Russia invades Ukraine

[kn]

It's clear that Russian propaganda and social engineering has occurred for a long time and the typical Russian mindset will not be changed any time soon.

My wife knows a woman in Novosibirsk who has a PhD in Economics, worked as a VP in one of the major banks, and is currently working as a commercial realtor, primarily dealing with industrial real estate such as factories. This is not a woman who has been isolated in Siberia as she's travelled all over the world having visited over twenty countries and therefore has seen life outside of Russia.

She believes that Putin is a great leader, Russia is being unfairly targeted by the rest of the world, and that there was no choice but to start the war because Ukraine was planning to invade Russia. She has broken off relations with her non-Russian friends and realizes she will now live a poor life but will not budge in her worldview that Russia is the greatest country and has not misstepped at all.

Obviously not all Russians share the same view but if someone who is middle class or upper middle class feels this way, I don't hold out any hope for a societal shift.

[FlameOn]

Bloomberg reporting head of Russia's central bank resigned, but Putin forced her to stay in her job. Guess the only way out is to defect.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1506665950027960331

[Enoch Root]

I agree that it would be unlikely that NATO would respond in kind (at least at first), but their response would be greatly escalated from current sanctions and support.

You would think there would be tremendous efforts to get into Moscow and get him killed. If he launches a nuke, he's dead in less than 48 hours.

[marsplasticeraser]

Eerily similar outcome to anti-vax, freedom, anti-covid, alt-right, trumpistas, etc. Creating a totally different reality and people choosing bad outcomes for them personally and collectively.

Likely same methods that work in North America also work in Russia.

The last 5 years has also really helped me understand how Hitler was able to captivate a country with lies and propaganda.

What is worrying is it's not just one country doing this. Read what's going on all over the world and these types of strategies are happening across most countries concurrently...which is really unsettling.

Originally Posted by kn

It's clear that Russian propaganda and social engineering has occurred for a long time and the typical Russian mindset will not be changed any time soon.

My wife knows a woman in Novosibirsk who has a PhD in Economics, worked as a VP in one of the major banks, and is currently working as a commercial realtor, primarily dealing with industrial real estate such as factories. This is not a woman who has been isolated in Siberia as she's travelled all over the world having visited over twenty countries and therefore has seen life outside of Russia.

She believes that Putin is a great leader, Russia is being unfairly targeted by the rest of the world, and that there was no choice but to start the war because Ukraine was planning to invade Russia. She has broken off relations with her non-Russian friends and realizes she will now live a poor life but will not budge in her worldview that Russia is the greatest country and has not misstepped at all.

Obviously not all Russians share the same view but if someone who is middle class or upper middle class feels this way, I don't hold out any hope for a societal shift.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm with you on this one, for Putin losing the war means a very good chance of hanging from a lamp post outside the Kremlin with his wife and kids, he has painted himself into a corner that there is no way out of.

The war no matter how it ends has cost Russia all it's standing as a military power and that's the only standing that Russia had, he will be lucky if Chechnya and Syria dont blow up and slip away from Russian influence after this along with the various 'Stans in the east, Russia is broke so it cant buy influence, its army is being ground to hamburger and wont be replaced for decades so he no longer has military power he can flex.

Putin has lost everything that he has slowly built up over the decades, all he has left to throw into the pot are chemical biological or tactical nuke.

You're essentially arguing his position logically, from his desperate position. However, if you apply the same (tenuous) logic to the nuclear step, he, and all of his staff, have to know that it is a guaranteed loss. There is no rational argument that includes nukes and winning. Or even living.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Chain of command for Russian nuclear launch


A 2020 document called "Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence" says the Russian president takes the decision to use nuclear weapons.
A small briefcase, known as the Cheget, is kept close to the president at all times, linking him to the command and control network of Russia's strategic nuclear forces. The Cheget does not contain a nuclear launch button but rather transmits launch orders to the central military command - the General Staff.


The Russian General Staff has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send authorisation codes to individual weapons commanders, who would then execute the launch procedures. There is also a back-up system, known as Perimetr, which allows the General Staff to directly initiate the launch of land-based missiles, bypassing all the immediate command posts.


DO THE RUSSIANS HAVE RULES ON NUCLEAR LAUNCHES?
The 2020 doctrine presents four scenarios which might justify the use of Russian nuclear weapons:
-- the use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies;
-- data showing the launch of ballistic missiles aimed at Russia or its allies;
-- an attack on critical government or military sites that would undermine the country's nuclear forces response actions;
-- the use of conventional weapons against Russia "when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy".

I agree that it is easy to come to the conclusion that Putin is crazy enough to do it. One would be very hard pressed to argue against that.

However, there are two pieces of information here that strongly suggest the likelihood of a nuclear strike is extremely low:

1) The first is that there are a set of circumstances which need to be met, and those circumstances aren't close to being met.

2) Much more importantly, it isn't just up to Putin. he has to send the command to others, who then execute. And even if Putin is crazy enough to think it might be a good idea, it is extremely unlikely that his command staff would come to the same conclusion. Especially considering those conditions above haven't been met.

[CroFlames]

I think many people are failing to grasp the concept of MAD. Maybe that's just the human condition and none of us really can fathom total annihilation.

A NATO nuclear attack on Russia means nuclear retaliation, and global nuclear war followed by nuclear winter. Everyone dies.

I don't even like typing these words out, but IF Putin launches nuke(s) onto Ukraine, NATO would respond with intense conventional aerial bombardment of Moscow, hopefully into submission. The only other alternative is a nuclear strike and again, everyone dies.

I don't think Biden and NATO are willing to end life on the planet even if Putin launches several nukes onto Ukraine.

[Enoch Root]

Also, with respect to Putin's General Staff - the people who would actually execute his command - it is a certainty that the US and NATO have extremely detailed dossiers on each of those commanders, and have a damn good idea exactly what it would take for each of them to actually proceed with the command.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a take-him-down operative very close to each and every one of them (or at least the most concerning ones).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think many people are failing to grasp the concept of MAD. Maybe that's just the human condition and none of us really can fathom total annihilation.

A NATO nuclear attack on Russia means nuclear retaliation, and global nuclear war followed by nuclear winter. Everyone dies.

I don't even like typing these words out, but IF Putin launches nuke(s) onto Ukraine, NATO would respond with intense conventional aerial bombardment of Moscow, hopefully into submission. The only other alternative is a nuclear strike and again, everyone dies.

I don't think Biden and NATO are willing to end life on the planet even if Putin launches several nukes onto Ukraine.

I think pretty much everyone fully grasps the concept of MAD.

Certainly everyone over a certain age, who lived with the threat on a daily basis from the 50s through to the 80s.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I don't see that. Repeatedly the Russian position is they will use nukes in an "existential" crisis. That to me is if NATO attacks them and they are losing ground inside their country. Hopefully there are still some sane Russian generals left.

According to Russia, everything is an existential crisis, as well as everything that happens isn't their fault. It's evil NATO, America, WW2 baggage, Napoleon, or the Mongols. It has nothing to do with their foreign policy or actions.

People slag the U.S. and Britain all the time for having an aggressive foreign policies that cause blowback, and they aren't wrong for that criticism. There are even a strong opinions within mainstream American and British politics (because that is what happens in free countries). In Russia, it is always about the other side with no self-reflection or motivation to try and do better.

This is the part where it gets sketchy. What a reasonable country considers an existential crisis is quite different than what Putin and Russia in general consider one and no one knows for sure where they will draw the line. The fact we are even talking about nukes in Ukraine says a lot. Contrarians like to use whataboutisms like, what about the U.S. and Iraq, or Afghanistan, but nukes were not even a thought in those conflicts because the U.S. isn't bat#### crazy, nor did they deny that those countries have a right to exist. Not saying that wars for regime change are ideal in anyway and I was critical of those as well, but wars that want to erase a country off the map are quite different.

Sorry, I am going a little off the rails, but I guess the point is that when it comes to nukes, no one really knows where Russia draws the existential crisis line. I think it's fair to say that a large part of the Russian losses are directly related to the arms support that Ukraine has received from the West. At some point, it is quite possible that with high losses, Russia shifts that line to NATO and not Ukraine. I think there is a good chance that if Russia decides to go nuclear, the first strike wouldn't be on Ukraine, but on NATO itself because if they can't win, they will at least want to make sure that everyone loses.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't even like typing these words out, but IF Putin launches nuke(s) onto Ukraine, NATO would respond with intense conventional aerial bombardment of Moscow, hopefully into submission. The only other alternative is a nuclear strike and again, everyone dies.

How would that be any different than nuking Russia? If NATO attacks Russia directly Putin would almost certainty respond with nukes now that the world knows his military is a joke, especially if it's a scenario where he's already used them in Ukraine

Even if Putin drops a nuke on Kyiv I don't see NATO intervening directly, because that kicks off a nuclear WWIII. I think you'd just see the rest of the world cutoff Russia from whatever financial and trade systems they still have left

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, with respect to Putin's General Staff - the people who would actually execute his command - it is a certainty that the US and NATO have extremely detailed dossiers on each of those commanders, and have a damn good idea exactly what it would take for each of them to actually proceed with the command.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a take-him-down operative very close to each and every one of them (or at least the most concerning ones).

I really wonder about the intelligence sharing aspect between Ukraine and America. I mean, I'm sure that America has excellent satellite coverage there. It wouldn't be hard to not only do look down scans to find command posts, supply Ukraine with troop movements, and intercept and decrypt Russian communications.


The UAF's seems to have become really adept at killing commanders, and I'm not talking tank battalion commanders or Division Commanders here, I'm talking like Senior Commanders at regimental levels.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If Russia nuked Ukraine? I doubt Nato would respond to a nuclear attack on a non nuclear nation. The guidlines to avoid an escalation with Russia would continue.


Of course if Russia went nuclear, the question of fall out affecting all of Europe would trigger a massive crisis.


I think its more then likely that Russia tries to find a way to use battlefield chemical weapons, which would also create massive long term civilian casualties if they use persistent agents.



The longer this goes, the more desperate Putin becomes.

Is it even plausible to nuke your neighbour? Fall out is very likely to affect Russia itself. From my admittedly poor understanding, nuclear weapons are designed to be dropped on someone across an ocean, like Japan from USA.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think many people are failing to grasp the concept of MAD. Maybe that's just the human condition and none of us really can fathom total annihilation.

A NATO nuclear attack on Russia means nuclear retaliation, and global nuclear war followed by nuclear winter. Everyone dies.

I don't even like typing these words out, but IF Putin launches nuke(s) onto Ukraine, NATO would respond with intense conventional aerial bombardment of Moscow, hopefully into submission. The only other alternative is a nuclear strike and again, everyone dies.

I don't think Biden and NATO are willing to end life on the planet even if Putin launches several nukes onto Ukraine.

Conventional Bombing of Moscow would be extremely difficult and costly. Unlike America, Russia is a state built on complete crazy levels of paranoia. They would have a pretty think belt of anti-aircraft defenses, literally the Russian Military district has its own airforce.


Also, if America starts conventionally bombing Russian cities, I can bet that the Russian's won't care if its conventional or nuclear. The nuclear hammer at that point gets cocked.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Tactical nuclear weapons are small-scale enough that unless a large number were used, there would be very little concern about fallout affecting other areas. Tactical nukes are an entirely plausible tool in a conflict with a neighbouring country.

It's arguable that the thermobaric weapons Russia has already used are basically the same scale of destruction, they just don't result in a news banner on CNN that reads "RUSSIA NUKES UKRAINE - IS USA NEXT?".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Is it even plausible to nuke your neighbour? Fall out is very likely to affect Russia itself. From my admittedly poor understanding, nuclear weapons are designed to be dropped on someone across an ocean, like Japan from USA.

When you launch a war under the heading "liberating our brethren", it is a tough sell to suggest dropping a nuke on them is a sensible next step.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Conventional Bombing of Moscow would be extremely difficult and costly. Unlike America, Russia is a state built on complete crazy levels of paranoia. They would have a pretty think belt of anti-aircraft defenses, literally the Russian Military district has its own airforce.


Also, if America starts conventionally bombing Russian cities, I can bet that the Russian's won't care if its conventional or nuclear. The nuclear hammer at that point gets cocked.

My thinking is that you try every last resort to stop Russia (if it gets to that point) using conventional weapons. The alternative is everyone dies.

Better that 100,000 NATO personnel die in bombarding Russia if we can avoid the alternative.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Tactical nuclear weapons are small-scale enough that unless a large number were used, there would be very little concern about fallout affecting other areas. Tactical nukes are an entirely plausible tool in a conflict with a neighbouring country.

It's arguable that the thermobaric weapons Russia has already used are basically the same scale of destruction, they just don't result in a news banner on CNN that reads "RUSSIA NUKES UKRAINE - IS USA NEXT?".

And those thermobaric weapons didn't seem to help Russians achieve much. Will tactical nukes make any tangible difference comparing to weeks of shelling? Would Mariupol be in any different shape if it was nuked rather than shelled? Are tactical nukes really a game changer from military perspective?

[RobotTalk]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Is it even plausible to nuke your neighbour? Fall out is very likely to affect Russia itself. From my admittedly poor understanding, nuclear weapons are designed to be dropped on someone across an ocean, like Japan from USA.

It entirely depends on the nukes you're talking about. You're thinking of strategic nuclear weapons, which would be used in a general war and would be used to destroy cities. These are the kinds put on ICBMs or carried by submarines and would be accompanied by nuclear armageddon.

https://military-history.fandom.com/...nuclear_weapon

Conversely, tactical nuclear weapons, or battlefield nuclear weapons, have much smaller yields and are the kind most experts fear that Putin would use in Ukraine. The smallest of these can have their yields set to about .3kT and could be used to wipe out an army/section of a city and would not have the same radioactive fallout/wouldn't create nuclear winter.

The other fear is that Russian military doctrine may call for 'escalate to descalate', the idea being that by using a few tactical nuclear weapons the Russians could get NATO to backdown and avoid a strategic nuclear exchange, thereby ending a conflict on terms favourable to Russia.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...te-de-escalate

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Is it even plausible to nuke your neighbour? Fall out is very likely to affect Russia itself. From my admittedly poor understanding, nuclear weapons are designed to be dropped on someone across an ocean, like Japan from USA.

Not really, when we talk about Nuclear weapons, people forget to discern the difference between a Tactical weapon and a strategic weapon.


Tactical weapons are in a word, battlefield weapons. They can be fired from artillery or dropped/fired from planes. They're designed to attack logistics points. Strategic traffic areas. Or blast huge holes in enemy lines. They're smaller, easier to carry and fire.



Strategic Weapons are basically designed as part of the overall MAD doctrine. They're put in place to counter enemy missiles, threaten nations with. They're usually the larger city busting sized warheads. They are usually the intercontinental ranged missile to medium ranged missiles, they can be fired off of a Sub as well. They can also be placed in a hypersonic cruise missile fired off of a Bomber from a long distance away.



So in Ukraine, if the Russians use nukes, they're likely going to use tactical nukes with smaller warheads. There will still be fallout because clean nuclear bombs are viewed as somewhat tactically useless, because they're just slightly bigger then some conventional options. But dirty nukes have two benefits and I know that's a wrong term.



First of all, they are small weapons with big power. and they can be absolute hell on armies that aren't trained or equipt to fight in a nuclear environment. Now modern tanks are decently good because they tend to be over pressured to keep out chemical agents and dust from fallout. But infantry for example it plays merry hell with.


If America lets say in retailiation for the use of battlefield nukes starts bombing Moscow whether conventionally or not, Its America attacking on what would be classed as a priceless strategic asset. Russia would respond on a strategic level, which would likely be nuking an American city to show their resolve.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RobotTalk

It entirely depends on the nukes you're talking about. You're thinking of strategic nuclear weapons, which would be used in a general war and would be used to destroy cities. These are the kinds put on ICBMs or carried by submarines and would be accompanied by nuclear armageddon.

https://military-history.fandom.com/...nuclear_weapon

Conversely, tactical nuclear weapons, or battlefield nuclear weapons, have much smaller yields and are the kind most experts fear that Putin would use in Ukraine. The smallest of these can have their yields set to about .3kT and could be used to wipe out an army/section of a city and would not have the same radioactive fallout/wouldn't create nuclear winter.

The other fear is that Russian military doctrine may call for 'escalate to descalate', the idea being that by using a few tactical nuclear weapons the Russians could get NATO to backdown and avoid a strategic nuclear exchange, thereby ending a conflict on terms favourable to Russia.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...te-de-escalate

Beat me to the same point.