Russia-Ukrainian War

[changegonnacome]

On 4/17/2022 at 10:29 AM, Spekulatius said:

I remain to believe that NATO expansion wasn’t the issue, the issues was that NATO never took Ukraine in after they tried to join 2008 and wavered backhand forth on this issue.

 

Completely agree & the people of Georgia would attest to that idea too…….those hollow NATO declarations, post the Budapest summit in 2008, with zero material follow-up setup a chain reaction of events were seeing today.

 

Finland & Sweden should take note…….the period of time between openly aspiring to join NATO and actually joining NATO should be as close to zero as possible.

Edited April 18, 2022 by changegonnacome

[Spekulatius]

8 minutes ago, Viking said:

i think the lack of clarity of how NATO will respond will actually motivate Putin to use this option. Want a quick end to the war? Use a tactical nuclear? Might actually work.

 

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

I don’t think China is really a factor here, They haven’t been doing much to help Putin and I read that trade with Russia is actually down, the reason being that Chinese companies quite correctly asses that the risk to get sanction is much higher than the pot, benefit from trade with the fairly small Russian economy is worth. China may be waiting to get some scraps here and their, but they haven’t done anything to actively help the Russian.

 

It is also noticeable that Belarusian besides allowing to be a staging ground hasn’t helped Russia either, nor did Russias ally Kazakhstan. Russia clearly doesn’t have many friends that it can count on right now.

 

Being somewhat vague on how to respond is the right thing to do to a nuclear strike. I think it is clear that there will be a NATO involvement but it would be a mistake to directly commit to a nuclear counter strike because it isn’t necessary. The NATO has enough conventional firepower to respond to a tactical nuke strike in kind and then some, which again gives Putin the choice to ask for more, doubling down yet again, of finally let it be.

[Xerxes]

24 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@SharperDingaan well said. I just don’t think that “Putin in a box” is likely.

 

Any idea what NATO would do if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine? Biden stated that chemical weapon use would “ get a response “, so nukes for sure would get a response. My own guess is that NATO would get involved and put a lot of “birds in the air” (missiles, planes ) with conventional weapons.

 

Targets would be the Russian Black Sea fleet, any Russian buildup in Ukraine, Crimean military in stations / rocket launch sides. targets within the Donetsk / Luhansk  and perhaps logistics center in Russia used to stage war. Of course the nuclear launch asset would get one too, regardless of where it is located.

 

 

Spek, you got to be kidding me in thinking that the West will get into a direct shooting war with Russia, if they use tactical nukes. The only thing one can say is that it will be completely different world the day after, even if it is a low-yield Hiroshima like nukes, due to the fact that they are tabooed.

 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

19 minutes ago, Viking said:

i think the lack of clarity of how NATO will respond will actually motivate Putin to use this option. Want a quick end to the war? Use a tactical nuclear? Might actually work.

 

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

 

 

You get 2 out of 3 right.

The first two paragraphs.

 

China cannot understand & control Vlad Putin anymore than we do.

Kremlin will not seek permission from Dehli nor Beijing to address what is considers as its national security. The events in 2022 will make Russia subservient to Beijing over time, but the latter will have no influence today now that the war has been launched.

 

Only one person does. And only that one person knows his red line threshold.

 

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

Drop any kind of nuke, anywhere, and you set off an unpredictable global chain of events; your odds of surviving it are very slim indeed. Nukes are simply a table stake, used when your current total ante is enough to ruin you - should you lose. Win/lose is irrelevant, the purpose is to intimidate, and make opponents back off. 

 

The reality is that 'spheres of influence' are simply an attempt to halt 'change' at a point favorable to you. However, history has long demonstrated that change is akin to a permanently flowing river; it can be damned up for a time behind the 'powers of the day', and 'controlled' via planned releases - but the damns eventually collapse. Old men, unable to change, striving for the 'old days', taking everyone else with them.

 

Obviously, 'Putin in a box' is the best outcome for everybody; and at this point, it is now more just a matter of time. Something that Putin, as a former KGB spy master, will be well aware of. Hence .... keep scanning that daily copy of Pravda!

 

SD

 

Great post, until the day it isn't and a tactical nuke is indeed dropped ...

 

And disagree with your last paragraph, that was the whole point of this invasion. A RESET. Putin would have been in box 10 years from now, if there was no invasion, with Ukraine propsering while Russia stagnated. Now he is back at it and fully in charge, traitors gone, oligarch with questionable loyality gone, and the world on the edge. Him and his will draw from power from that. If you are anybody in the Russian societ today, you EITHER WITH HIM or are AGAINST RUSSIAN PEOPLE.

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

[no_free_lunch]

I think you are under-estimating the economic side effects Xerxes.  Trade with Europe, including NG, would be completely severed if they went nuclear.  Trade with China and India if they continue to support Russia the same.

 

From a nuclear war perspective, I don't buy it.  Russia is not a death cult.  They are already resorting to conscription and recruitment from other countries and we are only a month into the war.  Clearly there are only so many Russian's willing to die and most have already made the commitment.

[Xerxes]

The remaining NG trade with Europe is the counter-weapon that Europe will deploy and I agree with that. But overtime that is slowly going away anyways. 

 

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations. 

 

All I am saying is we cannot hold & apply conventional Western thinking. 

 

I for one have been mostly wrong abouy my assumptions about Russia in the past 2 months. So I will not assume that they will not trigger their tactical nuke based on some sort of conventional business case.

 

[Xerxes]

Said differently:

Did the Japanese military caste who held sway over the foreign affairs and governement at large made the right bet when they put their plan in motion for a pre-emptive strike at Pearl Harbour. Which was very much similiar to what they did in the 1904-05 war with Russia. i.e. pre-emptive strike being a normal course of action to start a military conflict.

 

It made sense from their point of view given the sandbox and their calculus. Washington may have thought otherwise ... but that didn't matter, the point is that the Japanese did it like that despite conventional thinking.

 

 

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

Its a simple equation here I think - strategically who cares more about this piece of land called Ukraine…….the West (EU/NATO/USA) or Russia?

 

Russia has demonstrated it cares a hell of a lot about it……it has sent its blood & treasure there to fight & die……deaths now numbering in the 10’s of 1000’s of its own people. Its sacrificed its domestic economy & prosperity & Putin has risked the wrath of his people. I think we can agree that Putin has risked alot and therefore we can agree he cares alot about Ukraine and its strategic importance to Russia? The West has surprised me with its level of coordination in regards to economic sanctions & military hardware donations and these have had costs for the West but these have, to date, been relatively minor. The West cares but so far hasn’t demonstrated that it cares a lot….….and certainly not enough to do what it actually could do that would be really really material…..and thats to stop sending billions of Euros to Russia every day for NG & oil.

 

Military conflicts are not always decided by military might……they are over time actually decided by perseverance (See Taliban vs. USA). The question is not who is the strongest but rather who cares more. In a proxy battle, as Ukraine is now, between the West & Russia….who has the greater perseverance & strongest stomach for this fight? I’m fairly convinced on my thoughts on the matter and i think Zelensky is too, given that he has already publicly conceded to Russian demands. The problem now for Zelensky & Ukraine is will the USA & those on the Ukrainian right allow him to sign a deal which effectively amounts to a Russian victory - a neutralized and neutered Ukraine……….or will he be made wait until the whole country is in ruins.

 

Finally in regards to a game of escalatory military maneuvers in 3rd countries - weak hands & stomachs get revealed very quickly in these situations,  as @Viking has alluded too….if/when Putin escalates with chemical weapons or tactical nukes we’ll see the West’s response ……but as I’ve posited i think we’ll find that our level of support for the situation in Ukraine has a very very low pain/risk threshold…even the vague possibility of ballistic nuclear weapons winging their way anywhere to the West will be enough to collapse domestic support for any further escalatory moves.

 

Helping far off Ukraine in this battle of democracy & freedom vs. autocracy & tyranny can be stomached when it amounts to an extra few bucks filling up your gas tank………..but if the spectre of any real danger coming to YOUR doorstep & YOUR family raises it heads…the question of strategic importance or how much we really care about Ukraine becomes the defining algebra. In this game of up the ante Putin almost certainly has the West beat.

Edited April 18, 2022 by changegonnacome

[james22]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations.

 

 

Luckily, Ukraine has no military formations.

[no_free_lunch]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

The remaining NG trade with Europe is the counter-weapon that Europe will deploy and I agree with that. But overtime that is slowly going away anyways. 

 

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations. 

 

All I am saying is we cannot hold & apply conventional Western thinking. 

 

I for one have been mostly wrong abouy my assumptions about Russia in the past 2 months. So I will not assume that they will not trigger their tactical nuke based on some sort of conventional business case.

 

I think that would go away immediately is the thing.  That's a fairly catastrophic loss to Russia.  They don't have much of an economy outside of energy sales.  Until you come up with an analysis that factors that in I don't buy it.

 

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

 

Spek, you got to be kidding me in thinking that the West will get into a direct shooting war with Russia, if they use tactical nukes. The only thing one can say is that it will be completely different world the day after, even if it is a low-yield Hiroshima like nukes, due to the fact that they are tabooed.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I am not kidding. NATO gets involved using a conventional weapon response when Russia goes nuclear.

 

The reason is simple - letting it slide is not an alternative because once the Nuclear tactical strike pandora is out of the box, doing nothing is not a viable option because Putin will continue to use this weapon. Pretty simple , imo.

 

I grew up in Cold War time Germany. My history teacher was Major in the German Bundeswehr and went to great lengths explaining Cold logic and NATO‘s Mantra of “flexible response”. The logic is badically tit for tat with similar it lesser weapons but equal in power to the aggression.

 

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Completely agree & the people of Georgia would attest to that idea too…….those hollow NATO declarations, post the Budapest summit in 2008, with zero material follow-up setup a chain reaction of events were seeing today.

 

Finland & Sweden should take note…….the period of time between openly aspiring to join NATO and actually joining NATO should be as close to zero as possible.

Georgia is sort of screwed, due to its isolated location . It’s virtually indefensible if it were in the NATO. Also, there is no strategic value to Georgia or its location for NATO. Georgia in my opinion will never get admitted to the NATO for that very reason.

 

Ukraine is very different.

[maxthetrade]

4 hours ago, Viking said:

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

[Viking]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think that would go away immediately is the thing.  That's a fairly catastrophic loss to Russia.  They don't have much of an economy outside of energy sales.  Until you come up with an analysis that factors that in I don't buy it.

 

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

in the near term i don’t think Europe CAN realistically cut off Russian nat gas for another 12-24 months. The colder weather is < 6 months away. Putin has a short window where he still has significant leverage.
 

The US dropped the 2 bombs on Japan in WWII to save American lives (hand to hand combat in Japan would have been very costly in American lives) and shorten the war. Using tactical nukes in Ukraine would save Russian lives AND POSSIBLY shorten the war. What do you do if you want to take out Ukraine government / regime change? Drop a tactical nuke on Kiev. And now there are no Russian troops there. In the chaos that follows, take the East. Put up a wall and call it a victory. Get the propaganda flowing. With support from China… Because RUSSIA HAD NO CHOICE… it was all NATO’s Fault… get Fox/right wing in US parroting the Russia/China line… and we all KNOW Biden is really the one to blame - it is his fault! Horrific but not far fetched. And Putin likely gets away with it.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Viking

[Spekulatius]

21 minutes ago, maxthetrade said:

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

 

In all honesty I just don't see this happening…….if Russia escalates even with large fire bombs that literally destroy neighborhoods of Ukrainian cities killing civilians indiscriminately & flagrantly, a true horror filled escalation…….i think NATO stands by and watches, maybe then the NG & oil bans come in from EU (maybe)…but a NATO country actually entering the fray with boots on the ground or missles in the sky isn’t happening, I think were kidding ourselves that its even a possibility ……..Ukraine just doesn’t matter that much strategically for NATO, if it did, it would already be in NATO wouldn’t it? Seen as ‘we’ won the Cold War and all.

 

The big problem now thats emerged is the USA’s rhetoric around Putin being a war criminal & terrorist and given the scale of US arms into Ukraine & how this is fundamentally sustaining the Ukrainian side…….its very very clear at this stage this is classic Cold War-esque proxy war between the US & Russia being fought with Ukranian soldiers instead of American ones……where whats best for the Ukrainian people is now secondary consideration versus broader US domestic politics & foreign policy considerations & pride…....the US aka Joe Biden just ‘lost’ in Afghanistan to the Taliban, his administration aren’t about to ‘lose’ to Russia in Ukraine not till after 2024 anyway……..what Zelensky has already conceded to publicly in term of a peace deal is too close in its outline to a Russian victory…..and so the US decides to push on with arms supplies to them and will do so till every Ukranian male aged 16 - 60 is dead. Be very clear here, that the US could broker a peaceful settlement tomorrow exactly as Zelensky has conceded too…..but is choosing not too because of the wider foreign policy considerations.  “Waist deep in the big muddy & the big fool says to push on”  - so the old Peter Seeger song goes.

[no_free_lunch]

17 minutes ago, maxthetrade said:

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

It's not about protecting a specific country.  Are you guys really this naive?  It's about allowing this monster to grow and to enable it through inaction.  If Ukraine can be intimidated then why not Finland, Sweden, Moldova.   The bigger the USSR gets the more of a challenge will be.  Ultimately we could have people on this board saying are we really going to risk nuclear war over Poland, over Germany?  Best to stop it now while we have strength. 

 

The US has been going toe to toe and risking nuclear war since the 50s.  Vietnam, Korea , Cuba missile crisis.  Nothing new , although the current administration hasn't been tested as such.   I think it's definitely plausible but it won't play out as expected.  It could be the US arming Ukraine with nukes , total economic sanctions including with all trading partners, and yes conventional attacks on Russia facilities.

 

 

[Viking]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Its a simple equation here I think - strategically who cares more about this piece of land called Ukraine…….the West (EU/NATO/USA) or Russia?

 

Russia has demonstrated it cares a hell of a lot about it……it has sent its blood & treasure there to fight & die……deaths now numbering in the 10’s of 1000’s of its own people. Its sacrificed its domestic economy & prosperity & Putin has risked the wrath of his people. I think we can agree that Putin has risked alot and therefore we can agree he cares alot about Ukraine and its strategic importance to Russia? The West has surprised me with its level of coordination in regards to economic sanctions & military hardware donations and these have had costs for the West but these have, to date, been relatively minor. The West cares but so far hasn’t demonstrated that it cares a lot….….and certainly not enough to do what it actually could do that would be really really material…..and thats to stop sending billions of Euros to Russia every day for NG & oil.

 

Military conflicts are not always decided by military might……they are over time actually decided by perseverance (See Taliban vs. USA). The question is not who is the strongest but rather who cares more. In a proxy battle, as Ukraine is now, between the West & Russia….who has the greater perseverance & strongest stomach for this fight? I’m fairly convinced on my thoughts on the matter and i think Zelensky is too, given that he has already publicly conceded to Russian demands. The problem now for Zelensky & Ukraine is will the USA & those on the Ukrainian right allow him to sign a deal which effectively amounts to a Russian victory - a neutralized and neutered Ukraine……….or will he be made wait until the whole country is in ruins.

 

Finally in regards to a game of escalatory military maneuvers in 3rd countries - weak hands & stomachs get revealed very quickly in these situations,  as @Viking has alluded too….if/when Putin escalates with chemical weapons or tactical nukes we’ll see the West’s response ……but as I’ve posited i think we’ll find that our level of support for the situation in Ukraine has a very very low pain/risk threshold…even the vague possibility of ballistic nuclear weapons winging their way anywhere to the West will be enough to collapse domestic support for any further escalatory moves.

 

Helping far off Ukraine in this battle of democracy & freedom vs. autocracy & tyranny can be stomached when it amounts to an extra few bucks filling up your gas tank………..but if the spectre of any real danger coming to YOUR doorstep & YOUR family raises it heads…the question of strategic importance or how much we really care about Ukraine becomes the defining algebra. In this game of up the ante Putin almost certainly has the West beat.

As we have learned the past 7 weeks, Ukraine cares the most by far. If Ukraine gets the right weapons Russia is screwed. Ukraine is already destroyed. 
 

If Russia cares as much as you think then Putin likely has one way to achieve his objectives - tactical nukes. 

[Viking]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

Spek, if NATO will support Ukraine militarily if Russia uses tactical nukes then why do they not make that position clear to Russia before the fact? So there is no doubt? The fact NATO has not done this suggests to me they are unsure how to respond (not unified).

[changegonnacome]

9 minutes ago, Viking said:

Ukraine is already destroyed. 

 

Not quite yet……but it is getting there….…..taking control of Mariupol then further West into Southern Ukraine all the way to the port of Odessa seems to be Plan B…..Russia takes & controls these key parts of the Ukrainian economy and effectively its a country in name only. Forcing Zelensky & even the Ukranian far right to tell NATO/US to go to hell with more arms shipments….& to just let them sign a deal which as I keep reminding people Zelensky has already outlined whereby almost all Russia’s demands prior to the invasion are met.

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

 

 

 

What we consider as an escalation to WW3 (grouping all things nuclear) is probably seen by them as a legitimat extension of their current conventional war ... and not seen as escalation to WW3. Hence my example about Japan. West has a very different sandbox in term of how to view escalations when compared to Russia. i.e. a mismatch in the escalation ladder. I am not suggesting that they are ready to set the world ablaze for the hell of it, but I do suggest that they view tactical nukes as a natural extension of their forces currently fighting. Another tool in the toolbox, just like the flow of Western equipment to Ukraine, is another tool in the Western toolbox in its undeclared war against Russia.

 

The Western perspective is that the use of tactical nukes leads to WW3. That equation does not (in my opinion) hold for Russia.

 

Anyways, just my opinion.

 

Their concern for their troop safety (pulling from Kiev) is more of a concern in fixing a very flawed strategy of launching war on three axis, which has now been unified under the leadership of one general. 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

23 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

 

Well said, it becomes normal to use thereafter.

 

The Dow will drop 15% after the first use of nuke in the war, but then ends of closing the week on the positive, after the markets realize hey the world didnt end. Sad but true.

 

 

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

No, I am not kidding. NATO gets involved using a conventional weapon response when Russia goes nuclear.

 

The reason is simple - letting it slide is not an alternative because once the Nuclear tactical strike pandora is out of the box, doing nothing is not a viable option because Putin will continue to use this weapon. Pretty simple , imo.

 

I grew up in Cold War time Germany. My history teacher was Major in the German Bundeswehr and went to great lengths explaining Cold logic and NATO‘s Mantra of “flexible response”. The logic is badically tit for tat with similar it lesser weapons but equal in power to the aggression.

 

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

 

makes sense, now that you put it this way