4 ms·

I know that it feels like the military situation is like that. In reality Russia is much weaker than people think. Three years of war will do that to a country.

by ArnoVW 2y ago

I know that it feels like the military situation is like that. In reality Russia is much weaker than people think. Three years of war will do that to a country. All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. And the military intelligence as a force multiplier. Thats exactly what we have been providing. And it was working. Russian inflation is a 20%+. They are running out of soviet era equipment. They are running out of easily conscriptable men. All of this is documented using open sources. All that was needed was time. Time for Russia to implode. But democracy is a fickle thing, and Putin was counting on this. America will have to live with this period of infamy for a long time. And the world will suffer the consequences.

dataflow 2y ago
> All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.
- efnx 2y ago
  On Ukraine? Or the US? Either way - I’m pretty sure they want Ukraine and then there’s mutually assured destruction.
- Daviey 2y ago
  Because China won't let them.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. It's really as straightforward as that. If we assume they are willing to go for a nuclear exchange then it's a different kind of conversation, but no military expert considers this a likely scenario. But even Russians indicate that their mid range ballistic missiles don't need nuclear wareheads to cause untold destruction - it was Putin who said that even without nukes their new missiles can level a city. He seems pretty confident in that, despite western intelligence indicating that the missiles are most likely a bluff as they are barely operational.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. How would dropping a nuke on Ukraine start a nuclear war? Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them.
    - gambiting 2y ago
      "Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them." That's not what military experts are saying. If the nuclear fallout reached NATO countries NATO policy would require a "proportional" response, which again, military experts suggest would be a small scale nuclear strike on a Russian facility of proportional impact. The big question then is what would happen next - either both sides cool down and see where this is going, or Russia starts attacking targets within NATO at which point we're at full WW3 level. The "nobody is going to drop a nuke back" is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
      - Ygg2 2y ago
        Keep in mind article 5 says "react as it deems necessary". > will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm If Poland triggers Article 5, just because fallout came to its borders, other members are free to send them iodine tablets and lead tents, rather than starting WW3. It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
        gambiting 2y ago
        Again, the point is - at that point we're guessing. If Poland gets radioactive fallout on its terittory we don't know how exactly NATO would choose to react. >>It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article. I didn't say it was - but Russia "dropping a nuke" brings us closer to the possibility of nuclear war, not futher away from it. And according to people who are actually working with/for NATO, military generals in eastern european countries, it is not completely unlikely that NATO would decide that a strike into Russia(nuclear or not) wouldn't be off the cards if Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine brought fallout into NATO countries - and if such a strike was conducted, we don't know how that ends.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Russia may well, though so far their nuclear posture has been all talk and not much to back it up. Ukraine is already asking what they gave up their nukes for. If I was Polish, I'd want a nuclear deterrent. If I was Canadian or Danish or Panamanian, given what Trump has said, I'd also be seeing if nukes could be developed.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Any single force that drops a nuke today [1] will get retaliated by _all_ the other nuclear powers, even allied ones, at once. Why? Because that will be the only, short moment, where each other will have the single opportunity to: 1/ affirm they are able and disciplined to use it (credibility), 2/ disarm the offender (own security) 3/ reinstate the balance of mutual dissuasion (global security) Playing it diplomatic would be a hint of either submission, fear, or incapacity to act against the offender - which none of the nuclear power would want to give. And however strong, a country can defend against one strategic attack, not against a multisided one. [1] doesn't matter what the target is: as soon as it's another country, you're toast.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    You're saying you believe the response to Russia dropping a nuke on Ukraine would itself be nuclear in nature? There's no way anyone would do that, it would trigger a nuclear WWIII. No nuclear power (Russia or the others) would just sit by and let a nuke get dropped on their own head. They would immediately escalate back.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it. The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed. Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours. Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        I still don't follow why the first response has to be nuclear. You could respond conventionally, and if another nuke gets used 1-2 more times, then escalate. You can get the point across without actually responding in kind the first time.
- jopsen 2y ago
  If we're scared of that why don't the US surrender. If that's the fundamental issue, everyone needs nukes, every small country. You don't want that. Living in a small Scandinavian country, I.do think we should at least discuss it now. We can't win any war, but we could ensure nobody else can.
- Paradigma11 2y ago
  Then China and India would stop buying Russian oil which would bankrupt Russia in a few months.
  - concerned_user 2y ago
    They already did, about a month ago.
- tdullien 2y ago
  Russians are scared a nuke might turn out a dud.
- krige 2y ago
  Whatever makes you think they're able to drop a nuke? They have tried to threaten with that by running trials and the tally is two out of three times there was a catastrophic failure, of which one failure was in the silo itself.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    This would be a problem only if there's shortage of nukes.
remarkEon 2y ago
Since the war began I've been hearing both that Russia is weak and about to collapse, and also that if the United States doesn't directly intervene the Russians will drive tanks into Berlin by Christmas. If they are as weak as you say they are, and I'm inclined to agree, then Europe can handle this, yes?
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  I never said they were pushovers. Just that they were weaker than people thought. It is clear that Europe would have more difficulty going it alone, since it does not dispose of the intelligence assets that the US has. Spy satellites, SIGINT planes, logistics, etc. Having to go it alone would clearly also impact the morale and thus the political will. But if Putin would decide to invade for example Poland, there is no doubt how he would fare. But from an industrial and economics point of view there is no comparing. Contrary to what mr Trump has been saying, Europe has paid for more than half of the expenses so far. The overall defense budget of Europe was 217B$ in 2019 and has been steadily increasing to 258B$ in 2021 [1]. For 2024 it is at 326B$ [2] Compare that with Russia that had a 184B$ budget this year [3]. And that is whilst being on a war footing. Also. Let's not forget that the US, together with the EU (and Russia) offered security guarantees to Ukraine, in return for them giving their nukes to Russia (since that was making everyone anxious). Our support for them is not some sort of "gift" out of the goodness of our hearts. It is a solemn promise that we made, in return for our peace of mind. Surely the US is not the sort of country that does not honor it's commitments, but backs down when the going gets tough? [1] : https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/eur... [2] : https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024 https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-def... [3] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    You mean a memo, with no enforcement mechanism and no treaty stipulations. There were no guarantees involved. Everyone understood this at the time but for whatever reason that particular piece of paper comes up time and again and it gets equated with actual binding treaties. It was not. I understand what you’re saying but appeals about “solemn promise[s]” comes across as emotional blackmail and, for Americans at least, doesn’t have the same rhetorical weight anymore.
ponkipo 2y ago
Man this "Russia is running out of XXX" tale is becoming quite old and not being taken seriously nowadays - year by year goes with the same narrative and it's only getting objectively worse for Ukraine...

by ArnoVW 2y ago

dataflow 2y ago

> All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.

efnx 2y ago
On Ukraine? Or the US? Either way - I’m pretty sure they want Ukraine and then there’s mutually assured destruction.
Daviey 2y ago
Because China won't let them.
gambiting 2y ago
Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. It's really as straightforward as that. If we assume they are willing to go for a nuclear exchange then it's a different kind of conversation, but no military expert considers this a likely scenario. But even Russians indicate that their mid range ballistic missiles don't need nuclear wareheads to cause untold destruction - it was Putin who said that even without nukes their new missiles can level a city. He seems pretty confident in that, despite western intelligence indicating that the missiles are most likely a bluff as they are barely operational.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. How would dropping a nuke on Ukraine start a nuclear war? Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    "Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them." That's not what military experts are saying. If the nuclear fallout reached NATO countries NATO policy would require a "proportional" response, which again, military experts suggest would be a small scale nuclear strike on a Russian facility of proportional impact. The big question then is what would happen next - either both sides cool down and see where this is going, or Russia starts attacking targets within NATO at which point we're at full WW3 level. The "nobody is going to drop a nuke back" is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      Keep in mind article 5 says "react as it deems necessary". > will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm If Poland triggers Article 5, just because fallout came to its borders, other members are free to send them iodine tablets and lead tents, rather than starting WW3. It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
      - gambiting 2y ago
        Again, the point is - at that point we're guessing. If Poland gets radioactive fallout on its terittory we don't know how exactly NATO would choose to react. >>It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article. I didn't say it was - but Russia "dropping a nuke" brings us closer to the possibility of nuclear war, not futher away from it. And according to people who are actually working with/for NATO, military generals in eastern european countries, it is not completely unlikely that NATO would decide that a strike into Russia(nuclear or not) wouldn't be off the cards if Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine brought fallout into NATO countries - and if such a strike was conducted, we don't know how that ends.
ben_w 2y ago
Russia may well, though so far their nuclear posture has been all talk and not much to back it up. Ukraine is already asking what they gave up their nukes for. If I was Polish, I'd want a nuclear deterrent. If I was Canadian or Danish or Panamanian, given what Trump has said, I'd also be seeing if nukes could be developed.
Juliate 2y ago
Any single force that drops a nuke today [1] will get retaliated by _all_ the other nuclear powers, even allied ones, at once. Why? Because that will be the only, short moment, where each other will have the single opportunity to: 1/ affirm they are able and disciplined to use it (credibility), 2/ disarm the offender (own security) 3/ reinstate the balance of mutual dissuasion (global security) Playing it diplomatic would be a hint of either submission, fear, or incapacity to act against the offender - which none of the nuclear power would want to give. And however strong, a country can defend against one strategic attack, not against a multisided one. [1] doesn't matter what the target is: as soon as it's another country, you're toast.
- dataflow 2y ago
  You're saying you believe the response to Russia dropping a nuke on Ukraine would itself be nuclear in nature? There's no way anyone would do that, it would trigger a nuclear WWIII. No nuclear power (Russia or the others) would just sit by and let a nuke get dropped on their own head. They would immediately escalate back.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it. The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed. Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours. Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      I still don't follow why the first response has to be nuclear. You could respond conventionally, and if another nuke gets used 1-2 more times, then escalate. You can get the point across without actually responding in kind the first time.
jopsen 2y ago
If we're scared of that why don't the US surrender. If that's the fundamental issue, everyone needs nukes, every small country. You don't want that. Living in a small Scandinavian country, I.do think we should at least discuss it now. We can't win any war, but we could ensure nobody else can.
Paradigma11 2y ago
Then China and India would stop buying Russian oil which would bankrupt Russia in a few months.
- concerned_user 2y ago
  They already did, about a month ago.
tdullien 2y ago
Russians are scared a nuke might turn out a dud.
krige 2y ago
Whatever makes you think they're able to drop a nuke? They have tried to threaten with that by running trials and the tally is two out of three times there was a catastrophic failure, of which one failure was in the silo itself.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  This would be a problem only if there's shortage of nukes.

remarkEon 2y ago

Since the war began I've been hearing both that Russia is weak and about to collapse, and also that if the United States doesn't directly intervene the Russians will drive tanks into Berlin by Christmas. If they are as weak as you say they are, and I'm inclined to agree, then Europe can handle this, yes?

ArnoVW 2y ago
I never said they were pushovers. Just that they were weaker than people thought. It is clear that Europe would have more difficulty going it alone, since it does not dispose of the intelligence assets that the US has. Spy satellites, SIGINT planes, logistics, etc. Having to go it alone would clearly also impact the morale and thus the political will. But if Putin would decide to invade for example Poland, there is no doubt how he would fare. But from an industrial and economics point of view there is no comparing. Contrary to what mr Trump has been saying, Europe has paid for more than half of the expenses so far. The overall defense budget of Europe was 217B$ in 2019 and has been steadily increasing to 258B$ in 2021 [1]. For 2024 it is at 326B$ [2] Compare that with Russia that had a 184B$ budget this year [3]. And that is whilst being on a war footing. Also. Let's not forget that the US, together with the EU (and Russia) offered security guarantees to Ukraine, in return for them giving their nukes to Russia (since that was making everyone anxious). Our support for them is not some sort of "gift" out of the goodness of our hearts. It is a solemn promise that we made, in return for our peace of mind. Surely the US is not the sort of country that does not honor it's commitments, but backs down when the going gets tough? [1] : https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/eur... [2] : https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024 https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-def... [3] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
- remarkEon 2y ago
  You mean a memo, with no enforcement mechanism and no treaty stipulations. There were no guarantees involved. Everyone understood this at the time but for whatever reason that particular piece of paper comes up time and again and it gets equated with actual binding treaties. It was not. I understand what you’re saying but appeals about “solemn promise[s]” comes across as emotional blackmail and, for Americans at least, doesn’t have the same rhetorical weight anymore.

ponkipo 2y ago

Man this "Russia is running out of XXX" tale is becoming quite old and not being taken seriously nowadays - year by year goes with the same narrative and it's only getting objectively worse for Ukraine...