Ukraine Watch...

[BritDownUnder]

Problem you have is you shudder every time Putin threatens to nuke you when all you should be doing is reminding him that you have them too and will just nuke him back. The definition of MAD. Those pro-Putin/anti-nuke useful idiots among you clearly have other agendas which probably date back to when you were recruited as students. If we had followed your hopeless advice we would have not even given the Ukrainians helmets for fear of getting nukes when we have made great progress in thinning out the ranks of the Russian army and are continuing to do so.

If Ukraine had nukes they would simply nuke the invading forces and hopefully Moscow too, and them the remnants of those forces would go home.

Clearly living in the "Outback" (33mm of rain today so looking nice and green) allows one to see clearly through the Russian lies and bluster.
Just today we had Medvedev, who is putting on his best Dr Goebbels act, threatening the ICC with a hypersonic attack.

[clv101]

Anti-nuke does not equal pro-Putin.

Frankly, to come out with stuff like this "If Ukraine had nukes they would simply nuke the invading forces and hopefully Moscow too" makes you sound like a psychopath. To use the word 'hopefully' to describe the killing of millions of people - potentially escalating into the billions - just marks you out as seriously unhinged. As are the Russian leaders with their pro-nuclear rhetoric. You're as bad as each other, two sides of the same coin.

[UndercoverElephant]

NOBODY 'wins' from that.....

Nobody human, anyway. 99% of non-human species would benefit greatly. I can think of no faster way back to ecological equilibrium.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/ ... -chernobyl

[automaticearth2]

I thought this was funny:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... entum.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Mail, but thought it quite amusing, especially this bit:

And a former Putin speechwriter Abbas Gallyamov warned that the existence of several doubles poses a risk if Russia lurches into a coup because of his failing war policies.

'The presence of a double can interfere: you think that you have arrested Putin, but it turns out that you have held his understudy,' he said.

'You can arrest a stand-in, show him on TV signing his 'resignation', and announce the transfer of power to the Prime Minister or to some Committee of National Salvation.'

But it would be necessary for the 'original Putin to prove that he is him, and not a double'.

This is like the 'I am Spartacus' scene in the Spartacus film

[BritDownUnder]

Anti-nuke does not equal pro-Putin.

Frankly, to come out with stuff like this "If Ukraine had nukes they would simply nuke the invading forces and hopefully Moscow too" makes you sound like a psychopath. To use the word 'hopefully' to describe the killing of millions of people - potentially escalating into the billions - just marks you out as seriously unhinged. As are the Russian leaders with their pro-nuclear rhetoric. You're as bad as each other, two sides of the same coin.

Surprisingly the Russians are not anti-nuke when it comes to their own weapons but their supporters in the West are regarding the Wests.
As for the millions of deaths I am not saying that the West should use their nukes first except in the case of invasion, just as a counterstrike. It was on Russian TV that the destruction of the UK is shown in graphical form by the real nutters. I think one of them was saying the Russians will eventually get to Lisbon. With these kind of opinions and their proven genocidal actions it is better that most of their army gets killed in Eastern Ukraine than them getting further into Europe. We should assist Ukrainians with that process in any way possible.

I don't consider myself unhinged in advocating responding in kind. Refer to my Bomber Harris quote about the Russians going into this war expecting an easy victory and no one killing them back. It sounds like you have lost the argument this time and are resorting to time honoured lefty tactics of throwing insults rather than counter arguments. The Left in the UK have followed foreign despots for the last 70 years and nothing to show for it except for Michael Foot.

Anyway, the erosion of the Russian army continues. Probably another 500 dead today.

[Mark]

The Left in the UK have followed foreign despots for the last 70 years and nothing to show for it except for Michael Foot.

You'll find that Tony Blair took us into Iraq on falsified evidence of WMDs....
Warmongering isn't just something of 'The Right'....

Ukraine already seems perfectly able to destroy Russian tanks and armoured vehicles with conventional weapons...
The damage on the Ukrainian side seems to be caused by drones and missiles and by an imbalance in fighting numbers at the front...
Can't see that these factors will be changed by DU, so what's the need ?
Or am I missing something ?

I guess we all have our own personal 'red lines'..., and mine is the UK's escalation with DU...
Once 1 side escalates, the other is duty bound to respond 'in kind' and then consider 'upping the ante' themselves...
I wouldn't be surprised if we now see the Russians using chemical weapons, or biological, or 'dirty' nuclear...., or.....

[BritDownUnder]

What I understand about the Challenger is its long range run that is rifled unlike most other tank guns. So it can't fire most tanks shell types and relies on maximum kinetic penetration and hence the dense depleted Uranium contents. One would assume that the Ukrainians see a use for a stand off type weapon that's a bit cheaper than a missile. I have heard of a tank being knocked out at 5000 metres.

If you allow the Russians to dictate what you can and can't send Ukraine then you are giving them an advantage. The West should say that any type of weapon used by the Russians will be answered - nuclear, biological, chemical. They have threatened nuclear attacks on many occasions and have not followed up on their threats as they know there will be only one nuclear war.

I see no reason this will up the ante in the war - Russia is doing this already at times of its own choosing. I see no change in strategy for the West which is to degrade Russia's armed forces and personnel little by little. Unfortunately what General Patton said was very true and you need to make the other "son of a bitch" die for their country.

There we go. A simple disagreement. No insults thrown by people who can't control their emotions - they know who they are.

[adam2]

My view is that if russia uses nuclear weapons, then the free world should try to retain the "moral high ground" by not using such weapons in retaliation.
I would in such circumstances support a devastating conventional response. "Doing a Dresden" as the military put it.

After any russian use of nuclear weapons, the west should in my view aim to disarm russia, and then to abolish russia as a a country. Russian territory should be divided up and given to neighbouring countries. Execute putin.
Russian gold and other movable assets should be confiscated and used to repair war damage.

[UndercoverElephant]

My view is that if russia uses nuclear weapons, then the free world should try to retain the "moral high ground" by not using such weapons in retaliation.
I would in such circumstances support a devastating conventional response. "Doing a Dresden" as the military put it.

After any russian use of nuclear weapons, the west should in my view aim to disarm russia, and then to abolish russia as a a country. Russian territory should be divided up and given to neighbouring countries. Execute putin.
Russian gold and other movable assets should be confiscated and used to repair war damage.

A devastating conventional response would just give Russia time to prepare a bigger nuclear strike.

If Russia uses nuclear weapons then Russia should be wiped off the map. One strike and they are out. The west should respond with an all-out nuclear response designed to reduce every Russian city to dust. Then Russia should be dismembered as a country, and its resources shared out.

You must not submit to nuclear blackmail.

[clv101]

My view is that if russia uses nuclear weapons, then the free world should try to retain the "moral high ground" by not using such weapons in retaliation.
I would in such circumstances support a devastating conventional response. "Doing a Dresden" as the military put it.

After any russian use of nuclear weapons, the west should in my view aim to disarm russia, and then to abolish russia as a a country. Russian territory should be divided up and given to neighbouring countries. Execute putin.
Russian gold and other movable assets should be confiscated and used to repair war damage.

A devastating conventional response would just give Russia time to prepare a bigger nuclear strike.

If Russia uses nuclear weapons then Russia should be wiped off the map. One strike and they are out. The west should respond with an all-out nuclear response designed to reduce every Russian city to dust. Then Russia should be dismembered as a country, and its resources shared out.

You must not submit to nuclear blackmail.

Easy to type that, a few problems. Russia doesn't need 'time to prepare a bigger attack' there are hundreds of warheads across their ICBMs and submarines that are on hair trigger 'launch on warning'. Secondly and large response to wipe Russia of the map would trigger that reciprocal attack - before we could neutralise their nukes. The resulting difference between the smouldering ashes of Russia the UK and US would be inconsequential.

Adam's response is more realistic

In my opinion Russian nuclear use in Ukraine should be met in the first instance with massive conventional response with NATO destroying all Russian forces (a few thousand air sorties and cruise missiles would do it) in the tertiary of Ukraine. That ends on conflict within a week. Then we follow the tried and tested approach that worked for Germany and Japan. Only if Russia don't unilaterally disarm under treaty should we actually attempt to disarm by force.

[UndercoverElephant]

I personally remain hopeful it is not going to come to this. I don't believe Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons in order to retain Crimea, because I think they know it won't work. Whatever response comes from NATO, it won't involve permitting Russia to retain control of Crimea.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/euro ... index.html

Russian forces are depleted in Bakhmut and a Ukrainian counter-offensive could soon be launched, one of Kyiv’s top generals has said, raising the prospect of an unlikely turnaround in the besieged city.

Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander of Ukraine’s land forces, said on his Telegram channel Thursday that “[Russians] are losing significant forces [in Bakhmut] and are running out of energy.”

“Very soon, we will take advantage of this opportunity, as we did in the past near Kyiv, Kharkiv, Balakliya and Kupyansk,” he said.

The counter-offensive won't be around Bakhmut then. Unless it is a double-bluff...

[clv101]

I personally remain hopeful it is not going to come to this. I don't believe Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons in order to retain Crimea, because I think they know it won't work. Whatever response comes from NATO, it won't involve permitting Russia to retain control of Crimea.

Agreed, I don't expect Russia to use nuclear weapons *unless* Russia itself (not the newly annexed/contested parts) is attacked in a significant way. I think they'll abandon Crimea if the only alternative is nuclear.

[BritDownUnder]

The easiest way to prevent Russian use of nuclear weapons, and indeed any territorial encroachment, is to arm all of its neighbours with them. Ditto with China.

If for instance Ukraine were to be losing the war and its population were to be at risk of Russian inflicted genocide then it would make sense for them to use any nuclear weapons they had against Russia both within Ukrainian frontiers and in Russia itself. Russia would no doubt counter the West supplying nukes to Ukraine by threatening the West with them. The way I see to get around this is For the West to then threaten a massive counter strike to any Russian nuclear strike against the West with attacks on both Russia and China by bringing Chinese destruction in they will no doubt make their influence on Russia felt. A kind of Cold War M.A.D. will ensue with the war confined to conventional weapons as it is now and probably will stay.

Russia, I believe has a last resort system, that will automatically launch nuclear strikes in the event of a decapitation strike against them but I think a limited Ukrainian strike on their Western cities would not initiate this system, if it indeed exists.

Whether there should be Western nuclear retaliation against Russian nuclear strikes against Ukraine might depend on the nature of the Russian nuclear attack. If it is a megaton yield bomb on Kiev and other civilian targets then nuclear response may be justified. Using small e.g. 5kt warheads on a small length of front might be another matter warranting NATO conventional strikes on Sevastopol, Russian troop concentrations in occupied Southern Ukraine and the closure of the Kerch bridge perhaps. The West should note that the Ukraine war has consumed a significant part of the NATO conventional arsenal already and future actions might consume even more.

I don't see an occupation and apportioning of Russia as a realistic option. Much better to have a surviving much weakened Russia, beholden politically and economically to China, with a significant 'dent' in its male population cohort under 40 as a much better option for everyone. It keeps Russia down and China busy plundering Russian resources and distracted from interest in the rest of the world while doing so.

[PS_RalphW]

Getting back to boots on the ground, the odds now look to be in favour of Ukraine holding Bakhmut, as Wagner has been starved of conscripts, ammo and support by the Russian military, who are now focusing on surrounding avdivka.

Lots more talk of a Ukrainian counter attack, but I think they would be wise to wait a few more weeks. I doubt they will have the element of surprise the had last year.