Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Torie]

Obligatory big if true comment:

https://twitter.com/Sierra__Alpha/status/1504870032312094721?s=20&t=oatDIv5S...
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1504861665434779651?s=20&t=oatDIv...

Some evidence!

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1504906047810637828?s=20&t=RgApMn7...

Nice.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1504945187126132739?s=20&t=682-s-E...
Link to ISW March 18th Russian offensive campaign assessment: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-18

"The ability of Ukrainian forces to conduct a successful major counterattack indicates Russian forces attempting to encircle Mykolayiv likely overstretched, and Russian forces are unlikely to have the capability to resume offensive operations toward Odesa in the near term."

The successful ambushing of Russian units behind the lines strikes me as a particularly good message to send out to Russia as and when it ponders just how viable a long term occupation might be.

[Torie]

Russia suspends grain exports to central Asia, prices do what they do

The Russian government has announced that it intends to extend its ban on the export of grain and sugar to fellow members of a trading bloc until the end of August in a move that has sparked fear of food shortages around the region.

The Economic Development Ministry said on March 10 that the decision was motivated by the need to “ensure the country’s food security and to help protect the domestic market in the current climate.”

All the other member states of the Eurasian Economic Union, or EAEU, which comprise Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, will be deprived of the opportunity to import wheat, rye, barley, and corn from Russia until that designated date. Officials in Moscow insist that Russia currently has stocks of grain well in excess of its needs, but that the temporary prohibition has been instituted in part to prevent the re-export of crops to third countries.

“EAEU countries have already bought the amounts they need, free of duty, over the current season,” the Economic Development Ministry said in its statement.

Kazakhstan may take a different view, however. Last year, Kazakhs increased their volume of grain purchases from Russia by 77 percent, or around 2.3 million tons, coming behind only Turkey and Egypt as the main global buyers of Russian grain. Industry insiders say the real volume may be even greater, as official Russian data does not account for transactions made in the gray economy.

Reading the name "Belarus" in the list of countries Russia cut loose startled me a bit.

[Torie]

https://www.ndtv.com/business/biggest-indian-oil-company-finalises-deal-to-import-3-million-barrels-of-crude-oil-from-russia-2831042

NDTV confirms that Indian oil company finalized a deal to buy Russian oil at a discount.  This is most likely just the start and there will open the way for a bunch more.

Western efforts to isolate Russia in the oil market seem to have been a major failure, like they were always like to do.

Selling at a discount was always going to happen, rather than no sales, unless Russia prefers no sales to deep discount sales as their pawn move on the chess board. The issue is the percentage of the discount. If it is 30% like the Shell purchase, that is significant and a partial "victory."  Particularly in a stalemate, the idea is to creep the percentage up as more supply comes on line elsewhere and consumption goes down as consumers adjust their purchasing habits at the margin.

[Torie]

NYT says stalemate, Russia cannot take Kiyv and Odessa, so Russia is now digging into and fortifying the real estate that it has taken, and is blasting away at the cites from afar, that Ukraine cannot stop.*

*today to add to yesterday's destruction of the theater where 1,300 were taking refuge, it was a drama school were 400 were hiding

"Here are the latest developments in Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has reached a stalemate after more than three weeks of fighting, with Russia making only marginal gains and increasingly targeting civilians, according to analysts and U.S. officials.

“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research institute, said in an analysis. Russians do not have the manpower or the equipment to seize Kyiv, the capital, or other major cities like Kharkiv and Odessa, the study concluded."

...

"With Mr. Putin determined to pummel Ukraine into submission, Russia’s failure to achieve its initial objectives could presage an even deadlier phase of the war defined by large-scale casualties."

...

"Ukraine continued to effectively hold its airspace, British defense ministry said, forcing Russia to largely rely on weapons launched from the "relative safety of Russian airspace."

Another story farther down in the updates is that Ukrainian opinion is not limited to hating Putin, it is also anti-Russian. They perceive that Russians support this. Whatever Russia holds will be very hard to govern absent mass deportation. And then there is the fleeing of young Russian professionals by the hundreds of thousands, many to Armenia and Georgia, perceiving that their escape window might close at any time.


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/20/world/ukraine-russia-war

[Torie]

China and India have clearly rejected the Western view and both look to continue business with Russia. As far as we can tell this is supported by the population of both countries. There's the 1.4 billion and 1.3 billion. As Red Velvet described, other large developing countries like South Africa and Brazil are publicly adopting parts of the alternative view like NATO provoking the war or American biological labs in Ukraine, and even US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel have refused to endorse fully the Western view and/or are trying to evade sanctions. So there clearly is solid support in the world for the range of non-Western view points on the war. If I were optimistic I might even say it is close to 50-50 in terms of population. Yet in this thread all we hear is the Western viewpoint and I am called all sorts of things for presenting an alternative viewpoint, not even the Russian viewpoint mind you; I have never said that Ukraine is not a real country or that the place is full of Nazis. Debate on this issue should be similar to say a debate on the level of taxation or government regulation, not a one sided echo chamber.

The above paragraph makes no sense to me. China, India, South Africa and Brazil not sanctioning Russia is a fact. There is nothing to debate.

One can debate just how effective those countries would/will be in propping up Russia's economy, while the major industrial economies move towards cancelling Russia, how effective the sanctions will be, etc. Those are technical economic questions that are ultimately for the wonks. And yes, one can debate the merits of Russia's position, or Putin's, but one thing I am quite confident about, is that nobody's opinion will be changed at all by that.

The most productive posters here provide information, for posters to use as they will, or discuss its reliability or veracity, etc.

As to yourself, I get the impression that you just want to pick a fight, and I salute most posters for not taking that bait. Not that it matters, but I also opined in the Cave that you should be left alone. As far as I am concerned, you are free to pound the keyboard as you will. While it may waste bandwidth, I find it basically harmless, particularly given the self restraint of most posters here regarding it.

Oh, Meet the Press thinks based on the Biden call with Xi, and an in person meeting of Blinken and the Chinese ambassador, that China will not be providing economic or military aid to Russia and is trying to distance itself from the civilian slaughter in Russia. Just the opinion of the panelists there of course. They could be wrong.

[Torie]

This currency guy on Al Jazerra said ultimately, Russia's problem is that "no one" wants to get caught doing business with Russia or facilitating the evading of sanctions. Crypto will be sanctioned if it is used. So whatever the bite of sanctions, they really can't be evaded much.

[Torie]

The article is about personal stories of a few families of the intelligentsia leaving Russia, individuals that the author personally knows. I drew a map of the alternative flight route one took to get from Moscow to Armenia when the flight was cancelled.



https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/28/the-russians-fleeing-putins-wartime-crackdown

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1505638932217749508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

I was just about to post this. That's as much of a green light as the US government is going to publicly give. I wonder if Poland, the Baltic states, Czechia, Slovakia, etc. will actually deploy troops to Ukraine. It's easy to talk about doing something, actually doing it is another matter.

Why on earth would she say this unless such troops were already there in some capacity? What was the context of her saying this? This is a pretty significant story perhaps.

Addendum: She said it in an interview with Jake Tapper, and she clearly was under no pressure to say it the way she said it.

[Torie]

Thomas Friedman prognosticates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/opinion/putin-zelensky-ukraine.html

1. The plan A's of Biden (Biden = NATO/EU), Zenensky and Putin did not work out well for Putin. Biden's sanctions really did bite, Zelensky stalemated the ground war, and Putin's lightening strike victory with lots of Quislings was a fail

2. Putin's plan B was to attack civilians, cause a mass refugee crisis, have them flood NATO counties, and force NATO to pressure Zelensky to give Putin a huge pound of flesh.

Friedman does not say how plan B is working out for Putin, but the NYT says the refugees in Europe are being flooded with job offers, and they have a big labor shortage. So that aspect of the plan strikes me as a massive fail. I also don't see Zelensky handing Putin the keys to the store due to turning his attention to taking out civilians rather than acquiring real estate.

If Putin's Plan B proves a fail, Plan C is for Putin to attack supply areas for Ukraine in Poland, and plan D is to launch chemical weapons and nukes. I don't believe it. If Putin bombs Poland, the chemical weapons and nukes will be hitting NATO troops in Ukraine, and ...  stop, I just don't think Putin is that nuts.

But my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

[Torie]

Speaking of support for an alternative to the Western view on the war, here's Israeli PM Bennett's comments on the issue today:

On Monday, Israel sent an aid delegation to Ukraine to establish a field hospital. While at the airport to see the delegation off, Bennett gave a few remarks, saying Israel was "managing this unfortunate crisis with sensitivity, generosity and responsibility, while maintaining a balance between the various factors – and they are complex."

Hm... sounds similar to Chinese ambassador to the USA Qin Gang yesterday on CBS News?

AMB. QIN: China makes its observation and conclusion based independently- based on the merits of the matter itself. On the one hand, we uphold–

MARGARET BRENNAN: The United Nations Secretary General said Russia invaded–

AMB. QIN: we uphold– We uphold. On the one hand, China upholds the U.N. purposes and -- and the principles, including that- the respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine. On the other hand, we do see that there- there is a complexity in the history of the Ukraine issue. And we are–

To be fair, Israeli FM Yair Lapid did say that Israel will not become "route to bypass sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and other Western countries.” So Israel's stance is a bit more pro-Western than China's. I guess all those years of unconditional support and billions (trillions?) of aid bought you something? LOL?

I've been calling them out for over a decade. You can thank the Ray Goldfields and Parrotguys of the world for trying to shut down debate at every turn by shouting "pogrom" and "blood libel" at the tamest criticism.

Israel is a terrible friend to America.

You know what? I created a whole thread dissing Israel over an issue the other day. Ray showed up promptly to accuse me of agree with me! How is that possible?

One other thing. The price of the US giving aid or support to a country is not reducing it to a vassal state. That may be the price some other countries charge, but not the US.

And finally, I don't think this is even a tempest in a teapot. It isn't a tempest at all. Israel has reasons to maintain some ties to Russia, but if Biden called up Bennett, and said hey Bennett, my experts tell me that what you are doing is really interfering with what we need to do in this crisis, I have total confidence Bennett would just stop.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1505889409408905216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

Holy cr*p the Russians are going to get encircled looking at that map 👀

I fantasized the same thing - a mass surrender of 50,000 Russian troops. And then they can be held in POW camps in Kiev until the war is over. And Russia can agree to an entry corridor so supplies  can get in, to take care of the POW's. And the troops all get to call home to their loved ones that they are safe as POW's, and it is time to call off the dogs of war, and in particular the indiscriminate missiles being sent from afar in Russia to kill civilians, and now themselves.

And then the phone rang, and the spell was broken.

[Torie]

Well, perhaps the US will need Israel as a go between since apparently Putin took personally Biden calling him a war criminal, and the US ambassador was summoned to be informed that US-Russia ties are on the verge of collapse.

https://sports.yahoo.com/russia-summons-u-envoy-says-144600015.html

One of the many reasons I think the human species is tragically flawed, and really needs rewiring, is that even among informed and intelligent people it is just so hard to put one in the shoes of the other. Israel has a lot to lose arousing the Russian bear. Unless such losses are really necessary to take, because the consequences of not taking them are worse, it would seem that some slack should be extended. But no. Kick them off the island. It's the law of the jungle. Civilization is but a Potemkin village.

[Torie]

My takeaway from all of this is the "the West" needs to avoid being too economically interdependent with nations of power that might become adversarial to the breaking point.  "The West" needs to be able to quickly press the go into backup mode button, and replace whatever goods and services are cut off with adequate substitutes. In other words, if need be "the West" needs to be able effectuate a quick and not unduly painful divorce. And "the West" will need to pay a rather expensive insurance premium to get there. Both military and economic preparedness needs to be in play. To cut to the chase, the above policy needs to be in place for both China and Russia. They can and will and probably are returning the favor.

The iron curtain is back - bigger and "better" than ever, or prudence dictates that it should be.
And yes, it sucks. It sucks a lot. One wishes one could break bread with authoritarians without the risk of getting poisoned, but not in this life.

[Torie]

My takeaway from all of this is the "the West" needs to avoid being too economically interdependent with nations of power that might become adversarial to the breaking point.  "The West" needs to be able to quickly press the go into backup mode button, and replace whatever goods and services are cut off with adequate substitutes. In other words, if need be "the West" needs to be able effectuate a quick and not unduly painful divorce. And "the West" will need to pay a rather expensive insurance premium to get there. Both military and economic preparedness needs to be in play. To cut to the chase, the above policy needs to be in place for both China and Russia. They can and will and probably are returning the favor.

The iron curtain is back - bigger and "better" than ever, or prudence dictates that it should be.
And yes, it sucks. It sucks a lot. One wishes one could break bread with authoritarians without the risk of getting poisoned, but not in this life.

That’s both the western liberal and conservative POV at this point, which evidences that the liberalism established in the 90s post Cold War has lost.

Nationalist consensus rising up, in which national security and cultural issues take the protagonist spot from the economic cooperative interests between all nations.

People who hoped Trump was just a phase and that things would return to as they were before once he left were wrong too… It was more of one of those era-shift moments that people only get to see 2 or 3 times in their lifetime.

I think that is right. It caused a tack in my thinking. Actions among "advanced" countries with well educated populations that yes, to a substantial extent embraced the market economy with private entrepreneurs, can still do things that in my world make zero sense and are incredibly evil and destructive to all.  For me, it was quite the cold shower. And even up to the point of invasion, while I expected the invasion, and believed Putin did want to annex the country, I was incapable of imagining with the whole world watching, that Putin, with nobody seemingly there to deflect him, would be willing to go the total destruction and genocide route, and God knows what else, when Ukraine displayed surprising resistance and resilience.

Part of the problem is that those most willing to chase power are all too frequently precisely the ones that should never hold it. So we get too many sociopaths with power. I don't know a good way to prevent that, even under the best of circumstances. Heck, America elected Trump, whom I have read planned in his second term to exit NATO. Pretty scary huh?

[Torie]

My takeaway from all of this is the "the West" needs to avoid being too economically interdependent with nations of power that might become adversarial to the breaking point.  "The West" needs to be able to quickly press the go into backup mode button, and replace whatever goods and services are cut off with adequate substitutes. In other words, if need be "the West" needs to be able effectuate a quick and not unduly painful divorce. And "the West" will need to pay a rather expensive insurance premium to get there. Both military and economic preparedness needs to be in play. To cut to the chase, the above policy needs to be in place for both China and Russia. They can and will and probably are returning the favor.

The iron curtain is back - bigger and "better" than ever, or prudence dictates that it should be.
And yes, it sucks. It sucks a lot. One wishes one could break bread with authoritarians without the risk of getting poisoned, but not in this life.

I would say that from China's perspective the opposite is also true, China needs to reduce its dependence on the West and all Western institutions. Russia has learned this lesson harshly, and while China is better situated to deal with Western sanctions and to retaliate effectively, there's no question in China's current state they would hurt.

I think both sides will find ways to manage and get by, but there's no question that purposely short-circuiting the Law of Comparative Advantage will leave both sides poorer. Too bad the Americans demand a unipolar world and that its way of doing things is the only acceptable way, otherwise this could have been avoided. There is no intrinsic reason why China and the USA should hate each other.

There is no rational reason why any of these nations should hate each other in any objective sense. But there is a more than nominal risk that such nations can become very dangerous such that "excessive' interdependence becomes imprudent.

I think you are beating a dead horse with the unipolar bit. Notice that Biden seems tied to the hip with NATO? Given that Russia has gone bad for the foreseeable future, and India is more unpredictable these days, and China's economy will not so long from now be as powerful as the US, "the West" needs to hang together, or it will hang separately. There is no room for hubris here by anyone, but particularly the US. It is very sobering. This assumes that "the West" believes it has a way of life and culture and values that it deems worth saving.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1505973168938307584

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation refutes the information of the Ukrainian General Staff about the allegedly large-scale losses of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured.

Wait, the Russians are claiming this? Doesn’t Russia always report hilariously low casualties? If this is there number either it is a typo or they are allot worse off than we though.

Yes. The article said that the Ukraine claimed 14.7k killed while Russia disputed the number and said that the actual number is 9861.

According to preliminary estimates of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, from the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine to March 20, the Russian Armed Forces lost 96 aircraft, 118 helicopters and 14.7 thousand military troops.

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation refutes the information of the Ukrainian General Staff about the allegedly large-scale losses of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured.

The numbers have now been removed from the website entirely.

Is this a journalistic freudian slip, where they accidentally published the truth?

probably

So the Russia Army has literally been decimated.

9861 is 1% of the entire Russian armed forces (excluding reserves). Combined with the injured number, that's 2.5% of Russia's manpower out of action. If true, I can see why the Russians are bringing in troops from all over (the Far East, South Ossetia, more Chechens, etc.). It also explains why that Black Sea Fleet deputy commander was in Mariupol: they're having to use naval infantry in urban warfare...which isn't ideal.

Is there any more evidence that the replacements will fight with any more elan than those whom they replaced? That excellent Atlantic article linked above says half of the equipment captured is destroyed -  and half is in good condition, which means surrender or abandonment. The Russian military so far seems good pressing buttons to shoot off missiles from afar in Russia (where they are safe from capture or abandonment), and shooting at civilians, but not much else. Putin keeps doubling down though. That's the really frightening part.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1505973168938307584

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation refutes the information of the Ukrainian General Staff about the allegedly large-scale losses of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured.

Wait, the Russians are claiming this? Doesn’t Russia always report hilariously low casualties? If this is there number either it is a typo or they are allot worse off than we though.

Yes. The article said that the Ukraine claimed 14.7k killed while Russia disputed the number and said that the actual number is 9861.

According to preliminary estimates of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, from the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine to March 20, the Russian Armed Forces lost 96 aircraft, 118 helicopters and 14.7 thousand military troops.

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation refutes the information of the Ukrainian General Staff about the allegedly large-scale losses of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, during the special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces lost 9861 people killed, 16153 people were injured.

The numbers have now been removed from the website entirely.

Is this a journalistic freudian slip, where they accidentally published the truth?

probably

So the Russia Army has literally been decimated.

9861 is 1% of the entire Russian armed forces (excluding reserves). Combined with the injured number, that's 2.5% of Russia's manpower out of action. If true, I can see why the Russians are bringing in troops from all over (the Far East, South Ossetia, more Chechens, etc.). It also explains why that Black Sea Fleet deputy commander was in Mariupol: they're having to use naval infantry in urban warfare...which isn't ideal.

Is there any more evidence that the replacements will fight with any more elan than those whom they replaced? That excellent Atlantic article linked above says half of the equipment captured is destroyed -  and half is in good condition, which means surrender or abandonment. The Russian military so far seems good pressing buttons to shot off missiles from afar in Russia (where they are safe from capture or abandonment), and shooting at civilians, but not much else. Putin keeps doubling down though. That's the really frightening part.

If so much equipment is being abandoned by adults, I can only imagine more will be abandoned by 17 year olds. You don't "involve" members of your "all-Russian children-youth military-patriotic movement" in your "special military operation" unless it's going very poorly.

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103?s=20&t=9qj3TS...

In case you have not yet, read this article. It is the ultimate roller coaster ride. Russia has already lost with its best troops, it should pick one target (east Ukraine, Kiev or Odessa), rather than three at once, but Putin runs the show and wants all three to be in the best negotiating position, Russia will be out of gas in two weeks, so it is now or never for them, but Russia can still probably win a war of attrition, and Ukraine is being worn down too,  Putin can mobilize the whole country in his chase for the white whale, and maybe get it, opposition is just in the cities, Putin controls the fake news, and on and on. Maybe you will get less sea sick than I did, on the high seas of Putin's obsessive quest, with no one to tell him enough already. The guy has some credibility in the sense he lists what he does not know, fog of war and all of that. He's a more modest than hubristic expert.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/21/michael-kofman-russia-military-expert-00018906

Oh, the image  looks like a modern children's crusade (and why would the guy on the corner who is most visible and looks like 14 be part of the propaganda message - to win favor with those into child abuse?), but then I read that Putin was like a neutron bomb that had fused Russian orthodox mysticism, hedonism and sadism into a new element, and like all new elements, a highly volatile one.

[Torie]

In case you have not yet, read this article. It is the ultimate roller coaster ride. Russia has already lost with its best troops, it should pick one target (east Ukraine, Kiev or Odessa), rather than three at once, but Putin runs the show and wants all three to be in the best negotiating position, Russia will be out of gas in two weeks, so it is now or never for them, but Russia can still probably win a war of attrition, and Ukraine is being worn down too,  Putin can mobilize the whole country in his chase for the white whale, and maybe get it, opposition is just in the cities, Putin controls the fake news, and on and on. Maybe you will get less sea sick than I did, on the high seas of Putin's obsessive quest, with no one to tell him enough already. The guy has some credibility in the sense he lists what he does not know, fog of war and all of that. He's a more modest than hubristic expert.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/21/michael-kofman-russia-military-expert-00018906

Oh, the image  looks like a modern children's crusade (and why would the guy on the corner who is most visible and looks like 14 be part of the propaganda message - to win favor with those into child abuse?), but then I read that Putin was like a neutron bomb that had fused Russian orthodox mysticism, hedonism and sadism into a new element, and like all new elements, a highly volatile one.

My main takeaways from the article;

- Russia has used up all of its top forces and will run out of gas soon. Time isn't on the side of Russia, but it'll be worse for Ukraine if the fighting lasts longer than a month.

- This could very well end in a "Russian win". But since they look to accomplish many things at once, their original objective of regime change seems to have been cast aside, they're not prioritizing major cities and they don't seem to have the forces/logistics to conquer Kiev, no one knows what the hell a "Russian win" actually means or looks like anymore.

You get an A+ for that synopses, and I stand in awe. You are not just a pretty face now are you?

Seriously you did what I could not do very well, as I struggled. You cut through the vertigo to see what was in the eye of the hurricane of the guy's mind, and did it with an economy of words, as only a sharp mind with excellent  writing skills can do.  Kudos.

[Torie]

Today on this fine morning, the  NYT turns its attention to giving me as I sip my coffee far more information than I wanted to know about nukes as usable “field” weapons. And if you are tired of the cliche "peace through strength," you can give a test run to "escalate to de-escalate."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/science/russia-nuclear-ukraine.html

“Russia’s atomic war doctrine came to be known as “escalate to de-escalate” — meaning routed troops would fire a nuclear weapon to stun an aggressor into retreat or submission. Moscow repeatedly practiced the tactic in field exercises. In 1999, for instance, a large drill simulated a NATO attack on Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. The exercise had Russian forces in disarray until Moscow fired nuclear arms at Poland and the United States.

‘Dr. Kühn of the University of Hamburg said the defensive training drills of the 1990s had turned toward offense in the 2000s … .

‘Concurrent with its new offensive strategy, Russia embarked on a modernization of its nuclear forces, including its less destructive arms. As in the West, some of the warheads were given variable explosive yields that could be dialed up or down depending on the military situation.

‘A centerpiece of the new arsenal was the Iskander-M, first deployed in 2005. The mobile launcher can fire two missiles that travel roughly 300 miles. The missiles can carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads. Russian figures put the smallest nuclear blast from those missiles at roughly a third that of the Hiroshima bomb.” [197 words quoted]

I guess the story was precipitated by the White House disclosing that one topic of discussion at the NATO summit is what to do if Russia uses such “baby” nukes.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/22/world/ukraine-russia-war

“President Biden is preparing to travel to a NATO summit this week in Brussels, where the Western allies are expected to discuss how they will respond if Russia employs chemical, biological, cyber or nuclear weapons.”

What should NATO do if Putin uses a baby nuke to shake things up a bit and get things moving again? Anyone have any ideas? My idea cupboard is empty on this one.

[Torie]

The Pentagon would give Biden a list of responses, suggest one or two of them and then do what he says.  Ideally they (Biden, the Joint Chiefs and whomever else Biden wants in the discussion) have already discussed this and other possibilities so there isn't a lot of hemming and hawing if the sh**t does hit the fan.

As to what those options are, well, they are probably what we think they are.  Everything from starting the "big one" to nothing at all, and everything in between.  The choice is Joe's, because that's who we elected.  Apparently our only other option was Trump, I saw other names on the ballot, but we've been told there are only two options and we do what we're told.  So we have Biden, and that's.....fine.

TNR addresses the question. I don’t find its musings very comforting. By the way, I read a baby nuke would destroy NYC. I am sitting about 3 miles as the crow flies from its city hall.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165634/putin-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-us-response

Even if the unfathomable occurred and Russia used nuclear weapons in or around Ukraine, it’s unlikely the U.S. would respond in kind. “I doubt that we would reply in nuclear terms; the risks of escalation would be too great,” says Harvard University’s Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense. Nye suggests that the U.S. might respond in the cyberworld, “but that has its own problems with retaliation.” Instead, the most likely response would be to try and further isolate Russia for violating the nuclear taboo, and perhaps move some troops to Europe. The U.S. could take the opportunity to reinforce the unacceptability of Russia’s extraordinary use of these weapons.

Since the West has made it clear it will not involve itself in Ukraine significantly, some experts believe that Putin is conducting his entire assault on Ukraine for domestic reasons. Putting his nuclear forces on alert could be an attempt to shore up his support at home or, at most, be a signal to the U.S. and its allies not to interfere in its war. Says Kristensen: “It’s important that NATO hasn’t taken the bait.”

[Torie]

You agree that the US response should be to send more troops to Europe? I don't quite understand how that is proportional.

I got the NYC would be destroyed bit from the TNR article actually:

"It’s difficult to know exact details of Russia’s stockpile, given its lack of transparency. Larry Korb, with the Center for American Progress, says that any tactical weapon “is still pretty powerful.” One that was detonated over New York City, for example, would destroy the city, while a full strategic nuclear weapon would destroy the entire state."

Oh, what a fun toy you have to play with there in your basement in Omaha DeadOman. I see that it would take 25 kilotons to irradiate fireball me, and our building has no basement because it is almost at sea level, so it is a basement free zone.

[Torie]

"It’s difficult to know exact details of Russia’s stockpile, given its lack of transparency. Larry Korb, with the Center for American Progress, says that any tactical weapon “is still pretty powerful.” One that was detonated over New York City, for example, would destroy the city, while a full strategic nuclear weapon would destroy the entire state."

Two points of note.

Even during the height of the Cold War, any nuclear strike and counter strike would more than likely have devastated select targets in Europe either side of the Iron Curtain before immediate de-escalation in response. Any European alive then would have probably agreed. The USSR and the USA weren't stupid and neither were we. The same is true today.

Secondly what I was trying to hint at is that even if Russia went completely loco and lobbed a nuke at New York for the hell of it, using missiles and guidance systems that make it and don't get intercepted, I am more...confident now than a month ago that the west could effectively atomise a dozen Russian targets before the Russian missile passes the Azores. Slight exaggeration of course.

This is in no way a situation I would ever wish to happen, but we are basing Russian ability and effectiveness and weaponry on what was, as the article hints 'unknowns', prior to the Ukraine conflict. There is less fog now.

Are Russia a nuclear power as we assumed, or do they have what is effectively a series of 'dirty bombs' with the same capabilities and limitations as other countries that try to build them? That still makes them a threat, but in growling at us, they've shown a lot of missing teeth.

Just to clarify, I am not worried about Putin nuking NYC. I was shocked about how lethal tactical nukes were as claimed by the expert quoted by TNR above, but DeadOman's app suggests that just one would take out NYC was very exaggerated it seems. I was thinking of what they might do to Kiyv and the other big Ukraine cities. If Putin can't rule them, then he can at least destroy them.

It will be interesting what NATO says publically about what they decide or don't decide about what the consequences will be if Putin tries to change the war's trajectory by using tactical WMD's. I assume that what is published will be the same as what they tell Putin, but perhaps not.

[Torie]

You agree that the US response should be to send more troops to Europe? I don't quite understand how that is proportional.

I got the NYC would be destroyed bit from the TNR article actually:

"It’s difficult to know exact details of Russia’s stockpile, given its lack of transparency. Larry Korb, with the Center for American Progress, says that any tactical weapon “is still pretty powerful.” One that was detonated over New York City, for example, would destroy the city, while a full strategic nuclear weapon would destroy the entire state."

Oh, what a fun toy you have to play with there in your basement in Omaha DeadOman. I see that it would take 25 kilotons to irradiate fireball me, and our building has no basement because it is almost at sea level, so it is a basement free zone.

The most likely attack would be from a 800 kiloton Russian ICBM. That's what I'm assuming in seeing what will happen to my place. I am assuming one nuke hits the harbor and another hits the airport in my scenario.

Do you have a place to go that won't be hit?

Hudson, NY about 110 miles to the north up the Hudson River from Hoboken.

[Torie]

Assuming the war does go into stalemate for an extended period of time, and further assuming that the sanctions hold, can Russia really sustain that, while rearming, regrouping whatever, to fight another day for more? I tend to doubt that. I also would like to think that over time the resupply into Ukraine will improve to make up for its inability to produce internally what it needs. Finally, the NYT has quite a good article that Ukraine really does need more jets, and is using what it has very effectively, and they really do serve to reduce the hostile ordinance failing from the sky onto Ukraine soil.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/world/europe/ukraine-air-force-russia.html

It really is just astounding just how well the Ukraine military is performing, based on results, and not just PR type.

[Torie]

In a WSJ editorial, Walter Mead makes the point I and Red Velvet have been making for some time about China's stance and Western sanctions, namely that the non-Western world is closer to China than it is to the West on this issue. I don't know much about this author but he reviews for Foreign Affairs, which generally dislikes China, and the WSJ consistently dislikes China.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west-vs-rest-of-the-world-russia-ukraine-dictators-south-america-asia-africa-11647894483

  ...

Western arm-twisting and the powerful effect of bank sanctions ensure a certain degree of sanctions compliance and support for symbolic U.N. resolutions condemning Russian aggression. But the lack of non-Western enthusiasm for America’s approach to Mr. Putin’s war is a phenomenon that U.S. policy makers ignore at their peril. Just as Western policy makers, lost in fantasies about building a “posthistorical world,” failed to grasp the growing threat of great-power competition, they have failed to note the development of a gap between the West and the rest of the world that threatens to hand the revisionist powers major opportunities in coming years. The Biden administration appears not to understand the gap between Washington and what used to be called the Third World, the degree to which its own policies contribute to the divide, or the opportunities this gap creates for China.

1. I fail to really see why the policy of the West should change regarding Russia based on the hypothetical that Vietnam, Brazil, and South Africa will race into China's arms. Let them go if they have no problem enabling Russia. I don't see why India, which has fought wars with China, rushing to  become a junior partner to China, but it can go too. The excerpt  you quoted does not concretely explain the negative consequences to the West, that would seem real and plausible to me, but even if it did, count me out, and I hope the West agrees with me.

2. Your excerpt is 274 words, 74 more than  allowed here. I am not reporting that, but I suggest you cull out 74 words in respect for the forum's rules regarding copyright. If you do not, some Mod with authority over this Board might see it one way or the other, and might just delete your post in its entirety rather than bothering to trim it. It is of particularly concern here, because the WSJ is behind a rigid paywall.