it.
All this talk of Eastern Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia is blatant lie.
The question is more about Putin’s goals. If we give him more and more territory that he has taken by force and say, Okay – where will it end? You know the truth.
Jim says: which wasn’t on the table before the war. A lot of things weren’t on the table before the war, including the war. The collapse of Russia faced with western arms and technique in highly motivated Ukrainian hands, all as a result of Russian aggression, has put a lot of things “on the table”.
I thought you were calling for negotiation to end the conflict? A negotiation involves compromise and both sides offering something up surely? Or are you actually calling for a Ukrainian surrender and for it to give up its foreign policy?
Clearly, Putin can’t survive Ukraine regaining their territories, so both.
I am really puzzled why people keep mentioning referendum.
There was one in 1991 with Crimea voting 54% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Luhansk and Donbas voted over 83% for it.
All this talk of Eastern Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia is blatant lie.
The question is more about Putin’s goals. If we give him more and more territory that he has taken by force and say, Okay – where will it end? You know the truth.
So Poland and the Baltic states aren’t allowed a military? That approach would force Nato members to leave which is unacceptable. Russia needs to understand that a defensive alliance isn’t a threat unless provoked.
Again this nonsense about referendums.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 83% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
This war is not about some territory. It is about stopping Ukraine from joining EU and developing into modern European country.
Since Putin failed in conquering Ukraine, he now wants to destroy it.
Reality is that if West accepts Russia nuclear blackmail countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland will have no choice but to go nuclear.
Russia wants “Greater Russia” back. Putin has made that clear. Even if he accepted such an offer, it would be a ruse to get us to remove defenses on the border.
NATO does not have battalions or weapons to station or not station in a country – bordering Russia or not. Nato alliance members have their own armed forces and weapons. Russia cannot be allowed to dictate which sovereign countries join the NATO alliance, or what sort of military other countries are allowed to have.
The following NATO countries have borders with Russia : Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Are you suggesting those countries disband their armed forces ?
But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s that NATO ( a stated defensive only pact) would not move 1 inch Eastward. NATO on its borders has always been a stated red line for Putin. We lied. Would it be okay if Russia or China placed missiles in Cuba and pointed them at the US? That’s what we have done all around Russia… Why is one of those provocative, and the other not?
Because we’re good? Why are our troops in Syria? Is the US at war with Syria? where is the UN on that? Are we setting double standards? That is the kind of issues that would come up were we to seek to apply diplomacy in the world. The world is changing… eventually the US will need to actually do diplomacy, not as ones who get to control the narrative, but in a more honest way. As of right now, we are at an extremely dangerous inflection point though. Hopefully the US will actually seek to engage the Russians.
We need to seek peace, not getting rid of the head of a world power at the cost of others lives.
One of the main reasons Russia invaded was to stop Ukraine joining NATO and you think that is a solution ?
The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and at the same time NATO needs to be disbanded.
It has no purpose now that the cold war is over.
Ironic that the invasion was because Ukraine would not fulfil what you describe, as per the Minsk agmts (excluding NATO, which seems a rather incongruent addition – how about Ukraine remains unaligned?
So now it isn’t a simple withdrawal from Ukraine. There must be a referendum in Crimea, which wasn’t on the table before the war. And Ukraine joins NATO, the possibility of which played at least some role in the invasion in the first place.
What’s the goal here? A return to Ukraine prewar or crushing Putin?
So Poland and the Baltic states aren’t allowed a military? That approach would force Nato members to leave which is unacceptable. Russia needs to understand that a defensive alliance isn’t a threat unless provoked.
Again this nonsense about referendums.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 83% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
This war is not about some territory. It is about stopping Ukraine from joining EU and developing into modern European country.
Since Putin failed in conquering Ukraine, he now wants to destroy it.
Reality is that if West accepts Russia nuclear blackmail countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland will have no choice but to go nuclear.
Russia wants “Greater Russia” back. Putin has made that clear. Even if he accepted such an offer, it would be a ruse to get us to remove defenses on the border.
I read a convincing argument in The Daily Telegraph, by an ex-military chap, that the US could neutralise Putin with an attack using conventional weapons should he drop a nuke – I’ll try and dig it out.
Lol, that’s problem Western mentality. Yeah, they will strike with conventional weapons. When you hit a guy who is willing to fight to the death and it is ingrained into their core beliefs, you better kill him first shot. Because, I shit you not, he will come back at you with everything he has got.
It was all fun and games Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc.. and every country the US & Nato(the US puppet child) tried to control but couldnt(even debilitated as they were) because the were ready to fight to death. They didn’t have the ability to successfully defeat the west but they did keep the west from defeating and controlling them.
Putting has the ability to go head to head with US and whether he wins or not is irrelevant. He will cause irreparable and crippling damage and the US will cease to be a major world power. Likely sinking to third world stayus where it is currently doing a fine job on its own to gethyenas.
Poke the bear, he bites off you arm and leg while you reach for your gun. Sure you kill him, but your still missing your arm and leg and since you used your ammo on the bear, well, now you eaten by the lion with any scraps left going to the heyenas.
Killing the bear forever is a real option. Nuke Russia and it disappears forever as it is made up of conquered non-Russian ethnic groups. The neighbors will take what’s left over after the second or third wave of nukes hit.
You are not entirely wrong. We are not rich enough to take the long economic road to ruin Putin as we did in the past. He has wealthy allies this time around and the West is not completely united or determined.
However, if we had the will, we could, of course, defeat Russia. But if we go to war with Russia now, many millions will die. Here and even more so in Russia.
Russia is relatively poor and has nothing to lose at the moment compared with the West. That makes people fight harder and bear more. See Ukrainians…they, too, have nothing to lose. They are fierce.
What the West wants to avoid, unlike Putin, is the loss of even more lives in even more countries. But we also cannot just let Putin win. As we know this will continue.
So, we have to face facts. And gird ourselves unless we are willing to allow Putin to reclaim the Soviet territories and let millions of people down.
It is an awful awful thing Putin has done. I fear he will find that the US will honor our obligations to our allies and will thus cause the deaths of millions more people in the end. By not being willing to back down. And give back Ukraine.
Trust me, he can keep Crimea if he gives up on Eastern Ukraine. But he will not.
No he doesn’t. You’re living in the past. Russia’s military scare nobody.
Killing the bear forever is a real option. Nuke Russia and it disappears forever as it is made up of conquered non-Russian ethnic groups. The neighbors will take what’s left over after the second or third wave of nukes hit.
You are not entirely wrong. We are not rich enough to take the long economic road to ruin Putin as we did in the past. He has wealthy allies this time around and the West is not completely united or determined.
However, if we had the will, we could, of course, defeat Russia. But if we go to war with Russia now, many millions will die. Here and even more so in Russia.
Russia is relatively poor and has nothing to lose at the moment compared with the West. That makes people fight harder and bear more. See Ukrainians…they, too, have nothing to lose. They are fierce.
What the West wants to avoid, unlike Putin, is the loss of even more lives in even more countries. But we also cannot just let Putin win. As we know this will continue.
So, we have to face facts. And gird ourselves unless we are willing to allow Putin to reclaim the Soviet territories and let millions of people down.
It is an awful awful thing Putin has done. I fear he will find that the US will honor our obligations to our allies and will thus cause the deaths of millions more people in the end. By not being willing to back down. And give back Ukraine.
Trust me, he can keep Crimea if he gives up on Eastern Ukraine. But he will not.
No he doesn’t. You’re living in the past. Russia’s military scare nobody.
‘Neutralise’, eh? An exploding cigar, perhaps? Or maybe a steel-rimmed bowler hat? More 007-level Atlanticist fantasies of US omnipotence…
Well, they’d better get on with it, before the Puppet-in-Chief, Creepy Joe, ‘neutraises’ himself by falling down the stairs again.
We could do that before tens of thousands are killed with a nuke too.
Lol, that’s problem Western mentality. Yeah, they will strike with conventional weapons. When you hit a guy who is willing to fight to the death and it is ingrained into their core beliefs, you better kill him first shot. Because, I shit you not, he will come back at you with everything he has got.
It was all fun and games Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc.. and every country the US & Nato(the US puppet child) tried to control but couldnt(even debilitated as they were) because the were ready to fight to death. They didn’t have the ability to successfully defeat the west but they did keep the west from defeating and controlling them.
Putting has the ability to go head to head with US and whether he wins or not is irrelevant. He will cause irreparable and crippling damage and the US will cease to be a major world power. Likely sinking to third world stayus where it is currently doing a fine job on its own to gethyenas.
Poke the bear, he bites off you arm and leg while you reach for your gun. Sure you kill him, but your still missing your arm and leg and since you used your ammo on the bear, well, now you eaten by the lion with any scraps left going to the heyenas.
‘Neutralise’, eh? An exploding cigar, perhaps? Or maybe a steel-rimmed bowler hat? More 007-level Atlanticist fantasies of US omnipotence…
Well, they’d better get on with it, before the Puppet-in-Chief, Creepy Joe, ‘neutraises’ himself by falling down the stairs again.
We could do that before tens of thousands are killed with a nuke too.
Yes, exactly that.
The closest thing I can see to a solution is to keep the war as short as it can be kept by doing everything we can do as quickly as we can do it to assure Ukrainian victory. Ukraine must be armed to the teeth, and the Russian economy must be broken so as to make its war effort unaffordable. And quickly. The longer this goes on, the more problems of every kind will proliferate. Putin remembers Chernobyl and doesn’t want radioactive fallout blowing back into Russia. He has actually set the stage for his backing off of Ukraine by telling his people that his “special military operation” was a pre-emptive move to keep NATO from invading Russia. Russia will not be invaded by NATO, so he can claim “victory” whenever he wants to. The main reason he keeps going is the not unrealistic hope that in November 2024 the Americans will put Donald Trump back into the White House and US policy toward Russia and Ukraine will suddenly be much more to his liking.
And a large herd of wild unicorns will be discovered in the Arctic.
The only way this will be over before spring 2025 is if Zelensky gets overthrown and peace talks follow, leading to a new border roughly along the ceasefire lines.
With the money to be made by Blackrock and Goldman Sachs buying up Ukraine at 3c a square mile using near-0% interest Fed Reserve money – or rather, ‘financing reconstruction’ – Blinken and the Wall Street/ Military-Industrial complex will be doing all they can to keep their stooge in place and the war bubbling along nicely.
Where’s that promised ‘massive counter-offensive’, though? It could be that the likelihood of a Russian tactical nuclear strike is giving pause for thought, though more likely it’s that with the need to absorb new kit and training and set up logistics systems, no such operation would be viable any time this year: 2024 at the earliest.
Even one of main appeasers of Russia, prof Meirshaimer, says in his interview on Spectator TV that USA will not allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine because of many geopolitical downsides, regardless of who is USA president.
Unfortunately, unless we could get China and India away from Russia, this vision is fantasy economically.
What I fear is Putin pushing us into this war. Russia and the West going broke fighting this war.
China watching and waiting being the economic engine that sustains the war. But not entering the war.
Egads.
Not that I support us doing nothing either, but we need to think strategically to the end or we are toast. Putin already stopped thinking.
And a large herd of wild unicorns will be discovered in the Arctic.
The only way this will be over before spring 2025 is if Zelensky gets overthrown and peace talks follow, leading to a new border roughly along the ceasefire lines.
With the money to be made by Blackrock and Goldman Sachs buying up Ukraine at 3c a square mile using near-0% interest Fed Reserve money – or rather, ‘financing reconstruction’ – Blinken and the Wall Street/ Military-Industrial complex will be doing all they can to keep their stooge in place and the war bubbling along nicely.
Where’s that promised ‘massive counter-offensive’, though? It could be that the likelihood of a Russian tactical nuclear strike is giving pause for thought, though more likely it’s that with the need to absorb new kit and training and set up logistics systems, no such operation would be viable any time this year: 2024 at the earliest.
Even one of main appeasers of Russia, prof Meirshaimer, says in his interview on Spectator TV that USA will not allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine because of many geopolitical downsides, regardless of who is USA president.
Unfortunately, unless we could get China and India away from Russia, this vision is fantasy economically.
What I fear is Putin pushing us into this war. Russia and the West going broke fighting this war.
China watching and waiting being the economic engine that sustains the war. But not entering the war.
Egads.
Not that I support us doing nothing either, but we need to think strategically to the end or we are toast. Putin already stopped thinking.
Putin has to lose. Maybe the next generation that does not include Soviet leftovers will be at peace with their neighbors.
The solution is screw the Cossacks.
I hope and believe there’s something between that extreme and “keep conceding until Putin sates himself and relents”.
How about Russia withdraws it’s troops from Ukraine, internationally observed referendums in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and whatever is left of Ukraine can join NATO, with NATO agreeing not to station battalions or weapons in countries bordering Russia?
I read a convincing argument in The Daily Telegraph, by an ex-military chap, that the US could neutralise Putin with an attack using conventional weapons should he drop a nuke – I’ll try and dig it out.
Yes, exactly that.
The closest thing I can see to a solution is to keep the war as short as it can be kept by doing everything we can do as quickly as we can do it to assure Ukrainian victory. Ukraine must be armed to the teeth, and the Russian economy must be broken so as to make its war effort unaffordable. And quickly. The longer this goes on, the more problems of every kind will proliferate. Putin remembers Chernobyl and doesn’t want radioactive fallout blowing back into Russia. He has actually set the stage for his backing off of Ukraine by telling his people that his “special military operation” was a pre-emptive move to keep NATO from invading Russia. Russia will not be invaded by NATO, so he can claim “victory” whenever he wants to. The main reason he keeps going is the not unrealistic hope that in November 2024 the Americans will put Donald Trump back into the White House and US policy toward Russia and Ukraine will suddenly be much more to his liking.
Putin has to lose. Maybe the next generation that does not include Soviet leftovers will be at peace with their neighbors.
The solution is screw the Cossacks.
Ukraine isn’t in NATO – your conjecture is misleading and irrelevant. After the war they will presumably be a de-facto protectorate of the US and therefore untouchable (unless they are abandoned after they’ve bled the Russians enough to sate American bloodlust, which I certainly wouldn’t rule out). Everyone else around Russia is covered by article 5 (which is part of the reason they invaded to begin with but I’ll leave that aside), besides the fact that the Russians have proven to be notably less dangerous than everyone assumed.
I find it sad and ironic that fear- and warmongering regarding the Russians are increasingly likely to lead to a much worse outcome (nuclear war) than Ukraine losing its coastline.
How people like you find this preferable boggles the mind.
You’re correct that Ukraine isn’t in NATO, however they have stated they wish to join and after the atrocities carried out by Russia I can’t say I blame them
Alleged atrocities.
If you knew many Russians, you’d drop the ‘alleged’. A “nation” of drunken white thugs lording it over illiterate Asian serfs. It cannot stand.
Along with your other extreme anti-Russian comments, that reads like some bullshit white-on-white ethnic bigotry, assuming you’re a white guy (based on your name and where we are). In essence, it’s just reductive and unhelpful. I appreciate your overall contribution to these comment boards but c’mon.
Along with your other extreme anti-Russian comments, that reads like some bullshit white-on-white ethnic bigotry, assuming you’re a white guy (based on your name and where we are). In essence, it’s just reductive and unhelpful. I appreciate your overall contribution to these comment boards but c’mon.
If you knew many Russians, you’d drop the ‘alleged’. A “nation” of drunken white thugs lording it over illiterate Asian serfs. It cannot stand.
Alleged atrocities.
I don’t get it either. Russia isn’t invading anyone after this. They can’t defeat Ukraine. If anything, this war makes it blindingly obvious how weak Russia really is – other than those damn nukes.
Other than the initial force, they’ve only really used Wagner. A sort of French forign legion type of force of about 60K. The other 300 to 400K have taken mostly defensive positions waiting on the ground to dry up, but they’re moving West now, whcih is why there is all this panic. Because there is not much left of the Ukranian military.
I recommend listening to Col Douglas Macgregor for more unfiltered information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_5pDZS46M
Wagner has been the main force *in Bakhamut*.
But the Russians didn’t lose 50% of their modern armor in Bakhamut. They aren’t having to backfill their formations with 1960s hardware because of Bakhamut….
The situation they are in now, would be akin to the US having lost 4th ID and 1st Cav to Saddam’s forces in 1991.
And Ukraine is about to get a huge equipment upgrade – equipment that 1960s Russian tanks can’t damage in frontal engagements…
Wagner is only active in one area. Yes they have been used as storm troops for the offensive in Bakhmut, but probably because their excessive deaths won’t make the Russian public too upset.
Ukraine is turning out new brigades that that been equipped by the west and trained there too. You might want to question your sources a bit.
Wagner has been the main force *in Bakhamut*.
But the Russians didn’t lose 50% of their modern armor in Bakhamut. They aren’t having to backfill their formations with 1960s hardware because of Bakhamut….
The situation they are in now, would be akin to the US having lost 4th ID and 1st Cav to Saddam’s forces in 1991.
And Ukraine is about to get a huge equipment upgrade – equipment that 1960s Russian tanks can’t damage in frontal engagements…
Wagner is only active in one area. Yes they have been used as storm troops for the offensive in Bakhmut, but probably because their excessive deaths won’t make the Russian public too upset.
Ukraine is turning out new brigades that that been equipped by the west and trained there too. You might want to question your sources a bit.
Maybe not for a few years. But if they come out of this with more territory and a favourable settlement then expect more moves in the future.
Other than the initial force, they’ve only really used Wagner. A sort of French forign legion type of force of about 60K. The other 300 to 400K have taken mostly defensive positions waiting on the ground to dry up, but they’re moving West now, whcih is why there is all this panic. Because there is not much left of the Ukranian military.
I recommend listening to Col Douglas Macgregor for more unfiltered information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_5pDZS46M
Maybe not for a few years. But if they come out of this with more territory and a favourable settlement then expect more moves in the future.
The issue isn’t ‘Ukraine losing it’s coastline’.
The issue is what Russia and China will do if Russia is allowed to take Ukraine’s’ coastline.
Also, a Russia that is willing to use nuclear weapons for territorial conquest is a Russia we will have to fight sooner or later. Might as well make it sooner, before they recover from the damage Ukraine has inflicted.
If all the Russians have to do to gobble up countries (or parts of them) is threaten to use nukes, well… Russia will have a land border with Germany within 100yrs.
That’s not what we want.
You’re correct that Ukraine isn’t in NATO, however they have stated they wish to join and after the atrocities carried out by Russia I can’t say I blame them
I don’t get it either. Russia isn’t invading anyone after this. They can’t defeat Ukraine. If anything, this war makes it blindingly obvious how weak Russia really is – other than those damn nukes.
The issue isn’t ‘Ukraine losing it’s coastline’.
The issue is what Russia and China will do if Russia is allowed to take Ukraine’s’ coastline.
Also, a Russia that is willing to use nuclear weapons for territorial conquest is a Russia we will have to fight sooner or later. Might as well make it sooner, before they recover from the damage Ukraine has inflicted.
If all the Russians have to do to gobble up countries (or parts of them) is threaten to use nukes, well… Russia will have a land border with Germany within 100yrs.
That’s not what we want.
You completely misunderstand what is going on.
Then enlighten me, why do you believe I’m wrong?
Because it has already been agreed that Ukraine does not join NATO.
The west reneged on that.
Why should Russia trust a single thing the west says ?
Nothing was agreed about Ukraine.
It is Russia which reneged on Budapest agreement and invaded Ukraine?
Why should anyone trust Russia?
It is entirely irrelevant what the unstable Russians think, believe or trust. This will be settled on terms not of their choosing.
Nothing was agreed about Ukraine.
It is Russia which reneged on Budapest agreement and invaded Ukraine?
Why should anyone trust Russia?
It is entirely irrelevant what the unstable Russians think, believe or trust. This will be settled on terms not of their choosing.
Because it has already been agreed that Ukraine does not join NATO.
The west reneged on that.
Why should Russia trust a single thing the west says ?
Then enlighten me, why do you believe I’m wrong?
Well, if we look back on the original peace talks that Boris Johnson at the behest of the Biden administration put an end to, it was clear what Putin would agree to. Ukraine not joining NATO, and the enforcement of the Minsk agreements. They would pull out completely, except for Crimea. At this point that original offer looks like a dream outcome… But Washington wanted to hurt Russia. They have said so publicly. They als thought the sanctions would cause a collapse. Nothing has worked for Washington in all of this, and we have a lot of dead Ukrainians, and ultimately, it’s going to be just a rump state now. Oops… time for them to move on to the next proxy war victims…Taiwan…
We need to understand that the Minsk agreements and what went on since 2014 was all about native Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine being able to continue to speak Russian, and educate their children at schools with that language. From 2014 till 2020 there were over 1000 civilian casualties (UN peacekeeper documented) from the NeoNazi Azov brigade. This whole thing is at this point at the behest of Washington. The Biden administration has really done a number to Ukraine. This nuke talk is a how desperate things are in Washington. That is the real danger. What is Washington willing to do? Will Polish or Romanian troops be the next sacrifice to offer up? That’s what Soros said we would need to do.
I think you need to read the real history behind Baker’s “not one inch” hypothetical comment. You’ll realise how it has been so widely misunderstood by well-meaning people and abused by those with less noble aims. It’s also tiresome in that it implies Nato membership was imposed upon the former Warsaw Pact countries, rather than actively pursued by them to prevent exactly what we are seeing in Ukraine and Belorusia.
The Russians east of the 1991 borders are the descendants of a brutal occupying army (Soviet) that terrorized Eastern Europe for some 50-80 years (depending on whether a given country was occupied before or after WWII).
Further, the ‘Nazis’ in this case are the ones going to war to ‘protect Ethnic Russians’ in a neighboring country – the same way Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect Germans’ living there.
Russia needs to lose, just like Germany did. The Germans have accepted their place in the world, and Western Europe has had peace because of it. Time for the Russians to be made to do the same.
Hear hear
Hear hear
This is all about damaging Russia, not saving Ukraine. The Russian election tampering claims were the lead-up, and helped prepare the way for anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S. The globalists view Russia as an obstacle to their plans of expansion, plus they can make a lot of war dollars on it in the process. This doesn’t excuse Putin, let alone baptize him, but why are we so quick to forget the whole idea of following the money here? Is it a big surprise that a lot of the people rattling the sabres this time around were the same ones doing it in 2002?
I think you need to read the real history behind Baker’s “not one inch” hypothetical comment. You’ll realise how it has been so widely misunderstood by well-meaning people and abused by those with less noble aims. It’s also tiresome in that it implies Nato membership was imposed upon the former Warsaw Pact countries, rather than actively pursued by them to prevent exactly what we are seeing in Ukraine and Belorusia.
The Russians east of the 1991 borders are the descendants of a brutal occupying army (Soviet) that terrorized Eastern Europe for some 50-80 years (depending on whether a given country was occupied before or after WWII).
Further, the ‘Nazis’ in this case are the ones going to war to ‘protect Ethnic Russians’ in a neighboring country – the same way Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect Germans’ living there.
Russia needs to lose, just like Germany did. The Germans have accepted their place in the world, and Western Europe has had peace because of it. Time for the Russians to be made to do the same.
This is all about damaging Russia, not saving Ukraine. The Russian election tampering claims were the lead-up, and helped prepare the way for anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S. The globalists view Russia as an obstacle to their plans of expansion, plus they can make a lot of war dollars on it in the process. This doesn’t excuse Putin, let alone baptize him, but why are we so quick to forget the whole idea of following the money here? Is it a big surprise that a lot of the people rattling the sabres this time around were the same ones doing it in 2002?
Nothing then stops Putin from trying again though I can’t see how as he has little left. But its time we realised that that occurring is better than all out nuclear war. Ukraine’s ambitions need to be reined in and very soon.
Well, the whole deal started with ethnic Russian speakers in East Ukraine being oppressed. The Minsk agreement was supposed to address this. Brokered by France and Germany, we now have heard from Angela Merkel and the former French PM from their own mouths that the whole thing was a ruse to give the West time to arm up, train and militarize the Ukranian military.
So, let me ask you this. What if Russia was in Mexico arming up training up and militarizing an anti-Ameircan army, what would we do? Would we go in and put a stop to it?
Do you think we would want to stay and rule over Mexico?
Do you think it would be fair of us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after we beat them? Does that seem reasonable to you?
What if Russia was in Mexico? But in the real world they are not and never could be. Russia is however in Ukraine and ideally would like to be in Poland and Germany (where they were). The west, having the benefit of their arms in highly motivated Ukrainian hands can stop this. The Russians can end this sensibly or lose a great deal more. Their call really. Meanwhile China renames parts of Siberia and Japan is restless about those Islands. And Poland is on the way to being the decisive European military power. What a foolish bear he has been.
Put the Tom Clancy books down. This is not the Soviet Union. All that is over. You’re living in a fantasy land. In fact, it appears that all of this Russia hatred from Washington has done Russia a favor. Their economy is growing, and all the oligarch money now as to be spent domestically, which is apparently creating a boom.
BRICS and multipolarism is looking like the future for the rest of the world. The USD is losing its reserve currency status, Europe and the US are going into recession. The US has lost its foothold and status in the Middle East and peace is breaking out.
This has all forced Russia and China into each others arms, which is another Biden diplomatic disaster. Basically, everything has been a huge backfire on the Biden administration. Can they do anything right, but destroy and harm America, if that is their goal?
In the meantime, speaking of Mexico, and America, over 100K young Americans have lost their lives due to drug overdoses.
The 40K US troops stationed in Romania and Poland need to be recalled and put on the Southern Border. The whole LGBT, radical environmentalism, and war is not working out, or helping anyone in America except the ones with thier fingers in these things.
The ‘Russia hate’ is based on the fact that Russia is still a criminal enterprise disguised as a country.
Everything people b***h about the Chinese? Russia is ‘that’ – but without the useful cheap labor that makes trade with China a net win for the US.
‘Multipolarisim’ based on what?
The Russian military can’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag…
China is headed for demographic collapse – India is the new ‘most populous’ nation… They also have a looming financial catastrophe on the horizon – ala 2008 in the US but far worse due to far more corruption.
The USD is not losing it’s reserve-currency status because there is still no viable alternative….
And your idiotic obsession with the Mexican border? Those 100k people would be just as dead no matter what we do on the border. Drugs would still get in just as easily – there’s Canada, and 3 coastlines to smuggle them through….
Further, those people are dead because they broke the law – we told them ‘Just Say NO’ and they shot up anyway. No loss, good riddance.
We have spent way too much money trying to save junkies from the natural consequences of getting high.
Point miss much? The idea behind the Mexico analogy is that the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate Chinese meddling there or in Central America for two seconds, but we somehow expect Russia to countenance ours? Like I said above, Monroe Doctrine for me but not for thee!
Point miss much? The idea behind the Mexico analogy is that the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate Chinese meddling there or in Central America for two seconds, but we somehow expect Russia to countenance ours? Like I said above, Monroe Doctrine for me but not for thee!
Ah, the curtain parts.
Not a fan of equality or the modern world I see. Go build that wall.
There is a powerful cadre of people in the U.S. who have never let the Cold War go. In fact, you could argue that they do quite well for themselves by endeavoring to keep it going.
Wasn’t it former US CIA chief Gates who said that Biden hadn’t made a correct foreign policy decision in 45 plus years?!
BRICS – you mean China. A rag bag of criminals
The ‘Russia hate’ is based on the fact that Russia is still a criminal enterprise disguised as a country.
Everything people b***h about the Chinese? Russia is ‘that’ – but without the useful cheap labor that makes trade with China a net win for the US.
‘Multipolarisim’ based on what?
The Russian military can’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag…
China is headed for demographic collapse – India is the new ‘most populous’ nation… They also have a looming financial catastrophe on the horizon – ala 2008 in the US but far worse due to far more corruption.
The USD is not losing it’s reserve-currency status because there is still no viable alternative….
And your idiotic obsession with the Mexican border? Those 100k people would be just as dead no matter what we do on the border. Drugs would still get in just as easily – there’s Canada, and 3 coastlines to smuggle them through….
Further, those people are dead because they broke the law – we told them ‘Just Say NO’ and they shot up anyway. No loss, good riddance.
We have spent way too much money trying to save junkies from the natural consequences of getting high.
Ah, the curtain parts.
Not a fan of equality or the modern world I see. Go build that wall.
There is a powerful cadre of people in the U.S. who have never let the Cold War go. In fact, you could argue that they do quite well for themselves by endeavoring to keep it going.
Wasn’t it former US CIA chief Gates who said that Biden hadn’t made a correct foreign policy decision in 45 plus years?!
BRICS – you mean China. A rag bag of criminals
Put the Tom Clancy books down. This is not the Soviet Union. All that is over. You’re living in a fantasy land. In fact, it appears that all of this Russia hatred from Washington has done Russia a favor. Their economy is growing, and all the oligarch money now as to be spent domestically, which is apparently creating a boom.
BRICS and multipolarism is looking like the future for the rest of the world. The USD is losing its reserve currency status, Europe and the US are going into recession. The US has lost its foothold and status in the Middle East and peace is breaking out.
This has all forced Russia and China into each others arms, which is another Biden diplomatic disaster. Basically, everything has been a huge backfire on the Biden administration. Can they do anything right, but destroy and harm America, if that is their goal?
In the meantime, speaking of Mexico, and America, over 100K young Americans have lost their lives due to drug overdoses.
The 40K US troops stationed in Romania and Poland need to be recalled and put on the Southern Border. The whole LGBT, radical environmentalism, and war is not working out, or helping anyone in America except the ones with thier fingers in these things.
Good question.
You won’t get an answer.
I’ve been asking that question for a year on other sites and have yet to get an answer that makes a lick of sense.
I’ve been asking that question for a year on other sites and have yet to get an answer that makes a lick of sense.
Incorrect. This started years ago in Georgia. This is just another stage in Putin trying to get bully his near abroad. Allegations of abuse were just an excuse.
Exactly. Monroe Doctrine for me but not for thee. There’s no doubt that Putin is a thug, but in no sense does that excuse our meddling and hypocrisy. When you poke a bear long enough, he may respond in ways you don’t expect, especially if he’s a mean one to begin with.
What if Russia was in Mexico? But in the real world they are not and never could be. Russia is however in Ukraine and ideally would like to be in Poland and Germany (where they were). The west, having the benefit of their arms in highly motivated Ukrainian hands can stop this. The Russians can end this sensibly or lose a great deal more. Their call really. Meanwhile China renames parts of Siberia and Japan is restless about those Islands. And Poland is on the way to being the decisive European military power. What a foolish bear he has been.
Good question.
You won’t get an answer.
Incorrect. This started years ago in Georgia. This is just another stage in Putin trying to get bully his near abroad. Allegations of abuse were just an excuse.
Exactly. Monroe Doctrine for me but not for thee. There’s no doubt that Putin is a thug, but in no sense does that excuse our meddling and hypocrisy. When you poke a bear long enough, he may respond in ways you don’t expect, especially if he’s a mean one to begin with.
Russia’s ambitions need to be reigned in.
If they are allowed to win here by threatening nuclear war, they’ll go after the rest of the former-Soviet nations the exact same way. And most of the others are in NATO now.
What stops him from trying again after he loses, is that the thing he fears most happens: NATO militarizes the Russian border & makes any further Russian imperial moves a ‘Starts WWIII’ sort of scenario…
Well, the whole deal started with ethnic Russian speakers in East Ukraine being oppressed. The Minsk agreement was supposed to address this. Brokered by France and Germany, we now have heard from Angela Merkel and the former French PM from their own mouths that the whole thing was a ruse to give the West time to arm up, train and militarize the Ukranian military.
So, let me ask you this. What if Russia was in Mexico arming up training up and militarizing an anti-Ameircan army, what would we do? Would we go in and put a stop to it?
Do you think we would want to stay and rule over Mexico?
Do you think it would be fair of us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after we beat them? Does that seem reasonable to you?
Russia’s ambitions need to be reigned in.
If they are allowed to win here by threatening nuclear war, they’ll go after the rest of the former-Soviet nations the exact same way. And most of the others are in NATO now.
What stops him from trying again after he loses, is that the thing he fears most happens: NATO militarizes the Russian border & makes any further Russian imperial moves a ‘Starts WWIII’ sort of scenario…
Why would he do that outside of the lies and villification of Russia as some sort of “neo Soviet Union trying to conquer the world” neocon / neoliberal globalist shills like you?
More intelligent American government officials have for decades said that the push of NATO up to Russia’s borders would eventually provoke a military response when Russia felt it was about to be strategically encircled and destabilized by Western military and economic pressure (theWestern military-industrial establishment has openly gloated about this being their aim for years, so don’t you dare to try deny it).
People like you are liars or dupes for a Western hegemony which seeks to either subjugate or destroy al threats to its power, under cover of a faux morality (that is displayed as false by its utter hypocrisy in application). This is easily provable by the fact that the US is executing exactly the same playbook against China as it has against Russia;
-(try to turn its neighbors into American proxies against it, “balancing” as America calls it in East Asia, with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines all meant to work together with the US against China)
-enact sanctions against it and force Europe to do the same to try to cripple it economically (“chips” act being the start in the US),
-directly trying to subvert and militarily colonize a state that is its biggest strategic vulnerability, Taiwan (the South/East China sea being China’s only gateway to the Pacific potentially not controlled by a US proxy if it regains Taiwan, just as Crimea is the Russians’ only warm water port and America tried regime change in Ukraine to take it away from them)
-provoke a military response to try to prevent said military colonization and build-up on its borders, as a pretext to an all-out sanctions and financial war against it (this hasn’t happened yet with China, the way the US will probaby do this is by recognizing Taiwan as an independent state and announcing it will join AUKUS / The Quad for example)
-eventually some kind of all-out war / blockade, as a pretext to cause regime change and/or the break up of China into smaller pieces to make it no longer a threat to Western hegemony (This part of the plan hasn’t been reached with Russia yet either, but the US president has openly advocated regime change, as have many other European leaders, and US government commissions have advocated for breaking up Russia into pieces, and EU politicians have advocated the same, with the West then helping those powerless states to “steward” lol, their resources)
I didn’t realise NATO forced those Eastern European nations to join the alliance, I was under the impression they were desperate to do so as they feared the type of scenario we’re now seeing in Ukraine if they didn’t, and they have subsequently been proved right to do so
And of course the U.S. and NATO had absolutely nothing to do with encouraging those fears for their own benefit, no nothing at all! As the Brits say, pull the other one!
And of course the U.S. and NATO had absolutely nothing to do with encouraging those fears for their own benefit, no nothing at all! As the Brits say, pull the other one!
As I heard someone say recently Putin has drawn a red line against Western globalist hegemony, and the hegemons don’t like that. The neo-con/neo-lib defenders ignore the last ten years of Western needling (except when it serves them to not ignore it) and act as if Putin just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine.
Clueless
I didn’t realise NATO forced those Eastern European nations to join the alliance, I was under the impression they were desperate to do so as they feared the type of scenario we’re now seeing in Ukraine if they didn’t, and they have subsequently been proved right to do so
As I heard someone say recently Putin has drawn a red line against Western globalist hegemony, and the hegemons don’t like that. The neo-con/neo-lib defenders ignore the last ten years of Western needling (except when it serves them to not ignore it) and act as if Putin just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine.
Clueless
Putin doesn’t want all of the Ukraine, the Russians will probably take 8 regions/oblasts, and then the war will stop, and it will become a frozen conflict
A big question is how will China and India respond if he uses nukes.
Realistically, we are looking at a military conflict with China on or around 2027. The US military is preparing for it.
There is no solution unfortunately without china, at a minimum. Sanctions haven’t worked, BRICS is only getting more influential and the pax Americana looks to be coming to an end. Assuming we can solve this conflict is only going to make it worse. It sucks, it sucks for Ukraine and it sucks for the future of Eurasia but sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make facts not true
This war should have been avoided by heeding the advice of those who argued trying to move Ukraine into the Western orbit would provoke Russia. Having provoked the war, the West now faces a serious dilemma. Ukraine alone cannot defeat Russia, but continual Western escalation to save Ukraine will eventually lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. The author calls for developing responses to this use, but in reality, after Russian nuclear strike, options will be either accept loss or subject Western populations to nuclear holocaust. What is needed now is plan to end conflict as favorably as possible. Some ideas have included referendums in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine in EU but not in NATO. It may already be too late for Russia to accept such limited gains, but negotiations should be attempted.
So what’s the solution then? Keep escalating until Putin surrenders?
Ukraine isn’t in NATO – your conjecture is misleading and irrelevant. After the war they will presumably be a de-facto protectorate of the US and therefore untouchable (unless they are abandoned after they’ve bled the Russians enough to sate American bloodlust, which I certainly wouldn’t rule out). Everyone else around Russia is covered by article 5 (which is part of the reason they invaded to begin with but I’ll leave that aside), besides the fact that the Russians have proven to be notably less dangerous than everyone assumed.
I find it sad and ironic that fear- and warmongering regarding the Russians are increasingly likely to lead to a much worse outcome (nuclear war) than Ukraine losing its coastline.
How people like you find this preferable boggles the mind.
You completely misunderstand what is going on.
Well, if we look back on the original peace talks that Boris Johnson at the behest of the Biden administration put an end to, it was clear what Putin would agree to. Ukraine not joining NATO, and the enforcement of the Minsk agreements. They would pull out completely, except for Crimea. At this point that original offer looks like a dream outcome… But Washington wanted to hurt Russia. They have said so publicly. They als thought the sanctions would cause a collapse. Nothing has worked for Washington in all of this, and we have a lot of dead Ukrainians, and ultimately, it’s going to be just a rump state now. Oops… time for them to move on to the next proxy war victims…Taiwan…
We need to understand that the Minsk agreements and what went on since 2014 was all about native Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine being able to continue to speak Russian, and educate their children at schools with that language. From 2014 till 2020 there were over 1000 civilian casualties (UN peacekeeper documented) from the NeoNazi Azov brigade. This whole thing is at this point at the behest of Washington. The Biden administration has really done a number to Ukraine. This nuke talk is a how desperate things are in Washington. That is the real danger. What is Washington willing to do? Will Polish or Romanian troops be the next sacrifice to offer up? That’s what Soros said we would need to do.
Nothing then stops Putin from trying again though I can’t see how as he has little left. But its time we realised that that occurring is better than all out nuclear war. Ukraine’s ambitions need to be reined in and very soon.
Why would he do that outside of the lies and villification of Russia as some sort of “neo Soviet Union trying to conquer the world” neocon / neoliberal globalist shills like you?
More intelligent American government officials have for decades said that the push of NATO up to Russia’s borders would eventually provoke a military response when Russia felt it was about to be strategically encircled and destabilized by Western military and economic pressure (theWestern military-industrial establishment has openly gloated about this being their aim for years, so don’t you dare to try deny it).
People like you are liars or dupes for a Western hegemony which seeks to either subjugate or destroy al threats to its power, under cover of a faux morality (that is displayed as false by its utter hypocrisy in application). This is easily provable by the fact that the US is executing exactly the same playbook against China as it has against Russia;
-(try to turn its neighbors into American proxies against it, “balancing” as America calls it in East Asia, with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines all meant to work together with the US against China)
-enact sanctions against it and force Europe to do the same to try to cripple it economically (“chips” act being the start in the US),
-directly trying to subvert and militarily colonize a state that is its biggest strategic vulnerability, Taiwan (the South/East China sea being China’s only gateway to the Pacific potentially not controlled by a US proxy if it regains Taiwan, just as Crimea is the Russians’ only warm water port and America tried regime change in Ukraine to take it away from them)
-provoke a military response to try to prevent said military colonization and build-up on its borders, as a pretext to an all-out sanctions and financial war against it (this hasn’t happened yet with China, the way the US will probaby do this is by recognizing Taiwan as an independent state and announcing it will join AUKUS / The Quad for example)
-eventually some kind of all-out war / blockade, as a pretext to cause regime change and/or the break up of China into smaller pieces to make it no longer a threat to Western hegemony (This part of the plan hasn’t been reached with Russia yet either, but the US president has openly advocated regime change, as have many other European leaders, and US government commissions have advocated for breaking up Russia into pieces, and EU politicians have advocated the same, with the West then helping those powerless states to “steward” lol, their resources)
Putin doesn’t want all of the Ukraine, the Russians will probably take 8 regions/oblasts, and then the war will stop, and it will become a frozen conflict
A big question is how will China and India respond if he uses nukes.
Realistically, we are looking at a military conflict with China on or around 2027. The US military is preparing for it.
There is no solution unfortunately without china, at a minimum. Sanctions haven’t worked, BRICS is only getting more influential and the pax Americana looks to be coming to an end. Assuming we can solve this conflict is only going to make it worse. It sucks, it sucks for Ukraine and it sucks for the future of Eurasia but sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make facts not true
This war should have been avoided by heeding the advice of those who argued trying to move Ukraine into the Western orbit would provoke Russia. Having provoked the war, the West now faces a serious dilemma. Ukraine alone cannot defeat Russia, but continual Western escalation to save Ukraine will eventually lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. The author calls for developing responses to this use, but in reality, after Russian nuclear strike, options will be either accept loss or subject Western populations to nuclear holocaust. What is needed now is plan to end conflict as favorably as possible. Some ideas have included referendums in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine in EU but not in NATO. It may already be too late for Russia to accept such limited gains, but negotiations should be attempted.
Negotiation, negotiation! Talk, talk, jaw, jaw. For goodness sake, why can’t we just calm down and talk things through! Discussion, debate and old fashioned horse trading, ever the thinking man’s solution to any conflict and, of course, everybody likes a good sensible compromise or a ‘binding treaty’ of some sort. Yet surely you remember Chamberlain’s hope for ‘peace in our time’ and what about that Hitler/Stalin pact of non-aggression?
Who could forget the selling out of South Vietnam to the communist North – and the waves of refugee ‘boat people’ that followed from that reasonable compromise. Well, just about everybody seems to have forgotten that one.
Let’s not forget the never-ending stand-off between North and South Korea. How’s that working out for South East Asia? While we’re on that topic, what about that reasonable, negotiated handing back of Hong Kong to China? Worked out well for the citizens of Hong Kong didn’t it? Perhaps Taiwan can look forward a similar fortunate outcome when the great powers get round the negotiating table. Still, at least we’ll have peace in our time.
“Let’s not forget the never-ending stand-off between North and South Korea. How’s that working out for South East Asia?”
We all know the answer to that. Amazingly well for South Korea. Total disaster for North Korea. South East Asia in general is doing pretty well.
So far.
Weren’t the Japanese threatening to shoot down a North Korean satellite only last week?
And the ‘Kim creature’ has a ‘bomb’ of sorts.
The North is now ruled by the latest brattish offspring of an unchallenged dynasty. The North is able to claim it has never actually been defeated in war (they held the mighty US to a draw). They have nuclear weapons and delivery systems which they like to demonstrate (lest the world doubt them). As they are untroubled by the kind of humanitarian concerns that restrain other nations the use of those weapons is not so remote a possibility. For neighbouring China North Korea may fulfill a useful role as a kind of dangerous dog – difficult to control and could attack without warning.
That story continues to unfold while the US, cursed by the demands of rampant Left-liberalism whose own brattish offspring we call Woke, is rapidly losing national self-confidence. In short, try to curb your optimism a little!
So far.
Weren’t the Japanese threatening to shoot down a North Korean satellite only last week?
And the ‘Kim creature’ has a ‘bomb’ of sorts.
The North is now ruled by the latest brattish offspring of an unchallenged dynasty. The North is able to claim it has never actually been defeated in war (they held the mighty US to a draw). They have nuclear weapons and delivery systems which they like to demonstrate (lest the world doubt them). As they are untroubled by the kind of humanitarian concerns that restrain other nations the use of those weapons is not so remote a possibility. For neighbouring China North Korea may fulfill a useful role as a kind of dangerous dog – difficult to control and could attack without warning.
That story continues to unfold while the US, cursed by the demands of rampant Left-liberalism whose own brattish offspring we call Woke, is rapidly losing national self-confidence. In short, try to curb your optimism a little!
Reductio ad Hitlerum!
Don’t be a bore.
Don’t be a bore.
Indeed. What ever happened to good old fashioned diplomacy and even common sense.
I continue to feel like I live in a Looking Glass world here in the U.S., as the “progressive-left” and the Woke have gone all in on this war, some of them the same people I protested the Iraq War with, all for a money laundering business for the Biden family and the military-industrial complex. People like AOC even refuse to acknowledge the horror that awaits us.
Oh well. Voted for neither our current Night of the Living Dead president, nor Trump, have written Op-Eds to my local newspaper, protested when I could (although the left in my college town has stopped protesting war).
Indeed. Where have all the anti-war lefties gone? The only people in the U.S. protesting are the libertarians and the non-mainstream “paleo” right. Funny, they were also some of the same people who were right about Iraq!
Indeed. Where have all the anti-war lefties gone? The only people in the U.S. protesting are the libertarians and the non-mainstream “paleo” right. Funny, they were also some of the same people who were right about Iraq!
Good essay.
Waste of time talking to Russians.
“Let’s not forget the never-ending stand-off between North and South Korea. How’s that working out for South East Asia?”
We all know the answer to that. Amazingly well for South Korea. Total disaster for North Korea. South East Asia in general is doing pretty well.
Reductio ad Hitlerum!
Indeed. What ever happened to good old fashioned diplomacy and even common sense.
I continue to feel like I live in a Looking Glass world here in the U.S., as the “progressive-left” and the Woke have gone all in on this war, some of them the same people I protested the Iraq War with, all for a money laundering business for the Biden family and the military-industrial complex. People like AOC even refuse to acknowledge the horror that awaits us.
Oh well. Voted for neither our current Night of the Living Dead president, nor Trump, have written Op-Eds to my local newspaper, protested when I could (although the left in my college town has stopped protesting war).
Good essay.
Waste of time talking to Russians.
Biden doesn’t know what day it is. The Democrats and their enablers in the media and three letter agencies have destabilized the entire world by putting that senile old pervert in office. If we have a real crisis no one will be able to act for the US.
Funny how he just defeated the GOP then.
Maybe we need more senile old men in govt, not less?
There is no GOP. There is only one “party” – the D.C. Everything else is political theater.
Off to your tinfoil hat chums
Off to your tinfoil hat chums
It’s funny how complining about the 2020 Immaculate Election is unpatriotic, but saying Russia stole the 2016 election for Trump, without any evidence at all, was a way to “save our democracy.”
Yeah, and isn’t it convenient that the Russian election thing helped stoke four years of anti-Russian sentiment among the masses?
Yeah, and isn’t it convenient that the Russian election thing helped stoke four years of anti-Russian sentiment among the masses?
There is no GOP. There is only one “party” – the D.C. Everything else is political theater.
It’s funny how complining about the 2020 Immaculate Election is unpatriotic, but saying Russia stole the 2016 election for Trump, without any evidence at all, was a way to “save our democracy.”
It’s very true. But the Rethuglicans, aside from the disingenuous MAGA types, who in a remarkable turn of events are the only ones who have really questioned the U.S. involvement in this aren’t any better, esp. Lindsey Graham and McConnell. What is very painful to me is that the progressive-left, with whom I loosely associated before they went mad, were always the ones who truly held those with deep anti-war sentiments. That is all gone and those on the left who question this madness are called “fascists” and “far-right.”
Correct. It seems impossible for some people to believe that you can oppose the invasion and consider Putin a thug while simultaneously questioning the West’s involvement there.
Correct. It seems impossible for some people to believe that you can oppose the invasion and consider Putin a thug while simultaneously questioning the West’s involvement there.
Funny how he just defeated the GOP then.
Maybe we need more senile old men in govt, not less?
It’s very true. But the Rethuglicans, aside from the disingenuous MAGA types, who in a remarkable turn of events are the only ones who have really questioned the U.S. involvement in this aren’t any better, esp. Lindsey Graham and McConnell. What is very painful to me is that the progressive-left, with whom I loosely associated before they went mad, were always the ones who truly held those with deep anti-war sentiments. That is all gone and those on the left who question this madness are called “fascists” and “far-right.”
How does a compromise work? If Ukraine gives up some of its territory, will Putin be satisfied? His original goal was the annexation of Ukraine so what evidence is there that he will be satisfied with part of it? He would be happy to turn Ukraine into an unpopulated radioactive wasteland which would serve as a buffer against the west. And the west has nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons against Russia. What would be the point?
I agree. The article makes a convincing case, but rather than see it as preparing us in the West for a retaliatory strike, i see it as more straightforwardly preparing us for Putin’s deployment of tactical nuclear on the battlefield. I think he’d be (even more) remarkably stupid to do so, since the likelihood is it’d hasten his demise rather than further his aims. He must be getting desperate though, so i think we should prepare ourselves and i welcome this article, however harrowing its message.
I’m curious to hear what seems convincing–not just persuasive or plausible–about General Ryan’s case.
It’s his rationale that’s convincing, and if you look at many of the comments i’d say the author is prepared to face reality rather than those who’d like to bury their heads in the sand (they can’t contemplate a nuclear bunker).
That’s not to say i’m convinced Putin will use the tactical nuclear option, simply that the scenario painted by Ryan is as realistic and worthy as any other. Even though western governments may try to downplay it, you can bet they’re also having their military fully on alert; not for retaliation as such, but planning their response, including aid to Ukrainian civilians. They’ll also be talking to China.
My perfectly reasonable reply has gone to admin for review.
Yes I know that drill. It’s posted now and I find your remarks reasonable. I find Ryan’s arguments reasonable too, except for the predictive assuredness and implication that nuclear explosions aren’t such a big deal because they probably won’t obliterate all civilization on Earth.
And yes, there are disaster plans in place already, no doubt. I don’t know that it’s useful for us to be hypervigilant about possible nuclear attack, but perhaps confronting the frightening and taboo possibility as a likelihood/near-certainty is useful. I’d be glad if it helps to pull our heads out of the sand into better mitigation strategies and the like, without descending into a revival Cold War apocalypse-fixation and head-in-the-bomb-shelter terror.
[By the way, it took about 12-plus hours for this little re-reply of mine to post. I wonder if one capitalized term I used might have caused that. I realize that what I said could have been left unsaid without major global consequence but the moderation policy seems pretty arbitrary and opaque. At least nearly everything trickles onto the board eventually, for better or worse.]
Yes I know that drill. It’s posted now and I find your remarks reasonable. I find Ryan’s arguments reasonable too, except for the predictive assuredness and implication that nuclear explosions aren’t such a big deal because they probably won’t obliterate all civilization on Earth.
And yes, there are disaster plans in place already, no doubt. I don’t know that it’s useful for us to be hypervigilant about possible nuclear attack, but perhaps confronting the frightening and taboo possibility as a likelihood/near-certainty is useful. I’d be glad if it helps to pull our heads out of the sand into better mitigation strategies and the like, without descending into a revival Cold War apocalypse-fixation and head-in-the-bomb-shelter terror.
[By the way, it took about 12-plus hours for this little re-reply of mine to post. I wonder if one capitalized term I used might have caused that. I realize that what I said could have been left unsaid without major global consequence but the moderation policy seems pretty arbitrary and opaque. At least nearly everything trickles onto the board eventually, for better or worse.]
It’s his rationale that’s convincing, and if you look at many of the comments i’d say the author is prepared to face reality rather than those who’d like to bury their heads in the sand (they can’t contemplate a nuclear bunker).
That’s not to say i’m convinced Putin will use the tactical nuclear option, simply that the scenario painted by Ryan is as realistic and worthy as any other. Even though western governments may try to downplay it, you can bet they’re also having their military fully on alert; not for retaliation as such, but planning their response, including aid to Ukrainian civilians. They’ll also be talking to China.
My perfectly reasonable reply has gone to admin for review.
I’m curious to hear what seems convincing–not just persuasive or plausible–about General Ryan’s case.
I agree. The article makes a convincing case, but rather than see it as preparing us in the West for a retaliatory strike, i see it as more straightforwardly preparing us for Putin’s deployment of tactical nuclear on the battlefield. I think he’d be (even more) remarkably stupid to do so, since the likelihood is it’d hasten his demise rather than further his aims. He must be getting desperate though, so i think we should prepare ourselves and i welcome this article, however harrowing its message.
Hmm…
“Slowly but surely the use of nukes by Russia is normalized as a real possibility…” Normalised by Russia, that is. Pinning that on the band of incompetents in the White House is, for once, unfair.
“The unstated answer is they’ll also use nukes…” That half-sentence does a lot of heavy lifting. Sometimes something is unstated because it’s not what someone is actually thinking.
So if Putin wants the Baltics back, and threatens nukes, what will you do?
Once you give in to blackmail, you simply concede more and more.
The fact is that if Putin actually activated the Russian Army to simply go all the way to the Polish and Romanian borders, that would easely happen, because there is very little of the Ukrainian military left at this point. Those 35K being trained abroad will not make a difference. Why use a Nuke?
The Russian Army, wthout 40,000 Lend Lease trucks and jeeps, is on the verge of another World War I style collapse. See my other comments on this page for more details.
Carl Adolph Maximilian Hoffman might agree with you.
Carl Adolph Maximilian Hoffman might agree with you.
The Russian Army, wthout 40,000 Lend Lease trucks and jeeps, is on the verge of another World War I style collapse. See my other comments on this page for more details.
You cannot negotiate with a person of unsound mind who doesnt keep his word.
Which is why Russia is just going to have to defeat him, and dictate terms, whcih are neutrality for Ukraine. However, they have now perminently lost those Eastern primarly Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.
At this point Russia has taken this all real seriously and has mobilized about an 800,000 person army, with about 300K to 400K combat troops ready to go into the rest of Ukraine. Their military industry has ramped up completely. We in the West, not so much…
The tiny little 60K Wagner group has done most of the heavy lifting so far, with about an 8 to 1 death ratio in the Russians favor. Ukraine is on the ropes, and the Russians are advancing West right now. The 30K to 35K Western trained troops are going to not make any difference.
The most frightening thing I can think of is the claim that a nuke is going to go off by a former US general. This sounds to me like the promise of a pipeline getting blown up.
Your comment is as big a fabrication as the Steele Dossier. If the Russians have endless numbers of tanks, why was there only one WWII T-34 in the Victory Day Parade on Red Square, with no other tanks?
Your comment is as big a fabrication as the Steele Dossier. If the Russians have endless numbers of tanks, why was there only one WWII T-34 in the Victory Day Parade on Red Square, with no other tanks?
That is what war is for.
Who are you referring to Putin or Biden ? LOL
Which is why Russia is just going to have to defeat him, and dictate terms, whcih are neutrality for Ukraine. However, they have now perminently lost those Eastern primarly Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.
At this point Russia has taken this all real seriously and has mobilized about an 800,000 person army, with about 300K to 400K combat troops ready to go into the rest of Ukraine. Their military industry has ramped up completely. We in the West, not so much…
The tiny little 60K Wagner group has done most of the heavy lifting so far, with about an 8 to 1 death ratio in the Russians favor. Ukraine is on the ropes, and the Russians are advancing West right now. The 30K to 35K Western trained troops are going to not make any difference.
The most frightening thing I can think of is the claim that a nuke is going to go off by a former US general. This sounds to me like the promise of a pipeline getting blown up.
That is what war is for.
Who are you referring to Putin or Biden ? LOL
I blame Biden more!!!
You blame Biden as much as Putin?
Really? You eternal contrarians are insane!
LOL, Biden isn’t even running the show in the U.S. Are you kidding me? He’s like an Undead corpse-puppet what his handlers kind of move his arms around and get his lips to speak occasionally. He’s been totally coopted by the neocons and the woke; the woke, in an absurdly bizarre turn of events, being the water-carriers now for the neocons and neoliberals (just check out how every giant corporation in America has integrated a pride flag into their corporate logos this week and you’ll see what I mean).
Any meaningful movements on the left have been completely coopted by the military-industrial complex as well here–and many of us are just dangling out there, politically homeless and generally despised for our anti-war views and views on diplomacy.
But, you know what? Once the nukes start falling and at least I’ll be able to smugly say “I told you so” as mine and the rest of my family’s face melts off. Because tactical nukes will escalate to ICBMS, guaranteed.
Biden is the 21st century Dr. Strangelove.
Yeah, “woke capital” is a real thing. Funny how the wokester “leftists” are great fans of Big Business whenever it toes their ideological line. The remaining real leftists should be appalled — all seven of them.
Yeah, “woke capital” is a real thing. Funny how the wokester “leftists” are great fans of Big Business whenever it toes their ideological line. The remaining real leftists should be appalled — all seven of them.
Putin is head of a gangster state, whilst Biden represents a warmongering movement of very wealthy folk intent on world domination. Biden is worse. How did the US respond to the Cuban missile crisis and Cuba’s sovereignty? Hypocrisy much? We are supposed to be the good guys….. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine in the race for resources that enriches the elite and is paid for on thd taxpayers tab.
LOL, Biden isn’t even running the show in the U.S. Are you kidding me? He’s like an Undead corpse-puppet what his handlers kind of move his arms around and get his lips to speak occasionally. He’s been totally coopted by the neocons and the woke; the woke, in an absurdly bizarre turn of events, being the water-carriers now for the neocons and neoliberals (just check out how every giant corporation in America has integrated a pride flag into their corporate logos this week and you’ll see what I mean).
Any meaningful movements on the left have been completely coopted by the military-industrial complex as well here–and many of us are just dangling out there, politically homeless and generally despised for our anti-war views and views on diplomacy.
But, you know what? Once the nukes start falling and at least I’ll be able to smugly say “I told you so” as mine and the rest of my family’s face melts off. Because tactical nukes will escalate to ICBMS, guaranteed.
Biden is the 21st century Dr. Strangelove.
Putin is head of a gangster state, whilst Biden represents a warmongering movement of very wealthy folk intent on world domination. Biden is worse. How did the US respond to the Cuban missile crisis and Cuba’s sovereignty? Hypocrisy much? We are supposed to be the good guys….. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine in the race for resources that enriches the elite and is paid for on thd taxpayers tab.
Part of any Russian decision to use tactical nuclear weapons has to be an evaluation of how likely it is that the weapons will actually work as designed, and how Russian soldiers will react.
The reliability of Russian military equipment and ammunition in Ukraine has been spotty at best. At least 5 to 10% of conventional Russian missiles misfire or fall short. Firing the nuclear versions of these weapons is not an attractive option. They could detonate in Russia or on Russian held Ukrainian territory.
The dud rate is also a problem. If Putin uses a nuke, and it fails to detonate, Putin gets huge embarrassment. The corruption rampant in the Russian military makes this outcome possible, even probable. Nuclear weapons require careful component storage and maintenance. They’re fragile. The overall Russian record on Russian military storage and maintenance is really poor. The weapons have to be assembled and readied by technical people who know what they’re doing.
If the Ukrainians pick up a Russian dud nuke, nothing will stop them from rebuilding it and using it on Belgorod, Russia. Ukraine most certainly has the knowledge to do it.
None of the Russian troops in Ukraine have been issued any protection equipment for nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. Some barely have complete uniforms and are using bolt action rifles designed for World War I. Hardly any have been trained for NBC. They are in no condition to suvive the use of NBC on the battlefield. They would most likely flee in panic from any use of NBC.
My guess is that beyond the usual risk considerations of nuclear retaliation, Putin has to worry, a lot, about the reliability of his nuclear weapons and soldiers. Combining all these risks, in my opinion, increases the uncertainty to the point that no rational Russian Commander in Chief would order a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Even if Putin isn’t completely rational, his subordinates definitely are. They could react to an order to use nukes by overthrowing Putin.
You’ve forgotten something. Russia is a signatory and guarantor of the Budapest Agreement of 1994. Other parties are the US and the UK. In return for the surrender of its Soviet-era nukes, newly independent Ukraine received guarantees of its territorial integrity. In 2014, Putin first started what was a well-rehearsed plan to over-turn that treaty when his little green men over-turned Ukrainian rule in Crimea. Following Russia’s botched invasion in February 2022, it is abundantly clear that Ukraine has no wish to return to Russian rule. As upholders of the rules-based international order which has under-pinned the international system since 1945, the US and UK have a vested interest, if not an obligation, in assisting Ukraine resist Russian imperialism.
If Putin does actually use nukes, he starts World War 3 in which Russia will be the loser. In the east, Japan will retake the Northern Territories and most probably Sakhalin Island. China will take Vladivostok and Siberia as far west as Lake Baikal, which China has long coveted as a fresh water resource. In the West, the Poles will take Kaliningrad. The Finns could potentially sever the Karelian peninsular, isolating Murmansk. In the Caucasus, the Turks could move north towards Baku. The downside for Russia is potentially massive, and it can’t irradiate its entire perimeter.
There’s actually scope for a grand bargain, in which Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine including Crimea, thus honouring its 1994 treaty obligation. This shouldn’t be too much to ask. In exchange, the West guarantees Russia’s borders, in order to prevent Chinese seizure of the Russian Far East. Such a development would result in China becoming the undisputed hegemon of Asia, something that is not in the Western interest at all.
Russia’s signature on anything means nothing
Russia’s signature on anything means nothing
putin
Sliding down the razor blade of escalation ending in nuclear war. God Help us.
If Biden has not grown up yet he never will.
“I blame Biden almost as much as I blame Putin”
This statement right here — this “they’re all equally bad” grotesque moral equivalence — is largely how we got here. It brought us Trump, Brexit, Putin apologists, vaccine conspiracy theories, and on and on.
I’m so depressed.
A vote for Biden was a vote for war. Say what you will about Trump, but he didn’t start or accelerate any conflicts and for the most part had a very decent foreign policy record. Trump is a builder, a contractor- not a destroyer. Biden, on the other hand, is a part of the Washington military machine and was just itching to go once in office.
Bring it. Putin has more balls than the entire American government. I hope he hits DC. Anything that ruins the permanent government in this country is a good thing.
I appreciate UnHerd as a forum for politically incorrect viewpoints but too often it’s a haven for bad actors, in this case crypto-Putinists.
The problem with that is what happens next? If the US forces the Ukrainians to effectively surrender and lose large swathes of its nation, what’s to stop Putin simply trying again in 5 years once he’s rearmed? He can just threaten to drop a nuke and keep biting off pieces of other nation’s territory whenever the mood takes him.
Ukraine once the conflict has finished already has a massive job repairing the damage caused by Putins reenactment of the blitz. It’s going to be a fine balancing act between rebuilding and keeping its armed forces sufficiently strong to try and guard its borders, the last thing it needs is Putin feeling emboldened to try again in the near future
Negotiation, negotiation! Talk, talk, jaw, jaw. For goodness sake, why can’t we just calm down and talk things through! Discussion, debate and old fashioned horse trading, ever the thinking man’s solution to any conflict and, of course, everybody likes a good sensible compromise or a ‘binding treaty’ of some sort. Yet surely you remember Chamberlain’s hope for ‘peace in our time’ and what about that Hitler/Stalin pact of non-aggression?
Who could forget the selling out of South Vietnam to the communist North – and the waves of refugee ‘boat people’ that followed from that reasonable compromise. Well, just about everybody seems to have forgotten that one.
Let’s not forget the never-ending stand-off between North and South Korea. How’s that working out for South East Asia? While we’re on that topic, what about that reasonable, negotiated handing back of Hong Kong to China? Worked out well for the citizens of Hong Kong didn’t it? Perhaps Taiwan can look forward a similar fortunate outcome when the great powers get round the negotiating table. Still, at least we’ll have peace in our time.
Biden doesn’t know what day it is. The Democrats and their enablers in the media and three letter agencies have destabilized the entire world by putting that senile old pervert in office. If we have a real crisis no one will be able to act for the US.
How does a compromise work? If Ukraine gives up some of its territory, will Putin be satisfied? His original goal was the annexation of Ukraine so what evidence is there that he will be satisfied with part of it? He would be happy to turn Ukraine into an unpopulated radioactive wasteland which would serve as a buffer against the west. And the west has nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons against Russia. What would be the point?
Hmm…
“Slowly but surely the use of nukes by Russia is normalized as a real possibility…” Normalised by Russia, that is. Pinning that on the band of incompetents in the White House is, for once, unfair.
“The unstated answer is they’ll also use nukes…” That half-sentence does a lot of heavy lifting. Sometimes something is unstated because it’s not what someone is actually thinking.
So if Putin wants the Baltics back, and threatens nukes, what will you do?
Once you give in to blackmail, you simply concede more and more.
The fact is that if Putin actually activated the Russian Army to simply go all the way to the Polish and Romanian borders, that would easely happen, because there is very little of the Ukrainian military left at this point. Those 35K being trained abroad will not make a difference. Why use a Nuke?
You cannot negotiate with a person of unsound mind who doesnt keep his word.
I blame Biden more!!!
You blame Biden as much as Putin?
Really? You eternal contrarians are insane!
Part of any Russian decision to use tactical nuclear weapons has to be an evaluation of how likely it is that the weapons will actually work as designed, and how Russian soldiers will react.
The reliability of Russian military equipment and ammunition in Ukraine has been spotty at best. At least 5 to 10% of conventional Russian missiles misfire or fall short. Firing the nuclear versions of these weapons is not an attractive option. They could detonate in Russia or on Russian held Ukrainian territory.
The dud rate is also a problem. If Putin uses a nuke, and it fails to detonate, Putin gets huge embarrassment. The corruption rampant in the Russian military makes this outcome possible, even probable. Nuclear weapons require careful component storage and maintenance. They’re fragile. The overall Russian record on Russian military storage and maintenance is really poor. The weapons have to be assembled and readied by technical people who know what they’re doing.
If the Ukrainians pick up a Russian dud nuke, nothing will stop them from rebuilding it and using it on Belgorod, Russia. Ukraine most certainly has the knowledge to do it.
None of the Russian troops in Ukraine have been issued any protection equipment for nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. Some barely have complete uniforms and are using bolt action rifles designed for World War I. Hardly any have been trained for NBC. They are in no condition to suvive the use of NBC on the battlefield. They would most likely flee in panic from any use of NBC.
My guess is that beyond the usual risk considerations of nuclear retaliation, Putin has to worry, a lot, about the reliability of his nuclear weapons and soldiers. Combining all these risks, in my opinion, increases the uncertainty to the point that no rational Russian Commander in Chief would order a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Even if Putin isn’t completely rational, his subordinates definitely are. They could react to an order to use nukes by overthrowing Putin.
You’ve forgotten something. Russia is a signatory and guarantor of the Budapest Agreement of 1994. Other parties are the US and the UK. In return for the surrender of its Soviet-era nukes, newly independent Ukraine received guarantees of its territorial integrity. In 2014, Putin first started what was a well-rehearsed plan to over-turn that treaty when his little green men over-turned Ukrainian rule in Crimea. Following Russia’s botched invasion in February 2022, it is abundantly clear that Ukraine has no wish to return to Russian rule. As upholders of the rules-based international order which has under-pinned the international system since 1945, the US and UK have a vested interest, if not an obligation, in assisting Ukraine resist Russian imperialism.
If Putin does actually use nukes, he starts World War 3 in which Russia will be the loser. In the east, Japan will retake the Northern Territories and most probably Sakhalin Island. China will take Vladivostok and Siberia as far west as Lake Baikal, which China has long coveted as a fresh water resource. In the West, the Poles will take Kaliningrad. The Finns could potentially sever the Karelian peninsular, isolating Murmansk. In the Caucasus, the Turks could move north towards Baku. The downside for Russia is potentially massive, and it can’t irradiate its entire perimeter.
There’s actually scope for a grand bargain, in which Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine including Crimea, thus honouring its 1994 treaty obligation. This shouldn’t be too much to ask. In exchange, the West guarantees Russia’s borders, in order to prevent Chinese seizure of the Russian Far East. Such a development would result in China becoming the undisputed hegemon of Asia, something that is not in the Western interest at all.
putin
Sliding down the razor blade of escalation ending in nuclear war. God Help us.
If Biden has not grown up yet he never will.
“I blame Biden almost as much as I blame Putin”
This statement right here — this “they’re all equally bad” grotesque moral equivalence — is largely how we got here. It brought us Trump, Brexit, Putin apologists, vaccine conspiracy theories, and on and on.
I’m so depressed.
A vote for Biden was a vote for war. Say what you will about Trump, but he didn’t start or accelerate any conflicts and for the most part had a very decent foreign policy record. Trump is a builder, a contractor- not a destroyer. Biden, on the other hand, is a part of the Washington military machine and was just itching to go once in office.
Bring it. Putin has more balls than the entire American government. I hope he hits DC. Anything that ruins the permanent government in this country is a good thing.
I appreciate UnHerd as a forum for politically incorrect viewpoints but too often it’s a haven for bad actors, in this case crypto-Putinists.
The author says Putin is laying the groundwork for his nation to accept his use of nuclear weapons. I feel something similar is happening to us in the West with respect to our own use of nuclear weapons.
In yesterday’s edition of Unherd, a Ukrainian politician was interviewed by Freddie Sayers. In summary, she said that only victory in this war was acceptable to Ukraine; that Ukraine intended to take back all its territory, including Crimea; and Ukraine was conducting cross-border raids into Russia as tactical moves when needed (she was a bit cagey about the use of US equipment in those raids). When this war started Biden supposedly set clear limits on what Ukrainian actions America would support. One by one those limits have been set aside and attacks on the Russian homeland are now acceptable.
In the current article, a retired US general makes a convincing case, imo, that Putin is ready to use nukes, and even describes a likely scenario for use of nukes. Slowly but surely the use of nukes by Russia is normalized as a real possibility, and the only question (actually, the really big question) is what will the West (meaning the US) do if Putin uses nukes. The unstated answer is they’ll also use nukes, or perhaps unleash a cyberattack that will prompt a stronger response from Putin.
In my opinion, we are being walked one small step at a time to a nuclear conflict. I know this opinion won’t be popular on Unherd, but I blame Biden almost as much as I blame Putin. It’s time he grew up as a statesman and worked toward a negotiated end to the war. Negotiation and compromise are not dirty words.
“As soon as Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the fallout will start to spread.”
Yes. And half of the spread would be north and east over Belarus and Russia.
“Meanwhile, claims that Putin would be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by important allies, such as China or India, are not borne out by the war thus far.”
Except that is NOT what the evidence shows. Russian leaders have repeatedly threatened all sorts of escalation and dire consequences and not a single one has occurred. I seem to recall them saying that Finland and Sweden mustn’t join NATO. Well Finland has. And Sweden will.
Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the author’s claim here.
If Putin is mad enough to attempt to use nuclear weapons there’s not a great deal we can do to stop him.
Very little ‘fallout’ if ‘air bursts’ are properly executed.
It’s not rocket science!*
(*Apologies for the pun!)
True. Speaks to the general’s lack of candor or knowledge. Me=USAF Systems Analyst Officer 26th Air Division NORAD, 1972-1974. My wartime duty was to plot the spread of fallout from ground bursts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
True. Speaks to the general’s lack of candor or knowledge. Me=USAF Systems Analyst Officer 26th Air Division NORAD, 1972-1974. My wartime duty was to plot the spread of fallout from ground bursts.
Very little ‘fallout’ if ‘air bursts’ are properly executed.
It’s not rocket science!*
(*Apologies for the pun!)
“As soon as Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the fallout will start to spread.”
Yes. And half of the spread would be north and east over Belarus and Russia.
“Meanwhile, claims that Putin would be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by important allies, such as China or India, are not borne out by the war thus far.”
Except that is NOT what the evidence shows. Russian leaders have repeatedly threatened all sorts of escalation and dire consequences and not a single one has occurred. I seem to recall them saying that Finland and Sweden mustn’t join NATO. Well Finland has. And Sweden will.
Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the author’s claim here.
If Putin is mad enough to attempt to use nuclear weapons there’s not a great deal we can do to stop him.
All the evidence supports the view that Putin wants the West to be frightened that he will use nuclear weapons. The West does need to spell out that it would lead to a massive increase in the defence of Ukraine, not a capitulation. You either stand up to a bully or live in fear.
No it won’t.
The American people are sick of funding this war.
Spelling it out is a threat that costs nothing. If effective it saves money.
If Putin attains his goals he will invest in arms and over time it will cost the US far more as it escalates its defence in response to that.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Only the ones not in power are sick of it. Everyone else seems to love it, the former anti-war protesters, the media, the military industrial complex and the anti-fossil fuel brigades. Even the Ukrainian oligarchs, who launder the unaccountable $600 billion U.S. dollars. It’s nirvana for all of them as they are all riding on the same gravy train.
Unfortunately, not enough of them. The great majority of Dem supporters seem to believe that since it’s their guy rattling the sabre, it must be a good thing. And many in the GOP are simply following suit with their neo-con CINO figureheads.
Spelling it out is a threat that costs nothing. If effective it saves money.
If Putin attains his goals he will invest in arms and over time it will cost the US far more as it escalates its defence in response to that.
Only the ones not in power are sick of it. Everyone else seems to love it, the former anti-war protesters, the media, the military industrial complex and the anti-fossil fuel brigades. Even the Ukrainian oligarchs, who launder the unaccountable $600 billion U.S. dollars. It’s nirvana for all of them as they are all riding on the same gravy train.
Unfortunately, not enough of them. The great majority of Dem supporters seem to believe that since it’s their guy rattling the sabre, it must be a good thing. And many in the GOP are simply following suit with their neo-con CINO figureheads.
That doesn’t work when the bully can kill 200 million people with the push of a button
No it won’t.
The American people are sick of funding this war.
That doesn’t work when the bully can kill 200 million people with the push of a button
All the evidence supports the view that Putin wants the West to be frightened that he will use nuclear weapons. The West does need to spell out that it would lead to a massive increase in the defence of Ukraine, not a capitulation. You either stand up to a bully or live in fear.
Perhaps we can arrange a meeting between Biden and Putin, and Biden can fell down on top of him. They’ll never see it coming!
Perhaps we can arrange a meeting between Biden and Putin, and Biden can fell down on top of him. They’ll never see it coming!
The standard of articles on Unherd is usually high but some of the headlines they concoct are more like click bait.
Yes, common issue, not just in Unherd. Of course, it’s not the author, it’s always the subbies.
In this case it seems a fair summary of the article.
Even if one only bets on most unlikely outcomes, once in a while you will win!
Yes, common issue, not just in Unherd. Of course, it’s not the author, it’s always the subbies.
In this case it seems a fair summary of the article.
Even if one only bets on most unlikely outcomes, once in a while you will win!
The standard of articles on Unherd is usually high but some of the headlines they concoct are more like click bait.
“Here’s Why My Fatalistic Prediction Is a Foregone Conclusion: Version Ten-Million-and-Two”–yeah maybe, but it’s still an opinionated guesstimate and the article relies more on certitude and forceful assertion than fact.
By the time General Ryan gets round to what to do about the impending nuclear new-normal he has little more than this: “we should anticipate a nuclear attack and develop possible responses”–like the Duck and Cover strategy of the 50s and 60s? I think we already have some prospective responses, as pitiful and insufficient as they’ll be.
I’m not saying Ryan doesn’t know things I don’t or that he can’t say and he might very well be righter than I’ll let myself admit. But the tone of this article is one of unhelpful doomsaying (his plausible rejection of nukes as “civilisation-ending” notwithstanding) or weird resignation that recalls the subtitle of the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove…”How I Learned to Stop Worrrying and Love the Bomb”.
“Here’s Why My Fatalistic Prediction Is a Foregone Conclusion: Version Ten-Million-and-Two”–yeah maybe, but it’s still an opinionated guesstimate and the article relies more on certitude and forceful assertion than fact.
By the time General Ryan gets round to what to do about the impending nuclear new-normal he has little more than this: “we should anticipate a nuclear attack and develop possible responses”–like the Duck and Cover strategy of the 50s and 60s? I think we already have some prospective responses, as pitiful and insufficient as they’ll be.
I’m not saying Ryan doesn’t know things I don’t or that he can’t say and he might very well be righter than I’ll let myself admit. But the tone of this article is one of unhelpful doomsaying (his plausible rejection of nukes as “civilisation-ending” notwithstanding) or weird resignation that recalls the subtitle of the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove…”How I Learned to Stop Worrrying and Love the Bomb”.
I wish General Ryan would learn that writing is like intelligence services in war. The stronger the evidence, the better. Or explain how your experience predicts certain outcomes.
The story repeats the same use-nuke speculations going around for the past year. There’s nothing new here. “All signs” point to nuclear war? They do? If that IS true then he should be writing about the responses.
Write to win new territory, General. Please don’t write to publish something you’ll talk about at some boring dinner party. Insight wins here. Hiding in a bunker won’t get you anywhere. Take some risks.
As for Unherd. To you I say, this should not have been published. You should have challenged him to write the “unherd”. Otherwise, what is the point of Unherd again?
My impression as well.
Nothing here which could not be written without knowledge and experience of army general.
My impression as well.
Nothing here which could not be written without knowledge and experience of army general.
I wish General Ryan would learn that writing is like intelligence services in war. The stronger the evidence, the better. Or explain how your experience predicts certain outcomes.
The story repeats the same use-nuke speculations going around for the past year. There’s nothing new here. “All signs” point to nuclear war? They do? If that IS true then he should be writing about the responses.
Write to win new territory, General. Please don’t write to publish something you’ll talk about at some boring dinner party. Insight wins here. Hiding in a bunker won’t get you anywhere. Take some risks.
As for Unherd. To you I say, this should not have been published. You should have challenged him to write the “unherd”. Otherwise, what is the point of Unherd again?
The lesson from the last 77 years without nuclear war is that those armed with nuclear weapons have to be given sufficient room to think they’re not losing with conventional weapons so they don’t reach for nuclear weapons. If we don’t, any use of tactical nuclear weapons will quickly lead to full scale nuclear war.
Take Vietnam. The Soviets could have easily ramped up support for the North with the best Soviet weapons to the point where the USA would have no option but to escalate to tactical nuclear. The Soviets did not furnish the North with the best weapons systems. The USA did think it could win conventionally. And the USA was convinced of this for enough time to pass for it to slowly lose interest, for a new leadership team to take over, and for the USA to decide on its own terms when to quit. Ultimately the West prevailed in Vietnam and it is now thoroughly subsumed into the Western economic system.
If we were to apply this lesson to Ukraine, we needed to supply only enough conventional intermediate weaponry to defend Ukraine, but not enough for Ukraine to attack Russia directly. Then let the war play out, Russia convinced it is tactically winning, Ukraine holding a defensive line for the rest of Europe, and wait for a natural leadership change in Russia, and a slow – not rapid – realisation in Russia that winning the war will not achieve the strategic gains originally expected.
Yes, this approach makes Ukraine a meat grinder of a war for the Ukrainians and perhaps even leads to a division of the country, but the alternative will be full scale nuclear war in Europe.
“Ultimately the West prevailed in Vietnam and it is now thoroughly subsumed into the Western economic system. ”
You need Government permission to buy a microwave oven in Vietnam.
A microwave oven made in Vietnam for a Western brand (I include Japan and S.Korea here) by a JV between a Western firm and a local company owning a factory built with Western investment supplied with components from across Asia and trading using the US dollar.
A microwave oven made in Vietnam for a Western brand (I include Japan and S.Korea here) by a JV between a Western firm and a local company owning a factory built with Western investment supplied with components from across Asia and trading using the US dollar.
I surmise you are not Ukrainian. It is always easy to give away other people’s money, or in this case, parts of their country
It’s easy for a buffoon like Boris Johnson to give away British tax- payers money to a horribly corrupt regime led by a crook who has jailed his political opponents and completely hi jacked the media.
Thank you, Mr Putin’s spokesman, for taking the time to join us here
That is very childish.
Provoke Russia and this is what you get.
Russia provoked NATO by invading Ukraine, not vice-versa.
Also in doing so, they proved to all of the other ‘formerly Soviet-occupied’ countries that joining NATO was the right move.
And what about the ten years of Western needling and provoking before Putin invaded? I agree that he’s a thug and his invasion a bad thing. But in no sane universe does that let us off the hook. We poked a bear for a decade and then he reacts in way we didn’t anticipate! I’m shocked, shocked!
No, you have back to front.
And what about the ten years of Western needling and provoking before Putin invaded? I agree that he’s a thug and his invasion a bad thing. But in no sane universe does that let us off the hook. We poked a bear for a decade and then he reacts in way we didn’t anticipate! I’m shocked, shocked!
No, you have back to front.
Russia provoked NATO by invading Ukraine, not vice-versa.
Also in doing so, they proved to all of the other ‘formerly Soviet-occupied’ countries that joining NATO was the right move.
That is very childish.
Provoke Russia and this is what you get.
Thank you, Mr Putin’s spokesman, for taking the time to join us here
It’s a mistake to talk about us giving away parts of another country. There have to be limits in such a conflict as to how much help neighbours give. When that limit is reached those neighbours or not thereby giving away parts of another country, but simply refusing any further assistance.
If someone steals money from you and I do nothing, I am not giving away your money.
If Russia steals Ukrainian territory and the UK does nothing, the UK is not giving away Ukrainian territory.
If I help you attack the person that stole your money, I risk being hurt but global nuclear armageddon won’t happen.
If the UK helps Ukraine attack Russia, the UK and the world is at risk of nuclear armageddon.
Using morality and emotion to address the problem of Russia invading Ukraine is the heart over head response that has bedevilled the opening 2 decades 21st century, and not just in war.
If Russia steals Ukrainian territory, then China will steal Taiwanese, Japanese, Philippine, and maybe South Korean territory… Also, Russia won’t stop at Ukraine – they see the Baltic NATO nations (and anything that was once part of the USSR) as ‘their provinces’….
It’s like WWII – eventually, some asshat will attack a country that is a treaty-ally & we’ll have to fight a much-stronger/more-capable enemy than the one we would face if we just kicked their ass right-now…
The threat being faced, is to the post-WWII taboo of ‘taking land by military force’.
If Russia is defeated, the rule will be reinforced, future Russian aggression will be prevented & other countries (China) will be deterred.
Also, Russia will be prevented from regaining the factories/production-facilities they lost when the USSR broke up (which is a huge issue – the USSR’s love of one-huge-factory to make any given thing, and the relative broke-ness of post-Soviet Russia = there’s a lot of defense production capacity they wish to recapture intact)….
If Russia steals Ukrainian territory, then China will steal Taiwanese, Japanese, Philippine, and maybe South Korean territory… Also, Russia won’t stop at Ukraine – they see the Baltic NATO nations (and anything that was once part of the USSR) as ‘their provinces’….
It’s like WWII – eventually, some asshat will attack a country that is a treaty-ally & we’ll have to fight a much-stronger/more-capable enemy than the one we would face if we just kicked their ass right-now…
The threat being faced, is to the post-WWII taboo of ‘taking land by military force’.
If Russia is defeated, the rule will be reinforced, future Russian aggression will be prevented & other countries (China) will be deterred.
Also, Russia will be prevented from regaining the factories/production-facilities they lost when the USSR broke up (which is a huge issue – the USSR’s love of one-huge-factory to make any given thing, and the relative broke-ness of post-Soviet Russia = there’s a lot of defense production capacity they wish to recapture intact)….
It’s easy for a buffoon like Boris Johnson to give away British tax- payers money to a horribly corrupt regime led by a crook who has jailed his political opponents and completely hi jacked the media.
It’s a mistake to talk about us giving away parts of another country. There have to be limits in such a conflict as to how much help neighbours give. When that limit is reached those neighbours or not thereby giving away parts of another country, but simply refusing any further assistance.
If someone steals money from you and I do nothing, I am not giving away your money.
If Russia steals Ukrainian territory and the UK does nothing, the UK is not giving away Ukrainian territory.
If I help you attack the person that stole your money, I risk being hurt but global nuclear armageddon won’t happen.
If the UK helps Ukraine attack Russia, the UK and the world is at risk of nuclear armageddon.
Using morality and emotion to address the problem of Russia invading Ukraine is the heart over head response that has bedevilled the opening 2 decades 21st century, and not just in war.
The problem is they already have most of what they want.
Either they win quick or Europe never is the same.
Russia can’t keep what it has without perpetuating the war. The USA had half of Vietnam and had stopped the expansion of communism so it appeared to have what it wanted, but to keep all of that required continued intense fighting. Russia isn’t winning quick. Ukraine isn’t losing quick. Both sides are bogged down. The promised summer offensive by Ukraine hasn’t happened (yet). If the war tempo slows a bit and direct attacks on Russia stop, the fighting can continue without anyone reaching for the big red button until the political environment can catch up and change.
The Ukrainian Army has 9 newly trained armored brigades that didn’t participate in winter fighting. Most of these brigades were NATO trained. The Russians have no comparable fresh mobile reserves. It’s been rainy, so it’s still too muddy for Ukraine’s offensive.
Last year, Russia had to abandon all occupied territory north of the Dnipro River, including Kherson, because Ukraine dropped all the bridges over the Dnipro. The Russians couldn’t supply their forces north of the river.
Suppose that by the end of summer, the Ukrainians take Melitopol, destroy the Kerch Strait Bridges with Storm Shadow cruise missiles, and cut off all rail supply routes to the Crimea. This would force Russia to abandon the Crimea because they can’t supply it by sea, especially if Crimean ports are under air and sea drone attack.
The Ukrainian military can do the above with forces and ammunition it has on hand or have been promised for delivery in the next month or two. It will not require any F-16 aircraft, US M-1 Abrams tanks or exotic new equipment.
No frozen conflict is required. A Russian evacuation by sea would be a mess. They don’t have the capacity for a Dunkirk. It would be an obvious, disastrous Russian defeat.
If you are correct, then surely it is time to deploy the ‘Queen’ of the battlefield, otherwise known as the tactical Nuke?
If you are correct, then surely it is time to deploy the ‘Queen’ of the battlefield, otherwise known as the tactical Nuke?
The Ukrainian Army has 9 newly trained armored brigades that didn’t participate in winter fighting. Most of these brigades were NATO trained. The Russians have no comparable fresh mobile reserves. It’s been rainy, so it’s still too muddy for Ukraine’s offensive.
Last year, Russia had to abandon all occupied territory north of the Dnipro River, including Kherson, because Ukraine dropped all the bridges over the Dnipro. The Russians couldn’t supply their forces north of the river.
Suppose that by the end of summer, the Ukrainians take Melitopol, destroy the Kerch Strait Bridges with Storm Shadow cruise missiles, and cut off all rail supply routes to the Crimea. This would force Russia to abandon the Crimea because they can’t supply it by sea, especially if Crimean ports are under air and sea drone attack.
The Ukrainian military can do the above with forces and ammunition it has on hand or have been promised for delivery in the next month or two. It will not require any F-16 aircraft, US M-1 Abrams tanks or exotic new equipment.
No frozen conflict is required. A Russian evacuation by sea would be a mess. They don’t have the capacity for a Dunkirk. It would be an obvious, disastrous Russian defeat.
Russia can’t keep what it has without perpetuating the war. The USA had half of Vietnam and had stopped the expansion of communism so it appeared to have what it wanted, but to keep all of that required continued intense fighting. Russia isn’t winning quick. Ukraine isn’t losing quick. Both sides are bogged down. The promised summer offensive by Ukraine hasn’t happened (yet). If the war tempo slows a bit and direct attacks on Russia stop, the fighting can continue without anyone reaching for the big red button until the political environment can catch up and change.
Textbook machiavellian but realistic with a real hope for a non nuclear solution.
This kind of reasoning is the reason the US has lost every war since Korea, where we managed a tie. For example, if the US had launched Operation Linebacker II in Vietnam in 1965, or even 1968, we would have suffered fewer casualties and had a much better chance of winning the guerrilla war in South Vietnam. There was no chance the USSR would use nukes there.
In 11 days of unrestricted bombing and mining, the US shut down all the ports in North Vietnam in December, 1972, Linebacker II. North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace in January, 1973.
Once we started bombing the oil tanker trucks ISIS was using to sell oil and buy supplies, it sealed their doom. We also changed the rules of engagement so that we would attack any mlitary target, no matter how many civilian hostages were on site. Those two changes defeated ISIS.
Guerillas need outside sources of supplies to win. If the US fights to not lose, and fails to stop the supplies, we lose. We don’t need to send signals and give opponents off ramps. We need to isolate the battlefield and eliminate the resistance.
Well said.
I trust they still teach this at West Point?
Well said.
I trust they still teach this at West Point?
“Ultimately the West prevailed in Vietnam and it is now thoroughly subsumed into the Western economic system. ”
You need Government permission to buy a microwave oven in Vietnam.
I surmise you are not Ukrainian. It is always easy to give away other people’s money, or in this case, parts of their country
The problem is they already have most of what they want.
Either they win quick or Europe never is the same.
Textbook machiavellian but realistic with a real hope for a non nuclear solution.
This kind of reasoning is the reason the US has lost every war since Korea, where we managed a tie. For example, if the US had launched Operation Linebacker II in Vietnam in 1965, or even 1968, we would have suffered fewer casualties and had a much better chance of winning the guerrilla war in South Vietnam. There was no chance the USSR would use nukes there.
In 11 days of unrestricted bombing and mining, the US shut down all the ports in North Vietnam in December, 1972, Linebacker II. North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace in January, 1973.
Once we started bombing the oil tanker trucks ISIS was using to sell oil and buy supplies, it sealed their doom. We also changed the rules of engagement so that we would attack any mlitary target, no matter how many civilian hostages were on site. Those two changes defeated ISIS.
Guerillas need outside sources of supplies to win. If the US fights to not lose, and fails to stop the supplies, we lose. We don’t need to send signals and give opponents off ramps. We need to isolate the battlefield and eliminate the resistance.
The lesson from the last 77 years without nuclear war is that those armed with nuclear weapons have to be given sufficient room to think they’re not losing with conventional weapons so they don’t reach for nuclear weapons. If we don’t, any use of tactical nuclear weapons will quickly lead to full scale nuclear war.
Take Vietnam. The Soviets could have easily ramped up support for the North with the best Soviet weapons to the point where the USA would have no option but to escalate to tactical nuclear. The Soviets did not furnish the North with the best weapons systems. The USA did think it could win conventionally. And the USA was convinced of this for enough time to pass for it to slowly lose interest, for a new leadership team to take over, and for the USA to decide on its own terms when to quit. Ultimately the West prevailed in Vietnam and it is now thoroughly subsumed into the Western economic system.
If we were to apply this lesson to Ukraine, we needed to supply only enough conventional intermediate weaponry to defend Ukraine, but not enough for Ukraine to attack Russia directly. Then let the war play out, Russia convinced it is tactically winning, Ukraine holding a defensive line for the rest of Europe, and wait for a natural leadership change in Russia, and a slow – not rapid – realisation in Russia that winning the war will not achieve the strategic gains originally expected.
Yes, this approach makes Ukraine a meat grinder of a war for the Ukrainians and perhaps even leads to a division of the country, but the alternative will be full scale nuclear war in Europe.
Nuclear war? Surely that is a mere insignificance compared to the much, much more serious Issues that the world faces on a daily basis? Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, zero carbon?…. that is what people REALLY care about… surely?!!!!
Oops and I forgot transphobia? Whats a giant mushroom cloud wiping out hundreds of thousands of people when put against insulting one trans or gender neutral non binary? Really, Unherd should get its priorities right?
Ooops.. a thousand apologies! I forgot about transphobia! Whats a mushroom cloud and a few hundred thousand dead compared to one offensive word to a non binary trans victim? Get your priorities right Unheard!
O for those happy days when the skies of East Anglia were stuffed with US B 52’s and F 111’s going about their ‘peaceful’ business’, whilst the roads were clogged with terrified Americans driving on the “wrong side”!
Charles, B52s were never stationed in the UK,
although they have visited and number of times.
Thank you.
There were a few at RAF Fairford (Glos) quite recently along with a couple of B-2’s……’just visiting’ as you say.
I gather B52’s used Fairford quite extensively during the completely illegal and entirely
unprovoked assault on Iraq a few years ago.
Thank you.
There were a few at RAF Fairford (Glos) quite recently along with a couple of B-2’s……’just visiting’ as you say.
I gather B52’s used Fairford quite extensively during the completely illegal and entirely
unprovoked assault on Iraq a few years ago.
Glad to be out of there. Now to close the rest of the US bases around the world and let the locals defend themselves.
Charles, B52s were never stationed in the UK,
although they have visited and number of times.
Glad to be out of there. Now to close the rest of the US bases around the world and let the locals defend themselves.
“World ends tomorrow. Women and minorites hit hardest.”
Oops and I forgot transphobia? Whats a giant mushroom cloud wiping out hundreds of thousands of people when put against insulting one trans or gender neutral non binary? Really, Unherd should get its priorities right?
Ooops.. a thousand apologies! I forgot about transphobia! Whats a mushroom cloud and a few hundred thousand dead compared to one offensive word to a non binary trans victim? Get your priorities right Unheard!
O for those happy days when the skies of East Anglia were stuffed with US B 52’s and F 111’s going about their ‘peaceful’ business’, whilst the roads were clogged with terrified Americans driving on the “wrong side”!
“World ends tomorrow. Women and minorites hit hardest.”
Nuclear war? Surely that is a mere insignificance compared to the much, much more serious Issues that the world faces on a daily basis? Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, zero carbon?…. that is what people REALLY care about… surely?!!!!
There is always a risk, but would his subordinates obey? An existential risk to Putin is not neccessarily an existential risk to them and their families. Throwing the Great Kleptocrat from a window might seem the safer option.
Nobody knows, and risk assessments are simply guesses.
A one way trip to Room B39 of the ‘Lubyanka’ is more likely.
After all historically defenestration was the speciality of Bohemians of Prague, was it not?
A one way trip to Room B39 of the ‘Lubyanka’ is more likely.
After all historically defenestration was the speciality of Bohemians of Prague, was it not?
There is always a risk, but would his subordinates obey? An existential risk to Putin is not neccessarily an existential risk to them and their families. Throwing the Great Kleptocrat from a window might seem the safer option.
Nobody knows, and risk assessments are simply guesses.
The problem is that western leaders are clinically insane. I have never seen such a sorry collection of leaders in my lifetime. If Putin uses a tactical nuke, Biden is liable to throw his toys from the pram and launch strategic nukes to show how important he is.
Nothing can be sorted out until Biden is removed from office.
This article is neocon nonsense. What is wrong with these people? They sound rational but are clearly nuts. I grew up in a time when the nuclear weapon was taken seriously. The West has lost it’s mind and the rest of the world is worried. With very good reason for if one weapon goes off they all go off and it is check out time for the human race. The rest of the world wants this war ended and negotiations started . Putin is not threatening their lives or countries. I am not prepared to sacrifice my family for US and UK neocons who have shown no sign of any sense of self preservation at all but seem to think macho posturing is the way to go. Does that make me a so called Putin apologist.? Not macho enough for most of you. Of course not it makes me value the peacemaker and the sane. This is not my war .It is not the war of the African nations, or any of the so called global south.
Bring about a negotiation before the lunatics take us unto hell.
An excellent post, Dave.
100% in agreement.
There are basically three options now for the U.S., as we’ve completely backed ourselves into a corner in refusing negotiations, especially if we continue down this path.
Somehow making sure to trigger Article 5 through provocation, which will happen this summer I believe. This will then send 1000s of U.S. troops to their deaths, which will require more troops, and may then initiate a draft. This will be extremely unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans, who can’t even afford basic bills. This vast death maw will also be most likely caused by tactical nukes as well as conventional weapons. This will then lead to all-out nuclear war.Tactical nukes, even without U.S. involvement, will only make the use of ICBMs and a total holocaust for the world, that much more likely. Again, we have a nuclear holocaust. We were backed into this corner because the left’s peace caucus in the U.S., which was at one time a great bulwark toward abuse, has been effectively silenced, through I believe the work of threats from people like Biden and Pelosi and their bought and sold secret service agencies. But there is more to it than that–the political Left in the U.S. is all in now on war, as well as a whole host of other anti-human things like vaccine mandates and the radical trans movement and it’s use of the medical-industrial complex and Big Pharma, which at one time the Left opposed carte blanche. It’s a shameful time in the United States right now.
An excellent post, Dave.
100% in agreement.
There are basically three options now for the U.S., as we’ve completely backed ourselves into a corner in refusing negotiations, especially if we continue down this path.
Somehow making sure to trigger Article 5 through provocation, which will happen this summer I believe. This will then send 1000s of U.S. troops to their deaths, which will require more troops, and may then initiate a draft. This will be extremely unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans, who can’t even afford basic bills. This vast death maw will also be most likely caused by tactical nukes as well as conventional weapons. This will then lead to all-out nuclear war.Tactical nukes, even without U.S. involvement, will only make the use of ICBMs and a total holocaust for the world, that much more likely. Again, we have a nuclear holocaust. We were backed into this corner because the left’s peace caucus in the U.S., which was at one time a great bulwark toward abuse, has been effectively silenced, through I believe the work of threats from people like Biden and Pelosi and their bought and sold secret service agencies. But there is more to it than that–the political Left in the U.S. is all in now on war, as well as a whole host of other anti-human things like vaccine mandates and the radical trans movement and it’s use of the medical-industrial complex and Big Pharma, which at one time the Left opposed carte blanche. It’s a shameful time in the United States right now.
Don’t be silly, we’re trying to have a serious debate.
Debate ?
Some on here think a debate is one-sided.
Debate ?
Some on here think a debate is one-sided.
Nothing can be sorted out until Biden is removed from office.
This article is neocon nonsense. What is wrong with these people? They sound rational but are clearly nuts. I grew up in a time when the nuclear weapon was taken seriously. The West has lost it’s mind and the rest of the world is worried. With very good reason for if one weapon goes off they all go off and it is check out time for the human race. The rest of the world wants this war ended and negotiations started . Putin is not threatening their lives or countries. I am not prepared to sacrifice my family for US and UK neocons who have shown no sign of any sense of self preservation at all but seem to think macho posturing is the way to go. Does that make me a so called Putin apologist.? Not macho enough for most of you. Of course not it makes me value the peacemaker and the sane. This is not my war .It is not the war of the African nations, or any of the so called global south.
Bring about a negotiation before the lunatics take us unto hell.
Don’t be silly, we’re trying to have a serious debate.
The problem is that western leaders are clinically insane. I have never seen such a sorry collection of leaders in my lifetime. If Putin uses a tactical nuke, Biden is liable to throw his toys from the pram and launch strategic nukes to show how important he is.
Avril Haines is a woman. Perhaps you were thinking of Averell Harriman.
Not good for your credibility, general.
Avril Haines is a woman. Perhaps you were thinking of Averell Harriman.
Not good for your credibility, general.
First, can someone point to the source claiming 8 dead from the Moscow’s drone attack? I have not seen it from Russian sources but who knows, may be I missed it.
Second, I don’t have insight into Putin’s head but from where the claim comes that “ single nuclear strike in Ukraine could thwart a Ukrainian counterattack” given the author talks about the tactical one? And why the author claims that using TNW will change the war in favor of Russia? It is enough to look at the stretched front line to see that no single tactical weapon strike will produce significant impact on operations without significant danger of unintentionally inflicting mass casualties on Russian troops as well. The only way tactical nuclear strikes will be effective if there is a concentration of an enemy force at the safe distance from the frontline. Another scenario will include urban impact with serious civilian casualties. The latter will escalate and mobilize Ukraine and the West even more, and the former is not really a realistic scenario.
So again, while anything may happen, Putin will loose more than gain from using TNW.
First, can someone point to the source claiming 8 dead from the Moscow’s drone attack? I have not seen it from Russian sources but who knows, may be I missed it.
Second, I don’t have insight into Putin’s head but from where the claim comes that “ single nuclear strike in Ukraine could thwart a Ukrainian counterattack” given the author talks about the tactical one? And why the author claims that using TNW will change the war in favor of Russia? It is enough to look at the stretched front line to see that no single tactical weapon strike will produce significant impact on operations without significant danger of unintentionally inflicting mass casualties on Russian troops as well. The only way tactical nuclear strikes will be effective if there is a concentration of an enemy force at the safe distance from the frontline. Another scenario will include urban impact with serious civilian casualties. The latter will escalate and mobilize Ukraine and the West even more, and the former is not really a realistic scenario.
So again, while anything may happen, Putin will loose more than gain from using TNW.
In the end, Ukraine will trade Crimea for peace. It doesn’t have a strong historical claim on the territory, its population is mostly Russian anyway. Its not totally up to the Ukranians, we arm them, and the vulnerability to Ukranian attack on a Russian Crimea will balance Ukranian vulnerabilities. As for historical rights to territory, Crimea was added to Ukraine in 1954, by Stalin, and much of what was Poland was added to western Ukraine in 1939, guess who by? That puts things in perspective, I think.
I think you are correct, save for the fact Ukraine does not hold Crimea right now and will not do so in the future.
Also, I think, it was not Stalin who handed Crimea over to the Ukraine SSR but Khrushchev (the Ukrainian? Khrushchev – he was, in fact, a man of the borderlands).
That is correct.
But bigger issue internationally is change of borders by force (although Kosovo is recent example).
If Putin had any sense he could had raised status of Crimea in UN etc instead of just occupying it.
I am not saying it would work but at least it would provide some semblance of legality.
That is correct.
But bigger issue internationally is change of borders by force (although Kosovo is recent example).
If Putin had any sense he could had raised status of Crimea in UN etc instead of just occupying it.
I am not saying it would work but at least it would provide some semblance of legality.
Also, I think, it was not Stalin who handed Crimea over to the Ukraine SSR but Khrushchev (the Ukrainian? Khrushchev – he was, in fact, a man of the borderlands).
*added by Khruschev in 54
You’re right. my mistake
No worries, it’s mainly interesting because Khrushev was born next to present day Ukrainian border and spent time growing up in Ukraine, so he had a special attachment to the place. Worth reading up why he gave Crimea to Ukraine – as usual with these things there were many different, complex reasons
No worries, it’s mainly interesting because Khrushev was born next to present day Ukrainian border and spent time growing up in Ukraine, so he had a special attachment to the place. Worth reading up why he gave Crimea to Ukraine – as usual with these things there were many different, complex reasons
You’re right. my mistake
But outcome you propose is not enough for Putin to survive.
Unless Ukrainians succeed in their long predicted offensive, why would Russia give up Eastern provinces?
I think you are correct, save for the fact Ukraine does not hold Crimea right now and will not do so in the future.
*added by Khruschev in 54
But outcome you propose is not enough for Putin to survive.
Unless Ukrainians succeed in their long predicted offensive, why would Russia give up Eastern provinces?
In the end, Ukraine will trade Crimea for peace. It doesn’t have a strong historical claim on the territory, its population is mostly Russian anyway. Its not totally up to the Ukranians, we arm them, and the vulnerability to Ukranian attack on a Russian Crimea will balance Ukranian vulnerabilities. As for historical rights to territory, Crimea was added to Ukraine in 1954, by Stalin, and much of what was Poland was added to western Ukraine in 1939, guess who by? That puts things in perspective, I think.
“None of this is to say that we in the West should pressure Ukraine to forgo its goal to liberate all seized territory.”
So it’s escalation then? I frankly see little the West is doing to help bring about a peaceful solution to this crisis.
They want the war to continue.
Biden and the war-mongering Democrats don’t care about the Ukrainian people they are just pawns in this proxy war.
‘Crisis’ downplays the fact that it is a war born of one man’s ego – until Putin repents / is removed, there can be no peace.
They want the war to continue.
Biden and the war-mongering Democrats don’t care about the Ukrainian people they are just pawns in this proxy war.
‘Crisis’ downplays the fact that it is a war born of one man’s ego – until Putin repents / is removed, there can be no peace.
“None of this is to say that we in the West should pressure Ukraine to forgo its goal to liberate all seized territory.”
So it’s escalation then? I frankly see little the West is doing to help bring about a peaceful solution to this crisis.
What can we learn that helps here from history? Nothing yet uttered on the threat to use Nukes by Putin different (or worse) than by Khrushchev in the lead up to the Missile crisis in 62. Subsequently, in part when briefly Soviet records were available in early 90s, became even clearer this was always just sabre rattling. But of course at the time that’s not how it looked to many. JFKs greatest feat of statemanship was how he not only faced down Khrushchev but also resisted the strong desire for pre-emptive action from his own Generals. Khrushchev too had worked himself into a corner to shore up his political support.
It’s therefore no surprise some power sources behind Putin will be pushing this option. The same happened on both sides in 62. But those Generals had fought a Total War only 20yrs earlier and their lower threshold for absolute conflict had been part-determined by that. Nobody in power now in Russia has seen anything like the same and will have lived their life, and their family, largely in peace and relative prosperity.
Whilst we ponder whether Putin would use tactical Nukes they have to ponder what the response would be. It is not an asymmetrical consideration. They have already learned not to underestimate the response of the West. Putin’s successors will want something to inherit too, even if bellicosity a card played now for post Putin positioning.
Ukraine knows that leaving Crimea in Russia hands will always leave it in serious strategic jeopardy. It may be NATO security could facilitate a 38th parallel equivalent that leaves Crimea with Russia, but without that Ukraine has no choice but to try to regain, and especially now whilst it may have a brief advantage. What NATO says the next week or two on Ukraine accession may give us an indication of where and how this ends.
JFK withdrew the ‘nuclear tipped’ Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which was the initial casus belli, was it not?
So strategically a draw.
For Khrushchev, a disaster.
Removed from office afterward for “hare-brained” schemes.
Russians don’t like idiots any more than we do.
Well at least he had a brain
left inside him, unlike JFK a year later.
Interesting! I can’t upvote your comment – something in the UnHerd AI prevents me (tells me I’ve already voted for it). Must be programmed to not encourage conspiracy theories.
Interesting! I can’t upvote your comment – something in the UnHerd AI prevents me (tells me I’ve already voted for it). Must be programmed to not encourage conspiracy theories.
.He was a 70 year old git, removed by a well planned coup executed by Brezhnev & Co.
He offered no resistance.
Incidentally was K actually Ukrainian, as ‘we’ would now say?
As to your remark “Russians don’t like idiots any more than we do”, perhaps not.
That’s why they are going to WIN this one.
We don’t like idiots? Why do we elect so many then?
Fair question. Quite a few voters are more in sympathy with simpletons and fire-starters than “egghead global elites” or “establishment conservatives”.
(not saying that explains it, just one observation)
Fair question. Quite a few voters are more in sympathy with simpletons and fire-starters than “egghead global elites” or “establishment conservatives”.
(not saying that explains it, just one observation)
Well at least he had a brain
left inside him, unlike JFK a year later.
.He was a 70 year old git, removed by a well planned coup executed by Brezhnev & Co.
He offered no resistance.
Incidentally was K actually Ukrainian, as ‘we’ would now say?
As to your remark “Russians don’t like idiots any more than we do”, perhaps not.
That’s why they are going to WIN this one.
We don’t like idiots? Why do we elect so many then?
And JFK insisted his concessions had to be kept secret so he could claim the public victory. The West will always negotiate, but our terms will be that we have to be able to pretend publicly that we didn’t negotiate. And we wonder why they think we’re hypocrites!
A fine tradition dating back to the USS Maine, war entry of 1917, Pearl Harbour and Saddam ‘did’ 9/11.
Clever though wasn’t it. A a few lessons I think for now.
A fine tradition dating back to the USS Maine, war entry of 1917, Pearl Harbour and Saddam ‘did’ 9/11.
Clever though wasn’t it. A a few lessons I think for now.
Yes CS, but in part because he had Polaris and the Jupiters becoming obsolete. I’m not sure it was strategically a ‘draw’. Khrushchev never recovered his prestige and was replaced couple years later. Nonetheless JFK did give him an ‘out’ and there is a lesson for now in that.
K was already on the his ‘way out’ and JKK was greedy a paid the appropriate price.
To my mind that is a draw! Even if a qualified one.
K was already on the his ‘way out’ and JKK was greedy a paid the appropriate price.
To my mind that is a draw! Even if a qualified one.
For Khrushchev, a disaster.
Removed from office afterward for “hare-brained” schemes.
Russians don’t like idiots any more than we do.
And JFK insisted his concessions had to be kept secret so he could claim the public victory. The West will always negotiate, but our terms will be that we have to be able to pretend publicly that we didn’t negotiate. And we wonder why they think we’re hypocrites!
Yes CS, but in part because he had Polaris and the Jupiters becoming obsolete. I’m not sure it was strategically a ‘draw’. Khrushchev never recovered his prestige and was replaced couple years later. Nonetheless JFK did give him an ‘out’ and there is a lesson for now in that.
Khrushchev was an ‘decent’ adversary compared to Putin.
Why do you think that “leaving Crimea in Russian hands etc” places Ukraine in strategic jeopardy?
If Russia aim is still to subdue Ukraine long term then not having Crimea doesn’t make Ukrainian situation that much different.
JFK withdrew the ‘nuclear tipped’ Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which was the initial casus belli, was it not?
So strategically a draw.
Khrushchev was an ‘decent’ adversary compared to Putin.
Why do you think that “leaving Crimea in Russian hands etc” places Ukraine in strategic jeopardy?
If Russia aim is still to subdue Ukraine long term then not having Crimea doesn’t make Ukrainian situation that much different.
What can we learn that helps here from history? Nothing yet uttered on the threat to use Nukes by Putin different (or worse) than by Khrushchev in the lead up to the Missile crisis in 62. Subsequently, in part when briefly Soviet records were available in early 90s, became even clearer this was always just sabre rattling. But of course at the time that’s not how it looked to many. JFKs greatest feat of statemanship was how he not only faced down Khrushchev but also resisted the strong desire for pre-emptive action from his own Generals. Khrushchev too had worked himself into a corner to shore up his political support.
It’s therefore no surprise some power sources behind Putin will be pushing this option. The same happened on both sides in 62. But those Generals had fought a Total War only 20yrs earlier and their lower threshold for absolute conflict had been part-determined by that. Nobody in power now in Russia has seen anything like the same and will have lived their life, and their family, largely in peace and relative prosperity.
Whilst we ponder whether Putin would use tactical Nukes they have to ponder what the response would be. It is not an asymmetrical consideration. They have already learned not to underestimate the response of the West. Putin’s successors will want something to inherit too, even if bellicosity a card played now for post Putin positioning.
Ukraine knows that leaving Crimea in Russia hands will always leave it in serious strategic jeopardy. It may be NATO security could facilitate a 38th parallel equivalent that leaves Crimea with Russia, but without that Ukraine has no choice but to try to regain, and especially now whilst it may have a brief advantage. What NATO says the next week or two on Ukraine accession may give us an indication of where and how this ends.
It will make Eastern European immigration to date look like a drop in the bucket – radiation refugees
It will make Eastern European immigration to date look like a drop in the bucket – radiation refugees
Brainwashed nonsense. Unherd needs to check its contributors. I for one am regretting my subscription to a highly ” herd” war mongering site.
Brainwashed nonsense. Unherd needs to check its contributors. I for one am regretting my subscription to a highly ” herd” war mongering site.
I fear the author is still seeing the Russia of 2021.
Russia is now effectively a vassal of Xi. The latter can beggar Putin at any time by simply stopping purchase of oil and gas.
Nuclear war is bad for business and can get out of hand.
Putin might use nukes if Kyiv were outside Moscow. But he won’t to save two half-provinces in Donbas.
I fear the author is still seeing the Russia of 2021.
Russia is now effectively a vassal of Xi. The latter can beggar Putin at any time by simply stopping purchase of oil and gas.
Nuclear war is bad for business and can get out of hand.
Putin might use nukes if Kyiv were outside Moscow. But he won’t to save two half-provinces in Donbas.
The projection is strong in this one … maybe too strong…
Bb
Bb
The projection is strong in this one … maybe too strong…
I could not wade through this political soldier’s stream of consciousness ‘What If’ TLDR stuff.
Maybe if you Neo-Con Warmongering, Uniparty, Donor Classed owned; Military Industrial Complex stooges were not goading Russia and met at the treaty table this EVIL WAR would have never begun.
Why would Russia use Nukes? They are 100% winning. Ukraine is done.
And if they did, why respond?
FFS, go watch ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.’.
I have seen it. I am surprised that Russian trolls are encouraged to see it. You would find, Emile, that the message is double-edged.
Really?! You think there’s a pro-war message in that movie? Please elaborate!
Really?! You think there’s a pro-war message in that movie? Please elaborate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y
Surely someone liked this epic film?
I’ve always suspected that gratuitous capitalisation betokens incipient mental breakdown. Keep taking the tablets.
It’s leftists that have sociopathic tendancies.
It’s leftists that have sociopathic tendancies.
Yes
Indeed, they took Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson, while freezing both Europe and Ukraine into surrender over the winter.
It’s plain you know a Master Strategist when you see one.
I have seen it. I am surprised that Russian trolls are encouraged to see it. You would find, Emile, that the message is double-edged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y
Surely someone liked this epic film?
I’ve always suspected that gratuitous capitalisation betokens incipient mental breakdown. Keep taking the tablets.
Yes
Indeed, they took Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson, while freezing both Europe and Ukraine into surrender over the winter.
It’s plain you know a Master Strategist when you see one.
I could not wade through this political soldier’s stream of consciousness ‘What If’ TLDR stuff.
Maybe if you Neo-Con Warmongering, Uniparty, Donor Classed owned; Military Industrial Complex stooges were not goading Russia and met at the treaty table this EVIL WAR would have never begun.
Why would Russia use Nukes? They are 100% winning. Ukraine is done.
And if they did, why respond?
FFS, go watch ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.’.
I’m afraid the only way to deter Putin, and avoid the risk of much worse, is to promise an exact quid pro quo. Somehow the Russian people need to understand that they live in a gangster state, that Russia is under no threat except from its own folly, and that attacking another country is not defence.
A gangster state ?
Like Ukraine?
A gangster state ?
Like Ukraine?
I’m afraid the only way to deter Putin, and avoid the risk of much worse, is to promise an exact quid pro quo. Somehow the Russian people need to understand that they live in a gangster state, that Russia is under no threat except from its own folly, and that attacking another country is not defence.
This article is fanciful opinion and fact-free. The author does not appear to understand the tactical or strategic situation in the theater at all.
The reality is that despite Ukraine’s lucky break reconquering the Kharkov oblast, the balance of forces has shifted decisively towards Russia. Russia’s stamina is immense and its military is increasingly formidable, whereas Ukraine is utterly exhausted. The strategic initiative is now with Russia in all sectors, despite this sill happy talk.
You are 100% correct. It’s disturbing that our media isn’t reporting this. I fully expect our governments to lie about war – especially wars we or our allies are losing – but I expected more from even the mainstream corporate media. To your point, the author is an ex-military officer so he must be aware of the reality on the ground. That leaves only intentional misinformation as the motivation for this article.
You are 100% correct. It’s disturbing that our media isn’t reporting this. I fully expect our governments to lie about war – especially wars we or our allies are losing – but I expected more from even the mainstream corporate media. To your point, the author is an ex-military officer so he must be aware of the reality on the ground. That leaves only intentional misinformation as the motivation for this article.
This article is fanciful opinion and fact-free. The author does not appear to understand the tactical or strategic situation in the theater at all.
The reality is that despite Ukraine’s lucky break reconquering the Kharkov oblast, the balance of forces has shifted decisively towards Russia. Russia’s stamina is immense and its military is increasingly formidable, whereas Ukraine is utterly exhausted. The strategic initiative is now with Russia in all sectors, despite this sill happy talk.
This piece is based on a false assumption. That Russia’s leadership has a strategy. It clearly does not.
It lurches from one shambles to another. No one tells Putin the unvarnished truth. They are all terrified of Putin . And he is clearly not being rational.
The other dimension is the kit. Much of it has been vandalised and sold off and stolen. It’s very likely that it won’t actually work.
Most hopefully, you’re correct and Putin’s bellicose utterances can be dismissed as mere Cold War-style nuclear brinkmanship. (Thought I’d seen the last of that word in 1990!)
Russia had an initial strategy – it was to use a limited military operation to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. It actually worked – until the US and UK pushed Ukraine to continue fighting instead.
Now Russia’s strategy is total war – they know they need to defeat the Kiev regime entirely and that is what they are going to do. Ukraine has suffered enormous casualties while Russia has been building combat power in the last 8 months. Ukraine cannot win this war, Russia is going to end it this year and our media and politicians should start telling the truth about that.
Most hopefully, you’re correct and Putin’s bellicose utterances can be dismissed as mere Cold War-style nuclear brinkmanship. (Thought I’d seen the last of that word in 1990!)
Russia had an initial strategy – it was to use a limited military operation to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. It actually worked – until the US and UK pushed Ukraine to continue fighting instead.
Now Russia’s strategy is total war – they know they need to defeat the Kiev regime entirely and that is what they are going to do. Ukraine has suffered enormous casualties while Russia has been building combat power in the last 8 months. Ukraine cannot win this war, Russia is going to end it this year and our media and politicians should start telling the truth about that.
This piece is based on a false assumption. That Russia’s leadership has a strategy. It clearly does not.
It lurches from one shambles to another. No one tells Putin the unvarnished truth. They are all terrified of Putin . And he is clearly not being rational.
The other dimension is the kit. Much of it has been vandalised and sold off and stolen. It’s very likely that it won’t actually work.
I don’t think some readers understand that Ukraine will never negotiate away its land. That “compromise” is off the table. Faced with a gang of thugs, you would not negotiate away half of your house, two of your children, or your left leg and right arm. It’s not going to happen. Ukrainians have been fighting for their land and their freedom for a very long time, and they will continue. They will not negotiate on these points. And, by the way, for anyone in the West who cares about their land and their freedom and is interested in keeping it, take note that Ukrainians are showing what it takes and how to do it.
Your gang of thugs analogy doesn’t work, it is not relevant to the actual situation.
You don’t understand that the longer the conflict runs the LESS choice Ukraine will have.
Crimea is Russian and always has been and always will be. There has been idiotic talk of fighting to the last Ukrainian. This is madness.
Your gang of thugs analogy doesn’t work, it is not relevant to the actual situation.
You don’t understand that the longer the conflict runs the LESS choice Ukraine will have.
Crimea is Russian and always has been and always will be. There has been idiotic talk of fighting to the last Ukrainian. This is madness.
I don’t think some readers understand that Ukraine will never negotiate away its land. That “compromise” is off the table. Faced with a gang of thugs, you would not negotiate away half of your house, two of your children, or your left leg and right arm. It’s not going to happen. Ukrainians have been fighting for their land and their freedom for a very long time, and they will continue. They will not negotiate on these points. And, by the way, for anyone in the West who cares about their land and their freedom and is interested in keeping it, take note that Ukrainians are showing what it takes and how to do it.
So what are the policy consequences of the author’s lucubrations?
So what are the policy consequences of the author’s lucubrations?
How about negotiate a peaceful settlement ?
How about negotiate a peaceful settlement ?
You’re deluded if you think this is about broken cold war promises or some kind of threat that NATO countries pose to Russia. Not true. Bordering NATO countries were perfectly happy to live in harmony with a peaceful Russia. But Putin is a failing dictator who needs an excuse to prop up his regime. So he invades and kills neighbouring citizens to divert domestic attention on the pretence it is to protect the Motherland. He is a bully and must be stopped.
You’re deluded if you think this is about broken cold war promises or some kind of threat that NATO countries pose to Russia. Not true. Bordering NATO countries were perfectly happy to live in harmony with a peaceful Russia. But Putin is a failing dictator who needs an excuse to prop up his regime. So he invades and kills neighbouring citizens to divert domestic attention on the pretence it is to protect the Motherland. He is a bully and must be stopped.
What happened to the Spring offensive we were waiting on? Sounds like Washington and the Neocon military industrial complex is getting desperate as Russian troops march Westward to me.
https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls
It’s still raining too much. The ground is too soft. It hasn’t dried out enough. However, the recent raids by Free Russian forces into Belgorod Oblast were shaping operations, meant to draw Russian troops out of Ukraine to defend Russian borders.
If you think Bakhmut is a significant road junction, explain why the Russians demolished all bridges leading out of town.
It’s still raining too much. The ground is too soft. It hasn’t dried out enough. However, the recent raids by Free Russian forces into Belgorod Oblast were shaping operations, meant to draw Russian troops out of Ukraine to defend Russian borders.
If you think Bakhmut is a significant road junction, explain why the Russians demolished all bridges leading out of town.
What happened to the Spring offensive we were waiting on? Sounds like Washington and the Neocon military industrial complex is getting desperate as Russian troops march Westward to me.
https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls
Meh, there is nothing new about the Russian threats, and moreover Ukraine made it clear they will continue the war in a nuclear environment regardless.
Meh, there is nothing new about the Russian threats, and moreover Ukraine made it clear they will continue the war in a nuclear environment regardless.
I hope he does. I’m fed up with western arrogance and the machinations of the American permanent government.
His first hit should be the Cossak’s nuclear generation plants. They not only supply Ukraine but parts of Western Europe. Let the degenerates in the west grapple with the consequences of their green energy psychosis. Screw Europe. They are degenerate and the UN they support threatens us.
This whole mess is the result of the US permanent government’s meddling in foreign affairs. They have been f*****g other countries for decades. I want to see them ruined by something so ugly they can’t escape the consequences.
The only thing better than what is described here would be if the Russians maaged to smuggle a bomb up the Potomac and vaporize DC. We would be rid of the biggest ghetto in the western hemisphere and 2/3 of the permanent government.
What’s not to like?
The wind blows away from me. Screw anything else.
You’re a loathsome person. You wish death on people because they dare to disagree with you? I see why you like Putin.
You’re a loathsome person. You wish death on people because they dare to disagree with you? I see why you like Putin.
I hope he does. I’m fed up with western arrogance and the machinations of the American permanent government.
His first hit should be the Cossak’s nuclear generation plants. They not only supply Ukraine but parts of Western Europe. Let the degenerates in the west grapple with the consequences of their green energy psychosis. Screw Europe. They are degenerate and the UN they support threatens us.
This whole mess is the result of the US permanent government’s meddling in foreign affairs. They have been f*****g other countries for decades. I want to see them ruined by something so ugly they can’t escape the consequences.
The only thing better than what is described here would be if the Russians maaged to smuggle a bomb up the Potomac and vaporize DC. We would be rid of the biggest ghetto in the western hemisphere and 2/3 of the permanent government.
What’s not to like?
The wind blows away from me. Screw anything else.
I get the impression the neo-conservatives want a nuclear war in Europe.
I get the impression the neo-conservatives want a nuclear war in Europe.
This article assumes that no backdoor conversations have been had between Russia and NATO about the consequences of a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine by Russia. However there have been hints in the past that NATO has made its position clear if Russia escalates in this way. The obvious deterrent is that the use of tactical nuke in Ukraine would trigger full NATO military support for Ukraine in the air, and this would then further humiliate Russia. NATO would not be able to anything less than this in order to maintain its own general deterrent to nuclear blackmail.
This article assumes that no backdoor conversations have been had between Russia and NATO about the consequences of a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine by Russia. However there have been hints in the past that NATO has made its position clear if Russia escalates in this way. The obvious deterrent is that the use of tactical nuke in Ukraine would trigger full NATO military support for Ukraine in the air, and this would then further humiliate Russia. NATO would not be able to anything less than this in order to maintain its own general deterrent to nuclear blackmail.
The real point is that then the West would no longer constrain long range Ukrainian attacks on Russia itself.
Putin is becoming ever more vulnerable as he expends his nuclear-capable missiles on apartments.
He’s about a year too late for nuclear blackmail.
The real point is that then the West would no longer constrain long range Ukrainian attacks on Russia itself.
Putin is becoming ever more vulnerable as he expends his nuclear-capable missiles on apartments.
He’s about a year too late for nuclear blackmail.
Great piece of analysis and I broadly agree. Those who argue this is low risk seldom if ever say why it is low risk. Most of them articulate reasons why nuclear weapons might be used, then offer the opposite conclusion. It seems like they are just fearful of their own conclusions. Two more considerations apply.
Putin has never trusted the military and its competence. It has done nothing but let him down, here in Chechnya, Kursk, failed ICBM launches etc. What if he went to use a tac nuc and it did not work properly, as so much of the Russian military inventory. One of his main cards would be used up for little gain and he would be forced, probably, to escalate to yet more nuclear weapons. So he is nervous of using his last resort not because of its effect but because it might not work.
Second, even for Putin is a big step and to be worth it, the nuc strike needs to be decisive. But there are few targets that meet that criteria. The battle has not consisted of large Armoured formations in the open ready to deploy; or which have been channeled into a nuclear killing area. A tac nuc against dug in forces or dispersed armoured forces are simply not suitable nuclear targets. But of course, if there is a major Ukrainian offensive based on armoured manoeuvre that might change. This is indeed a dangerous moment.
Also, to be decisive a nuclear strike has to be followed up with exploitation by Russian conventional forces. which in turn demands a large, ready and capable manoeuvre element. This the Russians may not have so once again they would have escalated for not much gain.
But this is a very risky moment and I agree with BGen Ryan Analysis.
Great piece of analysis and I broadly agree. Those who argue this is low risk seldom if ever say why it is low risk. Most of them articulate reasons why nuclear weapons might be used, then offer the opposite conclusion. It seems like they are just fearful of their own conclusions. Two more considerations apply.
Putin has never trusted the military and its competence. It has done nothing but let him down, here in Chechnya, Kursk, failed ICBM launches etc. What if he went to use a tac nuc and it did not work properly, as so much of the Russian military inventory. One of his main cards would be used up for little gain and he would be forced, probably, to escalate to yet more nuclear weapons. So he is nervous of using his last resort not because of its effect but because it might not work.
Second, even for Putin is a big step and to be worth it, the nuc strike needs to be decisive. But there are few targets that meet that criteria. The battle has not consisted of large Armoured formations in the open ready to deploy; or which have been channeled into a nuclear killing area. A tac nuc against dug in forces or dispersed armoured forces are simply not suitable nuclear targets. But of course, if there is a major Ukrainian offensive based on armoured manoeuvre that might change. This is indeed a dangerous moment.
Also, to be decisive a nuclear strike has to be followed up with exploitation by Russian conventional forces. which in turn demands a large, ready and capable manoeuvre element. This the Russians may not have so once again they would have escalated for not much gain.
But this is a very risky moment and I agree with BGen Ryan Analysis.
What i hear from Russian expats round here is their ICBMs are as shonky as their conventional munitions, as likely to blow up in their silos/launchers as they are over enemy targets. Their air launched Kinzhal may fair better but only has 10Kt warhead so again not a game changer unless they send 100s of them.
What i hear from Russian expats round here is their ICBMs are as shonky as their conventional munitions, as likely to blow up in their silos/launchers as they are over enemy targets. Their air launched Kinzhal may fair better but only has 10Kt warhead so again not a game changer unless they send 100s of them.
One great lesson of this war, regardless of whether Russia uses such weapons, is that proliferation must be stopped. North Korea and now, Russia, have shown that mere possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient ti create a major military advantage.
The US lacks the guts to stop proliferation. Unless Israel takes outs Iran’s the future is bleak as everyone will want them. And get them.
Wait, I thought Iran’s nuclear intentions were only for peaceful electric generation? That’s what the
Biden administrationMSM told me.Wait, I thought Iran’s nuclear intentions were only for peaceful electric generation? That’s what the
Biden administrationMSM told me.One great lesson of this war, regardless of whether Russia uses such weapons, is that proliferation must be stopped. North Korea and now, Russia, have shown that mere possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient ti create a major military advantage.
The US lacks the guts to stop proliferation. Unless Israel takes outs Iran’s the future is bleak as everyone will want them. And get them.
This whole disaster started with Covid. Putin was said to be terrified of catching Covid and he therefore isolated himself as much as possible. Whilst the rest of the world worried about Covid, Putin worried about how Russia could regain the lands lost with the fall of the USSR. He read avidly everything he could about the Russia of the Czars and the USSR. As Covid became less worrying, with advances in medical care, Putin marshalled his thoughts and laid out how Russia would become great again. His first idea – the Special Military Operation – has spluttered along since the shambolic attack on Kiev. Russian forces have not delivered the knock out blow that the Kremlin insiders so desired or indeed expected.
Going nuclear is a big gamble for Putin. I can only think he would choose this route if he believed there would be no nuclear riposte. I suspect that would not be the case.
I suspect that it is more likely that the current “nomenclatura” will want to hang on to their riches, rather than go down under a nuclear cloud, so I suspect that they will find a way to sideline Putin so that he can enjoy his reputed USD140 billion fortune, away from the Kremlin. If not, given that there are said to be seventeen private armies operating in Russia, the country could implode under a welter of infighting.
This whole disaster started with Covid. Putin was said to be terrified of catching Covid and he therefore isolated himself as much as possible. Whilst the rest of the world worried about Covid, Putin worried about how Russia could regain the lands lost with the fall of the USSR. He read avidly everything he could about the Russia of the Czars and the USSR. As Covid became less worrying, with advances in medical care, Putin marshalled his thoughts and laid out how Russia would become great again. His first idea – the Special Military Operation – has spluttered along since the shambolic attack on Kiev. Russian forces have not delivered the knock out blow that the Kremlin insiders so desired or indeed expected.
Going nuclear is a big gamble for Putin. I can only think he would choose this route if he believed there would be no nuclear riposte. I suspect that would not be the case.
I suspect that it is more likely that the current “nomenclatura” will want to hang on to their riches, rather than go down under a nuclear cloud, so I suspect that they will find a way to sideline Putin so that he can enjoy his reputed USD140 billion fortune, away from the Kremlin. If not, given that there are said to be seventeen private armies operating in Russia, the country could implode under a welter of infighting.
“This time I’m not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really, really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really, really, really not bluffing!”
“But THIS time I’m really, really, really, really, really, really really really really, really…”
“This time I’m not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really, really not bluffing!”
“This time I’m really, really, really, really not bluffing!”
“But THIS time I’m really, really, really, really, really, really really really really, really…”
Convincing. The regime is increasingly ruthless and reckless, and is running out of good options. If Putin was a rational actor, he wouldn’t be where he is.
And he’s in a pretty bad place. All his own doing.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is going to be a military staff college case study in how not to do it for decades if not centuries.
But the article is not in the least convincing for reasons I’ve already given.
If Russia starts losing (which the garbage warmongering racist UK media and elites believe is already happening) then there will be NO military staff colleges in the future.
There will however be an awful lot of beetle nests. Carapace will be king!
Now maybe, just maybe, that would be no bad thing for the planet, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe. Life badly needs a fresh clean start.
I used to believe that there was more goodness than evil in humans. But now have to confess that ultimate mortal sin – I lost faith in humanity as a result of the grotesque cruel madness of humans in response to a rather mild ‘flu’ with an infection fatality rate of ~0.02%.
Gosh Branagan I had you down as a Lockdown freak, but I stand corrected.
Keep it up!
Beside the point…..but seen from Sweden, the lockdown was totally crazy and I lost hope in our leader’s capacity to keep their cool.
For the rest, I would suggest you buy “ The planet of the apes” DVD to see what a clean start means.
I have always thought Putin is crazy / desperate enough to use nukes. If the US reacts like General Petrus suggests, the total annihilation of the Russian army….in Ukraine…..then we’re in for total nuclear escalation.
Looks like you’ll get your clean start after all.
They started losing the moment the idiots invaded Ukraine last February. They clearly don’t need any help from us there.
The goodness:evil ratio doesn’t get any lower than in the Kremlin right now.
Gosh Branagan I had you down as a Lockdown freak, but I stand corrected.
Keep it up!
Beside the point…..but seen from Sweden, the lockdown was totally crazy and I lost hope in our leader’s capacity to keep their cool.
For the rest, I would suggest you buy “ The planet of the apes” DVD to see what a clean start means.
I have always thought Putin is crazy / desperate enough to use nukes. If the US reacts like General Petrus suggests, the total annihilation of the Russian army….in Ukraine…..then we’re in for total nuclear escalation.
Looks like you’ll get your clean start after all.
They started losing the moment the idiots invaded Ukraine last February. They clearly don’t need any help from us there.
The goodness:evil ratio doesn’t get any lower than in the Kremlin right now.
Ukraine has just lowered the age for call up, and I passed last week in the new cemetery fresh graves of those killed in “the east”…aged ranged from 21 to 63 (he would have been a volunteer as upper conscription is 60)
As previously recounted, my wife’s friend’s husband after 14 days training sent “East”………lasted 12 days.
Ukraine has just called off the “flanking” offensive on Bakhmut…after declaring that they had circled the Russians, as reported in MSM. Ask yourself why?
Ask yourself why we are training again another 35K Ukrainians, they started out with a very sizeable army of 700000 active personnel.
Ask yourself why we are sending yet more tanks and armoured vehicles. Ukraine had thousands
Ask yourself why we need to send F16s having sent Ukraine entire airforce worth from Poland,etc.
Ask yourself why we are scrambling to send replacement AD systems, and still greatest air raids happened this week. Russia was supposed to have run out of missiles/ammunition/(place what you want here) months ago.
Ask yourself why Europe needs to try and find capacity to send 1 million shells, to compliment the 1 million that US is trying to find capacity to produce having stripped Israel and South Korea.
Look at the logistical nightmare required to support multi variant equipment that has been sent as replacements to Ukraine. Different calibre of guns between tanks, different fuels for tanks….and I know how useless much of the equipment is….it is dross
All those old tanks this arm chair warrior chunts on about have 100mm main guns, and Russia has millions of 100mm shells. These tanks are used as mobile artillery and for defensive emplacements ,not mobile or tank on tank. By the way, Russia is producing 100 engines per month for new T90Ms and refurbished T74s. Look at what the role and design of tanks are in Russian strategy, then consider the implication.
Maybe look at what IS happening on the fronts. Maybe review what you have read over the past months from these “analysts” and “experts”, then use a bit of independent thought and your own research.
THEN canvas your governments to send Ukraine what it needs to fight this war, not scrapings of the barrel because Russia still sits on 20% of Ukraine.
This article is just uninformed and delusional rubbish, and most comments are just as bad
Yes I am in Ukraine. No I am not a troll, but you can console yourself with calling me I e if you do not like what you read.
Well said. Unfortunately it appears most people have fallen hook, line and sinker for US neo-con propaganda, where the bigger the lie, the better.
‘They’ always do!
Hence 1914, 1939 etc, etc.
‘They’ always do!
Hence 1914, 1939 etc, etc.
Well said. Unfortunately it appears most people have fallen hook, line and sinker for US neo-con propaganda, where the bigger the lie, the better.
If Russia starts losing (which the garbage warmongering racist UK media and elites believe is already happening) then there will be NO military staff colleges in the future.
There will however be an awful lot of beetle nests. Carapace will be king!
Now maybe, just maybe, that would be no bad thing for the planet, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe. Life badly needs a fresh clean start.
I used to believe that there was more goodness than evil in humans. But now have to confess that ultimate mortal sin – I lost faith in humanity as a result of the grotesque cruel madness of humans in response to a rather mild ‘flu’ with an infection fatality rate of ~0.02%.
Ukraine has just lowered the age for call up, and I passed last week in the new cemetery fresh graves of those killed in “the east”…aged ranged from 21 to 63 (he would have been a volunteer as upper conscription is 60)
As previously recounted, my wife’s friend’s husband after 14 days training sent “East”………lasted 12 days.
Ukraine has just called off the “flanking” offensive on Bakhmut…after declaring that they had circled the Russians, as reported in MSM. Ask yourself why?
Ask yourself why we are training again another 35K Ukrainians, they started out with a very sizeable army of 700000 active personnel.
Ask yourself why we are sending yet more tanks and armoured vehicles. Ukraine had thousands
Ask yourself why we need to send F16s having sent Ukraine entire airforce worth from Poland,etc.
Ask yourself why we are scrambling to send replacement AD systems, and still greatest air raids happened this week. Russia was supposed to have run out of missiles/ammunition/(place what you want here) months ago.
Ask yourself why Europe needs to try and find capacity to send 1 million shells, to compliment the 1 million that US is trying to find capacity to produce having stripped Israel and South Korea.
Look at the logistical nightmare required to support multi variant equipment that has been sent as replacements to Ukraine. Different calibre of guns between tanks, different fuels for tanks….and I know how useless much of the equipment is….it is dross
All those old tanks this arm chair warrior chunts on about have 100mm main guns, and Russia has millions of 100mm shells. These tanks are used as mobile artillery and for defensive emplacements ,not mobile or tank on tank. By the way, Russia is producing 100 engines per month for new T90Ms and refurbished T74s. Look at what the role and design of tanks are in Russian strategy, then consider the implication.
Maybe look at what IS happening on the fronts. Maybe review what you have read over the past months from these “analysts” and “experts”, then use a bit of independent thought and your own research.
THEN canvas your governments to send Ukraine what it needs to fight this war, not scrapings of the barrel because Russia still sits on 20% of Ukraine.
This article is just uninformed and delusional rubbish, and most comments are just as bad
Yes I am in Ukraine. No I am not a troll, but you can console yourself with calling me I e if you do not like what you read.
And he’s in a pretty bad place. All his own doing.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is going to be a military staff college case study in how not to do it for decades if not centuries.
But the article is not in the least convincing for reasons I’ve already given.
Convincing. The regime is increasingly ruthless and reckless, and is running out of good options. If Putin was a rational actor, he wouldn’t be where he is.
An extremely worrying article, which I find persuasive. Although I’m not only worried at this point, I’ve been saying for some time that everything Putin has done and said indicates that he will not lose this war without having exhausted every option.
The reality is that the world’s largest nuclear arsenal has been under the control of a psychopath for the last two decades. We in the West really ought to have worked out by now that this was going to be a very real problem.
In 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Convention and then joined the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty, eventually handing back all its nuclear weapons to Russia. My guess would be that Ukraine might expect the West to replace some of those lost nuclear weapons.
What then?
An extremely worrying article, which I find persuasive. Although I’m not only worried at this point, I’ve been saying for some time that everything Putin has done and said indicates that he will not lose this war without having exhausted every option.
The reality is that the world’s largest nuclear arsenal has been under the control of a psychopath for the last two decades. We in the West really ought to have worked out by now that this was going to be a very real problem.
In 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Convention and then joined the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty, eventually handing back all its nuclear weapons to Russia. My guess would be that Ukraine might expect the West to replace some of those lost nuclear weapons.
What then?
It is Britain and the USA who are forcing Putin in this direction. It is easy to prevent. Stop supplying money and arms to Ukraine.
And no need to defend the Baltics, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, etc etc. Simples. Think of the money we could have saved 1939 to 1945 and the peace and stability which we would have enjoyed
That is a straw man argument.
The only issue is Ukraine not the other countries you so spuriously mentioned.
That is a straw man argument.
The only issue is Ukraine not the other countries you so spuriously mentioned.
Of course.
This all started when Obama was President.
A proxy war initiated by the US State Department
the CIA and NATO.
Russia is fighting for it’s very existence.
Ukraine is a pawn in the game and no-one cares about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.
Boris Johnson told Zelenskyy not to negotiate for peace.
And no need to defend the Baltics, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, etc etc. Simples. Think of the money we could have saved 1939 to 1945 and the peace and stability which we would have enjoyed
Of course.
This all started when Obama was President.
A proxy war initiated by the US State Department
the CIA and NATO.
Russia is fighting for it’s very existence.
Ukraine is a pawn in the game and no-one cares about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.
Boris Johnson told Zelenskyy not to negotiate for peace.
It is Britain and the USA who are forcing Putin in this direction. It is easy to prevent. Stop supplying money and arms to Ukraine.
This is a very sensible and thoughtful piece. Unusually so, and by someone with credibility. Then again, people with credibility and experience can differ in their views.
Another argument in favor of his view is that Putin cares only about himself, and his survival and masculinity would be imperiled by the loss of Crimea. That he didn’t go nuclear over the attack on his cherished bridge simply can mean that he is, as this piece presents, saving it as a last option.
The great imponderables are: 1. what size weapon and 2. if any is used at all, the NATO response. The latter is as important as the former.
Generally, Biden is a very timid and unimaginative man. Before this war started he s=talked about his “severe sanctions.” Putin’s threat to use nuclear is a much more viable threat, and only total decimation of Russian forces in Ukraine would matter to those around Putin. The US has supposedly told Putin what we would do. If it plausibly convinces Putin that he would be killed or deposed to prison by the West’s response, that might cause him pause. If not, we’re bombs away I’m afraid.
There is nothing sensible and thoughtful about this piece. Russia is winning the war and will likely end it in 2023. This author has a military background, so he must understand the reality on the ground. That leaves only intentional deception on behalf of his government as the motivation behind this piece.
There is nothing sensible and thoughtful about this piece. Russia is winning the war and will likely end it in 2023. This author has a military background, so he must understand the reality on the ground. That leaves only intentional deception on behalf of his government as the motivation behind this piece.
This is a very sensible and thoughtful piece. Unusually so, and by someone with credibility. Then again, people with credibility and experience can differ in their views.
Another argument in favor of his view is that Putin cares only about himself, and his survival and masculinity would be imperiled by the loss of Crimea. That he didn’t go nuclear over the attack on his cherished bridge simply can mean that he is, as this piece presents, saving it as a last option.
The great imponderables are: 1. what size weapon and 2. if any is used at all, the NATO response. The latter is as important as the former.
Generally, Biden is a very timid and unimaginative man. Before this war started he s=talked about his “severe sanctions.” Putin’s threat to use nuclear is a much more viable threat, and only total decimation of Russian forces in Ukraine would matter to those around Putin. The US has supposedly told Putin what we would do. If it plausibly convinces Putin that he would be killed or deposed to prison by the West’s response, that might cause him pause. If not, we’re bombs away I’m afraid.
The Russian tactic of War is to destroy the ability of aggressors to attack them. They don’t care about territory – they will retreat and strain their attackers supply lines until the moment comes to counter-attack.
Russia is winning. We saw that in Bakhmut, where Ukraine just fed their armed forces into slaughter by Russian artillery. There is much bigger risk of the desperate use of NATO nuclear devices (and the inevitable Russian response) than the ludicrous propaganda we see in this article. The author ought to know that the communist USSR was overthrown when Russia, Kazakhstan and, ironically, Ukraine, left the USSR and caused the communist system to collapse. Russia is not the USSR despite his attempts to imply otherwise.
Look at the facts on the ground. Ukraine is desperately demanding military aid. What happened to all those Russian tanks they claimed to have captured? Does anybody seriously think the provision of fourteen UK Challenger tanks will make any real difference? Meanwhile the Russian artillery and missiles are relentless, steadily destroying the ability of Ukraine to wage war – and it is Ukraine that is really waging war on the ethnic Russian majority in the Donbass.
Thank you for this – the funniest thing I’ve heard this year. Have you considered a career in comedy?
He must be on a Wildgoose chase for the truth.
He’s right.
You are completely deluded in your mockery of this. There is no “winning” this war for the west. In many ways, we are seeing the whole rotten edifice of post-war neoliberalism and the fallacy of “wars for democracy” come crashing down around our throats. Any way you slice it, this will not end well; but I’m cheering for the end of U.S. empire. This is our last gasp, and an ugly gurgling gasp it will be.
He is correct. Ukraine is losing this war, and badly. Russia has been building combat power after a strategic pivot last summer to total war. Their initial incursion was very limited, and designed to push Ukraine to the negotiating table. It actually succeeded until the US and UK intervened and convinced Ukraine it could continue fighting.
Now Russia is poised to destroy (for the third time) the Ukrainian forces that have any capability of mounting offensive operations. If the Ukrainians DO mount this offensive, it will be detected and destroyed with stand off weapons using Russia’s complete dominance in ISR, artillery, air and long range strike. The Ukrainians will at best achieve very minor local breakthroughs at enormous cost. Then the Russians will attack and finish the war on their terms.
In this context it is far more likely Ukraine will use biological or chemical weapons and then blame it on Russia. OR they might get their hands on a tactical nuclear weapon and blame Russia. In this scenario, because people in the West are so badly misinformed and think Ukraine is actually winning, they will push for a NATO response. Your ignorance is very dangerous.
He must be on a Wildgoose chase for the truth.
He’s right.
You are completely deluded in your mockery of this. There is no “winning” this war for the west. In many ways, we are seeing the whole rotten edifice of post-war neoliberalism and the fallacy of “wars for democracy” come crashing down around our throats. Any way you slice it, this will not end well; but I’m cheering for the end of U.S. empire. This is our last gasp, and an ugly gurgling gasp it will be.
He is correct. Ukraine is losing this war, and badly. Russia has been building combat power after a strategic pivot last summer to total war. Their initial incursion was very limited, and designed to push Ukraine to the negotiating table. It actually succeeded until the US and UK intervened and convinced Ukraine it could continue fighting.
Now Russia is poised to destroy (for the third time) the Ukrainian forces that have any capability of mounting offensive operations. If the Ukrainians DO mount this offensive, it will be detected and destroyed with stand off weapons using Russia’s complete dominance in ISR, artillery, air and long range strike. The Ukrainians will at best achieve very minor local breakthroughs at enormous cost. Then the Russians will attack and finish the war on their terms.
In this context it is far more likely Ukraine will use biological or chemical weapons and then blame it on Russia. OR they might get their hands on a tactical nuclear weapon and blame Russia. In this scenario, because people in the West are so badly misinformed and think Ukraine is actually winning, they will push for a NATO response. Your ignorance is very dangerous.
Hi Vlad
How silly.
How silly.
Indeed. That’s why Putin now attacks exclusively civilian dwellings, because he’s winning–just like Germany in 1944.
And don’t worry about Russians in either Donna’s or Crimea. They’ll soon start new lives beyond the Urals..
They don’t like the truth around here.
Have an upvote.
I hate to agree, but you are mostly correct concerning the course of the war.
Maybe those 12 who disagree with you should review the news and analysis that they have read to form their judgement, and identity which nuggets have come to pass to date
NATO using nukes? What a joke.
NATO could wipe the floor with Russia, 1991-in-Iraq-style… Without use of even a single nuke.
The thing that has made the 2nd Crimean War a slog, is that neither side has been able to gain air superiority.
If NATO becomes an active combatant, the entirety of the Russian air force will be scrap-metal within a week.
Russia does not have defenses that can intercept the US’ B-2 & F-22 or the F-35 (which multiple NATO nations fly) prior to weapons-release.
Same for their air-defense vehicles – the AGM88s the Ukrainians are firing are *the previous generation* of air-defense suppression hardware. Current-gen weapons fly faster and farther, are immune to countermeasures & support network targeting.
That leaves Russia in the same position Saddam Hussein’s forces were in the first gulf war: Defenseless against air attack & facing vastly better-trained ground forces (Russia has lost most of their cat-A formations already. The US & UK haven’t lost a single tank & our most elite armored divisions are at full strength with modern equipment – not cold war relics)….
The silly thing about you russophiles, is that this war has proven exactly how wrong you are.
Russia is even more ‘Upper Volta with Rockets’ than the USSR was – an incompetent military who’s only real threat is that they will use nukes.
Thank you for this – the funniest thing I’ve heard this year. Have you considered a career in comedy?
Hi Vlad
Indeed. That’s why Putin now attacks exclusively civilian dwellings, because he’s winning–just like Germany in 1944.
And don’t worry about Russians in either Donna’s or Crimea. They’ll soon start new lives beyond the Urals..
They don’t like the truth around here.
Have an upvote.
I hate to agree, but you are mostly correct concerning the course of the war.
Maybe those 12 who disagree with you should review the news and analysis that they have read to form their judgement, and identity which nuggets have come to pass to date
NATO using nukes? What a joke.
NATO could wipe the floor with Russia, 1991-in-Iraq-style… Without use of even a single nuke.
The thing that has made the 2nd Crimean War a slog, is that neither side has been able to gain air superiority.
If NATO becomes an active combatant, the entirety of the Russian air force will be scrap-metal within a week.
Russia does not have defenses that can intercept the US’ B-2 & F-22 or the F-35 (which multiple NATO nations fly) prior to weapons-release.
Same for their air-defense vehicles – the AGM88s the Ukrainians are firing are *the previous generation* of air-defense suppression hardware. Current-gen weapons fly faster and farther, are immune to countermeasures & support network targeting.
That leaves Russia in the same position Saddam Hussein’s forces were in the first gulf war: Defenseless against air attack & facing vastly better-trained ground forces (Russia has lost most of their cat-A formations already. The US & UK haven’t lost a single tank & our most elite armored divisions are at full strength with modern equipment – not cold war relics)….
The silly thing about you russophiles, is that this war has proven exactly how wrong you are.
Russia is even more ‘Upper Volta with Rockets’ than the USSR was – an incompetent military who’s only real threat is that they will use nukes.
The Russian tactic of War is to destroy the ability of aggressors to attack them. They don’t care about territory – they will retreat and strain their attackers supply lines until the moment comes to counter-attack.
Russia is winning. We saw that in Bakhmut, where Ukraine just fed their armed forces into slaughter by Russian artillery. There is much bigger risk of the desperate use of NATO nuclear devices (and the inevitable Russian response) than the ludicrous propaganda we see in this article. The author ought to know that the communist USSR was overthrown when Russia, Kazakhstan and, ironically, Ukraine, left the USSR and caused the communist system to collapse. Russia is not the USSR despite his attempts to imply otherwise.
Look at the facts on the ground. Ukraine is desperately demanding military aid. What happened to all those Russian tanks they claimed to have captured? Does anybody seriously think the provision of fourteen UK Challenger tanks will make any real difference? Meanwhile the Russian artillery and missiles are relentless, steadily destroying the ability of Ukraine to wage war – and it is Ukraine that is really waging war on the ethnic Russian majority in the Donbass.
I’m hoping he just nukes Washington DC
Dream and little dream
Not again surely?
After all “we”* torched the place fairly thoroughly on the 24th August 1814.
How about New York this time?
(* The British Army.)
Not again surely?
After all “we”* torched the place fairly thoroughly on the 24th August 1814.
How about New York this time?
(* The British Army.)
I’m hoping he just nukes Washington DC
Dream and little dream