Reply to VitaMan and Lusty Lad, in new thread to avoid going off topic, about deaths in Ukraine and the Ukrainian war in general

Not close, not yet. Their real issue is that to even keep control of the area they claimed they keep expending resources. Eventually the cost will exceed the desire. The strikes at home are a game changer. State TV cannot keep the narrative of everything being all good on the western front.

As I stated before, their ability to produce equipment doesn’t outweigh their loss of equipment, while Ukraine doesn’t have to produce tanks or planes as they lose them. We and Europe do that for them - when we actually deliver the equipment instead of playing politics with it.

Russia has no off ramp - which was why Trump tried to force Ukraine to cave to them. Which only emboldened Putin. That was a tactical error. Loading up Ukraine with more equipment faster will force Russia to fight to hold area instead of looking to expand. It would neutralize any perceived advantage Russia could have.

We can agree to disagree as to Russia's economic standing. But for the sake of not getting caught up in pedantic nonsense, let's say Russia is a second world nation, how about that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Actually I disagree. What you brought up, whether Russia's third world, is not pedantic nonsense. This is going to sound like a digression but it's not, please stay with me.

A business colleague of mine worked in Russia for a couple of decades. His business partner was originally from eastern Ukraine, and his family still lives there. His business partner says his family, which are ethnic Russians of Cossack heritage, are persecuted, some hiding in their basements and praying for Russian "liberation."

That made me look at polling data. Would people in the Donbas and Crimea prefer their regions were part of Russia or Ukraine?

Western and Ukrainian organizations acquired the polling data, usually in ways that would minimize the potential for people to answer the way they thought the powers in control wanted them to. For example, using person-to-person interviews.

In Crimea, a majority of the population, before and after the takeover by Russia in 2014, preferred affiliation with Russia.

If you look at pre-2022 polls in areas in eastern Ukraine controlled by Russian militias, a majority preferred affiliation with Russia. However, if you go back farther to, say, 2014 and look at the whole of the Donbas, not just the eastern area, a majority or plurality preferred Ukraine.

The most interesting poll I saw was when people were given three choices,

1. I want my area to be affiliated with Russia
2. I want my area to be affiliated with Ukraine
3. I don't give a fuck. I want a peaceful life and a good pension.

Choice "3" won out.

Another interesting tidbit. The farther east you go in Ukraine, the higher the support is for peace. People in Lviv may want to fight on until Ukraine recaptures lost territory, but people in places like Pokvrosk close to the front lines just want this to be over.

Anyway, circling back to your point, Russian state pensions are about 2.5 times higher than Ukrainian pensions. And Russian government provided health care is superior to Ukrainian health care. If you want a decent state pension, as a plurality did in the poll, you might just prefer living in Russia. Ukraine is a whole lot poorer than Russia.

Sure, Russia could nuke its neighbor and would suffer greatly for it; hence, ensuring they would lose the war. Even TACO would have to do something were that the case and due to proximity, Europe would as well. Russia cannot take that step, no matter the saber rattling, because that would lead to the end of Russia as a country and likely several others. Your fear of the use of nuclear arms is surprising considering we are about the same age and both well know that no country is going to use a nuclear weapon (now some terrorist might get hold to a small one or a dirty bomb but that isn't the same thing). Every leader around world, even the crazy ones in North Korea and Iran, know that the use of a nuclear bomb gets you nothing but destroyed but the threat of use gets you plenty, which is why they and Russia keep the threat there.

Yes, Russia could start a carpet bombing campaign or even using fuel air bombs if they intended to try to wipe Ukraine out. But again, what would be the repercussions of that? US or European intervention most likely and NATO establishing air superiority and no fly zones over Ukraine. Russia is stuck between a rock and hard place since they can ill afford to engage NATO in Ukraine. They had one opportunity to win the war, the early months, but afterwards, they have lost as the real military options for them get more limited. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don't see NATO having the backbone, or the foolishness depending on how you look at it, to engage in direct war with Russia over Ukraine. That includes enforcing a no fly zone.

I do not believe that no country will use nuclear weapons. In fact, I think one probably will someday. As mentioned earlier in the thread, U.S. intelligence, based on intercepted Russian military communications, put the probability of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons at 50% if Ukraine looked like it would recapture Crimea. That's according to reporting in the New York Times. I'm happy to look that up if you're interested.

How close do you think Russia is to doing the same thing in Ukraine that the now defunct Soviet Union did in Afghanistan and what we did in Vietnam, that being, simply packing up the shit and getting out? Originally Posted by Jacky S

Afghanistan and Vietnam weren't strategically important to Russia and the USA. Putin and many Russians view Ukraine very differently.

No national will use nuclear weapon. They have nothing to gain by doing so and everything to lose. Every nation would attempt to ensure that nation never does so again. It’s a suicide pact. There’s a reason no one has used one since WW2. I am more amazed that you believe it possible that a nation would do so.

The problem with using a nuke is that you open the bottle without control over what gets pored out. Shaking a can of coke while closed is enough to ensure it stays unopened. Opening it after shaken gets coke everywhere. Countries with nukes will shake it but not open. The fact that you don’t understand that is interesting.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would be catastrophic and uncontrollable.

No national will use nuclear weapon. They have nothing to gain by doing so and everything to lose. Every nation would attempt to ensure that nation never does so again. It’s a suicide pact. There’s a reason no one has used one since WW2. I am more amazed that you believe it possible that a nation would do so.

The problem with using a nuke is that you open the bottle without control over what gets pored out. Shaking a can of coke while closed is enough to ensure it stays unopened. Opening it after shaken gets coke everywhere. Countries with nukes will shake it but not open. The fact that you don’t understand that is interesting.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would be catastrophic and uncontrollable.

No national will use nuclear weapon. They have nothing to gain by doing so and everything to lose. Every nation would attempt to ensure that nation never does so again. It’s a suicide pact. There’s a reason no one has used one since WW2. I am more amazed that you believe it possible that a nation would do so.

The problem with using a nuke is that you open the bottle without control over what gets pored out. Shaking a can of coke while closed is enough to ensure it stays unopened. Opening it after shaken gets coke everywhere. Countries with nukes will shake it but not open. The fact that you don’t understand that is interesting.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would be catastrophic and uncontrollable. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Blackman, This is what I was referring to in the NYT. This is a small excerpt, from a very long and very well researched piece btw.

Perhaps no piece of Ukrainian soil was more precious to Mr. Putin than Crimea. As the Ukrainians haltingly advanced on the Dnipro, hoping to cross and advance toward the peninsula, this gave rise to what one Pentagon official called the “core tension”:

To give the Russian president an incentive to negotiate a deal, the official explained, the Ukrainians would have to put pressure on Crimea. To do so, though, could push him to contemplate doing “something desperate.”

The Ukrainians were already exerting pressure on the ground. And the Biden administration had authorized helping the Ukrainians develop, manufacture and deploy a nascent fleet of maritime drones to attack Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. (The Americans gave the Ukrainians an early prototype meant to counter a Chinese naval assault on Taiwan.) First, the Navy was allowed to share points of interest for Russian warships just beyond Crimea’s territorial waters. In October, with leeway to act within Crimea itself, the C.I.A. covertly started supporting drone strikes on the port of Sevastopol.

That same month, U.S. intelligence overheard Russia’s Ukraine commander, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, talking about indeed doing something desperate: using tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the Ukrainians from crossing the Dnipro and making a beeline to Crimea.

Until that moment, U.S. intelligence agencies had estimated the chance of Russia’s using nuclear weapons in Ukraine at 5 to 10 percent. Now, they said, if the Russian lines in the south collapsed, the probability was 50 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wiesbaden.html

We came awfully close to a nuclear exchange in 1983. It might have happened if Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov hadn't "disobeyed orders, against Soviet military protocol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

And while I may be more paranoid than most, many very smart, well informed people take the threat very seriously. See

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-nytimes.html

What could start as a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine could expand to something much more serious, particularly if NATO had troops on the ground. You have to give the Biden and Trump administrations credit for holding back and not giving Ukraine everything it wanted. If Boris Johnson were typical of western leaders, it might be a different story.

I stand by my statement. No nation will actually use nuclear weapons. Our military, and every other one with nuclear weapons discuss their use. But no one will actually do it. No matter how desperate the nation is unless they are being invaded and in fear of their regime's existence. That is not the case, even if Crimea came under pressure. As I stated before, use of a nuclear weapon is an everything to lose and nothing to gain scenario.

No country has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon. There is a reason why.

I stand by my statement. No nation will actually use nuclear weapons. Our military, and every other one with nuclear weapons discuss their use. But no one will actually do it. No matter how desperate the nation is unless they are being invaded and in fear of their regime's existence. That is not the case, even if Crimea came under pressure. As I stated before, use of a nuclear weapon is an everything to lose and nothing to gain scenario.

No country has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon. There is a reason why.

Drones continue to improve. Now kamikaze drones will fly around a Russian tank, examine its weaknesses..then blow it up. The drone costs about $ 1,000.

If Russia wants to take over the whole of Ukraine, they need to figure out some other way than driving tanks down the roads.

Drones continue to improve. Now kamikaze drones will fly around a Russian tank, examine its weaknesses..then blow it up. The drone costs about $ 1,000.

If Russia wants to take over the whole of Ukraine, they need to figure out some other way than driving tanks down the roads.

drone searching tank weakness

result

I stand by my statement. No nation will actually use nuclear weapons. Our military, and every other one with nuclear weapons discuss their use. But no one will actually do it. No matter how desperate the nation is unless they are being invaded and in fear of their regime's existence. That is not the case, even if Crimea came under pressure. As I stated before, use of a nuclear weapon is an everything to lose and nothing to gain scenario.

No country has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon. There is a reason why. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I agree.

drone searching tank weakness


Originally Posted by VitaMan

That reminds me of one of those “Tarantula Hawk” wasp that goes after the huge spiders. The Spider is doomed.

Drones continue to improve. Now kamikaze drones will fly around a Russian tank, examine its weaknesses..then blow it up. The drone costs about $ 1,000.

If Russia wants to take over the whole of Ukraine, they need to figure out some other way than driving tanks down the roads. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Drones in Ukraine have changed the practice of war, in a way that doesn't necessarily give Ukraine an edge. This is what Christopher Kirchoff had to say on Zakaria this week. He's a leading military strategist who helped launch the Pentagon's Silicon Valley office.

Ukraine is such a tragic war, but there is a silver lining. And that is, it has woken up everybody to the reality that war is now drone on drone. And just to drive this home, you know, the U.S. M1A1 Abrams tank is the most advanced battle tank in the world. About $10 million apiece. We provided early in the war the Ukrainians with 31 of them. Almost all of them have now been destroyed by Russian Kamikaze drones. And that tells me that the era of mechanized warfare, which -- manned mechanized warfare, which began in the First World War, is coming to an end.

You can read the whole interview about half way through the transcript here, and it's fascinating:

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzg...-08/segment/01

Russian "infantrymen" now use motorcycles to evade drones. It's like something out of Mad Max.