Russia - threadbanned users in OP

I was replying to weisses post saying "Apart from nuclear weapons what else can they do ?"

I too don't believe that Russia will use nuclear weapons in Europe or Ukraine as they too would be turned into glass.

What I don't like is this apparent dismissal or cavalier attitude towards the actual consequences nuclear weapons can have....weisses throw away statement is ridiculous in that its like "Ah sure its just nuclear weapons, nothing major like".

Like many on here, I grew up in the 70s and 80s when the Cold War was in full swing and the threat of nuclear war was very real indeed.

The situation we have now, although it remains very unlikely, has the potential to escalate slowly but very surely to a point where the possibility of nuclear weapons being used, even tactical ones, becomes more of a potential possibility.

Major conflicts throughout history very rarely developed into a full on war quickly or over night, they simmered, there was toing and froing, there were gains and losses on both sides but ever so slowly but surely, they ratchet up, up to a point where its sh1t or bust and one of them loses the cool or faces losing the battle and that's when its at its most dangerous.

We were all riding on the crest of a wave since the end of WW2, where Europe enjoyed decades of peace or just limited conflicts (Serbia V Croatia etc. ), there is a whole demographic of people that have never had the spectre of war, never mind nuclear war hang over them, and they seem to see this continuing war between Russia and Ukraine as some kind of spectator sport, where we all pick sides and hope the baddy gets his ass whooped by the good guy.

That's not how these conflicts go, irrespective of whatever we'd all love to see happen in Ukraine i.e. Russia get destroyed in every way imaginable - this conflict could very easily, over many many months, slowly escalate to the point where the unthinkable becomes the possible and I don't care if any of you start saying "No No that's just what Russia wants you to think" - No one, not even those people know how this war is going to turn out and dismissing the power and utter devastation even a limited nuclear exchange could have on ALL our lives is a bad idea.

The chances of this happening are minimal but any possibility, even remote possibilities need to be respected and never dismissed.

I accept it seems ambitious but if we project forward to the end of this war and the demise of Putin, it seems a collapse of the Russian federation and / or a massive internal power struggle (or even a civil war) are almost inevitable outcomes. With it's economy in ruins, a terminal demographic decline, it's military strength spent and most of it's wealth stolen by Putin and the Oligarchs: whatever version of Russia is left is going to be in am absolutely desperate state. That presents an opportunity for nuclear disarmament to be a condition of the lifting of sanctions and a modern, perhaps EU lead, version of the Marshall plan to help rebuild it's economy.

As you say, no matter who's in charge, they're unlikely to give up their nukes completely but that should be the opening position of whoever's leading the post-war negotiations with the goal of removing their capability to ever use nukes in a first strike e.g. deplete their stockpile to a small percentage of what it is today. Economically, it could even be argued that the reduction in the maintenance bill would be essential for the rebuilding of their nation.

We all should be scared witless of a collapsed Russia, that would make the Ukrainian crisis look like a little blip, the economic carnage of the world's largest oil producer going kaput, nevermind wheat etc.

Russia is on it's way to collapse in some form, it's inevitable.

But this isn't the 1950s.

Too many Russians have experienced the comforts of the West the past 2 decades, there will be stomach to become the new North Korea.

They might not even have much oil if China decides to do a bit of land grabbing themselves.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Germans, whatever targets they set for renewables, they will probably exceed. They won't be putting too many eggs into the basket with Russia again, not unless they are fully sure they will be a reliable partner.

We don't pick sides in this one. It's Russia vs. the western world which include Ireland with all its neutrality. If you don't believe me, have a look at the latest gas/oil/electricity bill. That's the economic side of the war.

Germany is much more dependent on China, Russia's older and much nastier Communist sibling.

Frying pan fire and eggs in one basket etc.

Wagnerites take the village of Sil NW of Soledar

I understand what you're saying but I still maintain that we don't get to pick sides on this war. The side was picked for us by the very fact we're living in the western world. We have a choice still to support the right side, or to not care at all despite the effect we're feeling on the cost of living, or make the misguided (or straight up bought) choice to support Russia, or to be useful idiots spreading russian talking points and propaganda like urging Ukraine to the peace talks.

Dependence is a too way street.

There is a reason Xi slapped the nuclear rhetoric out of Puttins mouth.

Agreed.

They have damaged deeply what they had but in a few months more there may be several hundred thousand more driving West.

They'll never take Kyiv but the risk that they will take an awful lot more of the South East is real.

Not to mention their overt threats to nuke every European country imaginable. To actual think that some people believe that cowering to these rats in an attempt to appease them will lead to any good outcome is frankly amazing.

- you can't take Ukraine

- but I have nukes

- then go right ahead

- I'll take the baltics and Poland too if you don't mind.

- you can't they're in nato and the EU

- like I said, I have nukes and I'm daft enough to use them.

- oh alright, but no further, we won't negotiate again.

Yes the Soviets were not pushed about getting POWs returned after WW2. They rightly believed that they were contaminated after living as prisoners in the decadent west. Instead they opted for the insidious operation keelhaul in which the Allies duly complied and returned Cossacks and tartars and Russians some of who had left as far back as 1917 and were never Soviet citizens and they were sent straight to the Gulags. Allied soldiers had often to use violence to round them up and send them off to the Soviet Union. It was all part of the nasty unspoken appeasement of Stalin by the Allies at the end of WW2. Arguably Much more damaging and far reaching than the more famous appeasement of chamberlain pre WW2.

I would not accept that. Germany has some of the best tanks and artillery systems in the world. For instance they releasing Leopard tanks would allow 3-500 heavy tanks of the one type into Ukraine. The advantage is you would have one maintenance overhaul and tank recovery system in place.

You have to understand the way heavy tanks works. They sit at the back of an attack. You would have about 30 of them along with maybe 100 lighter tanks and 2-300 armoured troop carriers. The heavy rapid fire artillery systems are behind the complete lot.

Those heavy NATO tanks( Challenger, Abrams, Leclerc and Leopards) actually outrange a lot of Russian artillery. They can also take hit from a lot of Russian equipment. It would be there ability to pound through heave fortified positions. These tanks can hit stuff 5+ km away. They knockout another NATO tank 2km away. I expect they could take out Russian tanks at distances greater than that.

NATO has special equipment to get these tanks across small and larger rivers. the advantage of the Leopards is that it would allow multiple countries to give them to Ukraine.

Belarus, Russia begin joint air drills

whats next!