• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy

I think the key was Medvedchuk. He's Putin's pal and a valuable hostage. I wonder though, how many Azov fighters did Russia keep? Surely they wouldn't release all of them, after all that talk about them being nazis and deserving death penalties.

The low number of prisoners released by Ukraine implies that Ukraine doesn't have very many POWs. Not thousands, or even hundreds.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
NATO promised a war until the last ukrainian.
Where?
It's a common trope, which dates back to at least WW1.

Nazis used the phrase "Germany will fight to the last German, Britain will fight to the last Frenchman" to demoralize the French and deride England's lackluster help to France. Just like Russia is now using the phrase to demoralize Ukraine and its allies. Not surprising really that Russia is dusting off old Nazi propaganda.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,056
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
It's a common trope, which dates back to at least WW1.

Nazis used the phrase "Germany will fight to the last German, Britain will fight to the last Frenchman" to demoralize the French and deride England's lackluster help to France. Just like Russia is now using the phrase to demoralize Ukraine and its allies. Not surprising really that Russia is dusting off old Nazi propaganda.
I get that. I'm asking when anyone from NATO made such a statement publicly. Or even implied such a statement. Or, to mix metaphors, declared Ukraine a hill to die on.

I have complete confidence Barbos can show me where that happened, as he claimed.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker

good analysis. Putin can’t equip 300,000 reservists anytime soon. He can maybe give them an AK and send them to the front line, without helmets or armor, but that will only result in further defeats. Putin is also weaponizing people who want nothing to do with his stupid war.

There’s also reports he’s making tactical decisions for commanders in the field. Worked out well for the last national leader who did that.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I expected we can listen to their communications.


Russia’s military is divided over how best to counter Ukraine’s unexpected battlefield advances this month, according to multiple sources familiar with US intelligence, as Moscow has found itself on the defensive in both the east and the south

Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said– a highly unusual management tactic in a modern military that these sources said hints at the dysfunctional command structure that has plagued Russia’s war from the beginning.

Intelligence intercepts have captured Russian officers arguing among themselves and complaining to friends and relatives back home about decision-making from Moscow, one of these sources told CNN.

And there are significant disagreements on strategy with military leaders struggling to agree on where to focus their efforts to shore up defensive lines, multiple sources familiar with US intelligence said.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
With Putin saying he will use nuclear weapons does anyone doubt he is a madman?

He's a madman with nukes. How does the world best deal with a madman with nukes? That's the question.
If North Korea invaded the south and threatened to use nukes what would we do? What would our military do? Obviously we'd do the same thing we're doing in Ukraine because that ball is not in our court. When Kruschev was ratcheting up the pressure In Cuba Kennedy simply said that the full force of the United States would be brought to bear in case of an incident. Defcon was raised. I remember, it was scary.

Today things are different in Ukraine. It's not just the U.S. but all free democracies and more, including China and India. If Putin wishes to commit suicide he will succeed. The truth is he is not going to nuke anyone. We should act like he might but know that he will not.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
When the JFK WH tapes were released in the 90s there were hawks like Curtis LeMay(Strategic Air Command) wanting to start a nuclear war to settle the east west issue.

The same on the Russian side. Khrushchev faced a possible coup if he negotiated.

As I see it Putin is a madman. He is dong just what Hitler did at the end.

In contrast I think North Korea is relatively rational. They have an orderly society with those at the top living well. I just don't see NK invading the South. China is also a restraint China said if NK intimates hostilities they will stay out of it.

My guess is we have subs parked near NK that can quickly devastate NK. Short flight time.


Would the Russian military obey a first strike nuclear attack on western nations? We would probably detect preparations.

In WWII the Brits cracked the German naval codes and made use of it judically to avoid tipping off the Germans.

I can only speculate how far we penetrate Russian communications.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
With Putin saying he will use nuclear weapons does anyone doubt he is a madman?

He's a madman with nukes. How does the world best deal with a madman with nukes? That's the question.
If North Korea invaded the south and threatened to use nukes what would we do? What would our military do? Obviously we'd do the same thing we're doing in Ukraine because that ball is not in our court. When Kruschev was ratcheting up the pressure In Cuba Kennedy simply said that the full force of the United States would be brought to bear in case of an incident. Defcon was raised. I remember, it was scary.

Today things are different in Ukraine. It's not just the U.S. but all free democracies and more, including China and India. If Putin wishes to commit suicide he will succeed. The truth is he is not going to nuke anyone. We should act like he might but know that he will not.
South Korea is our ally, Ukraine is not. We would defend South Korea and destroy North Korea. We have no such option if nukes are used in Ukraine. They will be tactical level nukes, not strategic, and used against troops in a contained region.

I, for one, do not think he is bluffing. In fact, he’s backed into a corner, and that’s likely the only option he has. At this point, it’s a matter of personal survival, and he will order the use of nukes. The question is whether that will be a bridge too far his military and they will refuse the order and put him out.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
Would the Russian military obey a first strike nuclear attack on western nations? We would probably detect preparations.
Russia wouldn't strike first at western nations. It would strike in Ukraine. Either Kyiv, or some smaller target to make a point. Then the ball is back in our court, and we can either call Putin's bluff or fold. And the response to a tactical nuclear strike doesn't have to be nuclear.

Let's say someone in the chain from the big red button on Putin's bathroom wall to the missile launch vehiche refuses orders. Nothing happens. We will never know it. But Putin will know, and will remove the people who refused orders and replace them with ones who do. And then push the button again. Only kind of dissent that can stop a nuclear launch is a coup where Putin is removed from power.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
With Putin saying he will use nuclear weapons does anyone doubt he is a madman?

He's a madman with nukes. How does the world best deal with a madman with nukes? That's the question.
If North Korea invaded the south and threatened to use nukes what would we do? What would our military do? Obviously we'd do the same thing we're doing in Ukraine because that ball is not in our court. When Kruschev was ratcheting up the pressure In Cuba Kennedy simply said that the full force of the United States would be brought to bear in case of an incident. Defcon was raised. I remember, it was scary.

Today things are different in Ukraine. It's not just the U.S. but all free democracies and more, including China and India. If Putin wishes to commit suicide he will succeed. The truth is he is not going to nuke anyone. We should act like he might but know that he will not.
South Korea is our ally, Ukraine is not. We would defend South Korea and destroy North Korea. We have no such option if nukes are used in Ukraine. They will be tactical level nukes, not strategic, and used against troops in a contained region.

I, for one, do not think he is bluffing. In fact, he’s backed into a corner, and that’s likely the only option he has. At this point, it’s a matter of personal survival, and he will order the use of nukes. The question is whether that will be a bridge too far his military and they will refuse the order and put him out.
There is also the question of whether or not they will work. Russians found out the hard way that some of their kit wasn't maintained very well, and in some cases were stripped for parts to be sold by corrupt folks. They also failed to achieve air superiority over a country with a relative handful of older aircraft. If their nuclear arsenal is as poorly maintained as their conventional arsenal, the nuke might land with a thud.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy

good analysis. Putin can’t equip 300,000 reservists anytime soon. He can maybe give them an AK and send them to the front line, without helmets or armor, but that will only result in further defeats. Putin is also weaponizing people who want nothing to do with his stupid war.

There’s also reports he’s making tactical decisions for commanders in the field. Worked out well for the last national leader who did that.
Mark Hertling also wrote recently a more in-depth description of his experiences with both Ukrainian and Russian armies since 2004:

 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
With Putin saying he will use nuclear weapons does anyone doubt he is a madman?

He's a madman with nukes. How does the world best deal with a madman with nukes? That's the question.
If North Korea invaded the south and threatened to use nukes what would we do? What would our military do? Obviously we'd do the same thing we're doing in Ukraine because that ball is not in our court. When Kruschev was ratcheting up the pressure In Cuba Kennedy simply said that the full force of the United States would be brought to bear in case of an incident. Defcon was raised. I remember, it was scary.

Today things are different in Ukraine. It's not just the U.S. but all free democracies and more, including China and India. If Putin wishes to commit suicide he will succeed. The truth is he is not going to nuke anyone. We should act like he might but know that he will not.
South Korea is our ally, Ukraine is not. We would defend South Korea and destroy North Korea. We have no such option if nukes are used in Ukraine. They will be tactical level nukes, not strategic, and used against troops in a contained region.

I, for one, do not think he is bluffing. In fact, he’s backed into a corner, and that’s likely the only option he has. At this point, it’s a matter of personal survival, and he will order the use of nukes. The question is whether that will be a bridge too far his military and they will refuse the order and put him out.
There is also the question of whether or not they will work. Russians found out the hard way that some of their kit wasn't maintained very well, and in some cases were stripped for parts to be sold by corrupt folks. They also failed to achieve air superiority over a country with a relative handful of older aircraft. If their nuclear arsenal is as poorly maintained as their conventional arsenal, the nuke might land with a thud.
In that case I think they'll just say "it was just a warning". Or fire another one.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
From the Kremlin today: ”This week marks either the eve of our imminent victory, or the eve of nuclear war. I can’t see a third way.”

It’s obviously not going to be their imminent victory. I really think they’ve boxed themselves in to using nuclear weapons. If they don’t then they lose all credibility. So Putin will indeed likely order such, but perhaps not for several weeks and depending on what happens on the ground in Ukraine. It may take some time to get the weapons deployed as well. But I see him issuing the order before the end of next month.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
That's the thing though... With this mobilization he could potentially end up depleting domestic security forces, and even they would likely look at this mobilization with worry.

Nobody who is aligned to be shoved into that meat grinder is going to be happy with the regime and at this point that's literally every Russian with testicles (because Russia among other states is a sexist hole)
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,023
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I was looking over the old board archive and there was a thread about Russia annexing Crimea. In the thread, JayJay said this:
]Is it because people are worried about the slippery slope? Letting Russia annex Crimera will make them more aggressive in the future, that they'll feel more emboldened to take over additional territory? That's waht I think anyway. In particular, certain key parts near the Crimean border and the Russian-majority territories in eastern Ukraine.
Looks like JayJay was exactly right.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I'm certain that the Ruskis know in no uncertain terms that if they use low yield nukes on Ukrainians then low yield nukes can then be used against Russian military. Does anyone here honestly think otherwise? Does anyone think they have not been told this? Really? Has someone been watching too many movies?

Pewtin isn't going to nuke anyone because it's like nuking himself. If he was going to use nukes he'd have already used nukes and we would likely already have responded in kind.

Hitler could have used chemical and biological weapons but shot himself in the head instead, literally.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I was looking over the old board archive and there was a thread about Russia annexing Crimea. In the thread, JayJay said this:
]Is it because people are worried about the slippery slope? Letting Russia annex Crimera will make them more aggressive in the future, that they'll feel more emboldened to take over additional territory? That's waht I think anyway. In particular, certain key parts near the Crimean border and the Russian-majority territories in eastern Ukraine.
Looks like JayJay was exactly right.
Good call on Jayjay's part. What was prognosticated about how the west would respond to an invasion of Ukraine? What was going to be our strategy if that happened? And the Ruski military was perceived at the time as being a juggernaut, extremely competent and capable. That has changed, it was a myth. So what now?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I wonder how much Trump's public attitude on NATO and the western alliance factored into Putin's decisions.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,932
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
Apparently if someone protests the war, they are rounded up and drafted to participate in it. (surely a great strategy to build an effective military force)

A couple guys who support the war, and came to counter the protesters got rounded up. They should be happy to know they will be able to support the war directly from the front lines.

 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I wonder how much Trump's public attitude on NATO and the western alliance factored into Putin's decisions.
Pewtin would have most certainly felt emboldened via the whole Orange Jesus fiasco. That hardly matters at this point. Before Pewtin invaded no one was really sure how anyone was going to react. We certainly know that appeasing dictators does not work for long term peace and stability and it seems that is the path we have taken, to fight back.

So now the bully is threatening to use nukes because we've just kicked his ass in a fair fight.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,231
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I'm certain that the Ruskis know in no uncertain terms that if they use low yield nukes on Ukrainians then low yield nukes can then be used against Russian military. Does anyone here honestly think otherwise? Does anyone think they have not been told this? Really? Has someone been watching too many movies?

Pewtin isn't going to nuke anyone because it's like nuking himself. If he was going to use nukes he'd have already used nukes and we would likely already have responded in kind.

Hitler could have used chemical and biological weapons but shot himself in the head instead, literally.
There's also the small matter of what Putin might use these nukes for.

They're tactical weapons, so they need to be used as a tactic; But to what end?

The design brief for tactical nukes was to defend against overwhelming armoured strength. They're (literally) overkill against lightly armoured forces, or small concentrations of enemy materiel; And they're fairly useless as offensive weapons, because if you use them, you deny the battlefield (at least for several days) to anyone not protected against radiation - not a problem if you plan to hold or fall back, but a big problem if your plan is to advance.

If Putin authorised their use by senior forward commanders, it's quite likely that those commanders would not use them, not only because of the shitstorm it would bring down from the rest of the world, but simply for lack of a suitable and appropriate target.

Using them strategically - to wipe out urban centres, for example - would be an invitation to a massive punitive/retaliatory strike by NATO forces. Anyone who nukes a city is asking for obliteration, and I am sure that various diplomatic channels, from the US Dept. of State through to Indian PM Modi, have made this crystal clear to Putin.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Reports on CNN of Russians backed up at the borders getting out.

I remember watching the Berlin Wall being torn down by people on TV. Maybe this is the final act of the play.


 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
Reports on CNN of Russians backed up at the borders getting out.

I remember watching the Berlin Wall being torn down by people on TV. Maybe this is the final act of the play.
Hardly. There were lines back in February and early march also. Didn't lead to anything.

Remember the anti-Putin protests from ten years ago? They were much bigger than what we've seen during this year, and still had zero effect.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Norway's PM made a very good speech at the UN. He emphasized there is no military threat to Russia.

 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
I was looking over the old board archive and there was a thread about Russia annexing Crimea. In the thread, JayJay said this:
]Is it because people are worried about the slippery slope? Letting Russia annex Crimera will make them more aggressive in the future, that they'll feel more emboldened to take over additional territory? That's waht I think anyway. In particular, certain key parts near the Crimean border and the Russian-majority territories in eastern Ukraine.
Looks like JayJay was exactly right.
I went back and checked the archive, and your quote was messed up. In reality half of it was from @Axulus and the last two sentences were my reply. Here it is formatted correctly:

Jayjay said:
Axulus said:
Is it because people are worried about the slippery slope? Letting Russia annex Crimera will make them more aggressive in the future, that they'll feel more emboldened to take over additional territory?
That's waht I think anyway. In particular, certain key parts near the Crimean border and the Russian-majority territories in eastern Ukraine.
This was written in March 18, 2014, after Crimean annexation but I think before the separatist offenses in Luhansk and Donetsk. Also at the time I had no clue about geography of Ukraine.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
That's the thing though... With this mobilization he could potentially end up depleting domestic security forces, and even they would likely look at this mobilization with worry.
I think Putin has read about the previous Russian revolutions, and is making sure that he doesn't send the domestic security forces to Ukraine. This ensures that A) any demonstrations or opposition will be efficiently nipped in the bud, and B) the police will stay loyal because they know that they're safe as long as the follow orders.

Despite analyses that say Russia doesn't have enough equipment or can't train 300k (or later up to a million) soldiers is being too optimistic in my opinion. How hard is it for a country the size of Russia to produce helmets and body armor, given that they've probably ramped up production months ago and are continuing to do so? Not every piece of equipment needs western parts.

This mobilization is going to be bad for Ukraine, that was already struggling. It won't show immediately, but the difficulty is going to ramp up in the weeks and months ahead. The Kharkiv frontline seems to have mostly stabilized by now, with Ukraine making only marginal gains, but Russian forces seem to be very close to getting Bakhmut. Kherson is question mark. Ukraine currently has not been able to do much more than pin Russians in place by disrupting their logistics, and even if Ukraine somehow manages to push Russia to the other side of the river, then what? Russia will just bomb the city to the ground. And maybe blow up the Nova Kakhovka dam.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
That's the thing though... With this mobilization he could potentially end up depleting domestic security forces, and even they would likely look at this mobilization with worry.
I think Putin has read about the previous Russian revolutions, and is making sure that he doesn't send the domestic security forces to Ukraine. This ensures that A) any demonstrations or opposition will be efficiently nipped in the bud, and B) the police will stay loyal because they know that they're safe as long as the follow orders.

Despite analyses that say Russia doesn't have enough equipment or can't train 300k (or later up to a million) soldiers is being too optimistic in my opinion. How hard is it for a country the size of Russia to produce helmets and body armor, given that they've probably ramped up production months ago and are continuing to do so? Not every piece of equipment needs western parts.

This mobilization is going to be bad for Ukraine, that was already struggling. It won't show immediately, but the difficulty is going to ramp up in the weeks and months ahead. The Kharkiv frontline seems to have mostly stabilized by now, with Ukraine making only marginal gains, but Russian forces seem to be very close to getting Bakhmut. Kherson is question mark. Ukraine currently has not been able to do much more than pin Russians in place by disrupting their logistics, and even if Ukraine somehow manages to push Russia to the other side of the river, then what? Russia will just bomb the city to the ground. And maybe blow up the Nova Kakhovka dam.
My biggest worry is what he's planning to do with the protestors.

Where will he send them to fight?

What city will he bomb to the ground?

I expect this is three birds with one stone. He plans to nuke his own people while using them as bait to a counteroffensive, tactically targeting the assembled material, while both warning protests off, and generating "martyrs". He just has to lie to Russia about who set off the nuke.

The world would balk at nuclear response to a city containing only (or even just mostly) "soldiers".

Ukraine better not be planning on putting all it's eggs in a basket, and not expect the presence of Russians to be a deterrent to the use of nuclear arms.

He just conscripted a bunch of soldiers he WANTS to die.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
That's the thing though... With this mobilization he could potentially end up depleting domestic security forces, and even they would likely look at this mobilization with worry.
I think Putin has read about the previous Russian revolutions, and is making sure that he doesn't send the domestic security forces to Ukraine. This ensures that A) any demonstrations or opposition will be efficiently nipped in the bud, and B) the police will stay loyal because they know that they're safe as long as the follow orders.

Despite analyses that say Russia doesn't have enough equipment or can't train 300k (or later up to a million) soldiers is being too optimistic in my opinion. How hard is it for a country the size of Russia to produce helmets and body armor, given that they've probably ramped up production months ago and are continuing to do so? Not every piece of equipment needs western parts.

This mobilization is going to be bad for Ukraine, that was already struggling. It won't show immediately, but the difficulty is going to ramp up in the weeks and months ahead. The Kharkiv frontline seems to have mostly stabilized by now, with Ukraine making only marginal gains, but Russian forces seem to be very close to getting Bakhmut. Kherson is question mark. Ukraine currently has not been able to do much more than pin Russians in place by disrupting their logistics, and even if Ukraine somehow manages to push Russia to the other side of the river, then what? Russia will just bomb the city to the ground. And maybe blow up the Nova Kakhovka dam.
My biggest worry is what he's planning to do with the protestors.

Where will he send them to fight?

What city will he bomb to the ground?
If enough people ever protested to make bombing entire (Russian) cities to the ground, then Putin would've already lost. But as it stands, there haven't been that many. About 500 arrested in St. Petersburg, and another 500 in Moscow. Smaller numbers elsewhere. So let's say 1500 arrests. It's peanuts in a country of 140 million people.

As for where to send the people... just a wild guess, but maybe Ukraine? :D If you're implying that people inclined to protest aren't likely to be reliable soldiers, that's irrelevant. It's about the fear of being sent to the front that's the key. If you haven't been drafted, then you'll likely keep your head down and not protest so the situation stays that way. That limits the protestors to those who aren't eligible to be drafted (women mostly), and those who've been summoned but haven't been able to escape or been taken yet. And frankly, if I was in that group, I'd spend my effort on the escape plan.

I expect this is three birds with one stone. He plans to nuke his own people while using them as bait to a counteroffensive, tactically targeting the assembled material, while both warning protests off, and generating "martyrs". He just has to lie to Russia about who set off the nuke.

The world would balk at nuclear response to a city containing only (or even just mostly) "soldiers".

Ukraine better not be planning on putting all it's eggs in a basket, and not expect the presence of Russians to be a deterrent to the use of nuclear arms.

He just conscripted a bunch of soldiers he WANTS to die.
Wait what? So you think he will draft soldiers, then put them in a city with protests, nuke the city, blame the west, and ... profit somehow? What the hell have you been smoking? :oops:
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A perspective I heard on the BBC. Seemed obvious after I heard it.

Putin is not talking to the west or Ukraine, when he is blustering about full scale war, NATO, and nuclear weapoms he is talking to the aggressive hard line Russians who support him, and the pro Russian Russians in occupied zones.
l
I'd think if there was coup it could come from them. I'd say if Putin had anything to fear internally it would be the hard liners.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

A good history of previous Kremlin Coups. But I wonder if a 1991 scenario is more likely. What if these demonstrations get further and further out of hand. What if the security forces find themselves overrun - even for just one case in an important city. It could snowball quickly. Putin has to be very aggressive in cracking these down but can he do it if they turn really large? If they get out of hand, all bets are off. At some point the security forces stop doing their job. They may not be enthusiastic supporters of this war either. They may have to go to Ukraine as well. At some point Putin is told he has to go. Maybe he’s given a dacha and immunity to soften the blow. Personally I hope he’s arrested or even worse.
That's the thing though... With this mobilization he could potentially end up depleting domestic security forces, and even they would likely look at this mobilization with worry.
I think Putin has read about the previous Russian revolutions, and is making sure that he doesn't send the domestic security forces to Ukraine. This ensures that A) any demonstrations or opposition will be efficiently nipped in the bud, and B) the police will stay loyal because they know that they're safe as long as the follow orders.

Despite analyses that say Russia doesn't have enough equipment or can't train 300k (or later up to a million) soldiers is being too optimistic in my opinion. How hard is it for a country the size of Russia to produce helmets and body armor, given that they've probably ramped up production months ago and are continuing to do so? Not every piece of equipment needs western parts.

This mobilization is going to be bad for Ukraine, that was already struggling. It won't show immediately, but the difficulty is going to ramp up in the weeks and months ahead. The Kharkiv frontline seems to have mostly stabilized by now, with Ukraine making only marginal gains, but Russian forces seem to be very close to getting Bakhmut. Kherson is question mark. Ukraine currently has not been able to do much more than pin Russians in place by disrupting their logistics, and even if Ukraine somehow manages to push Russia to the other side of the river, then what? Russia will just bomb the city to the ground. And maybe blow up the Nova Kakhovka dam.
My biggest worry is what he's planning to do with the protestors.

Where will he send them to fight?

What city will he bomb to the ground?
If enough people ever protested to make bombing entire (Russian) cities to the ground, then Putin would've already lost. But as it stands, there haven't been that many. About 500 arrested in St. Petersburg, and another 500 in Moscow. Smaller numbers elsewhere. So let's say 1500 arrests. It's peanuts in a country of 140 million people.

As for where to send the people... just a wild guess, but maybe Ukraine? :D If you're implying that people inclined to protest aren't likely to be reliable soldiers, that's irrelevant. It's about the fear of being sent to the front that's the key. If you haven't been drafted, then you'll likely keep your head down and not protest so the situation stays that way. That limits the protestors to those who aren't eligible to be drafted (women mostly), and those who've been summoned but haven't been able to escape or been taken yet. And frankly, if I was in that group, I'd spend my effort on the escape plan.

I expect this is three birds with one stone. He plans to nuke his own people while using them as bait to a counteroffensive, tactically targeting the assembled material, while both warning protests off, and generating "martyrs". He just has to lie to Russia about who set off the nuke.

The world would balk at nuclear response to a city containing only (or even just mostly) "soldiers".

Ukraine better not be planning on putting all it's eggs in a basket, and not expect the presence of Russians to be a deterrent to the use of nuclear arms.

He just conscripted a bunch of soldiers he WANTS to die.
Wait what? So you think he will draft soldiers, then put them in a city with protests, nuke the city, blame the west, and ... profit somehow? What the hell have you been smoking? :oops:
No, I think he will draft soldiers, put them in an occupied Ukranian city with no logistic support, let the city get overrun by Ukranian forces attempting to retake it, and then nuke them all.

This causes everyone who protested his war to fall out of the same window, while simultaneously being able to call them martyrs, and nuking a Ukranian city along with a large portion of Ukranian forces.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My biggest worry is what he's planning to do with the protestors.

Where will he send them to fight?
Let the fragging begin.
My point is that he will send them to fight somewhere where they can be disposed of strategically and visibly.

To the rest of the peaceniks it says "you're next if you keep protesting the war" and to everyone else, those under his propaganda umbrella, they are instead martyrs.

The only requirement is that a weapon is used such that it erases or prevents the realities of what was done from actually ever being well understood.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
My biggest worry is what he's planning to do with the protestors.

Where will he send them to fight?
Let the fragging begin.

There are incidents of recruitment and administrative centers being attacked with molotov cocktails

I noticed that some protesters are deliberately misspelling the word for mobilization--"mobilizatsiya" мобилизация-- as "mogilizatsiya" могилизация. The Russian word "mogila" могила is "grave" in English.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
I expect this is three birds with one stone. He plans to nuke his own people while using them as bait to a counteroffensive, tactically targeting the assembled material, while both warning protests off, and generating "martyrs". He just has to lie to Russia about who set off the nuke.

The world would balk at nuclear response to a city containing only (or even just mostly) "soldiers".

Ukraine better not be planning on putting all it's eggs in a basket, and not expect the presence of Russians to be a deterrent to the use of nuclear arms.

He just conscripted a bunch of soldiers he WANTS to die.
Wait what? So you think he will draft soldiers, then put them in a city with protests, nuke the city, blame the west, and ... profit somehow? What the hell have you been smoking? :oops:
No, I think he will draft soldiers, put them in an occupied Ukranian city with no logistic support, let the city get overrun by Ukranian forces attempting to retake it, and then nuke them all.

This causes everyone who protested his war to fall out of the same window, while simultaneously being able to call them martyrs, and nuking a Ukranian city along with a large portion of Ukranian forces.
That makes only marginally more sense. Why sacrifice a city that you occupy, rather than annex it? How to keep the sacrificial soldiers separate from real soldiers you want to keep alive? What will it do to troop morale elsewhere if a city is allowed to "get overrun" by Ukraine? Who would believe it was Ukraine that nuked the city, because Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and had its own troops in the city? How to avoid radiation from spreading via wind or rivers to your own territories? How to avoid panic among your own troops? How to not get caught carrying out this massive operation?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's some barbos-level shit that you've concocted. o_O
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I expect this is three birds with one stone. He plans to nuke his own people while using them as bait to a counteroffensive, tactically targeting the assembled material, while both warning protests off, and generating "martyrs". He just has to lie to Russia about who set off the nuke.

The world would balk at nuclear response to a city containing only (or even just mostly) "soldiers".

Ukraine better not be planning on putting all it's eggs in a basket, and not expect the presence of Russians to be a deterrent to the use of nuclear arms.

He just conscripted a bunch of soldiers he WANTS to die.
Wait what? So you think he will draft soldiers, then put them in a city with protests, nuke the city, blame the west, and ... profit somehow? What the hell have you been smoking? :oops:
No, I think he will draft soldiers, put them in an occupied Ukranian city with no logistic support, let the city get overrun by Ukranian forces attempting to retake it, and then nuke them all.

This causes everyone who protested his war to fall out of the same window, while simultaneously being able to call them martyrs, and nuking a Ukranian city along with a large portion of Ukranian forces.
That makes only marginally more sense. Why sacrifice a city that you occupy, rather than annex it? How to keep the sacrificial soldiers separate from real soldiers you want to keep alive? What will it do to troop morale elsewhere if a city is allowed to "get overrun" by Ukraine? Who would believe it was Ukraine that nuked the city, because Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and had its own troops in the city? How to avoid radiation from spreading via wind or rivers to your own territories? How to avoid panic among your own troops? How to not get caught carrying out this massive operation?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's some barbos-level shit that you've concocted. o_O
There are ways and honestly, it's kind of already too much to be discussing "how to commit war crimes 101" on public forums.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
That makes only marginally more sense. Why sacrifice a city that you occupy, rather than annex it? How to keep the sacrificial soldiers separate from real soldiers you want to keep alive? What will it do to troop morale elsewhere if a city is allowed to "get overrun" by Ukraine? Who would believe it was Ukraine that nuked the city, because Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and had its own troops in the city? How to avoid radiation from spreading via wind or rivers to your own territories? How to avoid panic among your own troops? How to not get caught carrying out this massive operation?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's some barbos-level shit that you've concocted.
Yes, but it's the argument against nuclear. There will be too much collateral damage and risk. Therefore Pewtin won't go that route. He knows this. But he knows his ass is in the sling if he doesn't do something brilliant. In short, he's fucked.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
That makes only marginally more sense. Why sacrifice a city that you occupy, rather than annex it? How to keep the sacrificial soldiers separate from real soldiers you want to keep alive? What will it do to troop morale elsewhere if a city is allowed to "get overrun" by Ukraine? Who would believe it was Ukraine that nuked the city, because Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and had its own troops in the city? How to avoid radiation from spreading via wind or rivers to your own territories? How to avoid panic among your own troops? How to not get caught carrying out this massive operation?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's some barbos-level shit that you've concocted.
Yes, but it's the argument against nuclear. There will be too much collateral damage and risk. Therefore Pewtin won't go that route. He knows this. But he knows his ass is in the sling if he doesn't do something brilliant. In short, he's fucked.
I think the mobilization trick will work. It's silly how here we're laughing about the mock referendum and the sorry state of Russian army, but they can win with sheer numbers. The only hope is that either West increases its support to Ukraine by a lot so that Ukraine can keep up, or that Russia dissolves from within, which is very unlikely to happen unless the war drags on for several years, and probably not even then.

Two weeks.

That's how long it takes for Russia to train the first batch*. I think Ukraine will be able to hold on until then and maybe even make some progress, but then it'll halt, because the Russian army will have tens of thousands of people to throw into the fire. Eventually they'll wear down Ukrainian defenses. Fuck this war. :mad:

(* = If they're smart, they'll stagger the draftees so that instead of sending everyone to the front with mere two weeks of training, there's another group with four weeks of training, and another with 2 months, so that the first group only has to stop Ukrainian advance and die, and the next groups will get progressively better.)
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,621
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
.
That makes only marginally more sense. Why sacrifice a city that you occupy, rather than annex it? How to keep the sacrificial soldiers separate from real soldiers you want to keep alive? What will it do to troop morale elsewhere if a city is allowed to "get overrun" by Ukraine? Who would believe it was Ukraine that nuked the city, because Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons and had its own troops in the city? How to avoid radiation from spreading via wind or rivers to your own territories? How to avoid panic among your own troops? How to not get caught carrying out this massive operation?

Sorry to be blunt, but that's some barbos-level shit that you've concocted.
Yes, but it's the argument against nuclear. There will be too much collateral damage and risk. Therefore Pewtin won't go that route. He knows this. But he knows his ass is in the sling if he doesn't do something brilliant. In short, he's fucked.
I think the mobilization trick will work. It's silly how here we're laughing about the mock referendum and the sorry state of Russian army, but they can win with sheer numbers. The only hope is that either West increases its support to Ukraine by a lot so that Ukraine can keep up, or that Russia dissolves from within, which is very unlikely to happen unless the war drags on for several years, and probably not even then.

Two weeks.

That's how long it takes for Russia to train the first batch*. I think Ukraine will be able to hold on until then and maybe even make some progress, but then it'll halt, because the Russian army will have tens of thousands of people to throw into the fire. Eventually they'll wear down Ukrainian defenses. Fuck this war. :mad:

(* = If they're smart, they'll stagger the draftees so that instead of sending everyone to the front with mere two weeks of training, there's another group with four weeks of training, and another with 2 months, so that the first group only has to stop Ukrainian advance and die, and the next groups will get progressively better.)

It depend how many trainers they have available too.

Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations makes a good point of this possibly being a one shot deal for Russia.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,450
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It comes down to how long the west will supply weapons.

Also from BBC commentary, the call up may be a Putin trial balloon to see how people react.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,237
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
While I don't think anecdotal videos are evidence of overall military impact... they are pretty funny. Like this where draftees decided to get shitfaced before being shipped off:



I'd like to think that the guy who passed out in the grass was forgotten and managed to avoid service. (y)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,172
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
US has privately warned Russia of consequences of using a nuclear weapon

We only see and hear what someone allows us to see and hear. Pewtin knows that escalating to nukes gets him nowhere. It is far more certain that such talk is meant to take attention away from his failures and merely be a distraction, a ploy for time. It's also a brag, not a threat.
 
Top Bottom