|
A rare case of a high ranking official hinting that perhaps not everything has gone according to Putin's plan thus far. https://twitter.com/Ben_H_Noble/status/1503070502239232011
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Mulva posted:I wonder where this mindset came from. Where people are so desperate to not engage because it could mean total global thermonuclear war and the end of everything. What, you don't think Russians have people like that too? You think we couldn't just drop a nuke on Moscow and say "We will absolutely destroy every single person on the planet if you dare to try anything but total surrender right now." because they'd just all line up to kill themselves? Why? Would you? Why do you think Russians are especially deranged? So, uh, you're asking why people are extremely gunshy about open warfare between the world's largest nuclear powers? I think it'd be really stupid to use nuclear weapons. I also think it was pretty stupid to launch an invasion on the whole of Ukraine. The likelihood doesn't need to be high for it to be an extremely tense situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:How would the Russians find out if Poland fired Patriot missiles at Russian planes that are trying to bomb the supply convoys? The area is under heavy SAM coverage and I can’t imagine it’s easy to tell if a Ukranian or Polish air defence system brought down those planes. It would be though. Also that's a pretty big risk. AAAAND those patriots aren't under Polish control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:A friend of mine moved back to Poland several years ago to start a business. He said that several people he knows have gone to Ukraine for "the chance to kill Russians". gay picnic defence posted:I was talking to a guy at the boat ramp today, the topic of the war came up and he said he had a Polish background (born in Australia though) and was thinking of going to Poland to sign up for a spot of Russian killing. It's what his grandfather would've wanted... This checks out. One of the places I work had a guy with a Polish background who was supposed to have a medical procedure there the other day. It was canceled because he went to Ukraine to fight the Russians. This was told to me by the doctor who was going to perform the procedure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I hate to be the one who keeps saying this, but this assumption that NATO intervention means absolutely nuclear war is hysteria. For a long and thorough answer, here's a great article cini zoo sniper linked in the ClancyChat thread: https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101 It's been gamed out for decades: Any direct conflict between nuclear powers presents unacceptable risk of rational retaliation and escalation ending in catastrophe. The rational responses to the rational responses to the rational responses quickly become completely irrational, and so as they say: the only winning move is not to play
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:A rare case of a high ranking official hinting that perhaps not everything has gone according to Putin's plan thus far. I believe Zolotov is the head of Putin's personal army and also a personal friend of Kadyrov. On one hand he can get away with a lot more than this, on the other hand if he actually starts making statements that look even remotely like criticism of Putin, it could likely mean the end of Putin - or Zolotov.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:A rare case of a high ranking official hinting that perhaps not everything has gone according to Putin's plan thus far. That's the first part of the quote, and the rest is "because the Nazi's are using women, children and the elderly as a shield but we're moving ahead step by step and we'll be victorious".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I mean this is pretty clancychat but just I just want to say that a full nuclear exchange between super powers that results in both or all involved parties detonating their existing nuclear warheads would absolutely boil life down to insects and bacteria on a medium time frame. There is absolutely enough nuclear weapons on the planet today to remove anything resembling intelligent life as we currently know it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
coelomate posted:For a long and thorough answer, here's a great article cini zoo sniper linked in the ClancyChat thread: https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101 The problem with this, as I'm pretty sure most of the thread understands, is that you quickly paint yourself into a corner of "It is only acceptable to use nuclear weapons if you, yourself, are being invaded and under threat of national destruction if you don't use them", which leads pretty quickly to "If you want to conquer countries, you can do it against any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, because nobody else will use nuclear weapons against you if you do", which leads to "The absolute only guarantor of national security is to have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any realistic opponent." Or, I suppose, to have a nuclear-armed ally who you're really, really sure will deploy nuclear weapons to defend you, which crashes back into proposition #1. Which is a depressing but increasingly logical take, though following this chain of logic leads us to a world where a huge number of countries have nuclear weapons- as the only way to protect themselves from invasion- and the chance of someone who's IRRATIONAL about nuclear weapons having control of them and using them increases. No, I don't have any answers, because I can follow the chain of logic pretty easily and it ends up in a really uncomfortable conclusion. Regardless I think nuclear nonproliferation is probably dead, but I'm not sure it was particularly lively before this, so... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
I hope you are aware of how much "nukes aren't that bad, really" is a really loving terrible line of thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:How would the Russians find out if Poland fired Patriot missiles at Russian planes that are trying to bomb the supply convoys? The area is under heavy SAM coverage and I can’t imagine it’s easy to tell if a Ukranian or Polish air defence system brought down those planes. I think people in Poland would notice. Including Russia's spies there, but even just ordinary citizens' dashcam videos of smoke trails heading to Ukraine etc. And Russia has spy satellites too. But it would also require Polish and Ukrainian air defense systems to integrate somehow, otherwise Poland would be shooting down Ukrainian planes. It's impossible. Besides, Patriots don't have much range. Russian planes could fire missiles at targets near the border and turn back before any Polish missile could reach them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I wonder where this mindset came from. Where people are so desperate to not engage because it could mean total global thermonuclear war and the end of everything. What, you don't think Russians have people like that too? You think we couldn't just drop a nuke on Moscow and say "We will absolutely destroy every single person on the planet if you dare to try anything but total surrender right now." because they'd just all line up to kill themselves? Why? Would you? Why do you think Russians are especially deranged? Its not about being a rabid animal, it's that nuclear deterrence requires signaling that you will absolutely end the attacking country if you get nuked. That is what the second strike is. The entire point of having second strike capability is that you can say "even if you wipe out all of our main arsenal, we have enough nuclear weapons left over that you can't kill, and they will end you". Absolutely not Russia being maniacs, that is literally the lynchpin of nuclear deterrence. It is the entirety of the US posture as well. Having nuclear weapons means being able to show that you will use them in some circumstances. Those circumstances include being nuked. Simply put, nuclear governments are not willing to gamble that, in the event of war, that it was entirely a bluff. Also, dropping a "single nuke" on Moscow, in addition to bring an unconscionable war crime, is also very likely to a response before anyone has time to verify that it was just a single weapon. That is also a key feature of nuclear deterrence. E: the ACOUP link is excellent for a very basic primer on both nuclear deterrence and protracted wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Nato should just check within their active military units if there are any volunteers for 6 months leave with pay and transport them and some of their equipment to the Ukraine -Poland border. Wouldn't surprise me if CIA units and SF Green Berets are already actively fighting embedded with the Ukrainians using Ukrainian documents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
PederP posted:I believe Zolotov is the head of Putin's personal army and also a personal friend of Kadyrov. On one hand he can get away with a lot more than this, on the other hand if he actually starts making statements that look even remotely like criticism of Putin, it could likely mean the end of Putin - or Zolotov. It's absolutely not meant as a criticism of Putin, but more likely the armed forces. Under the Russian doctrine, it's blasphemy to say that the great leader has made a mistake. If a mistake does occur, it must have happened because of the incompetence of people working under him. In the past week alone, Putin has sacked army generals and attacked FSB intelligence officers, which is part of the blame shifting process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:It's absolutely not meant as a criticism of Putin, but more likely the armed forces. Under the Russian doctrine, it's blasphemy to say that the great leader has made a mistake. If a mistake does occur, it must have happened because of the incompetence of people working under him. In the past week alone, Putin has sacked army generals and attacked FSB intelligence officers, which is part of the blame shifting process. Presumably surrounding himself with incompetent people is all part of the plan in that case
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:The problem with this, as I'm pretty sure most of the thread understands, is that you quickly paint yourself into a corner of "It is only acceptable to use nuclear weapons if you, yourself, are being invaded and under threat of national destruction if you don't use them", which leads pretty quickly to "If you want to conquer countries, you can do it against any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, because nobody else will use nuclear weapons against you if you do", which leads to "The absolute only guarantor of national security is to have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate any realistic opponent." Or, I suppose, to have a nuclear-armed ally who you're really, really sure will deploy nuclear weapons to defend you, which crashes back into proposition #1. Now, should we perhaps resume looking into ways to prevent intercontinential or long-range missiles of whatever sort? Perhaps that would be a wise thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Financial Times
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
MRLOLAST posted:Nato should just check within their active military units if there are any volunteers for 6 months leave with pay and transport them and some of their equipment to the Ukraine -Poland border. Wouldn't surprise me if CIA units and SF Green Berets are already actively fighting embedded with the Ukrainians using Ukrainian documents. The CIA? Good call Tom. I bet Jack Reacher is over there cracking Kadyrovian skulls as we speak. sexy tiger boobs fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I distinctly remember a short period of time in the late nineties when it looked like Russia might kick the habit of despotism and finally build a future for itself. Their failure to leave that poo poo behind them is one of the saddest stories in modern history. Yeltsin and his crew squandered so much by being incompetent alcoholics. El Perkele posted:The late 1990s was not a good time for Russia. People from EU/West tend to look at Russia's brief flirt with western democracy and wonder why Russia "abandoned democracy", but it was also a time of unmitigated economic disaster, decreasing quality of life and unstable domestic politics. Back in Finland we were seriously wondering what would happen to Russian nuclear weapons were the state to completely collapse. You may also ask how much average Russians associate the economic hardships of 1990s, collapse of Soviet Union, and Western involvement in "capitalism" together. Don't wonder why the country did not stick with that political experiment. There's also the fact that crime and chaos exploded during the 1990s. The intentional homicide rate in Russia more than doubled becoming around the level of modern day Brazil. El Perkele posted:And people love to go "oh no Russia has no future". IIRC there are similar musings from 17th century, well before the time of Peter the Great. For a doomed, hopeless state they sure seem to stick around. As said before, the issue today with Russia's future isn't of it's modern corruption or economic woes, it's due to demographics. Unless they become the premiere nation of immigration and/or radically increase their fertility rate, the population will continue to decline making it impossible to compete with modern economic mega population centers like United States and China. fatherboxx posted:These ones were pretty okay if you ignore a lot of systemic problems and the life on periphery I was under the impression that the '70s were a period of stagnation for Russia/Soviet Union? That's when the Communist system stopped bearing fruit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Presumably surrounding himself with incompetent people is all part of the plan in that case For a sovereign ruler, loyalty takes priority over competence when it comes to underlings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Now, should we perhaps resume looking into ways to prevent intercontinential or long-range missiles of whatever sort? Perhaps that would be a wise thing to do. The longstanding military theoretical problem throughout the Cold War is that you can't. Even if you can get most of them, you're still hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I was under the impression that the '70s were a period of stagnation for Russia/Soviet Union? Yes and yet, at the same time, it was relatively okay for urban population before oil prices crashed and seams started to come apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
sexy tiger boobs posted:The CIA? Good call Tom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Center Would be pretty logical if these guys where in country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
The irony here is Ukraine is perhaps demonstrating that a non-nuclear state can resist absorption by a nuclear rival, albeit at tremendous cost. Which may be good or bad for nonproliferation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Financial Times Shenzhen, China's most active port and the world's fourth busiest container port, is completey closed for business - complete covid lockdown. An added blow to the supply chain problem, yet another driver to inflation, and in this context, a dagger in the heart of immediate Russian resupply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Financial Times It would be incredibly unwise for China to contribute (or be caught doing so) to Russia given the unity of the western world at the moment. Throwing away decades of soft power gains to help a dying nuclear armed regional power seems a bad trade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Welcome to the nuclear age. Why do you think that North Korea was desperate to get nuclear weapons? Or Iran or any state to be honest. It's why Israel despite being under the US nuclear umbrella developed its own nuclear weapons. That's why NATO exists and why so many of the former Soviet client states wanted to join NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because it is understood that the only way to assure that you will not be invaded by a nuclear power is to be a nuclear power. That's why Russia is so against Ukraine joining NATO and why they attacked now rather than wait until Ukraine could join NATO. W demonstrated that reality with the Iraq War and Putin solidified it when he annexed Crimea. Ukraine made 2 mistakes that put it in this position, the 1st was giving their nuclear arsenal up after the fall of the Soviet Union and the 2nd when they did not join NATO. It sucks but it is the reality of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I was under the impression that the '70s were a period of stagnation for Russia/Soviet Union? From the perspective of the average soviet worker, the stagnant 1970s were a mythical golden age. Everyone had a job (even if you often only pretended to work), so everyone had an income (even if the factories often only pretended to pay), and since productivity targets were understood to be more like guidelines, everyone had a surprising amount of free time to spend with their families / drink with friends. Most everyone could get their hands on small luxuries like fruit and consumer goods, and many people would even have had their first real holiday trip by flying in style with Aeroflot to the Black Sea, and probably returned with bags full of oranges and mandarins to dole out as souvenirs. In the great scheme of things, everything was for once stable and life was, if not great, at least pretty good. Then the 1980s rolled around and things were never the same since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The irony here is Ukraine is perhaps demonstrating that a non-nuclear state can resist absorption by a nuclear rival, albeit at tremendous cost. Which may be good or bad for nonproliferation. This brand new revelation brought to you by the Vietnam War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Skex posted:Welcome to the nuclear age. I don't think the second one is a mistake as much as it just wasn't possible Morrow posted:The irony here is Ukraine is perhaps demonstrating that a non-nuclear state can resist absorption by a nuclear rival, albeit at tremendous cost. Which may be good or bad for nonproliferation. A nuclear-armed society is a polite society. This probably wouldn't have happened if there were still nukes in Ukraine. But as we've seen, Putin is ok escalating and counting on the other side not to retaliate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Czech Defense minister calls for upping their support for Ukraine Visegrad4 is an alliance of opportunity between 4 very very vaguely connected countries and honestly should just die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Skex posted:Welcome to the nuclear age. Yep! Don't disagree with anything you're saying (as I think I tried to get across in my original post)- it's that this is throwing everything into even starker/less deniable terms. Have plenty of nukes, have an ally you're REALLY confident in with plenty of nukes, or you have no security at all in any meaningful sense of the word.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:This brand new revelation brought to you by the Vietnam War. With a dual follow-up course, courtesy of the mujahedeen of Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Financial Times How reliable is the Financial Times for reports such as these?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:It would be incredibly unwise for China to contribute (or be caught doing so) to Russia given the unity of the western world at the moment. Throwing away decades of soft power gains to help a dying nuclear armed regional power seems a bad trade. There's a big meeting between the US and China in Rome tomorrow, I'm sure this will come up. https://twitter.com/HoffHenning/status/1503036086351802379?s=20&t=I4wOPcn5eHGxkM_D77wtIg
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Visegrad4 is an alliance of opportunity between 4 very very vaguely connected countries and honestly should just die. They are connected very closely both geographically and economically, OP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:How reliable is the Financial Times for reports such as these? Those tires sure helped up to this point
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:08
|
|
SourKraut posted:How reliable is the Financial Times for reports such as these? Reliable in so far as they will not make stuff up, but this report is basically a White House staffer telling the FT that Russia asked for stuff from China and the White House is concerned about it. Given that there are high level talks between China and the USA the coming week, they probably have an agenda when giving away these information - e.g. make it look like a win for the White House when China does not support Russia with weapons, which they might never have considered.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:How reliable is the Financial Times for reports such as these? The financial times is probably the most reliable paper full stop to be honest. They're not going to comment on something like this unless they have complete confidence in their sources. Risky Bisquick posted:It would be incredibly unwise for China to contribute (or be caught doing so) to Russia given the unity of the western world at the moment. Throwing away decades of soft power gains to help a dying nuclear armed regional power seems a bad trade. It just depends what they concessions they can get for Russia in return. They already have a huge amount of economic control in Siberia and I imagine would like a ready supply of raw materials by making Russia into a dependant puppet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Mokotow posted:They are connected very closely both geographically and economically, OP. Not politically though, even if there are similarities. In particular the Slovaks and Hungarians really don't like each other and Czechs and Poles have rather differing views of religion and its role in politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:12
|
|
