Bankir and his men have been trying to fight off Russian attacks along the Ukrainian front lines for more than two years. But it’s only now that they are finally able to strike where it hurts: Inside Russia’s own territory.
The newly granted permission by the United States and other allies to use Western weapons to strike inside Russia has had a huge impact, Bankir said. “We have destroyed targets inside Russia, which allowed for several successful counteroffensives. The Russian military can no longer feel impunity and security,” the senior officer in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told CNN. For security reasons, he asked to be identified by his call sign only.
Breaking news: in a war, shooting back at your enemy works
Justin Trudeau in shambles.*
*there is no valid source for that quote
No way! Tell me more! What other great wisdoms are there?
…this is news? I mean to the people calling the shots.
“Sir! We’re at war, what should we do?”
“Hmmmmmm…let’s try staying here, and only shooting the ones who get this far.”
“SIR!!! IT’S NOT WORKING!!! THEY HAVE ENDLESS SUPPLIES OF MEN!!!”
“Try blasting them inside their OWN territory…”
“Sir, it’s working!!!”
“Wait, that actually worked???”
Everybody knew it would work. The critical part is actually “without Putin escalating with nukes.”
People keep saying this, but take the premise a little more seriously and it falls apart. Whom does Russia nuke, and in hopes of what outcome?
The only winning move is “nuke everyone all at once so far that nobody can retaliate, and then rule the world”. They simply don’t have that capability.
Ukraine?
Striking inside their territory won’t matter all that much if they can just nuke Kiyv.
And breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe for everybody, regardless of who the target is.
It would not instantly win them the war - it more likely would provoke a direct response from Ukraine’s supporters. Further, Putin would have to go on TV explaining why it was necessary, given that state media has been shouting Russian military supremacy from the rooftops this entire time. I don’t see how he justifies it to his side, and critically, to the power brokers in Russia who support him. He would jeopardize his own situation with nukes, at least for now.
As all of the (nine?) nuclear powers know, normalizing the use of nukes on non nuclear powers will lead directly to massive proliferation, which is a nightmare scenario for Russia. Their entire geopolitical outlook depends on a world of purely bilateral agreements in which they are usually the stronger, so having to deal with more nuclear powers down the line would be seen as a major impediment.
I was absolutely certain Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine, but here we are. I’m not ruling out anything just because it would be idiotic. Russia is past idiocy.
Say instead that the best interest of the Russian state has been largely decoupled from the interests of its ruling few. Every country like that behaves in a way you could describe as objectively idiotic. 🇺🇸
Actually their invasion made a lot of sense in light of the reaction of the West to their invasion and anexation of Crimea - they did the deed, then Europe and American bitched and moaned for a bit and after a few years things were back to normal and Russia was selling their natural gas and oil to them in greater quantities than ever before (remember how well things were with Nord Stream after Russia invaded and anexed Crimea that they were building a second one and how dependent Germany had made itself of Russia gas).
To me it seems that the whole plan was for a quick decapitation attack on Ukraine (using their armored convoy targetting Kijv from Belarus), then endure a year or two of bitching and moaning by the West, then back to normal just like last time.
The very different results were product of 3 big surprises:
- The Russian Army turned out to be much worse than everybody thought, including it seems the Russian leadership.
- The Ukrainians stopped the armoured convoy at Irpin. This was in part due to #1, due to the merit of the Ukranians themselves and also due to how effective the modern handheld anti-tank weapons provided to Ukraine by the West turned out to be against an armored fast advancing into enemy territory as a very long column.
- The West reacted far more strongly and assertivelly than last time around. This was because due to #1 and #2 the beheading attack failed and Ukraine became seen as capable of holding off Russia.
Before those 3 things were actually known, it absolutelly made sense for the Russian leadership to think that a military invasion of Ukraine to take it over had a high likelihood of success.
I also thought they wouldn’t, but it was semaphored clearly well in advance and it absolutely makes sense given it’s West vs. rest of the world war with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea leading the pack. So far it’s a war of attrition the West is clearly losing. Let’s hope it won’t come to a nuclear escalation, where everybody is losing but Death.
Even from a pure geostrategic point of view massive proliferation has the most negative impact for larger nations rather than smaller ones.
Whilst nukes don’t really help in a war of conquest (they basically destroy the very land and resources that the war was meant to conquer), they’re far more effective for a nation defending itself - which if getting to close to defeat is highly likey to nuke the attacking nation - in effect nullifying the greatest advantage of the larger nations which is that they have the manpower and wealth to field much larger and more advanced conventional armies.
So even the likes of China would turn against Russia if they used nukes, because China itself does want to expand its territory or at least to control more natural resources (just look at what’s going on in the South China Sea) and if nukes were used offensivelly in a war of aggression it would lead to all the little nations around China to get their own nukes (along with everybody else) by which point China wouldn’t be able to bully them anymore.
And this is of course whithout even considering just how much more likely massive proliferation makes that we destroy part or all of our planet due to some otherwise shitty shit escalation or some nutcase getting control of a country’s nuclear arsenal, something which is bad for everybody, not just the larger nations.
Somebody using nukes in a war of aggression would see every single nation on the planet turn against them, especially the larger ones.
Yep. And they can’t afford to lose China’s support at the moment, though their interests are only temporarily aligned.
This would instantly give Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia the excuse to allow nukes on their territory. Literally within 10 minute lauch+flight from Moscow and St. Petersburg
And that’s REALLY bad for Mr P
They could just take out logistics hubs like railway tunnels and the Odessa port, and destroy the rest of the power plants with few kT tactical nukes. Minimal direct casualties, but plenty dead in the aftermath.
Putin is waging a war of aggression, for conquest. Nuclear attacks would contaminate the land and reduce its overall value.
Putin is also not suicidal. And he has grandchildren.
He’s an absolute monster, but he’d have to be hiding in the bunker with Eva and the German shepherds before he pushed the button.
Baseless fearmongering.
What was working was bombing Russia oil and gas infrastructure with planes.
The only reason Russia has money for war is their fossil fuel production. But Biden banned that because it would drive up global energy prices.
As long as Russia has money to continue to manufacture and buy new weapons this will not change much.
Gee no shit. Imagine that being allowed to wage the war in a way that could actually be successful is allowing them to be successful. Suck it Russia.
Let’s see how much time pass until Ukraine ran out of cannon fodder. The real problem isn’t about weapons but about personnel capable to handle them.
