Russia invades Ukraine

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

It's plausible that the US did it. I don't think it's likely, but it's plausible.

I think it was Russia. They've made blunder after blunder strategically, and this would be par for the course.

Plus, as someone mentioned a page or two back, if someone other than Russia did it, the Russians would be screaming from the rooftops and would take the nuclear sabre rattling to the next level.

Sachs speculating it was the States along with Blinken commenting about how the loss of Nordstream was a "tremendous opportunity" for the US is very hard to ignore. Plus the gas source is controlled by Russia. Nordstream was shut down but, if Germany requested for gas to resume, Russia could have just said no. They didn't have to blow up their line. I understand having the line down kicks in force majeure for any kind of penalties Gazprom would have faced for not supplying gas, but Putin doesn't seem like a guy who would worry too much over a contract clause.

This seems like one of those "follow the money" mysteries. That seems to lead back to the Americans who will step in and take advantage of the tremendous opportunity "gifted" to them.

This is all 4D chess and I'm a mediocre checkers player, but it really doesn't make any kind of sense for the Russians to self sabotage in this case. To me.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wonder if the Russians really wanted to demonstrated their nuclear capability if they wouldn't consider high altitude bursts that convert to EMP that could damage Western Satellites?

EMPs are fantasy. The data from tests during the cold war did not show consistent results in damaging electronics. The efficacy of such attack is an unknown and is pretty much an act of war against every nation state in the possible field of impact. Even trying this attack is a roll of the dice where you have no idea if it shifts the needle, but then pretty much draws every country in the region into the conflict. The only sure outcome from an attempted EMP attack is expansion of the conflict and potential nuclear retaliation against your country. EMPs are a prepper's fireside ghost story.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wanted to jump in on this one, because I don't think it has normalized as much as we think. That threat has always been there, we've just since WW2, never had a situation like this in Europe.

But during the Cold War the American's absolutely included the use of Tactical nuclear weapons in their war planning in case of an invasion by Russia, because the perception was as strong as NATO was, in the opening days of a war, they wouldn't be able to stop Russia due to their massive advantage in troops, armor, Artillery, tactical aircraft etc. Also that the Russians would be able to probably for a period of time, disrupt resupply and re-enforcement from NATO. So the idea was using small to medium tactical bombs to attack key road and railway crossings. Logistical centers, vehicle parks, and Russian divisional head quarters, which would then give NATO forces a chance to Rally.

As well during the Cold War Soviet War plans included the use of Nuclear and Chemical weapons to the same effect against NATO troops.

If we would have had a true European conflict at the height of the Cold War we'd have heard the same rhetoric from both sides. especially the losing side.

I mean during the Cuban Missile Crisis one of the Soviet Submarines had loaded a nuclear torpedo and followed the standard war book commands that if it felt it was under attack it could ask for permission and fire that nuke at a US Carrier Group.

A busted radio, and a moment of sober reflection allowed us to survive what would have surely been an escalation to a nuclear exchange as American's don't count on an Aircraft carrier as a tactical asset but a strategic asset, just like they don't count a Missile submarine as a tactical asset, but a extremely valuable strategic asset.

By design the use of tactical nukes is far easier then the use of strategic nukes. In the old days the KGB held command of the warheads. A field commander couldn't just load up that bad boy and fire it without the permission of the KGB and thus the Politburo. It was literally a vote to launch, which to the chagrin of the Field Commanders would mean that it could take time for a "Vote" to pass. Which means that the situation could have changed for the worse or objections change.

In I think 1993 the whole scenario changed. The Russians because of budget cuts realized that their military was vastly inferior to the NATO forces arrayed against them, so the use of tactical nukes in the face of a NATO attack became highly acceptable. Because of that they redesigned their launch procedures on the tactical side and came up with what they called a "Quick draw solution". Instead of the military controlling the launchers etc and the KGB controlling the war head and launch codes. The Russian General staff controls all aspects of launch authorization under the supervision of a guy like Putin who has all the authority and no over sight.

What also exists now with the general staff is the ability to preauthorize launches. So if a situation gets to this point the button is already pushed, and the field commanders who have that pre authorization can launch.

So when Putin is blustering like this, its a warning with some teeth, I would expect that the quick draw scenario with pre authorization has in theory already happened, and Putin can basically push the button in Moscow.

Just some ramblings.

Putin could bypass the entire nuclear command and control and take away the chances of officers not following his orders.

He just needs 2 trusted SU-34 pilots and a ground crew nuclear ordinance training exercise.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Sachs speculating it was the States along with Blinken commenting about how the loss of Nordstream was a "tremendous opportunity" for the US is very hard to ignore. Plus the gas source is controlled by Russia. Nordstream was shut down but, if Germany requested for gas to resume, Russia could have just said no. They didn't have to blow up their line. I understand having the line down kicks in force majeure for any kind of penalties Gazprom would have faced for not supplying gas, but Putin doesn't seem like a guy who would worry too much over a contract clause.

This seems like one of those "follow the money" mysteries. That seems to lead back to the Americans who will step in and take advantage of the tremendous opportunity "gifted" to them.

This is all 4D chess and I'm a mediocre checkers player, but it really doesn't make any kind of sense for the Russians to self sabotage in this case. To me.

I don't buy the money argument. The US profits unbelievably from the integrity of the global alliance system. This move potentially jeopardizes or undermines that system. Imagine if NATO allies stopped buying US military equipment, for example. Natural Gas revenues are fleeting compared to that long term captive customer.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by karl262

Putin could bypass the entire nuclear command and control and take away the chances of officers not following his orders.

He just needs 2 trusted SU-34 pilots and a ground crew nuclear ordinance training exercise.

I don't think it's that simple.

Does Putin have the cell phone numbers of all the pilots in the fleet?

[karl262]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't think it's that simple.



Does Putin have the cell phone numbers of all the pilots in the fleet?

He just needs 2 and has had 25 years to build those personal relationships.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wanted to jump in on this one, because I don't think it has normalized as much as we think. That threat has always been there, we've just since WW2, never had a situation like this in Europe.

But during the Cold War the American's absolutely included the use of Tactical nuclear weapons in their war planning in case of an invasion by Russia, because the perception was as strong as NATO was, in the opening days of a war, they wouldn't be able to stop Russia due to their massive advantage in troops, armor, Artillery, tactical aircraft etc. Also that the Russians would be able to probably for a period of time, disrupt resupply and re-enforcement from NATO. So the idea was using small to medium tactical bombs to attack key road and railway crossings. Logistical centers, vehicle parks, and Russian divisional head quarters, which would then give NATO forces a chance to Rally.

As well during the Cold War Soviet War plans included the use of Nuclear and Chemical weapons to the same effect against NATO troops.

If we would have had a true European conflict at the height of the Cold War we'd have heard the same rhetoric from both sides. especially the losing side.

I mean during the Cuban Missile Crisis one of the Soviet Submarines had loaded a nuclear torpedo and followed the standard war book commands that if it felt it was under attack it could ask for permission and fire that nuke at a US Carrier Group.

A busted radio, and a moment of sober reflection allowed us to survive what would have surely been an escalation to a nuclear exchange as American's don't count on an Aircraft carrier as a tactical asset but a strategic asset, just like they don't count a Missile submarine as a tactical asset, but a extremely valuable strategic asset.

By design the use of tactical nukes is far easier then the use of strategic nukes. In the old days the KGB held command of the warheads. A field commander couldn't just load up that bad boy and fire it without the permission of the KGB and thus the Politburo. It was literally a vote to launch, which to the chagrin of the Field Commanders would mean that it could take time for a "Vote" to pass. Which means that the situation could have changed for the worse or objections change.

In I think 1993 the whole scenario changed. The Russians because of budget cuts realized that their military was vastly inferior to the NATO forces arrayed against them, so the use of tactical nukes in the face of a NATO attack became highly acceptable. Because of that they redesigned their launch procedures on the tactical side and came up with what they called a "Quick draw solution". Instead of the military controlling the launchers etc and the KGB controlling the war head and launch codes. The Russian General staff controls all aspects of launch authorization under the supervision of a guy like Putin who has all the authority and no over sight.

What also exists now with the general staff is the ability to preauthorize launches. So if a situation gets to this point the button is already pushed, and the field commanders who have that pre authorization can launch.

So when Putin is blustering like this, its a warning with some teeth, I would expect that the quick draw scenario with pre authorization has in theory already happened, and Putin can basically push the button in Moscow.

Just some ramblings.

The problem is - unless he just fires the thing out into the ocean - anywhere where they are battling now risks having the radiation blow right back into Russia. Or out into Europe and getting NATO all riled up. Or just firing them gets their 'allies' all riled up.

Its just blustering.

[CroFlames]

If he fires the big ones, they are not landing in Ukraine. Except maybe Kyiv.

They are landing in Berlin, London, Paris, Washington, Toronto, NY, etc. Of course, we return volley and eliminate 80% of the Russian population in minutes.

Nuclear winter ensues.

*Fin*

[JohnnyB]

So what is the relevance of the timing of the Nord Stream explosions happening within 24 hours of the Baltic Pipeline becoming operational? Why would Russia wait on competing infrastructure coming online to blow up their own infrastructure?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I don't buy the money argument. The US profits unbelievably from the integrity of the global alliance system. This move potentially jeopardizes or undermines that system. Imagine if NATO allies stopped buying US military equipment, for example. Natural Gas revenues are fleeting compared to that long term captive customer.

I don't buy the money argument either.

IF this was something conducted within the alliance, and I say that with a big capital IF because I am not jumping to that conclusion, I would think it was more of an intervention to reduce Russian influence over Germany.

Germany is like a heroin junky and Russia is the drug dealer. The pipeline is like a big long syringe ready to inject that heroin once the cold, dark winter arrives. Germany already circumvented sanctions once for the sake of Nord Stream (with Canada's assistance mind you). Their future reliability may have very well been in question and I wouldn't be shocked if other NATO countries wanted to head that off before they could be tested. It's not like it would be an attack on Germany. It would be an attack on infrastructure that is a majority owned by Russia and served Russian interests more than NATOs in the long run.

I get it though. Russia does stupid crazy stuff all the time. There is always a really good chance they are guilty just based on how they tend to do things, their affinity for using scorched earth, and for using false flags. The argument for Putin doing it to take it away as a tool for a successor to use in peace negotiations, and therefore making one less reason to depose him, is also a pretty compelling argument.

I just think there are many different scenarios that make logical sense.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The problem is - unless he just fires the thing out into the ocean - anywhere where they are battling now risks having the radiation blow right back into Russia. Or out into Europe and getting NATO all riled up. Or just firing them gets their 'allies' all riled up.

Its just blustering.

I agree.

Also, based on Russia current military capabilities, I'm not 100% sure their ####ing nukes are in full working order.

The bluff needs to be called

[KootenayFlamesFan]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577396355563196448

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577396355563196448

Catastrophe is putting it mildly. This is Dunkirk, but without a makeshift navy to save them.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577364977001840653

There's a post on reddit where it goes from "no panic" to "who do we pray to" in 6 hours.

[CroFlames]

Considering how much pain and suffering those same Russian troops inflicted upon Ukraine and it's civilians, I don't feel one iota of sympathy for them and would not feel bad if the entire retreating force was destroyed.

[Firebot]

Ironically, the same terrain that made the counter offensive so difficult for Ukraine to attack Kherson (flat fields in the open) is also making it impossible for Russians to get a defensive foothold now that their line has broken.

This is why it was so important for Ukraine to get heavy weapons and vehicles. Russia simply has no answer anymore.

This will turn out to be Kharkiv offensive x 10

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Ironically, the same terrain that made the counter offensive so difficult for Ukraine to attack Kherson (flat fields in the open) is also making it impossible for Russians to get a defensive foothold now that their line has broken.

This is why it was so important for Ukraine to get heavy weapons and vehicles. Russia simply has no answer anymore.

This will turn out to be Kharkiv offensive x 10

once panic sets into a retreat it's all over anyway, at this point my guess is there isnt any fighting now, just the Russians running as fast as they can towards the safety of the bridges, the Ukrainians will be a bit more cautious, but my guess is they are in Kherson in a day or so

[Roof-Daddy]

Putin that piece of #### and his pathetic army.

He's lucky he has nukes at his disposal or there would be nothing stopping someone from going in there and curing the world from that particular cancer it suffers from.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Guessing this Columbia University professor isn't going to be invited ever again for an interview.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1576976409485901827

Exactly in line with my thoughts. I don't see why people see this as being such a crazy idea outside of not being willing to admit that the US is manipulating the hell out of Ukraine right now to further its own interests.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I don't buy the money argument. The US profits unbelievably from the integrity of the global alliance system. This move potentially jeopardizes or undermines that system. Imagine if NATO allies stopped buying US military equipment, for example. Natural Gas revenues are fleeting compared to that long term captive customer.

At the same time the US is basically the biggest arms exporter in the world, and by blowing up the pipeline you could say they are enforcing a continuation of the war by delaying any potential ceasefire.

Assuming any kind of ceasefire would involve the gas flowing to Europe again, which isn't possible with a blown pipeline.

How many NATO countries have expanded their military budget? How much is the US going to benefit from that?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly in line with my thoughts. I don't see why people see this as being such a crazy idea outside of not being willing to admit that the US is manipulating the hell out of Ukraine right now to further its own interests.

The US isn't manipulating Ukraine right now. I think it works to the US's advantage to have a weakened Russia, but it sure as #### works to Ukraine's advantage to have American weapons and intel. It's mutually beneficial.