5 ms·

They're running out of things like missles and bombs though IIRC? Why don't we honor the Budapest agreement and let the Ukrainians finish off Putin's regime wi

They're running out of things like missles and bombs though IIRC? Why don't we honor the Budapest agreement and let the Ukrainians finish off Putin's regime with US made weapons if we are going to play word games about the difference between NATO and a firm and unambiguous promise to defend a nation if they give up their nuclear weapons? The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.) It's time to stop letting totalitarians use people like pawns -- let them fight it out 1 on 1 like the thugs they are. I want to see Putin personally running up on Ukraine like it's the American civil war if he's such a history fan, rather than hiding in a spider hole like the rude little pedophile he is.

IgorPartola 4y ago
Because nukes. If Ukrainians push into Russia (which to be clear, they can’t for many other reasons aside from weapons), Russia would launch nukes and that could make the entirety of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Maybe they would. But I doubt they're that suicidal.
  - IgorPartola 4y ago
    Is that a chance you’d be willing to take?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Yes
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      I'd rather not, of course. My point is only that "Russia would launch nukes" is an overstatement.
- greggarious 4y ago
  >Because nukes. If Ukrainians push into Russia (which to be clear, they can’t for many other reasons aside from weapons) So this is like Vietnam (can't go into Cambodia or China) but with much larger counties? (To vastly oversimplify) (And sorry, I've been avoiding the news of the war since it's stressful)
  - IgorPartola 4y ago
    No, I wouldn’t say so. Invading Russia is not on the table at all for anyone.
    - greggarious 4y ago
      I'm not saying they should, I'm picturing a situation where troops enter Ukraine then retreat to safety repeatedly. I'll shut up now, I try to focus on policy positions, not the positions of troops :-)
      - IgorPartola 4y ago
        Ah that. Sort of. Ukraine has carried out a few deep strikes inside Russia so far. Military targets are not off limits even hundreds of miles inside Russian borders. But a ground assault is a different thing because then yes Russia can claim that it is being invaded and resort to nukes. But this also isn’t necessary to win the war.
        greggarious 4y ago
        >Military targets are not off limits even hundreds of miles inside Russian borders. But a ground assault is a different thing because then yes Russia can claim that it is being invaded Ah gotcha. My thinking was why make them use consumer drones? (But I shouldn't joke about serious things when I'm not an expert on these matters)
- scohesc 4y ago
  I've tried to stay mostly ignorant about the war for my own health - what has been released or talked about that makes people think Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? I'm not trying to be facetious or incidious with my question, feels like I need to worry more about paying bills and keeping my family fed but with nukes being talked about maybe I should be paying more attention.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    > Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? Putin will nuke hot areas in Ukraine, decapitating Ukrainian forces. No other countries will be involved.
  - simion314 4y ago
    Putin diplomacy level is in the negative, he and his dogs always threaten the neighboring countries all the time. So when targets inside Russia are hit like his precious bridge they always tell us that this means Russia is invaded and they have the right to use nuclear weapons in defense. For us in Easter Europe the bigger concern is the nuclear plants, this bastards will sabotage them in some false flag operation to get revenge on their incompetence and inferiority.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > I've tried to stay mostly ignorant about the war for my own health - what has been released or talked about that makes people think Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? Most of the military analysts I have read have essentially dismissed the idea that Russia was planning to use nuclear weapons--there's been no force posture changes that would precede imminent use of nukes. The worry instead tends to come from pundits and politicians, and are probably driven more by a desire to support (or not) Ukraine. The biggest concern is that Russia has consistently threatened nuclear responses to military incursions of its territory (which is not unusual, all nuclear states do this), but the territory that is included in this nuclear threshold is... unclear. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk in September, but essentially nobody recognizes those annexations. Immediately after the annexation, Putin did another round of reiterating nuclear threats. Note that Russia did not control much of Zaporizhzhia (including its largest city and administrative center), and Russia lost control of much of Kherson last month--if you took Russia's claims extremely literally, Ukraine was already in a position to trigger nuclear threshold response. Realistically, no one believes that Putin will use nukes in response to military failure in Ukrainian territory, with the possible exception of Crimea. The annexation may have been intended to try to extend the strategic ambiguity of nuclear response that exists right now for Crimea to the rest of Russian-controlled Ukraine, but it probably had the opposite effect (which is to say, people find nuclear response to a Crimean incursion less likely as a result of the annexation). My sense is that a lot of these messages are directed towards trying to get the West to force Ukraine to the negotiating table and ratify the status quo in lieu of being able to achieve military victory.
rasz 4y ago
>The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.) People in russia want the war, want to win and conquer Ukraine, they just dont want to be conscripted personally.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  This is what makes taking in Russian refugees complicated, many of them support the war they just didn't want to die themselves.
- DiscoDays 4y ago
  According to what I am reading on Russian-in-exile liberal media with persistent anti-war agenda [1], just several months ago polls (both state-backed and "independent" ones) suggested that more than half of the Russians were in favour of the war. The article I am citing suggests that there has been a change in opinions recently, but still. [1] https://meduza.io/feature/2022/11/30/za-peregovory-s-ukrainoy-vystupayut-55-rossiyan-za-prodolzhenie-voyny-tolko-25 https://meduza.io/feature/2022/11/30/za-peregovory-s-ukraino...
xtian 4y ago
> They're running out of things like missles and bombs though IIRC? No they aren’t. New York Times on 12/5: “Russian Cruise Missiles Were Made Just Months Ago Despite Sanctions”
- greggarious 4y ago
  IIRC North Korea has them too, maybe they gave them the tech? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540915 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540915 They tend to steal from everyone, test a bit, then trade what they have as their people starve.
  - xtian 4y ago
    The Russian missile in question, the KH-101, has been in service for ten years, is air-launched rather than ground-launched, and has at least twice the range of the North Korean missile described in that article. Why would Russia need tech from North Korea anyway? North Korean technology is based on what the Soviet Union shared with them. As far as I can tell, Russia has strong domestic production capabilities for even their most advanced cruise missiles such as the hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  That doesn't actually debunk the point; it potentially implies they've already ripped through the older ones in the stockpiles and are down to just the new, recently-produced ones. They don't have the production capacity to produce at a fast enough rate to keep the pace of cruise missile strikes in Ukraine.
  - xtian 4y ago
    The argument made by the West, including the US Secretary of Defense, was that Russian missile production would be significantly curtailed due to trade restrictions on advanced technology like microchips. If they are using missiles produced in recent months then that argument seems debunked to me. What basis is there to assume that Russia lacks the ability to mass produce the less sophisticated components of these missiles? --- Edit (can't reply): > They've also apparently been canibalizing consumer devices Based on an anecdotal report from the leadership of their primary belligerent in this conflict. Why is that easier to believe than the idea that they can produce the (very much not advanced) chips required in these missiles? > Historical. Iskanders have been produced in the dozens-per-year quantities pre-war, Kalibr in the ~100 range. They're using that many cruise missiles in a single day's attacks now; that isn't be sustainable long-term for anyone. Why would peacetime production represent their maximum capacity? They inherited a Cold War military-industrial complex which was preparing for a large scale global conflict. > You should re-read the NYT article you cite; it openly states it's not debunking what you claim it debunks. The fact the article reports is that a missile used in November was produced no earlier than October. I'm not required to agree with their insinuated conclusion. I do agree that the status of Russia's missile inventory is unclear since logically different types of missiles will be allocated for different uses based on their cost and capabilities (such as the ability to penetrate modern air defense systems).
jcranmer 4y ago
> The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.) My understanding of Russian politics is that it is primarily driven by apathy: the population will support what the government does, so long as it doesn't affect them. Russian mobilization is a violation of that tacit agreement, which is why it seems that mobilization is being targeted more at marginal groups with less political voice (e.g., ethnic minorities).
- electrondood 4y ago
  Apathy is one consequence of living in a post-truth society, created out of using decades of gaslighting and disinformation on your own people.
  - blaser-waffle 4y ago
    See also: The Russian Firehose Model of Propaganda https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
    - greggarious 4y ago
      Why would I trust RAND on anything policy related? The last time we crossed paths, the woman who referred me for an interview had to move to Switzerland, and they made a show of hazing me. (The last interviewer literally said the words "Autistic people can't work for RAND") They need to retool their insider threat program, at least the employees at SEI know how to lock down their devices :-)
denton-scratch 4y ago
As far as I'm aware, about 70% of Russians polled support the war effort. I think it's a bad mistake to blame everything on Putin. Russians are not benighted victims of propaganda; they have access to western media and the internet (although maybe they have to use a VPN). I know that older Russians are more likely to support the war; and that the population is ageing.But it seems very unlikely that Russians will revolt, unseat Putin, and force a withdrawal. It seems to me that Ukraine isn't fighting a dictator; it's fighting a nation. And I don't think Russia will concede, until it's defeated militarily. Russians seem to have strong nationalist and imperialist sentiments. So I reckon that if Putin wants to get kicked out, his best bet would be to end the war. As people have remarked upthread, the sanctions haven't even fully kicked in yet. Even if they were lifted tomorrow, the effects would continue for a decade. If I were Ukraine, I'd prefer my neighbour to be a stable state; but I can't see it staying inside its borders while remaining stable. In particular, Russians definitely regard Crimea as part of Russia; it's their favourite holiday destination.

IgorPartola 4y ago

Because nukes. If Ukrainians push into Russia (which to be clear, they can’t for many other reasons aside from weapons), Russia would launch nukes and that could make the entirety of Europe uninhabitable for centuries.

BurningFrog 4y ago
Maybe they would. But I doubt they're that suicidal.
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  Is that a chance you’d be willing to take?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Yes
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    I'd rather not, of course. My point is only that "Russia would launch nukes" is an overstatement.
greggarious 4y ago
>Because nukes. If Ukrainians push into Russia (which to be clear, they can’t for many other reasons aside from weapons) So this is like Vietnam (can't go into Cambodia or China) but with much larger counties? (To vastly oversimplify) (And sorry, I've been avoiding the news of the war since it's stressful)
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  No, I wouldn’t say so. Invading Russia is not on the table at all for anyone.
  - greggarious 4y ago
    I'm not saying they should, I'm picturing a situation where troops enter Ukraine then retreat to safety repeatedly. I'll shut up now, I try to focus on policy positions, not the positions of troops :-)
    - IgorPartola 4y ago
      Ah that. Sort of. Ukraine has carried out a few deep strikes inside Russia so far. Military targets are not off limits even hundreds of miles inside Russian borders. But a ground assault is a different thing because then yes Russia can claim that it is being invaded and resort to nukes. But this also isn’t necessary to win the war.
      - greggarious 4y ago
        >Military targets are not off limits even hundreds of miles inside Russian borders. But a ground assault is a different thing because then yes Russia can claim that it is being invaded Ah gotcha. My thinking was why make them use consumer drones? (But I shouldn't joke about serious things when I'm not an expert on these matters)
scohesc 4y ago
I've tried to stay mostly ignorant about the war for my own health - what has been released or talked about that makes people think Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? I'm not trying to be facetious or incidious with my question, feels like I need to worry more about paying bills and keeping my family fed but with nukes being talked about maybe I should be paying more attention.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? Putin will nuke hot areas in Ukraine, decapitating Ukrainian forces. No other countries will be involved.
- simion314 4y ago
  Putin diplomacy level is in the negative, he and his dogs always threaten the neighboring countries all the time. So when targets inside Russia are hit like his precious bridge they always tell us that this means Russia is invaded and they have the right to use nuclear weapons in defense. For us in Easter Europe the bigger concern is the nuclear plants, this bastards will sabotage them in some false flag operation to get revenge on their incompetence and inferiority.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > I've tried to stay mostly ignorant about the war for my own health - what has been released or talked about that makes people think Putin will launch nukes and destroy a bunch of land and cause untold death and destruction to numerous countries not involved in the conflict? Most of the military analysts I have read have essentially dismissed the idea that Russia was planning to use nuclear weapons--there's been no force posture changes that would precede imminent use of nukes. The worry instead tends to come from pundits and politicians, and are probably driven more by a desire to support (or not) Ukraine. The biggest concern is that Russia has consistently threatened nuclear responses to military incursions of its territory (which is not unusual, all nuclear states do this), but the territory that is included in this nuclear threshold is... unclear. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk in September, but essentially nobody recognizes those annexations. Immediately after the annexation, Putin did another round of reiterating nuclear threats. Note that Russia did not control much of Zaporizhzhia (including its largest city and administrative center), and Russia lost control of much of Kherson last month--if you took Russia's claims extremely literally, Ukraine was already in a position to trigger nuclear threshold response. Realistically, no one believes that Putin will use nukes in response to military failure in Ukrainian territory, with the possible exception of Crimea. The annexation may have been intended to try to extend the strategic ambiguity of nuclear response that exists right now for Crimea to the rest of Russian-controlled Ukraine, but it probably had the opposite effect (which is to say, people find nuclear response to a Crimean incursion less likely as a result of the annexation). My sense is that a lot of these messages are directed towards trying to get the West to force Ukraine to the negotiating table and ratify the status quo in lieu of being able to achieve military victory.

rasz 4y ago

>The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.) People in russia want the war, want to win and conquer Ukraine, they just dont want to be conscripted personally.

fortuna86 4y ago
This is what makes taking in Russian refugees complicated, many of them support the war they just didn't want to die themselves.
DiscoDays 4y ago
According to what I am reading on Russian-in-exile liberal media with persistent anti-war agenda [1], just several months ago polls (both state-backed and "independent" ones) suggested that more than half of the Russians were in favour of the war. The article I am citing suggests that there has been a change in opinions recently, but still. [1] https://meduza.io/feature/2022/11/30/za-peregovory-s-ukrainoy-vystupayut-55-rossiyan-za-prodolzhenie-voyny-tolko-25 https://meduza.io/feature/2022/11/30/za-peregovory-s-ukraino...

xtian 4y ago

> They're running out of things like missles and bombs though IIRC? No they aren’t. New York Times on 12/5: “Russian Cruise Missiles Were Made Just Months Ago Despite Sanctions”

greggarious 4y ago
IIRC North Korea has them too, maybe they gave them the tech? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540915 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540915 They tend to steal from everyone, test a bit, then trade what they have as their people starve.
- xtian 4y ago
  The Russian missile in question, the KH-101, has been in service for ten years, is air-launched rather than ground-launched, and has at least twice the range of the North Korean missile described in that article. Why would Russia need tech from North Korea anyway? North Korean technology is based on what the Soviet Union shared with them. As far as I can tell, Russia has strong domestic production capabilities for even their most advanced cruise missiles such as the hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon.
ceejayoz 4y ago
That doesn't actually debunk the point; it potentially implies they've already ripped through the older ones in the stockpiles and are down to just the new, recently-produced ones. They don't have the production capacity to produce at a fast enough rate to keep the pace of cruise missile strikes in Ukraine.
- xtian 4y ago
  The argument made by the West, including the US Secretary of Defense, was that Russian missile production would be significantly curtailed due to trade restrictions on advanced technology like microchips. If they are using missiles produced in recent months then that argument seems debunked to me. What basis is there to assume that Russia lacks the ability to mass produce the less sophisticated components of these missiles? --- Edit (can't reply): > They've also apparently been canibalizing consumer devices Based on an anecdotal report from the leadership of their primary belligerent in this conflict. Why is that easier to believe than the idea that they can produce the (very much not advanced) chips required in these missiles? > Historical. Iskanders have been produced in the dozens-per-year quantities pre-war, Kalibr in the ~100 range. They're using that many cruise missiles in a single day's attacks now; that isn't be sustainable long-term for anyone. Why would peacetime production represent their maximum capacity? They inherited a Cold War military-industrial complex which was preparing for a large scale global conflict. > You should re-read the NYT article you cite; it openly states it's not debunking what you claim it debunks. The fact the article reports is that a missile used in November was produced no earlier than October. I'm not required to agree with their insinuated conclusion. I do agree that the status of Russia's missile inventory is unclear since logically different types of missiles will be allocated for different uses based on their cost and capabilities (such as the ability to penetrate modern air defense systems).

jcranmer 4y ago

> The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.) My understanding of Russian politics is that it is primarily driven by apathy: the population will support what the government does, so long as it doesn't affect them. Russian mobilization is a violation of that tacit agreement, which is why it seems that mobilization is being targeted more at marginal groups with less political voice (e.g., ethnic minorities).

electrondood 4y ago
Apathy is one consequence of living in a post-truth society, created out of using decades of gaslighting and disinformation on your own people.
- blaser-waffle 4y ago
  See also: The Russian Firehose Model of Propaganda https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
  - greggarious 4y ago
    Why would I trust RAND on anything policy related? The last time we crossed paths, the woman who referred me for an interview had to move to Switzerland, and they made a show of hazing me. (The last interviewer literally said the words "Autistic people can't work for RAND") They need to retool their insider threat program, at least the employees at SEI know how to lock down their devices :-)

denton-scratch 4y ago

As far as I'm aware, about 70% of Russians polled support the war effort. I think it's a bad mistake to blame everything on Putin. Russians are not benighted victims of propaganda; they have access to western media and the internet (although maybe they have to use a VPN). I know that older Russians are more likely to support the war; and that the population is ageing.But it seems very unlikely that Russians will revolt, unseat Putin, and force a withdrawal. It seems to me that Ukraine isn't fighting a dictator; it's fighting a nation. And I don't think Russia will concede, until it's defeated militarily. Russians seem to have strong nationalist and imperialist sentiments. So I reckon that if Putin wants to get kicked out, his best bet would be to end the war. As people have remarked upthread, the sanctions haven't even fully kicked in yet. Even if they were lifted tomorrow, the effects would continue for a decade. If I were Ukraine, I'd prefer my neighbour to be a stable state; but I can't see it staying inside its borders while remaining stable. In particular, Russians definitely regard Crimea as part of Russia; it's their favourite holiday destination.