Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 5

[isaldiri]

The telegraph has also quite reliably been shrilling predicting doom in all manner of things so worth considering some of their articles with a pinch of salt. So far anyway, russian military doctrine has been quite consistently followed and there's little reason to believe that would not continue to be the case. the threshold for tactical nuclear weapon use is quite clear - they potentially might have been used if the russians had a disorderly retreat again in Kherson late 2022 similar to kharkov in the north and were being forced back to Crimea with the latter looking under imminent threat of invasion. It's, at least for now, not at all obvious that it would be considered an option in offensive operations.

[Digga]

vaud said:

crofty1984 said:

G4S?

Constellis Holdings

Openreach.

[Iamnotkloot]

isaldiri said:

The telegraph has also quite reliably been shrilling predicting doom in all manner of things so worth considering some of their articles with a pinch of salt. So far anyway, russian military doctrine has been quite consistently followed and there's little reason to believe that would not continue to be the case. the threshold for tactical nuclear weapon use is quite clear - they potentially might have been used if the russians had a disorderly retreat again in Kherson late 2022 similar to kharkov in the north and were being forced back to Crimea with the latter looking under imminent threat of invasion. It's, at least for now, not at all obvious that it would be considered an option in offensive operations.

Have you read it?

[isaldiri]

Iamnotkloot said:

isaldiri said:

The telegraph has also quite reliably been shrilling predicting doom in all manner of things so worth considering some of their articles with a pinch of salt. So far anyway, russian military doctrine has been quite consistently followed and there's little reason to believe that would not continue to be the case. the threshold for tactical nuclear weapon use is quite clear - they potentially might have been used if the russians had a disorderly retreat again in Kherson late 2022 similar to kharkov in the north and were being forced back to Crimea with the latter looking under imminent threat of invasion. It's, at least for now, not at all obvious that it would be considered an option in offensive operations.

Have you read it?

Yes I did. so?

[sugerbear]

Iamnotkloot said:

spookly said:

Iamnotkloot said:

Some chilling analysis (written in the DT today):

“There is a growing chorus of influential voices in Russia who argue that tactical nuclear weapons use could force Ukraine and the West to capitulate. If Russia is making incremental gains at too high a cost, it could see a nuclear escalation as a lesser evil to a years-long war of attrition. The hawkish Council on Foreign and Defense policy chief Sergey Karaganov, who moderated the discussion with Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, is the most prominent exponent of this chilling argument. Talk about a Hiroshima and Nagasaki style end to the Ukraine war is intensifying. “

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/russia...

I don't think that is likely at all.
You think the US will sit back and allow conquest by nuclear weapons? I'd be very surprised if russia hasn't been told exactly what the immediate consequences of the use of nuclear weapons will be.

My guess is that the US response would be to annihilate all russian forces on Ukrainian land. russia could not be allowed to gain or win.
I'd also guess that sanctions would be stepped up to near airtight levels.

Even russia aren't that dumb.

You need to read the article, it mentions all the nuclear rhetoric, the possible NATO counterstrikes, the West’s dismissal of such nuclear sabre rattling etc.
What the analyst is talking about is the direction of travel within Russian conversations. He is arguing that it doesn’t matter what the outside world (with the possible exception of China) thinks about tac nuke use, it only matters what direction the internal politics is going. Hence why I called it chilling.

The idea of Russian using a nuclear warhead in Ukraine would indeed by chilling but realistically the fallout (figuratively and literally) would be enough to make them think very hard about using it. Also where would they use it? Kyiv, with massive civilian fatalities? the front line is stretched over thousands of miles, are they going to use multiple nukes and then risk radioactive fallout drifting to europe (or back onto their troops).

Of all the risks I think that is a miniscule one that they would already have deployed if it had a chance of working. I also wonder if Russia actually has that many usable missiles and warheads given how corrupt and shoddy everything else is. They would probably end up blowing up their own people.

[sisu]

This is just for internal consumption within Russia. In the same way that we view Nigel Farage outside of Britain. Its all aimed at leaning towards the hard line element within internal politics.

But has no rational basis as there are only 5 cities or targets Russia cares about. Plus this would also make Russians living in other places as welcome as a Nazis after WW2.

[vaud]

sugerbear said:

The idea of Russian using a nuclear warhead in Ukraine would indeed by chilling but realistically the fallout (figuratively and literally) would be enough to make them think very hard about using it. Also where would they use it? Kyiv, with massive civilian fatalities? the front line is stretched over thousands of miles, are they going to use multiple nukes and then risk radioactive fallout drifting to europe (or back onto their troops).

Of all the risks I think that is a miniscule one that they would already have deployed if it had a chance of working. I also wonder if Russia actually has that many usable missiles and warheads given how corrupt and shoddy everything else is. They would probably end up blowing up their own people.

Battlefield nukes are quite small and don't produce much fallout. Escalation is the bigger risk.

[isaldiri]

vaud said:

Battlefield nukes are quite small and don't produce much fallout. Escalation is the bigger risk.

well... 'quite small and not much fallout' is kind of relative. the quoted ranges seem to go from 1kT (quite a big bang but arguably 'small' yes) to 50 kT (rather larger than hiroshima).

[bloomen]

Iamnotkloot said:

it only matters what direction the internal politics is going. Hence why I called it chilling.

Internal politics can produce a devastatingly forceful external response. And it most certainly would in this case.

[spookly]

bloomen said:

Iamnotkloot said:

it only matters what direction the internal politics is going. Hence why I called it chilling.

Internal politics can produce a devastatingly forceful external response. And it most certainly would in this case.

Given internal politics is whatever putin tells them it is, he is still solely responsible.
It isn't a democracy, and people have no representation. The only opinions that are tolerated are the ones they are told to have.

[AmyRichardson]

isaldiri said:

well... 'quite small and not much fallout' is kind of relative. the quoted ranges seem to go from 1kT (quite a big bang but arguably 'small' yes) to 50 kT (rather larger than hiroshima).

A lot of Cold War tactical nuclear was very small, in the 20t range (stil good tactical value from a 30kg warhead!) but apparently the miniaturized systems weren't terrible reliable in yeild terms, anything from a squib to >100t was possible!

One could also look at this news from another angle; if true, there's a growing internal pressure to seek progress and conclusion.

Considering the staggering risks and the unavoidable, literal and figurative, fallout that goes with nuclear escalation, that such things are even considered within the Kremlin (if they are) says much about the negativity that exists with regard to conventional continuation. Maybe peace, not a Ukrainian victory but a long way from Putin's "territorial realities" is on the cards.

[isaldiri]

AmyRichardson said:

A lot of Cold War tactical nuclear was very small, in the 20t range (stil good tactical value from a 30kg warhead!) but apparently the miniaturized systems weren't terrible reliable in yeild terms, anything from a squib to >100t was possible!

One could also look at this news from another angle; if true, there's a growing internal pressure to seek progress and conclusion.

Considering the staggering risks and the unavoidable, literal and figurative, fallout that goes with nuclear escalation, that such things are even considered within the Kremlin (if they are) says much about the negativity that exists with regard to conventional continuation. Maybe peace, not a Ukrainian victory but a long way from Putin's "territorial realities" is on the cards.

IIRC - weren't most of the really small tactical warheads only US made? The russians have normally erred on the side of making a bigger bang so it would be somewhat out of character for them to be having anything much smaller than a 1kt or even 10kt warhead I'd have thought.....

And as said earlier, I'd take this 'internal pressure to use nuclear arms' with a bit of a pinch of salt. There is nothing imo to show that there is any potential easing of doctrine regarding use of tactical nuclear weapons and the russians have so far been fairly consistent with said doctrine. When or if that changes then it might be a bit more of a consideration as an offensive weapon.

[AlexIT]

What do you think about the visit to North Korea?

Despite the willy waving of the great war against American imperialism (wasn't all the fuss about Ukrainians nazis?), I get an impression of utter mortification for putin:

Earlier he went to China to seek for support, but apparently he came back for sure with a lot of moral support, most probably some backdoors where he can source western components, but no straightforward weapons and -more crucially- a middle finger instead of a signature on the new siberian gasduct to China.

Now he, the leader of mighty russia, has to travel to Pyongyang to gather help from North Korea. Mind the detail: the russian leader has to travel to North Korea. I think only the idea of such thing happening only 3 years ago would have been dismissed as foolish: The leader of any small nation would have travelled to moscow, bowed in front of the great leader and paid him tribute.

I don't know, but this feels really like the last resort, especially for someone who has always wanted the world to see him as the pack leader.

[Digga]

AlexIT said:

What do you think about the visit to North Korea?

Despite the willy waving of the great war against American imperialism (wasn't all the fuss about Ukrainians nazis?), I get an impression of utter mortification for putin:

Earlier he went to China to seek for support, but apparently he came back for sure with a lot of moral support, most probably some backdoors where he can source western components, but no straightforward weapons and -more crucially- a middle finger instead of a signature on the new siberian gasduct to China.

Now he, the leader of mighty russia, has to travel to Pyongyang to gather help from North Korea. Mind the detail: the russian leader has to travel to North Korea. I think only the idea of such thing happening only 3 years ago would have been dismissed as foolish: The leader of any small nation would have travelled to moscow, bowed in front of the great leader and paid him tribute.

I don't know, but this feels really like the last resort, especially for someone who has always wanted the world to see him as the pack leader.

Well... I'd not be surprised if he asked whether he might be allowed back there, to stay, very soon. Just in case. In fact, I'd also not be surprised if he never went home.

[AmyRichardson]

isaldiri said:

IIRC - weren't most of the really small tactical warheads only US made? The russians have normally erred on the side of making a bigger bang so it would be somewhat out of character for them to be having anything much smaller than a 1kt or even 10kt warhead I'd have thought.....

And as said earlier, I'd take this 'internal pressure to use nuclear arms' with a bit of a pinch of salt. There is nothing imo to show that there is any potential easing of doctrine regarding use of tactical nuclear weapons and the russians have so far been fairly consistent with said doctrine. When or if that changes then it might be a bit more of a consideration as an offensive weapon.

The Soviets successfully miniaturized down to 152mm deliverable munitions and manufactured 152/180/203/240mm (<0.5kt in 152mm, advertised as more!) nukes widely. Like the US they dabbled in recoilless rifle delivered warheads with a "safe" (hmm) operating range of 1km-2km, implying very low yield, though these didn't see mass issue like Davey Crockett. Knowing the Soviets, the oft stated difficulties in making a nuke reliably low-yield may have been a show-stopper.

But yes, it's all just Telegraph tattle for now...

[hidetheelephants]

The 'missing' soviet demolition/sabotage nukes are of interest; did they ever actually exist or were they just cold war bragging? You'd think if they did and had gone missing some nutters would have acquired one and blown it up in the intervening 35 years.

[off_again]

isaldiri said:

vaud said:

Battlefield nukes are quite small and don't produce much fallout. Escalation is the bigger risk.

well... 'quite small and not much fallout' is kind of relative. the quoted ranges seem to go from 1kT (quite a big bang but arguably 'small' yes) to 50 kT (rather larger than hiroshima).

And to add to that, the superpowers developed a number of different mechanisms to reduce the amount of fallout and radiation that would occur if a tactical battlefield nuke was used. Airburst, changes in the systems used etc.

However, it still doesnt make sense. From the clean-up bill that Putler would be left with to the political fallout in the Kremlin to the utter isolation that they would suffer internationally, I just dont see that this would happen.

Russia wins, but at what cost? They can rebuild cities with shoddy concrete and imported labor, but its a different situation if this was with a nuke. And what would the Ukrainians do? This is going to unify a lot of them in a way that they didnt before. Yes, Japan's will was broken in WW2, but that is a very different situation. Here you have a democracy (albeit imperfect) being invaded by a dictatorship - kind of the wrong way around.

Nah, nuclear threats are just that. The Russians are just claiming that they will do something when they know they wont. Its part of the narrative that they are trying to set and its worrying that some in the media / social media are falling for it. Russia has lied, lied and lied again. Why on earth would in this specific instance would we believe that they would be telling the truth, when everything else that they say is a lie? Not getting it.

[Prolex-UK]

I hope that European countries are preparing for a Trump administration.

That way we can continue to support Ukraine .

[vaud]

Prolex-UK said:

I hope that European countries are preparing for a Trump administration.

That way we can continue to support Ukraine .

Trump will support them if they pay. So Europe will lend Ukraine money to buy from the USA, Donald makes lots of CEO friends richer.

[off_again]

vaud said:

Prolex-UK said:

I hope that European countries are preparing for a Trump administration.

That way we can continue to support Ukraine .

Trump will support them if they pay. So Europe will lend Ukraine money to buy from the USA, Donald makes lots of CEO friends richer.

When he takes the meeting with the Pentagon officials and the CEO's of the weapons giants, he will change his tune. When they spell it out that it benefits the military budget, weapons companies AND the workers for them, he will be lining up to take credit. He did this before.