Ukraine: “I don’t need a ride, I need Ammunition”.

[DMC]

Yikes.  I think some people maybe need to take a break from their screens.  The chasm between Putin deciding to invade Ukraine - even if that entails employing nuclear gamesmanship (and it's hardly surprising it would) - and deciding to initiate the destruction of the world is very vast.

[Varysblackfyre321]

34 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

you've been absolutely wrong every step of the way.

In what exactly? Did I say Putin wouldn’t invade? To not utilize sanctions against Russia? 
 

34 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I'm saying that a person who cares less about now and more about their legacy may choose very different things that are just as rational.

Possibly. Or likes cut their loses not wanting to further damage their legacy.

20 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

35 minutes ago, Padraig said:

 

Using nukes might defeat the west and ensure that Russia does not lose.

Everyone would lose because in that scenario everyone would be dead.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  I think some people maybe need to take a break from their screens.  The chasm between Putin deciding to invade Ukraine - even if that entails employing nuclear gamesmanship (and it's hardly surprising it would) - and deciding to initiate the destruction of the world is very vast.

Perhaps!

At the same time, is it that far of a stretch to believe that putin would use the escalate to de-escalate approach and, say, use nukes on Ukraine? With wishful thinking that the world would never dare to attack Russia in return and risk annihilation?

I don't know! But I do know that Russia has so far shown seriously poor rational choices and has instead done planning based a lot on folks telling them how easy it would be, ignoring basically every fact around. Based on that I don't know that it's reasonable to just ignore the threat any more than it was reasonable to think Russia would not attack Ukraine the way they have.

Putin and Russia are clearly dealing with an alternative set of facts.

[The Dragon Demands]

Invasion Day 4, Sunday Night:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/kyiv-surrounded-says-mayor-fighting-on-fourth-day-of-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

• In the east, Ukrainian forces managed to completely drive Russian forces out of Kharkiv. Lines remain nearly static around Donbas itself.
• Russia made most progress in the south, due to naval support and air support from bases in Crimea. Russians reportedly control at least part of Kherson at the mouth of the Dnieper River in the southwest but the situation is fluid.
• In the southeast, Mariupol under attack from Donbas to the east but it slowed down - Crimea thrust abandoned attempts to cross west to hit Odessa and now seem focused on hitting Mariupol from the west, catching it in a pincer. Some reports say they've managed to encircle Mariupol, just bypassing it to establish a land corridor between Crimea and Donbas. Small city of Berdiansk on the coast has officially fallen, might advance east from there to Mariupol.
• In the north, heavy fighting in and around Kiev. Western pincer hit the city's outskirts, slowed with heavy fighting. Pincer on the east side of the Dnieper was delayed at Chernihiv, but seems to have finally caught up. LARGE Russian armored column has been spotted on satellite photos heading to Kiev now.
• To the northeast, major developments: the Russians achieved a breakthrough west of Sumy, taking Konotop. This thrust is now sweeping west, and seems to be making up for what the original "East" offensive at Kharkiv SHOULD have been, sweeping west to make an even bigger encirclement of Kiev (the idea was to have a set of pincers coming from the north and another set of pincers coming from the east, making a huge pincer). 
• Many reports, perhaps propaganda or exaggerated, of Russian forces being poorly supplied and running low on ammunition, fuel, and food. Ukrainian forces meanwhile admit that if Russia manages to encircle major cities like Kiev they will try to starve them out, so food supplies being rationed. 
• Despite arrest on sight orders, widespread anti-war protests continue in all major Russian cities. The sanctions are devastating the civilian economy and starting bank runs. Putin himself doesn't seem to care, unknown if other high-ranking oligarchs are starting to get worried.
• We're four days into this, and so far the Russians have failed to capture any of the ten largest cities. Ukrainian air force is still active in at least limited form, and surface-to-air defenses still quite capable in many areas. Russian failure to establish air dominance considered a major embarrassment. Ukrainian command and control never significantly knocked out, and they're still maintaining operational cohesion.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

At the same time, is it that far of a stretch to believe that putin would use the escalate to de-escalate approach and, say, use nukes on Ukraine?

Yes.  This "approach" that Putin would apparently employ was largely pushed and subsequently propagated by the Pentagon during the Trump administration.  I don't see why it's given such merit now.

10 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Based on that I don't know that it's reasonable to just ignore the threat any more than it was reasonable to think Russia would not attack Ukraine the way they have.

The threat of Russia invading Ukraine was based on months of buildup and intelligence clearly indicating they were going to invade Ukraine -- and certainly at least threaten to do so.  On top of the 8-12 year history of Putin's aggression reaching such a reasonable crescendo.  You can't say any of that about some "escalate to de-escalate" approach, which obviously wouldn't de-escalate anything at all.

[IFR]

53 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, the nuclear escalation is particularly concerning since no one has any idea what Putin's order specifically means (if someone here does, please share). One analysis I read suggests that there are some guardrails in place during peacetime so nukes cant be deployed, so this removes those guardrails in a manner of speaking.

There was another comment a while back whether Russia's nuclear warheads were in a similar state as their military forces (as we have speculated, somewhat unreliable). Unfortunately, there are about 6000 of them, so even if 5% work that still quite a few to deal with.

This is a good article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that goes into modern Russian nuclear capabilities and nuclear strategy. It may not answer your question, but it is very detailed and quite interesting.

[sologdin]

initiate the destruction of the world is very vast.

the principle of the discussion--that the russian president wants to secure his legacy and some sort of ideological order for the future--is inconsistent with the fear that he'll initiate global thermonuclear war.

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

At the same time, is it that far of a stretch to believe that putin would use the escalate to de-escalate approach and, say, use nukes on Ukraine?

Because he’d effectively kill his nation and more importantly himself due to the nuclear fallout?

[karaddin]

Yeah my concerns of things escalating into a nuclear exchange don't see those events as anyone intending to start it, but rather than events take on a life of their own from lesser triggers. The specific worry I have from the nuclear threats are that he'd employ tactical nuke(s) in Ukraine assuming that the rest of the world won't see that as starting a full blown nuclear exchange. And I think that assumption would be initially correct, but that there would be a lot of additional measures taken to punish Russia for it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

46 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Based on that I don't know that it's reasonable to just ignore the threat any more than it was reasonable to think Russia would not attack Ukraine the way they have.

Jesus Christ it’s been 3 days, invading Iraq took the US a month.

[The Dragon Demands]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/belarus-to-host-russian-nukes-in-major-reversal-of-post-soviet-order/ar-AAUomxC?ocid=msedgntp

Belarus has renounced its non-nuclear status, and publicly agreed to allow Russia to reposition nuclear weapons within its borders. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, sologdin said:

initiate the destruction of the world is very vast.

the principle of the discussion--that the russian president wants to secure his legacy and some sort of ideological order for the future--is inconsistent with the fear that he'll initiate global thermonuclear war.

I think Kalbear is questioning whether Putin wants the world to exist if it is unlikely to have the legacy Putin desires… in that world.  In other words Putin says, “I’m remembered the way I want to be remembered… or fuck it nobody gets to remember anything.”

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/belarus-to-host-russian-nukes-in-major-reversal-of-post-soviet-order/ar-AAUomxC?ocid=msedgntp

Belarus has renounced its non-nuclear status, and publicly agreed to allow Russia to reposition nuclear weapons within its borders. 

What the fucking hell???

[JGP]

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Yeah my concerns of things escalating into a nuclear exchange don't see those events as anyone intending to start it, but rather than events take on a life of their own from lesser triggers. The specific worry I have from the nuclear threats are that he'd employ tactical nuke(s) in Ukraine assuming that the rest of the world won't see that as starting a full blown nuclear exchange. And I think that assumption would be initially correct, but that there would be a lot of additional measures taken to punish Russia for it.

Mmn hmn. There was a reason Agent l'Orange questioned the reluctance to use tactical nukes in conventional conflict. Putin's fear of covid [the big tables, his seclusion] seems decidedly odd when transposed over his penchant for putting his hand up Trump's ass. 

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think Kalbear is questioning whether Putin wants the world to exist if it is unlikely to have the legacy Putin desires… in that world.  In other words Putin says, “I’m remembered the way I want to be remembered… or fuck it nobody gets to remember anything.”

Exactly.

Think of the motivations of a suicide bomber writ large. Think of someone who sees things in such a zero sum game that they would rather destroy everything than have the other side win.

Put it another way - @karaddin said how it might start, and that seems more likely for how it starts. But someone who is also okay with the worst outcome is more likely to go that way too, because they're fine with things however they go.

And I don't know that putin won't do that. A few months ago I would have thought otherwise, but like a lot of others out there I am questioning my priors.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

initiate the destruction of the world is very vast.

the principle of the discussion--that the russian president wants to secure his legacy and some sort of ideological order for the future--is inconsistent with the fear that he'll initiate global thermonuclear war.

Hmm

@karaddin also raised the possibility of Putin getting assassinated if he fails to win the war, and in  a way that wouldn’t make it a pyrrhic victory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is interesting.  It seems Russia may suffer externally created hyperinflation… in very short order:

https://www.politico.eu/article/west-targets-russias-defenses-against-ruble-crash-bank-run/?fbclid=IwAR2i0UzPoCOBMHhxNYIKrn5UrzKAm0skHIrwXJeAxK9jUd-9wNim5WOOx_A

[karaddin]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm

@karaddin also raised the possibility of Putin getting assassinated if he fails to win the war, and in  a way that wouldn’t make it a pyrrhic victory.

Yeah, although a coup that keeps him alive for execution would probably be even better than assassination. But setting it up so Putin himself has been the villain of this whole play, so toppling him and "saving Russia and our brothers in Ukraine from this madness" becomes the victory. So there's no loss of prestige domestically, no hit to Russian nationalism etc. Just a failure of a leader who was destroying their military.

The window for that is while the conquest isn't going as well as Russia seems to have expected it to go.

With talk of how he's sealed himself off in a bubble of people entirely loyal to him, it does make me wonder if there's an opening to essentially cut off the lifeline into that bubble and take the entire military out from under him if the right person does it. Such a coup would probably need to come from a general or something like that, and might ultimately prove worse (for my values and hopes) in the medium to long term, but it looks like a potential path down off this ledge in the short term.

[Paxter]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is interesting.  It seems Russia may suffer externally created hyperinflation… in very short order:

https://www.politico.eu/article/west-targets-russias-defenses-against-ruble-crash-bank-run/?fbclid=IwAR2i0UzPoCOBMHhxNYIKrn5UrzKAm0skHIrwXJeAxK9jUd-9wNim5WOOx_A

The last time that happened...the rouble collapsed, inflation ran at over 80% and Yeltsin lost his job. 

At that time, Russia was insulated from economic ruin by high energy prices and a huge trade surplus. Those ameliorating effects might be reduced this time around if the world isn't letting Russia take payment for its exports or access reserves. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The last time that happened...the rouble collapsed, inflation ran at over 80% and Yeltsin lost his job. 

At that time, Russia was insulated from economic ruin by high energy prices and a huge trade surplus. Those ameliorating effects might be reduced this time around if the world isn't letting Russia take payment for its exports or access reserves. 

We’ll find out shortly won’t we?  What time do markets and banks open in Moscow?