Ukraine

[Vadim 68]

Interesting. As of today, my Facebook feed is infested by posts from what appear to be Russian 'bots, trumpeting about superior Russian air power and the USA being scared of Russia.

Vadim 68 must have reported me.

I'd be inclined to edit that.

Pete

Let it be seen for the vindictive ignorance it is.

bitterness.jpg

[gypsie]

If Russia engages nukes or dirty nukes via bombing a power station - Iran may have made a very grave mistake with their drones.

Thing about tactical nukes is, if I'm thinking non-kinked, is the only place he can now put them is either in the land he's trying to protect or close to it. Anywhere else begins to strain the meaning of the word tactical - No?

What happens if he uses nukes, as opposed to 'tactical' nukes?

(Also straining the meaning of protect.)

[Osborne Russell]

1. The UN Charter condemns both the use of force and the threat of force.

2. The threat of nuclear force is the paradigmatic justification for pre-emptive war. First strike, maybe; everything short of it, certainly.

[Osborne Russell]

Irredentism and expansionism are both unacceptable in the post colonial world.Borders must not be re-drawn.
“Regime change” is generally bad but irredentism is far worse and is never acceptable.

Yep. All those irredentists claim their case is special.

[sandtown]

So a number of you see the only alternatives as appeasement or nuclear war,

and you choose nuclear war.

So rather than look for non-maximalist solutions, you are willing to go nuclear (first strike even !!)

You are willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of millions, including even those not yet born.

I think that is insane.

[dutchpp]

The one who's insane is named Vladimir Putin

[George Jung]

So a number of you see the only alternatives as appeasement or nuclear war,

and you choose nuclear war.

So rather than look for non-maximalist solutions, you are willing to go nuclear (first strike even !!)

You are willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of millions, including even those not yet born.

I think that is insane.

Interesting, and telling, how you've chosen to present this. Your 'either/or' extreme isn't honest, or accurate. The allies are not 'driving' this war, but are doing what they can, in a measured fashion, to blunt putin's insanity. But any decision to nuclear is his - and only his. Don't try placing that on us.

[birlinn]

^
Times two.

[Decourcy]

Times three


This is a defensive war, and how far it goes is 100% within the control of one megalomaniac. But when faced with this, you can’t back down. Force must always be countered by force. If Putin had held himself back to discussion and negotiation the reasonable response would have been discussion and negotiation. But he chose to invade. He chose to create this series of events and only he can change the direction.

[George Jung]

And as someone else has noted - ceding anything to such nuts only encourages them.

Same lessons apply to our own orange turd.

[George Jung]

As putin begins crushing his own citizens, *some* are heading for the exits!

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09...ine-putin-news

russian men who fear conscription have left in a rush

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ce-spying.html

putin's digital crackdown on his citizens

[sandtown]

Interesting, and telling, how you've chosen to present this. Your 'either/or' extreme isn't honest, or accurate. .

Baloney - in presenting that dichotomy I was merely repeating, almost word for word, a number of the posts above.

like this . . . ". . . On the contrary. The threat of nuclear war is the thing. You're the one blowing it off. Are we supposed to respond with -- nothing? That will be the F ing day. We tried appeasement last century, doesn't work."

This reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis when much of the public and the entire Joint Chiefs, were clamoring for nuclear war.

Were it not for RFK and a few others, it might well have happened.

The nuksters were nuts then, and their progeny are nuts now.

[Decourcy]

Baloney - in presenting that dichotomy I was merely repeating, almost word for word, a number of the posts above.

like this . . . ". . . On the contrary. The threat of nuclear war is the thing. You're the one blowing it off. Are we supposed to respond with -- nothing? That will be the F ing day. We tried appeasement last century, doesn't work."

Most of us don’t see a serious threat of nuclear war. We do, however, see a serious threat in appeasement. So the two choices are appeasement or conventional war and threats.

[sandtown]

Stockman has it about right . .

https://original.antiwar.com/david_s...gton-thinking/

[sandtown]

Most of us don’t see a serious threat of nuclear war.

What is a "serious threat"?? One percent probability ?? Two percent ??

That is still too high.

But to be sure, the Russian government also has no right to run such risks.

[Tom Hunter]

I'm pretty certain that no one on this forum actually has a nuclear weapon. So we can safely say that we will not be starting a nuclear war.

If I turn out to be wrong my bet is on Vadim

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

I'm pretty certain that no one on this forum actually has a nuclear weapon. So we can safely say that we will not be starting a nuclear war.

If I turn out to be wrong my bet is on Vadim

Classic!

[sandtown]

Most of us don’t see a serious threat of nuclear war. We do, however, see a serious threat in appeasement. So the two choices are appeasement or conventional war and threats.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the US has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Why is it OK for the US to do that, but not Russia ??

How exceptional we are !!

[ERGR]

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the US has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Why is it OK for the US to do that, but not Russia ??

How exceptional we are !!

Why are you going on about the US? The issue is that Russia has attacked Ukraine and people like you are amplifying a threat to use nukes.
/Erik

[skuthorp]

"At any time in the last nine months they could have had a diplomatic settlement with Russia"

I dobt that Stockman. would have required Vlad to eat humble pie…...

[Osborne Russell]

It's like a guy who was robbing a bank but now he's trapped inside and holding hostages. He demands that the police leave in order that he not be robbed . . . of his dignity.

[johnw]

"At any time in the last nine months they could have had a diplomatic settlement with Russia"

I dobt that Stockman. would have required Vlad to eat humble pie…...

Well, it is true that Ukraine could have surrendered at any time. That seems to be what Stockman means.

I am fascinated that an old lefty like sandtown is quoting David Stockman, Reagan's budget cutter. It seems the left and the right are united in blaming Putin's war on America.

[Decourcy]

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the US has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Why is it OK for the US to do that, but not Russia ??

How exceptional we are !!

Who said it was? I condemn any invasion or threat of invasion or pre-emtive threat to use nukes. This is right now though, and the conflict at hand which is being addressed.

[Peerie Maa]

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the US has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Why is it OK for the US to do that, but not Russia ??

How exceptional we are !!

I call cow flop.
Yes, the US and the UK have a nuclear arsenal. . . . As a deterrent. . . . . Any nation that first uses nukes will know that they will be hit with similar force. That is waaaayyy different from threatening to use them before anyone else has done so.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

Anywhere else begins to strain the meaning of the word tactical - No?

Tactical - small scale, aiming for immediate effect; nuke strength in tens of kilotons potentially used to clear a defensive line to break through the front, with no intent of directly influencing terms of surrender

Strategic - large scale, aiminig for long term effect; nuke strength in hundreds or thousands of kilotons potentially used to cause all-out war crimes with six digit casualties, with the intend of directly forcing the enemy into submission



By definition bombing Ukrainian defenders on Ukrainian soil not only does not strain the word 'tactical', this is exactly the intended use.

I have no idea which type did he mean when threatening us all with the doomsday devices once again, I am quite positive underlining that's not a bluff exposes it as a bluff. Russia knows very well such move, even a tactical nuke, would end their relationships with India, most of the Third World and maybe even China. They cannot afford that. They can go through with the reign of terror on own citizens, but can't get isolated even further or they'll lose means to inflict the terror.

I just hope someone shoots the rat if he'd actually think of not bluffing

[bluedog225]

Stumbles across this. I can’t guarantee it’s accurate. The source has traditionally been reliable.

Ukraine constitution. Article 16. I wonder if something was lost in translation.

Article 16. Providing of ecological safety and support of ecological equilibrium on territory of Ukraine, overcoming of consequences of the Чорнобильської catastrophe is the catastrophes of planetary scale, saving of gene pool of the Ukrainian people is the duty of the state.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...itution_14.pdf

[gypsie]

Russian conscripts will get 15 days training.

That there is the definition of cannon fodder.

[Tom from Rubicon]

Like run way,

[sandtown]

That is waaaayyy different from threatening to use them before anyone else has done so.

Cow flop indeed . . . the US not only used them "before anyone else [had] done so", but went on to threaten their use against parties that had not used or threatened to use them.

And I am pretty sure the UK did the latter as well (Falklands alert).

Admittedly, this situation will make our work for nuclear abolition more difficult,

and for this y'all nukista sanguinarines are culpable.

[sandtown]

Strategic - cause all-out war crimes with six digit casualties, with the intend of directly forcing the enemy into submission

Way, way more than six digits - could well be ten.

[sandtown]

wars.

[sandtown]

I am fascinated that an old lefty like sandtown is quoting David Stockman, Reagan's budget cutter. It seems the left and the right are united in blaming Putin's war on America.

How about if you make some slight effort to deal with the points Stockman raised ??

Too much work ??

I care not a whit if Stockman is a liberal. Magaista, paleo-conservative, fp realist, libertard, monarchist, or (you fill in the blank)

I got so much of just that sort of "kill the messenger" crap when opposing the monumentally stupid Iraq wars.

[HRDavies]

Were it not for RFK and a few others, it might well have happened.

It wasn't RFK. Bobby was gung-ho for invasion, with everything that would have meant. It was JFK and JFK alone who decided no, against the unanimous wishes of his 'security advisers', then told Bobby to set up a quiet deal with Krushchev. Bobby was not the saint he was later portrayed as.

The mistake I believe he made in that exchange was to hide the deal. That led to most Americans growing a much bigger chip on their shoulder, with the "who blinked first" braggart bullpucky.

I call cow flop.
Yes, the US and the UK have a nuclear arsenal. . . . As a deterrent. . . . . Any nation that first uses nukes will know that they will be hit with similar force. That is waaaayyy different from threatening to use them before anyone else has done so.

You got the cow flop part right, at least. Who came up with the "Missile Defense" garbage, and who is planning to put NATO missiles right on the border with Russia ? All the cowflop you people are spouting is disgusting. I heard all this same effluent in the late sixties, early seventies : every word of it. Except it was the US who was setting up puppet governments to enforce their military control of the planet.

Putin is reacting, not causing. This has been the US modus operandi since at least the 1830's, when Ulysses S Grant wrote of it in his memoirs. It's hard to believe so many people know so little history, yet consider themselves educated.

[epoxyboy]

Personally I think that what putin claims he is reacting to is a convenient scapegoat for domestic consumption, and he would have got to this place sooner or later anyway.
There was no "existential" military threat to Russia, and hasn't been since WWII. There still isn't, though I expect that might change rapidly if he starts lobbing nukes around.
The "threat" to russia comes from the gradual breakup of empire, as the Ukraines, Georgias and others show the Kazahkstans that there is a better way, and more and more people turn their backs on a cultural dead end.
I think putin is terrified of having the former USSR becoming even less united and internationally less relevant by the day, under his watch. It doesn't fit with his Peter the Great complex.
He's turning into Kim Jong Putin - a delusional, weird little man running an isolated pariah state with nukes and a bunch of sheeple - the smart ones are leaving in droves.
He owns the situation today 100%, and could swallow a dead rat and end it tomorrow with a word. Instead, he's doubling down on the stupid.

Pete

[dutchpp]

A referendum for our Russian readers;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVv3ofeBnME