"russia almost in all out war with ukraines western allies" Topic

link

"Lavrov claims that the West has been planning to eradicate Russian "language" and "culture" for decades and that the war in Ukraine is the stage for them to carry out the plot.

He said in a press conference: "When we speak about what is happening in Ukraine – it is a war, not a hybrid one, almost a real war, that the West has been plotting for a long time against Russia."

Here was me thinking Russia invaded Crimea.

Turns out it was "the West" all along, huh.

Here was me thinking we Westerners were pretty much indifferent to Russia. Seemed happy enough for them to live in London, bank their millions and buy stupidly expensive houses there.

We have to remember that the extremely feckwit nature of such announcements is for internal consumption by the Russian population. Lavrov knows the whole thing is пиздец.

Russia invaded the Ukraine … for no other reason than "imperialism". If a Russian says it, it is most likely a lie. The West does not want to invade Russia and drive on Moscow. This is not WWII. And yes, I agree, almost everything the Russian leadership says is for their own population.
E.g. Russia is going to invade Ukraine to go after Nazis.

Seems in many ways they are fighting the last war so to speak. Their combat performance certainly demonstrates that … IMO.

Russians always seem to fight their best when "defending" the Mother country. I think this is a propaganda statement to try and whip up support for the war in Russia. Outside of the fanatics, I doubt this will play very well with the majority of Russian people.

Yes, as long as no one invades or attacks, the Russians won't go on "The Great Patriotic War" 2.0. I hope many Russians understand the propaganda, lies, etc. However, from reports I have heard about 1/3 of the Russians support Putin's War.

Russia has been a cancerous boil on the ass of the world since at least 1917.

While I agree that this is mostly for home consumption, we increasingly seem to be heading towards a red line and/or provocation in the war. I think the big question is whether or not Russia is going to let shipments of Leopard 2s (and possibly M-1 Abrams from today's WSJ article) get into Ukraine. Granted, it's probably a ways off due to the months it will take to train crews and maintenance staff, then move everything, but this statement could be seen as a warning as well.

I think the big question is whether or not Russia is going to let shipments of Leopard 2s (and possibly M-1 Abrams from today's WSJ article) get into Ukraine.

Are the Russian going to sink those ships carrying M1s ? Or destroy the railroads carrying M1s & Leo IIs ?

Again, an attack on one is an attack on all. Putin does not want a wider war with the US/NATO.

The "Russian People", I have little issue with. The habitually oppressive "Russian Government", that – I have an issue with.

Russians, as a people are capable of greatness, that's been demonstrated many times.

Peter Ustinov, wonderful actor and person.
Igor Sikorsky, brilliant aviation pioneer.
Andrei Sakharov, also brilliant scientist.
.
.
.
Artists, Poets, Authors, Scientists, Engineers, Explorers and on and on and on…

The only thing holding them back from true greatness, is the horrid scum that run their country.

If the people would just wake up and run Putin and his ilk out, or hang them – they'd be so much better off.

That's their loophole.
Either the West buckles and ends support for Ukraine or they have an excuse later why they couldn't win for now.
However, to "prevent a looming nuclear Armageddon and the end of all days, bla bla bla, Russia is ready to enter into negotiations."
But of course, they will fight another day.

You want to give them an escape route?
Send MBTs.

And at any moment it could all go puff and Putin is gone.

Russia defines "Russia" as including the 4 illegally annexed provinces plus Crimea thus their puffed up threats include a definition of their country nobody else, including likely their leadership really believes. Russia threatening a wider war, be it conventional or nuclear, is also likely a bluff as their overextended conventional forces would not last a week against NATO as is, much less a mobilized NATO and playing the nuclear card would truly be an act of suicidal lunacy for the planet overall and their leadership in particular. Absent absolute belief in their own bovine fecal material, most Russian pronouncements have been proven at best to be Baghdad Bob writ large.

Since Russia is barely hanging on against Ukraine I cannot imagine that having to face the West would help them defeat Ukraine.

Also if Putin fires off a nuclear weapon, I suspect event those "neutral" countries would be appalled at that move. I doubt Communist China want Russia to nuke anyone, nor does India.

And why does the West always have to worry about what the other side is going to do? Maybe we should rattle there cage a little?

Russia give back all of Ukraine back to the 1992 borders. Russia to give back all of Chechnya, Moldova, and Georgia and give up their nuclear weapons. That is the comprehensive peace that should happen.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

The Russian military needs to be defeated on the battlefields of Ukraine by the Ukrainians supported by the US, NATO, etc. … And to do that it is going to cost the Russian Forces many, many, more loses. Once Russia is gone from Ukraine, then we can talk about their war crimes. Many of which like Putin's will go unpunished.

Is the assumption that western MBTs crewed by Ukrainians will fare decidedly better than Russian tanks crewed by Russians even accurate in this smart weapon conflict? There are several generations of anti-tank weapons in play on both sides, not to mention drones and guided artillery…. Are tanks relevant here? Cynically, whoever re-invents the low tech hand-held panzerfaust may be the winner in this theater.

Tanks can survive very well on the modern battlefield, if they are used correctly.

Drones, guided artillery and what not are a threat but it can be negated to a certain degree if your forces are aware of them and take appropriate countermeasures and use correct tactics.

Infantry with "low tech panzerfausts" will be slaughtered on the battlefield by combined arms tactics utilizing MBT:s, IFV:s and artillery working in concert.

It's readily apparent that Russia is scraping the bottom of the ammo barrel when it comes to smart munitions. That's likely the reason they're carpet bombing schools and hospitals with artillery barrages.

If it comes down to risking their attack aircraft in Ukraine airspace to counter the tanks, that will be an interesting development.

Lavrov has clearly overlooked the fact that decades old Russian Enclaves exist in cities like West Hollywood where 15% of the population are Russian Speakers.

You can find even larger Russian Speaking populations in the Baltic and Black Sea Nato Nations.

Sheer stupidity & propaganda of the most dangerous kind.

link

Is the assumption that western MBTs crewed by Ukrainians will fare decidedly better than Russian tanks crewed by Russians even accurate in this smart weapon conflict?

Have you watched footage from Ukraine ? The Russian military is totally incompetent. The Ukraine's Forces are far superior. A weapon system is only as good as its crew.

Are tanks relevant here?

If used properly as part of the Combined Arms Team. E.g. Tanks, Infantry/IFVs, FA, etc. Tanks are very relevant. In Europe or the desert, etc. in a conventional conflict of modern mobile maneuver warfare. The US Air-Land Battle Doctrine/combined arms is how to fight.

The Russians didn't/don't fight Combined Arms, that is why their losses are so high. The Russian troops are poorly trained and lead. They have no motivation. And very poorly supported logistically, etc. The Russians are using massive amounts of FA to kill civilians and destroy critical infrastructure. To break the Ukrainian's will, etc. You can't win by fighting a war this way with just FA.

From Day 1, the Russians have taken very high losses. They can now only use FA. You have to go on the offensive to take terrain and destroy enemy personnel and equipment. The Russians tried that when they crossed the border. Their new troops are less trained then the first waves who are mostly dead, captured, etc. Almost every time the Russians went toe-to-toe with the Ukrainians, the Russians lost.

Dismounted Infantry with modern man packed AT weapons can be very deadly. But again, you have to be well trained to do that type of ops. I know … I was a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101 in the early '80s. And we were all trained in tank killing. And our weapons were nowhere near as high tech as today's. But again, you have to know how to do tank killer missions. The Russian Infantry is 2d rate. As is the rest of their military. One RET US GEN said the Russian military is marginal at best. I have to agree …

Cynically, whoever re-invents the low tech hand-held panzerfaust may be the winner in this theater.

Pretty much that is the description of many current man-packed Infantry Anti-tank weapons. Do you know what a Javelin, NLAW, AT4, or even an RPG is ? Are we following the same conflict ? If all it took was panzerfausts to win a war … it would be over.

I was trained and been evaluated on how to do an AT Ambush. Set up a defense against a Tank/Mech force, etc. Trained to fight combined arms. After a PL in the 101 I later become a Mech Infantry(M113) Co. Cdr. Frequently working with a Tank Bn, i.e. combined arms. Was an Infantry Officer for over a decade in my youth.

Some comments just amazes me … 😱 Are we watching the same movie ? 📽🎬🎥

Soledad +1

I won't shed a single tear for the Russian military, and/or her political leaders and corrupt propagandists (yes, that's you, Lavrov).

Still trying to beat Baghdad Bob in the lying game, though we have our own infamous, corrupt propagandists on this side of the pond too.

I hope ALL will be removed from their various playing fields, one way or another, soon.

Let me correct the heading of this thread for everyone …

"ukraine's western allies almost in all out war with russia

There ….. All fixed.

B"

I for one am getting tired of the incremental creep to Armageddon as every "red line we won't cross" has been violated by our leaders.

Oh, just limited aid with oversight controls! Nah, we really meant a flood of unmonitored aid while the US faces dire crises at home.

Oh we just want to restore the preinvasion borders! Oh, did we say that? We meant the pre-2014 borders! Ooopsie, we really meant to also retake the Crimea and the home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

Oh, we're just sending limited military gear, like ammo and stuff…and some old artillery pieces, oh, and drones…and maybe Patriot Missile batteries manned by US soldiers…and maybe M1 Abrams MBTs that we swore we'd never send. Well, heck, we left $80 USD USD BILLION of stuff behind in Afghanistan, so whatever I guess.

And we're not at war with Russia, we just want to defend Ukraine…and remove Putin and try him for War Crimes…oh, and we're at War with Russia, according to Germany's Foreign Minister.

YouTube link

So let's just stop creeping up to Armageddon driven by idiotic leaders and just push the button down, eh? That's where this all ends up unless we have some sane people elected to office.

Really tired of the incrementalism.

Give Ukraine's their nukes back, and then let them "negotiate" for the swift and thorough withdrawal of Russian forces from ALL of their territory.

Getting very tired of all the Words.
So…
Point 1 Russia attacked Ukraine.
Point 2 Ukraine has fought Russia off.
Point 3… Ukrainians were probably the Hardest B*****s in what We used to call Russia. Putin is an Idiot!
Point 4… they still NEED ANYTHING that they can get. A people BLEED!
So.

We in the ewest pursuaded Ukkrain to give up its nukes for fear they would fall into the hands of a Mad, child abducting megolomaniac. This was on the basis that the existing nukelear powers were not such folk. I agree with Thresher01 give Ukrain the Nuclear Weapons back we made them give up. It's our fault they don't have them and we said we would keep the peace. We lied on so many fronts.

The other thing many on the nay sayers forget is that Ukraine is not Putins end it's just the start, if he wins you can bet the US will be in his sights along with us (UK). Better to stop him now not when he has more money and resource.

The other thing many on the nay sayers forget is that Ukraine is not Putins end it's just the start, if he wins you can bet the US will be in his sights along with us (UK). Better to stop him now not when he has more money and resource.

This is not "naysaying." It's reality. Do we need to stop Russia's conquest of Ukraine? Yes. But as this war has already shown, Russia is a spent power. It cannot project power authoritatively to its *own border*, it has no power to be global threat or project power to threaten the US or UK. It has no credible power projection navy, the Black Sea Fleet has been menaced by subsonic DRONES for goodness sakes! It's military is a mash-up of unwilling conscripts and mercenaries. It has a crappy Soviet-era battle doctrine that is unable to crack Ukraine, and it's spending the treasure of its youth like there's a bottomless well for a nation in DEMOGRAPHIC FREE FALL!

So yes, defend Ukraine. But why are we escalating??? Russia is a 2nd World nation with a large 3rd rate military -- but with lots and lots of nukes. And that's the real issue here.

NUKES. And Ukraine ain't getting any, except if they are delivered by Putin. And I feel strongly that his redline is Crimea. He's not ever going to give that up, and if he can't defend the home port of his irreplaceable Black Sea Fleet with conventional power he'll deploy tacnukes.

And then what, as mushroom clouds rise over Ukraine? Will you in zealous rage and blood-in-your eye, demand retaliation from your armchair general's view?

So deal with reality. Make Ukraine too painful for Putin to continue, get Putin to the table and cut a peace deal that neither Putin nor Zelensky likes.

Legion 4…I'm afraid the events of the past 3 months prove that statement wrong. The Russian military has successfully goaded the Ukrainians into a Verdun style bloodbath in Bakmhut,

Again the Russians have proven to be incompetent in fighting combined arm since Day One. I don't think even if you are correct, this may be one "victory" vs. so many, many losses with the Russians suffering high losses in men or equipment. You got a link to this "Verdun Bloodbath" 2.0 … from a reliable source …?

which will fall very soon and unravel the entire Ukrainian line.

I doubt you will be correct. So the Russian's have actually become more tactically sound in a short amount of time ?

But let there be no doubt the Ukraine has taken losses. But the Russian's are much higher again in troops & material. IMO this will continue. Even if the Russians have more bodies than the Ukraine. A war of attrition is generally not a war winner. Nor their failure to use modern mobile maneuver warfare/Combined Arms. They have held little land that they have taken when the invasion started. And will only hold less & less as the war goes on.

Getting very tired of all the Words.
So…
Point 1 Russia attacked Ukraine.
Point 2 Ukraine has fought Russia off.
Point 3… Ukrainians were probably the Hardest B*****s in what We used to call Russia. Putin is an Idiot!
Point 4… they still NEED ANYTHING that they can get. A people BLEED!
So.

LOL! This conflict started LONG before 24 Feb 2022. I suggest that you dig a little deeper into the history. Start in 1991 or so when all all sorts of comforting promises were made to the new Russian Federation by the West. Then to 2008 when all the promised were broken, then to 2014 and the US-organized Maidan coup, the uprising by the ethnic Russian regions of the Donbass after discriminatory anti-Russian legislation had been rammed through, then the Minsk 2 Accords which were signed by Ukraine and guaranteed by Germany and France yet were nevertheless totally ignored, not to mention the eight year US-financed buildup of a 700,000 man Ukrainian army.

Or, you are free to ignore it all and remained tuned in to CNN and MSNBC.

Look into the history of Victoria Nuland sometime.

B

No promises were made not to expand NATO. Nations decide if they wish to join, they are not forced to join.
One big promise was made by the USA and Russia – to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty if it gave up its nuclear weapons.
US-organized Maidan coup? Conspiracy theory with no basis.
Uprising by a few ethnic Russians with the covert backing of Russia.
Minsk 2 accords ignored by whom?
US-financed buildup of the Ukrainian army – a very useful thing if Russia is your neighbour.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

LOL. I have heard of CNN but have no idea what MSNBC might be!
I am UK… we do not get them!
Myself, I think this began to blow when EU wished to expand economic influence through trade agreements. Russia felt threatened. That does NOT mean that Russia had any right to invade.
Ethnic considerations? Well Czecoslovakia, Austria or Rhineland… a long time ago. That did not go down well.

SBminisguy "But why are we escalating???"
To make Ukraine too painful for Putin to continue (as you said). What has been done so far has not been enough pain for Putin to stop, he is still intent on attacking Ukraine with his new army of mobiks (the ones he is giving training), newly built tanks plus T-62s, any prisoners left to be recruited by Wagner, drones from Iran etc.

"get Putin to the table and cut a peace deal that neither Putin nor Zelensky likes."

Putin says he will only accept peace if Russia gets the 4 recently "annexed" oblasts. He occasionally repeats that the Ukrainian government must be "denazified" (& not join NATO). What Putin's red-lines are is unknown, but the most likely one is that he remains in power.
How would you make him accept less? By escalating?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

P.S. See carnot's post above; "The Russian military has successfully goaded the Ukrainians into a Verdun style bloodbath in Bakmhut, which will fall very soon and unravel the entire Ukrainian line."
More pain is needed.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Druzhina.

I'm far more impressed by the extensive testimonies of Professor Joseph Mearsheimer, Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Col Douglas MacGregor – all of whom are highly respected authorities with long career involvement in US national security and foreign relations affairs at White House level.

B

Mearsheimer and Sachs, agreed. I have respect for MacGregor's military service, though I may not agree with some of his military ideas. However, his geopolitical, government, and cultural commentary careers are not my cup of tea. Pro-Russian stuff is just hard to take.
Last year I believe he said on tv that the Russians were about to win the war – just before the big Ukranian offensive struck. Not always in the ballpark. He is also entitled to his opinion.

Mearsheimer and Sachs are far less partisan, professional academics, top of their professions.

Saw two former RET US ARMY GENs talking about Putin's War in Ukraine. One just came back from a visit including an on the ground near the front. Even talked to some former US troops[yes Mercs] there. Looks like the Ukraine will not give up are taking losses, but the Russians are taking more.

Body Count [estimated] score card – Ukraine losses 100,000 vs Russia's 150,000 to 200,000. Yes, only 2 to 1 … but the Ukraine is not going anywhere. Plus, many, many, more Russian AFVs have been KO'd or captured.

carnot, et al. … I'm going with former US ARMY RET GENs. Before anyone else. Especially if the information comes from Putin, Russia, et al. …

Seems the Russians are trying to go on the offensive before all the Ukrainian support from NATO gets there. E.g. about 300 MBTs, etc. Again, I don't think a poorly trained Light Infantry heavy force with FA & CAS, plus limited AFV support on that op will yield a Russian victory. Ukrainians will take losses. But they will hold. The Russians will suffer higher losses.

Bakmhut is being bombarded with Russian FA, CAS & missiles. The Russians are trying to cut off that town in the Donbas. That means they are going to have to try to maneuver behind Bakmhut. They have tried this type of mission before elsewhere. They were not successful.

If, no, most likely when the Ukraine takes back the Crimea and/or Donbas, Putin will be done. He can continue as now to threaten to use Nukes. But again, he is just saber-rattling. He knows deploying nukes is a one-way street. Without NATO retaliating in kind, e.g. deploying WMDs.

I could be wrong … but based on what hear from RET US ARMY GENs, read online, etc., the Ukraine will win.

Will the Ukraine be the graveyard of the Russian Military ? I know there are a lot of mass graves full of dead Russians. That were left behind. And many burned out KO'd Russian AFVs almost everywhere.

Again … I could be wrong … but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.👨‍🌾

Blutarski, Mearsheimer has come up before on TMP

John Mearsheimer is wrong about the crisis in Ukraine by Benjamin Baharlias, dailycardinal, April 7, 2022.

Even if he were right that it is The West's fault that Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine should be helped to chuck them out. Do you disagree?

…

Whether what carnot says is true or not, enough Russians believe it. More is needed to persuade them to give up and withdraw.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Well, it ain't Fulda Gap. There's enough asymetrical warfare to keep both sides busy for some time. Breaking the stalemate would require armored thrusts into the 1st, 2nd, and third lines of defense AND/OR the use of NBC weapons. This raises another issue. History would seem to suggest that Ukraine, with its manpower and grain, is essential to Russia's economic and political survival; hence, the possible loss of Ukraine WOULD BE an existential threat and requires (legally or illegally) an all or nothing Russian committment. This isn't mere imperialism; they have everything to lose.

But again, he is just saber rattling. He knows deploying nukes is a one-way street. Without NATO retaliating in kind, e.g. deploying WMDs.

Why? Why does Putin know that? Ukraine is not part of NATO, and he may be facing an existential regime threat -- meaning he could die. He's ex KGB, do you think he'll go gently into the night? Quit thinking we know what a dictator's gonna do with their back up against the wall, as if they'll act as rationally as YOU would act.

L4 wrote -

Again … I could be wrong …

The other possibility is that those reports coming out of our media and Paris on the Potomac are ….. how can I put this politely ….. incorrect.

One thing is for certain – SOMEBODY is lying through their teeth.

B

Blutarski, Mearsheimer has come up before on TMP
John Mearsheimer is wrong about the crisis in Ukraine by Benjamin Baharlias, dailycardinal, April 7, 2022.

The "Daily Cardinal" is a campus newspaper from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Benjamin Baharlias is an undergraduate student there.

Mearsheimer is a distinguished professor of international relations. Here is his CV –
link

Sachs is a distinguished professor of Economics and Public Policy at Columbia University. Here is his CV -
link

Colonel MacGregor is US Army (ret) who has served as a senior advisor to US governmeny. His Wikipaedia page is IMO a professionally crafted character assassination; feel free to read it if you wish – I refuse to post it, but it is easy to find if you wish to read it. Instead, here is MacGregor's webpage from the Foreign Policy Research Institute -
link

- – -

Even if he were right that it is The West's fault that Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine should be helped to chuck them out. Do you disagree?

The answer to that question depends a very great deal upon what drove Russia to intervene in the Donbass. I have said it before – this crisis did not start on 24 Feb 2022. Read the commentaries of Mearsheimer, Sachs, MacGregor for the true background. They were all closely involved or consulting with the US government in one capacity or another almost from the very beginning of this sad affair going back more than twenty years. Read what they have to say about the course of events in Ukraine and the underlying motives of the US/NATO/EU. It is not the Russians who need to be driven out, it is the corrupt Zelensky regime, their Bandera consorts and the crooked oligarchs (on both sides of the Atlantic) who need to be removed.

…

Whether what carnot says is true or not, enough Russians believe it. More is needed to persuade them to give up and withdraw.

Russia IMO would have beend perfectly happy with Ukraine as a neutral non-NATO affiliated state that treated it ethnic Russian population as fairly. Now it's far too late. The USA/NATO/EU and the Zelensky regime have lost all credibility with Moscow. They have broken so many agreements and promises that they have lost all credibility with Russia.

From the US/NATO/EU perspective, this has NEVER been about Ukraine; the dissolution and Western take-over of the Russian Federation has always the ultimate goal; Ukraine has merely served as a pawn on the chess board.

Libya is the model for Russia (and Iran). But IMO the ultimate consequences of this Ukraine war remain quite uncertain – especially with unpredictable players like Poland, Hungary and the Balkan states playing in the game. I recommend that everyone keep their seat-belts fastened.

Strictly my opinion, of course. YMMV.

B

Well, it ain't Fulda Gap. There's enough asymetrical warfare to keep both sides busy for some time.

You mean the Ukraine strictly fighting guerilla warfare/an insurgency ? The Russian fighting COIN too ? I had heard that there is a bit of guerilla/insurgency type ops being carried out by Ukrainians, just like the old days. From what I can tell … both sides are very busy right now. For the most part in a conventional war …

Breaking the stalemate would require armored thrusts into the 1st, 2nd, and third lines of defense AND/OR the use of NBC weapons.

The Ukraine or the Russia ? I don't think, AFAIK the Ukraine has or would use NBC ? The Russians may or may not use NBC. But I think they would believe NATO would see that as an escalation. And it would be …

Would the Russian Infantry hold against a massive combined are attack ? Or attacks. If the 1st Line breaks and falls back will the others lines hold ? Being pummeled by FA prep, etc. ? E.g. FA prep by M777s, HIMARS and M270s to name a few.

Oh and Russia does not have enough AFVs and trained Infantry to do one effective Armored thrust. They tried a number of armored, etc. attacks in the beginning of the war. They were rebuffed[got their kicked!] almost always.

Now all they can do is use FA, CAS, missiles to try to break the Ukraine's will. From all reports I hear that is not going to happen. Among the reasons it's their backyard, their territory … The Russian is the invader.

It appears the Ukraine is gearing up for a major offensive(s) with all the NATO, etc. gear they are getting. Are those 3 lines of Russian defenses in the Donbas and or Crimea ? Or both ? The Russians don't seem to be very good in the offense or defense. Reports are they are getting some old Russian AFVs from Laos. I really don't see that as a game changer. Even if they get those former Laotian AFVs rolling will they use them any better than they have since Day 1 ?

This raises another issue. History would seem to suggest that Ukraine, with its manpower and grain, is essential to Russia's economic and political survival; hence, the possible loss of Ukraine WOULD BE an existential threat and requires (legally or illegally) an all or nothing Russian committment.

Ah … Russia also produces a lot of grain. Taking the Ukraine for Russia's very survival has never been mentioned AFAIK. They were going in hunting Nazis. No narrative about needing Ukraine's grain or even people/economy ? Where did this storyline come from ? I mean it's possible … but I don't think that idea is realistic or even viable. Albeit a bit fanciful …

This isn't mere imperialism; they have everything to lose.

They rolled across a neighboring nation's border to capture and control that nation. For whatever reasons … I say yes, that's imperialism. Putin has made it clear thru his actions, words, etc. He was trying to reestablish the former Russian empire. Russia is/will be pariah state by the West, sanctioned even more, etc. And the war crimes they have committed can't go unpunished or forgotten.

Why? Why does Putin know that? Ukraine is not part of NATO, and he may be facing an existential regime threat --

Well fallout will spread into NATO nations on the border of the nuke detonations in the Ukraine. That could be considered an attack on NATO.

meaning he could die. He's ex KGB, do you think he'll go gently into the night? Quit thinking we know what a dictator's gonna do with their back up against the wall, as if they'll act as rationally as YOU would act.

Do all the Russians in his circle think that using tac nukes is a good idea? Russia is losing this war … throwing nukes around would only make their loss/position worse. They will continue to be a pariah state by the West. When the war is over. And it will be over … Russia will not be accepted back into the West's economic sphere, etc., IMO. They may be thrown out of the UN, etc. ? Of course, before Putin gives the order to fire nukes … someone will stop or kill him …

And I don't/can't accurately know what a dictator like Putin would think/do … But I can go with what some smarter and more experienced than me have said.

The other possibility is that those reports coming out of our media and Paris on the Potomac are ….. how can I put this politely ….. incorrect.

One thing is for certain – SOMEBODY is lying through their teeth.

Oh that certainly can be very possible, but if I say more … I could ge DH'd …

Well fallout will spread into NATO nations on the border of the nuke detonations in the Ukraine. That could be considered an attack on NATO.

Nah, tacnuke strikes on a Ukrainian mech column is not going to spread radiation into NATO countries, and I can't imagine France is going to trade Paris for Poltava.

Of course, before Putin gives the order to fire nukes … someone will stop or kill him …
And I don't/can't accurately know what a dictator like Putin would think/do … But I can go with what some smarter and more experienced than me have said.

Saddam Hussein complained of Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. The US Ambassador said how Arab nations resolve their differences is of no concern to the US. Saddam took that to mean he could invade Kuwait, and then Saudi Arabia. From that we got Gulf War 1, 2, the Occupation War, the Rise of Isis and all sorts of wonderments!

A reporter asked the US Secretary of State where the US' interests lay in Asia, he said that everything other than Japan was outside the US sphere of interest. North Korea's dictator took that to mean they could invade South Korea and from that we got the Korean War and 70 years of armed stand-off and other wonderments.

Surely after having conceded the Rhineland, the Sudetenland and Austria the other Western powers will back-off of grabbing back Gdansk!

Surely seeing the French and British commence their mass mobilization train schedules would show Germany they are serious and back down from the brink of war with Russia!

See a picture here??

Did Alexa 'Predict' World War III Start Date in Viral Video?

link

Armand

"Mearsheimer considers Putin's reaction understandable because Ukraine (as a non-aligned state) is "indispensable" as a buffer for Russia's security needs". link

Putin & Mearsheimer don't get to say Ukraine can only be Russia's buffer state.

"Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico."
They probably would be outraged, but Canada and Mexico get to make their own decisions.

Mearsheimer may have an impressive CV, but he is wrong. Might does not make right any more.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I suspect Mearsheimer is being taken out of context.

I'd also point out that spheres of influence as a concept worked out so well previously …. not.

Self-determination all the way.

The idea that some Western hegemony wants to take down Russia is a laughably. Just look at the hoops Germany jumped through and the diplomatic contortions it went through as this all kicked off. Bluntly as long hydrocarbons flowed and Russian investors invested the EU really didn't care that much. Sure it made the usual and expected diplomatic noises regarding human rights etc but we know how effective those are. And sure Western corporations would have liked a bigger chunk of the action but Putin is no anti-neoliberal economics warrior and his protectionism was for one reason only. Basically all he had do was not do anything stupid like invade a country that mattered….even only slightly. A final point on whether or not the West is somehow the bad actor in this. How many Western nationals have been assassinated in Russia by their own country?

Nah, tacnuke strikes on a Ukrainian mech column is not going to spread radiation into NATO countries,

Yes it will the USSR did the empirical experiment in Ukraine a few decades ago. Would it be significant – unlikely. Would it result in a kinetic response from NATO – probably not, but the publics response to the R-word and faulty perception of risk as result of wide spread scientific illiteracy a big unknown.
Weirdly the big winner from Putin doing the 'stupid thing' might be Taiwan.

Nah, tacnuke strikes on a Ukrainian mech column is not going to spread radiation into NATO countries,

Even tac nukes will have fallout. And carried by the wind, in the water, etc. No Nukes regardless of yield are clean.

North Korea's dictator took that to mean they could invade South Korea and from that we got the Korean War and 70 years of armed stand-off and other wonderments.

Yes, we are still in a state of war with North Korea. No peace treaty … just a very, long truce. Had two DMZ tours and 22 months, '84-'85. Yeah … we are still in a state of war.

See a picture here??

Yes … but my version is a bit different.

Yes it will the USSR did the empirical experiment in Ukraine a few decades ago. Would it be significant – unlikely.

But again do we even want to find out if Russia's experiment was accurate ? Or would they use the same yields, etc., etc ? Would we even want to find out ? After training to operate in Radioactive environments. I don't want to risk even getting near a nuke blast. Call me crazy … but 🤪

faulty perception of risk as result of wide spread scientific illiteracy a big unknown.

So I'm not Reed Richards, but I don't like nukes. 🥺