Ukraine

[SumJongGuy]

Had Ukraine hung on to their nukes none of this would be happening...

[jono]

Had Ukraine hung on to their nukes none of this would be happening...

North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran have entered the chat

[SumJongGuy]

North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran have entered the chat

+ Israel and soon Iran.. My bet is on Pakistan/India conflict being the flashpoint that kicks off WW3

[Toadman]

Good thread on Operational tempo of the UA offensive.

https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/sta...04142167506944

[Cono Este]

NATO not NATO isn't the question. It is "a" question and the answer is yes they should be part of NATO. Remember when your ilk was arguing that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed into NATO as that would cause Putin to escalate? Escalate to the point of using the nuclear option?

The question asked was Putin delivers a nuke to Kiev- what should the rest of the world do?

You are obviously not on ignore - but you are really really trying hard to answer the basic question. As you have throughout this entire "special operation".

And yet you mention nothing of Biden promising Putin no troops on the ground.

What ilk does he belong to?

[m2711c]

the strawman ilk, obviously.

[summit]

Ah it's just kharkiv. And who needs Warsaw or Berlin. We shouldnt sacrifice our brave fellow Americans for those shit hole places. And while we're at it would you really send nukes in Response if he got rid of those east coast elites in New York? Wouldn't our brave patriots in the heartland be better off without them?

I would not compare a strike on American soil or a NATO ally to a strike on Ukraine, whom we like but have no binding defense treaties.

Cono is correct that if we wished to have extended nuclear deterrence for Ukraine, as we do for NATO, then we should admit them to NATO.

Jono is correct that we cannot admit Ukraine to NATO while Russia is at war with them.

If Russia were to escalate to WMDs, I find TriU's gambit interesting and not unreasonable in terms of a non-capitulatory strategy: give Ukraine nukes. However, that is not as easy as it seems for technical reasons. Plus if I was Russia, I would declare that if Russia is nuked with donor nukes, the donor will be considered the nuclear aggressor and be subject to full nuclear retaliation. It would be a game of brinksmanship.

Maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent is unbelievable expensive for small nations.

We offer extended deterrence for Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ, who are not NATO members.

We could do that for Ukraine, but the time to declare such a policy, and it should be explicit else you have a Taiwan situation, is BEFORE Russian employs WMDs.

Surprise nuclear responses are not useful. If Russia nukes Ukraine today and we don't nuke Russia, that is not a failure of our nuclear deterrence policy because there wasn't one for Ukraine. The point of these weapons is to deter the enemy from using their WMDs. Voluntarily joining a nuclear fray to which we are not obliging participants is insanity defined.

Deterrence is a policy and extended deterrence needs to be declared before the ultimate response is required.

[LongShortLong]

So someone woke up this morning, discovered nukes, and is frightened. Welcome to the world the rest of us have lived in for the better part of a century.

I haven't followed deterrence ideas closely in the last couple decades, but see no reason it doesn't still work. There's always been new developments and new counters and new counter-counters. That said, with the development of precision strike, most NATO military goals, and political goals with military solutions, can be accomplished conventionally. Note our nuclear subs increasingly armed with conventional warheads.

I saw a tweet so it must be true: Washington told Putin that if he uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, we will respond conventionally and proportionately against Russian assets outside Russia. That seems an adequate deterrence policy that Putin is likely to respect. He also needs to consider the world's response to breaking the nuclear taboo. I find it very unlikely he and those in the kill chain will make a bad decision.

To the larger point that being dead in 5 seconds sucks (or instantly), we all need to learn to get along.

[Cono Este]

I would not compare a strike on American soil or a NATO ally to a strike on Ukraine, whom we like but have no binding defense treaties.

Cono is correct that if we wished to have extended nuclear deterrence for Ukraine, as we do for NATO, then we should admit them to NATO.

Jono is correct that we cannot admit Ukraine to NATO while Russia is at war with them.

If Russia were to escalate to WMDs, I find TriU's gambit interesting and not unreasonable in terms of a non-capitulatory strategy: give Ukraine nukes. However, that is not as easy as it seems for technical reasons. Plus if I was Russia, I would declare that if Russia is nuked with donor nukes, the donor will be considered the nuclear aggressor and be subject to full nuclear retaliation. It would be a game of brinksmanship.

Maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent is unbelievable expensive for small nations.

We offer extended deterrence for Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ, who are not NATO members.

We could do that for Ukraine, but the time to declare such a policy, and it should be explicit else you have a Taiwan situation, is BEFORE Russian employs WMDs.

Surprise nuclear responses are not useful. If Russia nukes Ukraine today and we don't nuke Russia, that is not a failure of our nuclear deterrence policy because there wasn't one for Ukraine. The point of these weapons is to deter the enemy from using their WMDs. Voluntarily joining a nuclear fray to which we are not obliging participants is insanity defined.

Deterrence is a policy and extended deterrence needs to be declared before the ultimate response is required.

I don’t want you to have your card revoked, but solid gold.

What the hell is the point of having a nuclear deterrence when the boundaries of which you have drawn a line in sand for are up in the air.

It would be total insanity.

Hindsight is 20/20, but lots of mistakes in the last 8 yrs leading up to this. Just too fucking bad no one can talk about them.

[m2711c]

I was wondering when other states were going to start taking a bite at Russia’s heels… seems the Azerbaijanis are going to see what they can take form the Armenians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/w...zerbaijan.html

[MultiVerse]

We offer extended deterrence for Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ, who are not NATO members.

We could do that for Ukraine, but the time to declare such a policy, and it should be explicit else you have a Taiwan situation, is BEFORE Russian employs WMDs.

We are going to do that for Ukraine. In addition to existing verbal guarantees, the formalization process is already in its early stages. According to The Kyiv Independent, Zelensky's chief of staff Andriy Yermak and former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen presented the first document with recommendations on international security guarantees for Ukraine. Ukraine's guarantors are expected to include the US, the UK, Canada, Poland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, Turkey, and other countries.

It's now time to prepare for what comes next after Ukraine's victory.

[LongShortLong]

Good thread on Operational tempo of the UA offensive.

https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/sta...04142167506944

That's good.

One nit (Am I allowed to kibbitz a general?) I wonder what he means by the "RU commanders will likely try to defend the key logistics hub of Kupyansk on the Donets River." Hertling must have written that last week, as Kupyansk is liberated. The road and RR network it's a hub for might be the line of control depending which map you look at (e.g. ISW), but I don't see it serving as a logistics hub without a significant counterattack. Anyone driving a train is gonna catch an NLAW or worse. And I don't see the RU forces for a counterattack (though maybe there was an orderly retreat that's poorly covered with the infowar). Nor do I see signs the line on the map is a line of battle - the rumor mill says the occupiers are leaving Savtovo, that sits on the next river east.

[LHutz Esq]

And yet you mention nothing of Biden promising Putin no troops on the ground.

What ilk does he belong to?

So you can't answer the question?

It's a basic concept - you have been worried about what others would do if Putin nukes Ukraine but won't say what you would do instead.

I must take that to mean you have no clue and are just here to spout Putin's bs.

This is why folks put you on ignore.

[m2711c]

Yep.

[rideit]

I don’t think kibbutz is the proper word…did you mean kvetch, or possibly kritikirn?

[PNWbrit]

I don’t think kibbutz is the proper word…did you mean kvetch, or possibly kritikirn?

"Kibbitz" is a verb, not to be confused with kibbutz. To kibbitz means to stand around talking and making wisecracks, and it can also mean to give someone advice and commentary when they are trying to work. A kibbitzer is a person who likes to kibbitz

[dunfree]

I don’t think kibbutz is the proper word…did you mean kvetch, or possibly kritikirn?

kibitz is what he meant

[Cono Este]

So you can't answer the question?

It's a basic concept - you have been worried about what others would do if Putin nukes Ukraine but won't say what you would do instead.

I must take that to mean you have no clue and are just here to spout Putin's bs.

This is why folks put you on ignore.

I already said it. Move tanks and troops into western Ukraine.

[jono]

Seriously? You've gone from no weapons, to no no-fly zone, to no HIMARS to boots and tanks on the ground? Seems dubious.

[rideit]

Meyn teus!

[LHutz Esq]

I already said it. Move tanks and troops into western Ukraine.

So your plan is to have your citizen soldiers just walk into a nuclear firing range and sit there?

Without any risk to Putin that the US will retaliate in kind?

That is your plan?

Sure glad you aren’t in charge. Sending in cannon fodder is not the way to peace.

[summit]

So your plan is to have your citizen soldiers just walk into a nuclear firing range and sit there?

Without any risk to Putin that the US will retaliate in kind?

That is your plan?

Sure glad you aren’t in charge. Sending in cannon fodder is not the way to peace.

These are problems without easy solutions. What do you do to deter Russia from WMD usage against Ukraine?

TriU's option is giving Ukraine nukes since they gave them up voluntarily for security guarantees that were broken, to allow Ukraine to deter attack, but thereby also empowering them to escalate.

MV says we could promise to nuke Russia if they nuke Ukraine, to deter attack.

Cono says we can put US troops in Ukraine to deter attack.

All of these have historical precedent. For the putting troops in Ukraine example, similar strategies are US troops on the South Korean DMZ or in West Berlin. They are/were a trip-wire. To invade is to directly attack the US military triggering a war, though not explicitly nuclear, thus deterring attack. Moving US peacekeepers into Western Ukraine is something like that. I'm not saying it is the best idea, just that it is not that different than what we have done elsewhere.

[Cono Este]

Seriously? You've gone from no weapons, to no no-fly zone, to no HIMARS to boots and tanks on the ground? Seems dubious.

That’s a lie. I’ve always said I supported President Bidens plan. Probably the only one in here too. The rest of you will send your sisters over if Zelensky asked for them.

If he uses a nuke, we have to respond somehow, securing the western country, for “aid”, would be the next step. Blowing up NYC, Seattle, Moscow, London etc would not, in my opinion, be the next logical step. Give us time to dig bunkers is all I ask for.

[Cono Este]

So your plan is to have your citizen soldiers just walk into a nuclear firing range and sit there?

Without any risk to Putin that the US will retaliate in kind?

That is your plan?

Sure glad you aren’t in charge. Sending in cannon fodder is not the way to peace.

Is that what I said? No, I don’t think so. I said “move tanks and troops into western Ukraine”.

I’m sure that plan is already in the table.


Like the much more eloquent Sunmit states, “peace keepers”.

[LHutz Esq]

Is that what I said? No, I don’t think so. I said “move tanks and troops into western Ukraine”.

I’m sure that plan is already in the table.


Like the much more eloquent Sunmit states, “peace keepers”.

Your answer to a nuclear attack is to move your nation's troops into the country that was just nuked.

But you don't want to retaliate.

It's not much of a plan.