Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[lpetrich]

I couldn't find anything on Azerbaijan in this context, but I was more successful with Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan and Georgia welcome Russians fleeing conscription | Financial Times
Kazakhstan struggles to accommodate Russians fleeing war | Reuters
Russians flee to Kazakhstan to avoid call-up for war in Ukraine | Euronews

Georgia and Kazakhstan are getting stuffed with fleeing Russians, with hotels filling up and apartment rents going up like crazy.

'We are not afraid': Russians flee to Mongolia to evade Ukraine mobilisation | Reuters

Russians were forced to queue for hours at the border crossing at Kyakhta in the ethnic Mongol province of Buryatia, but said they had little choice after President Vladimir Putin announced a "partial mobilisation" of 300,000 soldiers aimed at repelling a counter-offensive in Russian occupied Ukraine.

In Soviet days, Mongolia was friendly enough to the Soviet Union to be nicknamed the SU's 16th republic (the SU had 15 of them, roughly like US states, and a 16th republic is thus like a 51st US state).

Nothing on Russians fleeing to China or North Korea, however.

 

[lpetrich]

Further trouble in Russia’s backyard as recent fighting between allies creates new headache for Putin | Fox News - "Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan border clash one of several disputes inherited from Soviet Union's collapse"

With Russia’s war in Ukraine grabbing most international headlines, another conflict has erupted in the post-Soviet space that has major implications for both Russia and its historic sphere of influence. Nearly 100 people, including 37 civilians and four children, were killed and hundreds more injured in the recent clash at the border between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, another flashpoint, along with Ukraine, in the territory of the former Soviet Union, where Russia historically has tried to exert its influence.

"Russia has prided itself on being acknowledged as a regional security leader, including heading the CSTO (the Collective Security Treaty Organization), a self-styled alternative block to NATO. However, its role has been exposed as symbolic and limited, as it has refused to intervene in live interstate conflicts involving former Soviet states, even when called upon by members to uphold its treaty obligations," Alexander Cooley, professor of political science at Barnard College, told Fox News Digital.

Two ex-Soviet Central Asian "stans", a little to the north of Afghanistan.

In addition to Armenia vs. Azerbaijan.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Публикация #19662 — Dambiev (@ChDambiev)

Последняя зига ликвидированного российскими войсками на Донбассе офицера Сил специальных операций Украины Евгения Браха с позывным "Мали". — Публикация на TGStat

tgstat.ru

That particular dumbass was permanently "demilitarized" and denazified.

Figured you were stuck in traffic.

One of the funniest posts of the year!

Figured you were stuck in traffic.

what?

Just wondered about your whereabouts. Thought maybe you headed for the border.

Oh, that. I myself is too old to be mobilized.
And the problem was greatly exaggerated by your propaganda.

I'm going to try to make my response here to be civilized and polite. I don't want to directly attack a person on this forum. But to be honest, it pisses me off when people who are ineligible to serve in the military are so pro war. IMHO, if you want your country to attack another country, you ought to get your ass to the local recruiting office and volunteer. BTW: TV and Credit Cards post above made me laugh for five minutes!

 

[SLD]

Публикация #19662 — Dambiev (@ChDambiev)

Последняя зига ликвидированного российскими войсками на Донбассе офицера Сил специальных операций Украины Евгения Браха с позывным "Мали". — Публикация на TGStat

tgstat.ru

That particular dumbass was permanently "demilitarized" and denazified.

Figured you were stuck in traffic.

One of the funniest posts of the year! Seriously though, with

Figured you were stuck in traffic.

what?

Just wondered about your whereabouts. Thought maybe you headed for the border.

Oh, that. I myself is too old to be mobilized.
And the problem was greatly exaggerated by your propaganda.

I'm going to try to make my response here to be civilized and polite. I don't want to directly attack a person on this forum. But to be honest, it pisses me off when people who are ineligible to serve in the military are so pro war. IMHO, if you want your country to attack another country, you ought to get your ass to the local recruiting office and volunteer. BTW: TV and Credit Cards post above made me laugh for five minutes!

Barbos didn’t get the reference and I‘m not sure he still does.

i really wonder if Barbos posts this shit, not because he believes it, but because it’s the only way he can get accurate news from Western sources. Too much internet censorship.

 

[lpetrich]

Four treaties on admission of Russia’s new territories to be signed Friday — Kremlin - Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS

"The main event will begin at 15:00 in St. George's Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace. There will be a speech by the Russian president, let me stress once again, a major one. The ceremony of signing the documents will follow. Taking part in the event will be the head of the DPR Denis Pushilin, the head of the LPR Leonid Pasechnik, the head of the Zaporozhye Region Yevgeny Balitsky, and the head of the Kherson Region Vladimir Saldo," Peskov said.

"Four agreements will be signed on the admission of new entities to the Russian Federation," he added.

Moscow to view strikes on new territories as act of aggression against Russia — Kremlin - Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS

Putin declares annexation of Ukrainian lands in Kremlin ceremony | Reuters

 

[lpetrich]

Encirclement of Russian force in Ukraine overshadows Putin's annexation | Reuters

The pro-Russian leader in Ukraine's Donetsk province acknowledged his forces had lost full control of Yampil and Dobryshev, villages north and east of the city of Lyman, leaving Moscow's main garrison in northern Donetsk "half-encircled".

...
Pro-Russian military bloggers reported Ukrainian forces had cut off the escape of thousands of Russian troops. Pushilin said one road to Lyman was still open, though he acknowledged it was now under Ukrainian artillery fire.

Ukraine war: Ukrainian forces 'partially surround' strategic city in the east | Euronews

Lyman is located around 160 kilometres southeast of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city. For months, it has served as a logistics and transport hub anchoring Russian operations in the Donetsk region.

The Institute for the Study of War says that losing the city would be a major blow to Moscow's war effort.

Russian troops encircled at Lyman, Donetsk Oblast - Russian milbloggers - Euromaidan Press

Russian propagandist Aleksandr Kots of Komsomolskaya Pravda reports an “operational encirclement” of the Russian forces near Lyman:

“Unfortunately, the news on Lyman isn’t very good [for Russians]. The city is actually in an operational encirclement. DRGs (Ukrainian saboteur groups, – Ed.) are now getting to the supply road towards Svatove. Part of it is under the control of Ukrainian artillery. Yampil in the morning is actually in the “gray zone” as our [Russian] units had to move away. In Drobysheve, the [Russian] defense line has been broken. The situation in the area of Krasnyi Lyman (Lyman’s Soviet-era name, – Ed.) is critical,” Kots wrote.

The Russian military-linked Telegram channel Dva Mayora calls the situation not an “operational encirclement” but a cauldron using the WWII-times Soviet term for the strategic-level concentration of fully pocketed troops:

“Our [Russian] units are defending Krasny Liman being surrounded. A cauldron. Reinforcements were cut off from the city, couldn’t approach. BARS (the so-called Bars-13 volunteer unit Russian Legion, – Ed.), NM LNR (Russia’s Luhansk colonial army, – Ed.), and the 20th [Guards Combined Arms Army] of the Russian Armed Forces remained in the city.”

 

[lpetrich]

Mykola Bielieskov on Twitter: "As UA completed ..." / Twitter

As UA completed envelopment of RU forces in Lyman it’s interesting why RU forces there were not allowed to withdraw with fighting when it became evident that RU forces were not able to hold current positions. It seems that political considerations of “no step back” intervened.

UA advances around Lyman were not as swift as in case of Balakliya-Kupyansk offensive operation. So there was ample time to withdraw with fighting if it’s evident that there is no force to hold positions. But political considerations prevailed.

Or RU might have feared that quick withdrawal from northernmost part of Donetsk region around Lyman would not only unhinge new positions on Oskil river left bank but threaten Svatove of Luhansk region. It any case RU positions on Oskil left bank are more untenable now.

What do they want? Some Stalingrad-like last stand?

Would they want that to slow down the Ukrainian army?

Are they willing to accept the cost in soldiers and equipment?

 

[Jarhyn]

Mykola Bielieskov on Twitter: "As UA completed ..." / Twitter

As UA completed envelopment of RU forces in Lyman it’s interesting why RU forces there were not allowed to withdraw with fighting when it became evident that RU forces were not able to hold current positions. It seems that political considerations of “no step back” intervened.

UA advances around Lyman were not as swift as in case of Balakliya-Kupyansk offensive operation. So there was ample time to withdraw with fighting if it’s evident that there is no force to hold positions. But political considerations prevailed.

Or RU might have feared that quick withdrawal from northernmost part of Donetsk region around Lyman would not only unhinge new positions on Oskil river left bank but threaten Svatove of Luhansk region. It any case RU positions on Oskil left bank are more untenable now.

What do they want? Some Stalingrad-like last stand?

Would they want that to slow down the Ukrainian army?

Are they willing to accept the cost in soldiers and equipment?

I'll point right here that the process of "fall back through several inevitable positions of loss while not allowing RU force withdrawal from those positions" was on my "Putin nukes a Ukranian city full of Russian (protestor) conscripts and declares them martyrs" bingo card...

I really hope I don't get a bingo.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What do they want? Some Stalingrad-like last stand?

Bypassing isolated pockets of resistance is good tactics. Maybe the Russians plan to supply them by air or are planning an offensive to liberate the encircled troops. I think most likely it is a strategic Russian move similar to Mariupol. It's good press that your guys are fighting and not surrendering.

 

[Jarhyn]

What do they want? Some Stalingrad-like last stand?

Bypassing isolated pockets of resistance is good tactics. Maybe the Russians plan to supply them by air or are planning an offensive to liberate the encircled troops. I think most likely it is a strategic Russian move similar to Mariupol. It's good press that your guys are fighting and not surrendering.

Personally I think they're just doing it to observe how Ukrainian forces respond to surrounded targets and what UA are willing to put into that situation so RU can gauge what will happen when they engineer the situation for the sake of operating "nuclear scorched earth" on their "more expendable" "martyr brigade"*.

*Conscripted protestors.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

 

[bilby]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

Pretty much. Tactical nuclear weapons were developed for a very specific tactical scenario - to defend against a massed armour attack against a lightly defended region, and prevent the Soviet Union from using blitzkrieg tactics to advance from the Inner German Border to the English Channel before NATO forces could be reinforced with US men and equipment.

They're good for blocking the advance of a large and locally superior force, in a region that you are prepared to render highly difficult for either army to re-occupy for several days.

As such, the only situation during this current conflict where either side might have found them tactically advantageous was back in February, when Ukraine could have used them to slow the Russian advances into Ukrainian territory. Of course, Ukraine didn't have such weapons as an option, and as we now know, was able to halt and reverse those advances by conventional means.

Had the Soviet army poured through the Fulda Gap back in the 1980s, it's quite possible that NATO might have stalled that advance without resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. But they were certainly one of the options that would have been considered. That's the scenario for which they were designed, and it's difficult to see any tactical value in attempting to use them for any other situation.

Rendering the ground in front of your forces impassibly radioactive for at least a few days is a pretty dumb thing to do unless you are playing a desperate defence. You can't effectively use them to help your forces to advance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

If Ukraine bypasses something the only threat is from the troops in the city--something that would require troops that can react to the situation. That's something they do not seem capable of--all orders seem to come from pretty high in the chain of command. Furthermore, if they try something somebody will probably tell Ukrainian command.

However, if Russia bypasses something trying to resupply past it will risk ambushes by partisans and thus they'll have to escort all supply trucks. Bypassing is therefore a big headache for them, it's understandable they aren't doing it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

 

[Jayjay]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

I think that might happen, but with regular artillery. Nuclear weapons won't add much in that situation, except shock value, which can be achieved with other targets further away from the front line.

Kherson can also be severely harmed by blowing up the Nova Kakhovka dam, which would flood the city and kill tens of thousands of people.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

I think that might happen, but with regular artillery. Nuclear weapons won't add much in that situation, except shock value, which can be achieved with other targets further away from the front line.

Kherson can also be severely harmed by blowing up the Nova Kakhovka dam, which would flood the city and kill tens of thousands of people.

Nukes accomplish making the city utterly impassable, but only for a few years/months, while obliterating the UA armor.

It says "Russia IS willing to use nukes, do you want to get nuked again?"

Putin specifically needs a situation he can use a nuke for. Maybe he targets the UA as it stages on the other side of the river, but the goal for Putin would in fact be the power to guarantee the deaths of the "martyrs". Their conventional weapons just aren't discriminating or effective enough, logistically speaking.

I imagine that if the Nazis had discovered nukes, they would have tested them by getting as many Jews and gays as they could in the blast radius.

This is no different, I think.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

Take into consideration what India and particularly China might think of such action. How they might respond. Would they still sit quietly? What the use nuclear weapons might do to world markets. And ultimately how the US might respond. I know it's a whole lot of speculation but these are all considerations. Was Biden's "don't, don't, don't" comment regarding Putin's use of nukes a line in the sand to be crossed? I don't think so. It might mean a naval blockade of Russian shipping.
I think nukes are a line in the sand for everyone. Is anyone recognizing Putin's annexation as valid? Even Lukashenko hasn't made a public statement to that effect.

Currently I believe there are still plans for a forced discount on Russian oil come early this December. However that works. Also forcing insurers to stop insuring ships transporting Russian oil and/or goods in general. I'd have to dig up more info on that.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

Take into consideration what India and particularly China might think of such action. How they might respond. Would they still sit quietly? What the use nuclear weapons might do to world markets. And ultimately how the US might respond. I know it's a whole lot of speculation but these are all considerations. Was Biden's "don't, don't, don't" comment regarding Putin's use of nukes a line in the sand to be crossed? I don't think so. It might mean a naval blockade of Russian shipping.
I think nukes are a line in the sand for everyone. Is anyone recognizing Putin's annexation as valid? Even Lukashenko hasn't made a public statement to that effect.

Currently I believe there are still plans for a forced discount on Russian oil come early this December. However that works. Also forcing insurers to stop insuring ships transporting Russian oil and/or goods in general. I'd have to dig up more info on that.

Russia would in some regards point to china's "internal matters" where they are genociding the Uighurs.

Or, China would use the chaos to move on Taiwan.

Chaos would happen, but I'm fairly certain it would be the only bomb used, at least for a while. Russia might populate most of their border with such protestor troops held on the line at gunpoint, and then just nuke any force that tries the border as they get delayed by the line of scrimmage.

It's Scorched Earth 2.0.

Would the rest of the world really nuke Russian civilians?

I don't think we would.

North Korea would probably mobilize, too, and then the US is tied up on two fronts again.

It's world war 3, sure, but Putin has dreams.

The only question is whether there is anyone sane enough to shoot him should he actually order Kherson to be nuked.

I acknowledge that doing such would be insane and... Well, not unimaginably evil because I imagined it, but figuratively...

The thing is, Putin is already pretty obviously fucking evil on account that everyone predicted this whole bad-faith debacle.

Also, there's the economics of it: Russia can't afford that much conventional material to deploy the tactic of massive slap-down. The point is that the RU can't keep it forever, and they can't even really force it to be painful, otherwise, to take, and they  really don't want the UA getting beachheads.

 

[Jayjay]

The problem with tactical nukes is that they aren't really useful offensive weapons in a ground war. They are useful as defensive weapons or as a deterrent. So a nuclear power that is losing a ground war can use them to try to bully the enemy into negotiating an end to hostilities, but they aren't going to lead to the assimilation of territory that you want to annex. To win its war, Russia needs to hold the territory it captures with ground troops, but those troops are largely stationary or retreating right now. The tactic of bypassing and encircling towns held by Russian troops seems to work very well for Ukraine, as it advances slowly through occupied Ukrainian territory. The Russian military does not seem to have mastered that tactic, especially since it has serious morale and supply problems.

None of this has gone well for Putin.
He is bypassing his Ministry of Defense and directing the war himself. He simply does not have the trained force he thought he had. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons, which would be next to useless to say the least. He is attempting to send thousands of untrained troops into combat with Soviet era small arms and ammo. This is assuming he has the needed amount of weapons in storage, that they haven’t been sold on the black market over the years. Belarus is preparing to receive Russian troops and taking military equipment out of storage making it combat ready. To what end? A likely ruse. He pointlessly recently directed an assault outside of Kharkiv which of course failed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline is sabotaged which doesn’t seem to particularly suit anyone’s interest but sure fits Putin’s resume.
This is Putin running out of options, trying desperately to focus attention elsewhere and/or fracture the western alliance.

What would happen to the Ukranian Army if they pushed to take Kherson, devoted the material, managed to flood into the city, and then the whole city got nuked such that the UA army lost all their material there and still couldn't use the city to get over the river?

It's classic Russian style slash-and-burn but with nukes.

Do you really think Putin wouldn't?

All he needs is to fill Kherson with soldiers that he is willing to let die, which they have throngs of now.

I think that might happen, but with regular artillery. Nuclear weapons won't add much in that situation, except shock value, which can be achieved with other targets further away from the front line.

Kherson can also be severely harmed by blowing up the Nova Kakhovka dam, which would flood the city and kill tens of thousands of people.

Nukes accomplish making the city utterly impassable, but only for a few years/months, while obliterating the UA armor.

It says "Russia IS willing to use nukes, do you want to get nuked again?"

Putin specifically needs a situation he can use a nuke for. Maybe he targets the UA as it stages on the other side of the river, but the goal for Putin would in fact be the power to guarantee the deaths of the "martyrs". Their conventional weapons just aren't discriminating or effective enough, logistically speaking.

I imagine that if the Nazis had discovered nukes, they would have tested them by getting as many Jews and gays as they could in the blast radius.

This is no different, I think.

I just think there are better targets.