A birthday gift for Putin. NATO destroyed Crimea Bridge, escalation coming?

[Litwin]

 

[Litwin]

Perhaps we can start to examine why Russia is losing so badly.

Moscow horde´s war record :-

1856 defeated by Britain and France

1905 defeated by Japan

1917 defeated by Germany

1920 defeated by Poland, Finland, Estonia and all Baltic states

1939 defeated by Finland

1969 defeated by China

1989 defeated by Afghanistan

1989 defeated in the Cold War.

1996 defeated by Chechnya

2022 defeated by Ukraine

WW2 won USA/Britain , meanwhile Stalin's officers were shot or sent to the Gulags. Millions went to the Gulags, including Solzhenitsyn

Moscow's only victories come from invading smaller countries :-

a) Hungary 1956

b) Czechoslovakia 1968

c) Moldova 1992

d) Georgia 2008

 

[Litwin]

Perhaps we can start to examine why Russia is losing so badly.

The troops know they were sent in for lies. So their motivation is nonexistent.

Ukrainian Troops Hunt Demoralized Russian Stragglers in Seized City (Published 2022)

A major Russian newspaper said the Russian troops, facing defeat in Lyman, had fled with “empty eyes” after barely escaping with their lives.

www.nytimes.com

Reports of the Russian troops surrendering are backed up by video.



Let’s look at their equipment.

Why the Russian Military is having problems Ukraine ð𤣠#ukraine #russiaukrainewar #russia

youtube.com

Russian troops know they are poorly equipped. Poorly led, and stupidly committed. They are not the Soviet soldiers of old. They have lives and dreams beyond the here and now.

 

[multivita-man]

There is one. Easy.

Russian dogs out.

We can be stubborn about this or we can recognize that Putin probably wants a face-saving way out. He will lose this war - that is certain. What's not certain is how he handles losing and what the price of this war is for everyone. That depends on Russia, but it also depends on us.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We can be stubborn about this or we can recognize that Putin probably wants a face-saving way out. He will lose this war - that is certain. What's not certain is how he handles losing and what the price of this war is for everyone. That depends on Russia, but it also depends on us.

We definitely need to be finding a way for Putin to save face and withdraw.

Two problems: I can't think of any face-saving way for that to happen, and the people we count on to be experts on foreign policy and come up with such a solution don't seem to be doing anything at all.

Putin is getting ready to rain nuclear armegeddon over his failed war, and our leaders are too busy warning about the danger of "MAGA Republicans," to notice.

 

[xyz]

Truck bomb.

Maybe, but there was also a train carrying fuel somewhere around there.

 

[multivita-man]

Two problems: I can't think of any face-saving way for that to happen, and the people we count on to be experts on foreign policy and come up with such a solution don't seem to be doing anything at all.

I don't think Putin wants to launch ICBMs. I think that's a low risk...initially.

But I can envision a scenario in which he drops a tactical nuke and then things quickly spiral out of control, with both sides escalating and counter-escalating. If Putin drops a low-yield nuke, it wouldn't be for any strategic purpose; it would be to terrorize and intimidate Ukraine and NATO in order to force a negotiation, or to possibly strain the alliance. If that happens, there will be pressure to go for an all-out assault on Russia's remaining military in Ukraine, which will either frighten or infuriate Moscow.

The world has avoided nuclear holocaust because we've had rational thinkers running the world's most important regimes - at least most of the time. We're getting ourselves into a situation where one side is going to be making decisions about nukes that are potentially guided more by emotion than logic.

I think people assume that exit strategy = pussing out and rolling over for Ivan. It's not. As I said, Putin has lost. We should make a peace deal that largely favors post-2014 Ukraine. I know Zelensky will want unconditional surrender, but as far as I'm concerned, he's not the only decision maker here. He would have been deposed by now if it weren't for Western/NATO support, so we have a say in this whether he likes it or not.

 

[SavannahMann]

I don't think Putin wants to launch ICBMs. I think that's a low risk...initially.

But I can envision a scenario in which he drops a tactical nuke and then things quickly spiral out of control, with both sides escalating and counter-escalating. If Putin drops a low-yield nuke, it wouldn't be for any strategic purpose; it would be to terrorize and intimidate Ukraine and NATO in order to force a negotiation, or to possibly strain the alliance. If that happens, there will be pressure to go for an all-out assault on Russia's remaining military in Ukraine, which will either frighten or infuriate Moscow.

The world has avoided nuclear holocaust because we've had rational thinkers running the world's most important regimes - at least most of the time. We're getting ourselves into a situation where one side is going to be making decisions about nukes that are potentially guided more by emotion than logic.

I think people assume that exit strategy = pussing out and rolling over for Ivan. It's not. As I said, Putin has lost. We should make a peace deal that largely favors post-2014 Ukraine. I know Zelensky will want unconditional surrender, but as far as I'm concerned, he's not the only decision maker here. He would have been deposed by now if it weren't for Western/NATO support, so we have a say in this whether he likes it or not.

There is no such thing as a Tactical Nuke. It is an escalation that can’t be walked back.

 

[rightwinger]

Even if NATO didn't have a hand in this, NATO will get blamed. It's such a high-profile attack that from Russia's point of view, it demands a response. This is getting to 'moment of truth' time. If Putin wanted to launch low-yield nukes, this could be the triggering event.

Does Russia believe they are the only ones allowed to blow shit up in a war?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think Putin wants to launch ICBMs. I think that's a low risk...initially.

But I can envision a scenario in which he drops a tactical nuke and then things quickly spiral out of control, with both sides escalating and counter-escalating. If Putin drops a low-yield nuke, it wouldn't be for any strategic purpose; it would be to terrorize and intimidate Ukraine and NATO in order to force a negotiation, or to possibly strain the alliance. If that happens, there will be pressure to go for an all-out assault on Russia's remaining military in Ukraine, which will either frighten or infuriate Moscow.

The world has avoided nuclear holocaust because we've had rational thinkers running the world's most important regimes - at least most of the time. We're getting ourselves into a situation where one side is going to be making decisions about nukes that are potentially guided more by emotion than logic.

To date, NATO has avoided providing air power or ground troops to support Ukraine. Preferring to allow Ukraine to do the fighting.

If Putin ups the ante and begins using tactical nukes, NATO will not hesitate to become engaged. Not with tit for tat nuclear strikes but with conventional strikes that bring the war to Russia.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We can be stubborn about this or we can recognize that Putin probably wants a face-saving way out. He will lose this war - that is certain. What's not certain is how he handles losing and what the price of this war is for everyone. That depends on Russia, but it also depends on us.

There are no face-saving options for Putin. No peace treaty between Ukraine and Putin's Russia is feasible without a guarantor of the that peace and there is no acceptable guarantor but NATO, so even if Ukraine were willing to give up some land allowing Ukraine to effectively become a member of NATO would be a humiliating loss for Putin,

 

[xyz]

caption: "Happy Birthday!"

 

[multivita-man]

There are no face-saving options for Putin. No peace treaty between Ukraine and Putin's Russia is feasible without a guarantor of the that peace and there is no acceptable guarantor but NATO, so even if Ukraine were willing to give up some land allowing Ukraine to effectively become a member of NATO would be a humiliating loss for Putin,

He's not in a position to dictate the terms of peace, I agree. I get that we're right and Russia's wrong - they are the invaders. But we made the mistake of letting him take Crimea and parts of the Donbas and keep it for 7 years. Like it or not, that's part of the dynamic, as are the thousands of nuclear weapons Putin has, and as are the economic pressures that are building worldwide because of the war. Our goal shouldn't be to ensure that Ukraine gets everything it wants and Putin gets nothing. Our goal should be to ensure that Putin knows that his act is up and that we're not going to tolerate any more aggression from him, and I think he's gotten that message, even if he'll never admit it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't think Putin wants to launch ICBMs. I think that's a low risk...initially.

But I can envision a scenario in which he drops a tactical nuke and then things quickly spiral out of control, with both sides escalating and counter-escalating. If Putin drops a low-yield nuke, it wouldn't be for any strategic purpose; it would be to terrorize and intimidate Ukraine and NATO in order to force a negotiation, or to possibly strain the alliance. If that happens, there will be pressure to go for an all-out assault on Russia's remaining military in Ukraine, which will either frighten or infuriate Moscow.

The world has avoided nuclear holocaust because we've had rational thinkers running the world's most important regimes - at least most of the time. We're getting ourselves into a situation where one side is going to be making decisions about nukes that are potentially guided more by emotion than logic.

I think people assume that exit strategy = pussing out and rolling over for Ivan. It's not. As I said, Putin has lost. We should make a peace deal that largely favors post-2014 Ukraine. I know Zelensky will want unconditional surrender, but as far as I'm concerned, he's not the only decision maker here. He would have been deposed by now if it weren't for Western/NATO support, so we have a say in this whether he likes it or not.

Putin has demonstrated that he has no respect for any treaties or laws and no one in his right mind would sign any treaty, understanding or contract with Putin's Russia if it were not guaranteed by a third party capable of enforcing he terms of the treaty and in this case only NATO could serve as that guarantor, making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO; hardly a face saving move for Putin.

 

[para bellum]

Maybe, but there was also a train carrying fuel somewhere around there.

The truck blew up when it was next to the train, and several fuel cars caught fire. I'm not sure how two sections of bridge managed to fall. You'd expect single point of failure, but one span failed in the middle and the adjacent one failed at the other end. I guess it could have been pulled from the pier by the buckling of the connected section.

The truck came from inside Russia, it could be homegrown. There's been a lot of sabotage in Russia this year.

 

[xyz]

To date, NATO has avoided providing air power or ground troops to support Ukraine. Preferring to allow Ukraine to do the fighting.

If Putin ups the ante and begins using tactical nukes, NATO will not hesitate to become engaged. Not with tit for tat nuclear strikes but with conventional strikes that bring the war to Russia.

However, then the war will escalate way beyond Ukraine. I don't mean bombing cities near Ukraine to stop reinforcements, but Russia would start firing rockets at NATO countries. It would become inevitable that NATO will have to occupy parts of Russia and massively bomb Russian infrastructure. It's a clear escalation.

But it's more complicated than that. If Russia is allowed to fire one nuclear weapon without a nuclear response, then they would also fire a second. So this isn't a good approach either.

 

[rightwinger]

However, then the war will escalate way beyond Ukraine. I don't mean bombing cities near Ukraine to stop reinforcements, but Russia would start firing rockets at NATO countries. It would become inevitable that NATO will have to occupy parts of Russia and massively bomb Russian infrastructure. It's a clear escalation.

But it's more complicated than that. If Russia is allowed to fire one nuclear weapon without a nuclear response, then they would also fire a second. So this isn't a good approach either.

I think NATO could annihilate Russian forces without resorting to tit for tat nuclear strikes

Russia is having enough trouble supporting their troops as it is.
NATO air power could cut them off

 

[ESay]

It is an interesting question what NATO can do if the Putin regime resorts to tactical nuclear weapons. Some answer should be, because otherwise it sends a wrong signal not only to the Kremlin, but also to such pariahs as N Korea and Iran.

Definitely, it won't be a direct attack on Russian territory or even Russian troops inside of Ukraine.

I think the answer will be sending arms to Ukraine which now is taboo, such as tanks and medium-range missiles. And setting up some sort of a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

 

[xyz]

I think the answer will be sending arms to Ukraine which now is taboo, such as tanks and medium-range missiles. And setting up some sort of a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

In response to a nuclear bomb? That's stupid, way too little.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He's not in a position to dictate the terms of peace, I agree. I get that we're right and Russia's wrong - they are the invaders. But we made the mistake of letting him take Crimea and parts of the Donbas and keep it for 7 years. Like it or not, that's part of the dynamic, as are the thousands of nuclear weapons Putin has, and as are the economic pressures that are building worldwide because of the war. Our goal shouldn't be to ensure that Ukraine gets everything it wants and Putin gets nothing. Our goal should be to ensure that Putin knows that his act is up and that we're not going to tolerate any more aggression from him, and I think he's gotten that message, even if he'll never admit it.

Again, Putin cannot be trusted to abide by any treaty or law and clearly his judgement of what is possible is deeply flawed, so there can be no stable peace established by a treaty between Ukraine and Russia unless there is a guarantor capable of enforcing the terms of that treaty, the only NATO can serve in that capacity. Since only a fool would trust Putin, NATO in Ukraine would have to be accepted by Putin before any other matters can be discussed.

In the unlikely circumstance that Putin would agree to have NATO in Ukraine and Ukraine eventually join the EU, since with only a few exceptions, the world recognizes the pre 2014 borders as the only legal borders of Ukraine and since Russia has been murdering Ukrainians and blowing up their homes and schools and hospitals all these years, it is up to the Ukrainians to weight the costs and benefits of yielding any land to Russia, and at this point they don't seem to be inclined to give up any. So at this point it doesn't seem there is any possibility of a peace treaty.