Why would nuking even work? Sure tactical battlefield nukes have some value and wouldn’t immediately ostracize Russia to the same extent strategic would. But if they nuke Kyiv then yeah the west can never back down. That will trigger a huge influx of NATO involvement into this and completely cut off Russia from its remaining few allies. That is also even suggesting the military would OK the usage and not just refuse the order and remove Putin from power.
Why would nuking even work? Sure tactical battlefield nukes have some value and wouldn’t immediately ostracize Russia to the same extent strategic would. But if they nuke Kyiv then yeah the west can never back down. That will trigger a huge influx of NATO involvement into this and completely cut off Russia from its remaining few allies. That is also even suggesting the military would OK the usage and not just refuse the order and remove Putin from power.
Nuking Kyiv would be utter madness, but so was the invasion. With Putin you can't be sure he is reasonable at all.
Nuking Kyiv would be utter madness, but so was the invasion. With Putin you can't be sure he is reasonable at all.
No this invasion was not utter madness. What makes this invasion utter madness that the 2014 one wasn’t? Or their invasions of various other ex Russian states? I think their intelligence just told them Ukraine was weak like 2014 and they wouldn’t get substantial western aid. But nothing about this was madness anymore than Russia starting other wars the last decade (which worked out for them) was.
Also this analogy of comparing Putin to a toddler where you just have to let him get what he wants otherwise he’ll ruin everything plays into his hands. He wants to think he’s an unhinged lunatic so he can get everything for free. If he actually gets his country nuked that’s not a win for him at all. So no I reject a Russian telling us that his president is a madman out to nuke us all. I just see a state that bit off more than it could chew. But it was a realistic bite considering all that’s happened the last five times they did it.
Last edited by Kasi; 09-13-2022 at 09:58 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kasi For This Useful Post:
No this invasion was not utter madness. What makes this invasion utter madness that the 2014 one wasn’t? Or their invasions of various other ex Russian states? I think their intelligence just told them Ukraine was weak like 2014 and they wouldn’t get substantial western aid. But nothing about this was madness anymore than Russia starting other wars the last decade (which worked out for them) was.
Crimea was bloodless.
Crimea is small.
Crimea has mostly Russian ethnic population.
Crimea is essentially Russian land that was transferred to Ukraine under dubious circumstances.
But mostly it was about being bloodless.
In other wars Russia actually never gained new lands. Chechnya is within Russian borders and it has become a terrorists cesspool. It was necessarily.
Georgia war - it was kind of madness, but not at this scale. It was fast and Russia did not gain any land. Russia achieved a quick win but I'm still not sure what was the point. Unlike Ukraine, it wasn't militaristic failure, but I don't get what Russia gained from its success.
Bombing Kyiv was on another level altogether. That would be like USA turning on Canada after successful minor wars against Serbia, Iraq and Lybia.
Last edited by Pointman; 09-13-2022 at 10:21 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
And all those things would have been true if on the first couple days they killed Zelensky and captured Kiev. Except it didn’t work out that way but in no ways was that a guaranteed loss for Russia. They no don’t want to “take over” Ukraine but they certainly want to do the same thing they have with Belarus in that they want to turn it into a puppet state who just gives them their national resources and manpower.
Why would nuking even work? Sure tactical battlefield nukes have some value and wouldn’t immediately ostracize Russia to the same extent strategic would. But if they nuke Kyiv then yeah the west can never back down. That will trigger a huge influx of NATO involvement into this and completely cut off Russia from its remaining few allies. That is also even suggesting the military would OK the usage and not just refuse the order and remove Putin from power.
There is absolutely no strategy to using a nuke, be it tactical, standard or whatever size/shape it might be. There is zero reason to use one where one could look at Russia and say "yup that was a great strategic choice". Zero. It would accomplish absolutely nothing for Russia and as you say, completely change the tune of NATO only sending weapons. It would draw them in 100% and Russia as a geopolitical entity would begin the road to nothingness.
However I look to what is happening in Kharkiv city as the perfect example as to why Putin would do it. Kharkiv has been bombed daily since day 1. But there is no political or military strategy to doing it. It is simply done as a way to cause suffering and pain because they can do it. That's it. Nothing gets accomplished AT ALL by launching missiles towards apartment buildings other than pissing off Ukrainians and rallying the West to fight back.
A nuke of any kind would be the same. It would cause immense suffering and pain, but it absolutely would not make Zelensky back down, nor the West back off. It would do the opposite and draw all observers in. Because in 2022 you can't have a madman launching nukes because he wants revenge. At that point, NATO has no option but to respond and surely even Putin isn't stupid enough to ignore that.
Nukes are a way to hurt Ukraine, but that's it. There is no payoff at the end that benefits Russia, other than mad man being able to go to bed satisfied he killed a few thousand more.
Crimea was bloodless.
Crimea is small.
Crimea has mostly Russian ethnic population. Crimea is essentially Russian land that was transferred to Ukraine under dubious circumstances.
But mostly it was about being bloodless.
In other wars Russia actually never gained new lands. Chechnya is within Russian borders and it has become a terrorists cesspool. It was necessarily.
Georgia war - it was kind of madness, but not at this scale. It was fast and Russia did not gain any land. Russia achieved a quick win but I'm still not sure what was the point. Unlike Ukraine, it wasn't militaristic failure, but I don't get what Russia gained from its success.
Bombing Kyiv was on another level altogether. That would be like USA turning on Canada after successful minor wars against Serbia, Iraq and Lybia.
Less than 6 per cent of Crimea’s written history (from the 9th century BC to date) belongs to the Russian chapter. Before 2014, Crimea was under Russian control for a total of only 168 years.157 In fact, Russia is just one of several powers that have aimed to dominate the peninsula. At the dawn of its history, Crimea was a Greek land. It later developed at the intersection of different civilizations and empires. Until the mid-15th century, the peninsula was a space of unique cohabitation between the Khanate of Crimea, Genoese colonies on the coast and the Principality of Theodor (Byzantium) in the southwest. Thereafter, the khanate expanded and became, for over 300 years, a dominant power as a protectorate under the Ottoman Empire. Crimea was an Orient in miniature, with a Turkic-Muslim culture.
Let's say he orders a strike on Kyiv with one of the big ones. Do you think the military carries out the order, or refuses?
Nuking Kyiv would go against Russian nuclear doctrine, but I have no idea whatsoever whether it will or will not prevent the order from being carried out.
Less than 6 per cent of Crimea’s written history (from the 9th century BC to date) belongs to the Russian chapter. Before 2014, Crimea was under Russian control for a total of only 168 years.157 In fact, Russia is just one of several powers that have aimed to dominate the peninsula. At the dawn of its history, Crimea was a Greek land. It later developed at the intersection of different civilizations and empires. Until the mid-15th century, the peninsula was a space of unique cohabitation between the Khanate of Crimea, Genoese colonies on the coast and the Principality of Theodor (Byzantium) in the southwest. Thereafter, the khanate expanded and became, for over 300 years, a dominant power as a protectorate under the Ottoman Empire. Crimea was an Orient in miniature, with a Turkic-Muslim culture.
That link gives me 404. If you go to 9th century BC, for how long Alberta has been Canadian?
157 years seems a bit off, I guess they count 1954-1991 as Ukrainian years while in reality it was Moscow, not Kyiv, that was the capital of the country where Crimea belonged. Real number was just over 200 years if I remember correctly.
More importantly, although Crimea was indeed Turkish and Greece centuries ago, it is Russian the memory of people who live now. It's kind of fresh in the memory and bloody battles of WWII where Russians defended Crimea, particularly Sevastopol, are quite vivid. And Crimea still has largely Russian population on top of this and it's a Russian-speaking land, rather than Turkish or Greek speaking.
Conversely, Finland and Poland, though once parts of Russian empire, are not lands that Russians really consider "theirs".
That link gives me 404. If you go to 9th century BC, for how long Alberta has been Canadian?
157 years seems a bit off, I guess they count 1954-1991 as Ukrainian years while in reality it was Moscow, not Kyiv, that was the capital of the country where Crimea belonged. Real number was just over 200 years if I remember correctly.
More importantly, although Crimea was indeed Turkish and Greece centuries ago, it is Russian the memory of people who live now. It's kind of fresh in the memory and bloody battles of WWII where Russians defended Crimea, particularly Sevastopol, are quite vivid. And Crimea still has largely Russian population on top of this and it's a Russian-speaking land, rather than Turkish or Greek speaking.
Conversely, Finland and Poland, though once parts of Russian empire, are not lands that Russians really consider "theirs".
That's all kind of irrelevant though. You don't just get to take a chunk of land because you have some history to it. There are ways for a land and it's people to secede from a nation, or to join another if they desire. What Russia did was say "we want that" and then took it. Is that really something that can be justified in any way in the modern world?
And all those things would have been true if on the first couple days they killed Zelensky and captured Kiev. Except it didn’t work out that way but in no ways was that a guaranteed loss for Russia. They no don’t want to “take over” Ukraine but they certainly want to do the same thing they have with Belarus in that they want to turn it into a puppet state who just gives them their national resources and manpower.
When I woke up my wife at 6 am on 24th February and told her that Russian troops are bombing Kyiv, she said "Oh ####, he (Putin) is #### crazy". There were huge anti-war protests on the first and second day of this war. While it may look somewhat similar from the outside, reaction of Russians was clearly different. Even when most analysts expected Russia to win quickly, the Russians were clearly shocked and protesting. Thousands left the country immediately. People couldn't comprehend what the hell Putin is doing and why. It wasn't like another Crimea or another Georgia at all, and it was obvious from the start.
That's all kind of irrelevant though. You don't just get to take a chunk of land because you have some history to it. There are ways for a land and it's people to secede from a nation, or to join another if they desire. What Russia did was say "we want that" and then took it. Is that really something that can be justified in any way in the modern world?
It does not justify annexation. If you find my posts from 2014, I was against it as well. My point was not to justify annexation but to explain why 2014 was entirely different than 2022.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
Every European country has ancient border disputes with it's neighbors. You don't get to just go take it because it used to be yours.
Sure you can, if you can get it and it serves your strategic interests. In this case, they can't seem to get it, and it doesn't seem to serve strategic interests either.
But people can and will use whatever justifications (lies) they need to fulfil whatever stealing of whatever property they want and this is human nature and has always happen and will always happen. So, yeah, they can say whatever they want.
In the end generally, no war is truly justified or necessary though, IMO.
Artem said he could hear screams of pain and terror coming from other cells.
The occupiers made sure the cries could be heard, he said, by turning off the building's noisy ventilation system.
"They turned it off so everyone could hear how people scream when they are shocked with electricity," he told us. "They did this to some of the prisoners every other day... They even did this to the women".
Horrible barbarism. I hope they can join NATO the moment they push out the last Russian soldier from Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.
Russia must be made to pay for every crime committed in Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
