Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

LETS KICK SOME **S AGAINST THESE SICKOS!!!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Based on multiple reports, it appears that the areas surrounding the contact line in the Donbas are experiencing the heaviest artillery barrage since 2014/2015. Columns of Russian mechanized units have also been spotted tonight less than five kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

At this point, I am pretty sure some sort of operation is commencing and we'll soon see further Russian incursion into Ukraine. I think the only question at this point is whether it's the full-on assault that could see Kyiv encircled or some sort of limited invasion that seizes Kharkiv, Mariupol', and degrades Ukrainian infrastructure in the interior with air and missile strikes. I don't see what the 'limited' option really does for Putin in the strategic sense. If his goal is regime change, I don't know if that'll cut it.

What happens if Zelensky is sitting on unaccounted Nukes and there are reports of a nuclear explosion?

So, there definitely are unaccounted for Soviet nukes, and it's possible there's at least one in Ukraine. Although it's much more likely that any such "lost" bomb would be buried deep under some farm where a Soviet plane crashed decades ago in a totally unusable state and without anybody but some aging bureaucrat in Moscow knowing anything about it. But the chances that Ukraine has managed to keep even one nuke under wraps while also maintaining it (weapons-usable isotopes have half lifes ranging between 14 years and 700 million years, among other considerations) without any IAEA inspectors catching on, are slim to none.

There's also a thorough, reliable, global network of nuclear explosion detectors. So, if there were reports of a nuclear blast, we'd know whether those reports were true almost instantly, although there's no doubt you could convince people otherwise (I knew someone who was extremely knowledgeable about military/warfare stuff who was convinced Russia might have tested a nuke in Syria without anyone noticing - it's not true.)

So, the most likely answer to your question is that the attack would immediately be widely blamed on Russia, which I'm sure Russia would deny, but beyond that, we'd be in totally unprecedented territory, and it's impossible to say.

The ultimate question I was asking is that if it happened tonight/in the morning over there, would I be getting up to a mushroom cloud tomorrow?

It's extremely, extremely doubtful.

[Crumpets]

Based on multiple reports, it appears that the areas surrounding the contact line in the Donbas are experiencing the heaviest artillery barrage since 2014/2015. Columns of Russian mechanized units have also been spotted tonight less than five kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

At this point, I am pretty sure some sort of operation is commencing and we'll soon see further Russian incursion into Ukraine. I think the only question at this point is whether it's the full-on assault that could see Kyiv encircled or some sort of limited invasion that seizes Kharkiv, Mariupol', and degrades Ukrainian infrastructure in the interior with air and missile strikes. I don't see what the 'limited' option really does for Putin in the strategic sense. If his goal is regime change, I don't know if that'll cut it.

What happens if Zelensky is sitting on unaccounted Nukes and there are reports of a nuclear explosion?

So, there definitely are unaccounted for Soviet nukes, and it's possible there's at least one in Ukraine. Although it's much more likely that any such "lost" bomb would be buried deep under some farm where a Soviet plane crashed decades ago in a totally unusable state and without anybody but some aging bureaucrat in Moscow knowing anything about it. But the chances that Ukraine has managed to keep even one nuke under wraps while also maintaining it (weapons-usable isotopes have half lifes ranging between 14 years and 700 million years, among other considerations) without any IAEA inspectors catching on, are slim to none.

There's also a thorough, reliable, global network of nuclear explosion detectors. So, if there were reports of a nuclear blast, we'd know whether those reports were true almost instantly, although there's no doubt you could convince people otherwise (I knew someone who was extremely knowledgeable about military/warfare stuff who was convinced Russia might have tested a nuke in Syria without anyone noticing - it's not true.)

So, the most likely answer to your question is that the attack would immediately be widely blamed on Russia, which I'm sure Russia would deny, but beyond that, we'd be in totally unprecedented territory, and it's impossible to say.

The ultimate question I was asking is that if it happened tonight/in the morning over there, would I be getting up to a mushroom cloud tomorrow?

No. There are only two reasons Russia would ever launch a nuclear attack on the US. Either 1) They are totally convinced they can completely destroy all NATO second (response)-strike capabilities AND they see some strategic advantage to turning most of North America and Western Europe into a wasteland or 2) It's a response to a US first strike, which would have to be ordered by Joe Biden directly.

As to option 1, Russia has no such ability, has never believed it has, and has no reason to want the US destroyed when we are actually pretty strong trade partners and most importantly (since they don't think they can destroy all second-strike capabilities) it would also mean the end of Russia.

In fact, Putin has always made the strategic endgame of the war in Ukraine totally clear: he doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO and he wants to keep Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence. All sub-campaigns have been and will be in service of that goal. A nuclear war with anyone does not achieve that end. In fact, it probably undermines it, since it's probably the only thing that could totally unify every single NATO member and most non-NATO members against Russia on a totally unprecedented level. Also worth remembering this isn't Putin's first war, and he didn't see any reason to use nukes in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine in 2014, or Syria, where the stakes would have been lower and where it's clear Russia was fine going scorched earth. In other words, there's no reason to suspect Putin sees nukes as anything other than a deterrent. Hence why he agreed to extend Russia's arms limitation treaty with the US just last year. Putin might be cruel and want glory, but he's not suicidal, and a nuclear war means suicide, not glory.

As to option 2, Joe Biden is just not going to order a nuclear strike on Russia in response to a Russian attack on Ukraine, even a nuclear one. He's just not. It's completely out of character for him, and again, there's no strategic advantage to the United States destroying Russia. Especially since we also can't totally eliminate their second-strike capabilities and doing so would mean the end of the US. The same logic applies in reverse, and like Putin, there's no reason to think Joe Biden sees nukes as anything but a deterrent, which they are, and a very good one.

[Chips]

Based on multiple reports, it appears that the areas surrounding the contact line in the Donbas are experiencing the heaviest artillery barrage since 2014/2015. Columns of Russian mechanized units have also been spotted tonight less than five kilometers from the Ukrainian border.

At this point, I am pretty sure some sort of operation is commencing and we'll soon see further Russian incursion into Ukraine. I think the only question at this point is whether it's the full-on assault that could see Kyiv encircled or some sort of limited invasion that seizes Kharkiv, Mariupol', and degrades Ukrainian infrastructure in the interior with air and missile strikes. I don't see what the 'limited' option really does for Putin in the strategic sense. If his goal is regime change, I don't know if that'll cut it.

What happens if Zelensky is sitting on unaccounted Nukes and there are reports of a nuclear explosion?

So, there definitely are unaccounted for Soviet nukes, and it's possible there's at least one in Ukraine. Although it's much more likely that any such "lost" bomb would be buried deep under some farm where a Soviet plane crashed decades ago in a totally unusable state and without anybody but some aging bureaucrat in Moscow knowing anything about it. But the chances that Ukraine has managed to keep even one nuke under wraps while also maintaining it (weapons-usable isotopes have half lifes ranging between 14 years and 700 million years, among other considerations) without any IAEA inspectors catching on, are slim to none.

There's also a thorough, reliable, global network of nuclear explosion detectors. So, if there were reports of a nuclear blast, we'd know whether those reports were true almost instantly, although there's no doubt you could convince people otherwise (I knew someone who was extremely knowledgeable about military/warfare stuff who was convinced Russia might have tested a nuke in Syria without anyone noticing - it's not true.)

So, the most likely answer to your question is that the attack would immediately be widely blamed on Russia, which I'm sure Russia would deny, but beyond that, we'd be in totally unprecedented territory, and it's impossible to say.

The ultimate question I was asking is that if it happened tonight/in the morning over there, would I be getting up to a mushroom cloud tomorrow?

Crumpets explained it best. Biden and Putin aren't morons. They both know the worst of what might happen and want to do their best to avoid said worst outcome.

[Crumpets]

If you do want to be worried about something WMD related, here's a scenario that's a bit more likely than a nuclear attack: Russia has turned a blind eye to chemical attacks in Syria and we know Russia has a chemical stockpile of its own which it has already used on a small scale in cases like the Skripal attack. The US, UK, and France have all launched airstrikes on Syrian targets in response to Assad's chemical attacks, even despite not otherwise being at war directly with Assad. If there are reports of a chemical attack in Ukraine, how do the US, UK, and France respond?

Personally, my guess would be that they come up with some lame excuse as to why it's different, like saying they have intel it was done by some tiny Russian-backed extremist group, and they will work with Ukraine to identify and destroy chemical stockpiles in Ukraine but won't do anything in Russia, but I don't think we can say for certain. Fortunately, I don't think Putin would want to use chemical weapons for the same reason that it doesn't really further his larger goal to keep Ukraine out of NATO, and he wouldn't want to escalate above a conventional war with Ukraine and Ukraine only, but he at least has a little more plausible deniability/"wasn't me" with chemical weapons than he does nuclear weapons, especially the really-easy-to-come-by stuff like chlorine.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1495284771630587906

[CumbrianLefty]

Its still hard to see the endgame of a full-scale Russian invasion, though.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Its still hard to see the endgame of a full-scale Russian invasion, though.

I think that once the decision to use force is made, the logic to go all the way is overwhelming. A limited invasion has confused political/strategic aims. If you don't want to take all or even most of Ukraine then you are de facto forfeiting the country to the west, when to avoid that is precisely the rationale for invasion in the first place. So anything short of some sort of regime change doesn't make sense.

[CumbrianLefty]

And yes I get all that too - but the very idea that Russia can "take" (whether de facto or de jure) all of Ukraine without massive bloodshed or wider negative consequences is surely verging on insane. And until now, nobody suspected Putin of being that whatever else he was.

[Torie]

If you do want to be worried about something WMD related, here's a scenario that's a bit more likely than a nuclear attack: Russia has turned a blind eye to chemical attacks in Syria and we know Russia has a chemical stockpile of its own which it has already used on a small scale in cases like the Skripal attack. The US, UK, and France have all launched airstrikes on Syrian targets in response to Assad's chemical attacks, even despite not otherwise being at war directly with Assad. If there are reports of a chemical attack in Ukraine, how do the US, UK, and France respond?

Personally, my guess would be that they come up with some lame excuse as to why it's different, like saying they have intel it was done by some tiny Russian-backed extremist group, and they will work with Ukraine to identify and destroy chemical stockpiles in Ukraine but won't do anything in Russia, but I don't think we can say for certain. Fortunately, I don't think Putin would want to use chemical weapons for the same reason that it doesn't really further his larger goal to keep Ukraine out of NATO, and he wouldn't want to escalate above a conventional war with Ukraine and Ukraine only, but he at least has a little more plausible deniability/"wasn't me" with chemical weapons than he does nuclear weapons, especially the really-easy-to-come-by stuff like chlorine.

Thanks for your series of informative and well crafted posts. I suppose for me, the threshold question, before one even gets to the issue of the current resiliency of MAD, is why in the world would Putin use nukes or chemicals when he can get his way militarily without them.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

And yes I get all that too - but the very idea that Russia can "take" (whether de facto or de jure) all of Ukraine without massive bloodshed or wider negative consequences is surely verging on insane. And until now, nobody suspected Putin of being that whatever else he was.

The only way I can rationalise it is through Putin's public statements that he believes Ukrainians are little Russians, and is consequently underestimating the cost of occupation. There is also the factor that if you believe an independent Ukraine will inevitably join the EU/NATO at some point then you will judge the cost of inaction to be even higher than action.

[Person Man]

So the three basic outcomes are that

Nothing happens

There’s a “limited war” where Russia annexes a third of Ukraine and the rest joins NATO

There’s a war to conquer or puppet Ukraine and Russians either get bogged down or they are forced to escalate further.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Russian landing ships in the Sea of Azov and notice given to civilian aircraft:

https://twitter.com/GrangerE04117/status/1495439464403185664?s=20&t=YEFqLh7S...

https://twitter.com/The_Lookout_N/status/1495436428456644614?s=20&t=YEFqLh7S...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Russian landing ships in the Sea of Azov and notice given to civilian aircraft:

https://twitter.com/GrangerE04117/status/1495439464403185664?s=20&t=YEFqLh7S...

https://twitter.com/The_Lookout_N/status/1495436428456644614?s=20&t=YEFqLh7S...

So is Macron's allegedly successful diplomatic intervention BS or...?

[Crumpets]

Its still hard to see the endgame of a full-scale Russian invasion, though.

I think that once the decision to use force is made, the logic to go all the way is overwhelming. A limited invasion has confused political/strategic aims. If you don't want to take all or even most of Ukraine then you are de facto forfeiting the country to the west, when to avoid that is precisely the rationale for invasion in the first place. So anything short of some sort of regime change doesn't make sense.

One possibility that, personally I think is the most likely of all invasion scenarios, is that Russia does use overwhelming force on the scale of what they would need to use to take over the whole country, but only takes a limited amount of terrain before unilaterally pulling back. Then they make another round of demands - that Ukraine pledge never to join NATO, or that NATO pledge never to accept Ukraine - and see if it works. Then, if they still don't get their way, repeat with overwhelming force, taking a little more terrain, and so on. This is exactly what they have done fighting Turkish-friendly forces in Syria: Negotiate, seize a stretch of highway up to the next major town, stop, negotiate.

I agree with CumbrianLefty Russia doesn't want to have to fight for, control, and govern all of Ukraine. One kind of cynically smart things the US has done is make anything short of a full Russian takeover of most if not all of Ukraine to appear to be a loss for the Kremlin, since that's now what everyone thinks Putin wants and is posturing to do. And it's making Putin have to choose between doing nothing and be seen as a loser, doing relatively little, and still being seen as a loser, or taking an absolutely massive risk and trying to go for the biggest possible escalation. Until now, seizing new terrain would have been seen as enough of a risk to Kiev that they might have faltered. But now? I'm not so sure if Russia will have the leverage they were going for if Ukraine and the West can spin it as "Russia thought they could conquer all of Ukraine, and all they got was a couple of new towns after weeks/months of fighting."

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/JoshMandelOhio/status/1495155709100666888

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/JoshMandelOhio/status/1495155709100666888

It's amazing how this tweet manages to go from a good point (by Josh Mandel standards, anyway) to classic "ayy lmao" rightist red-meat nonsense in a single word, which is also the second-to-last word in the tweet.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

So is Macron's allegedly successful diplomatic intervention BS or...?

Whatever Putin said to Macron I think we should be focused on Russia's actual military movements, which are the only reliable indicators we have of whether an invasion could be imminent.

One possibility that, personally I think is the most likely of all invasion scenarios, is that Russia does use overwhelming force on the scale of what they would need to use to take over the whole country, but only takes a limited amount of terrain before unilaterally pulling back. Then they make another round of demands - that Ukraine pledge never to join NATO, or that NATO pledge never to accept Ukraine - and see if it works. Then, if they still don't get their way, repeat with overwhelming force, taking a little more terrain, and so on. This is exactly what they have done fighting Turkish-friendly forces in Syria: Negotiate, seize a stretch of highway up to the next major town, stop, negotiate.

I agree with CumbrianLefty Russia doesn't want to have to fight for, control, and govern all of Ukraine. One kind of cynically smart things the US has done is make anything short of a full Russian takeover of most if not all of Ukraine to appear to be a loss for the Kremlin, since that's now what everyone thinks Putin wants and is posturing to do. And it's making Putin have to choose between doing nothing and be seen as a loser, doing relatively little, and still being seen as a loser, or taking an absolutely massive risk and trying to go for the biggest possible escalation. Until now, seizing new terrain would have been seen as enough of a risk to Kiev that they might have faltered. But now? I'm not so sure if Russia will have the leverage they were going for if Ukraine and the West can spin it as "Russia thought they could conquer all of Ukraine, and all they got was a couple of new towns after weeks/months of fighting."

One problem with this scenario is that Russia inflicted a military defeat on Ukraine in 2015 and forced it to sign Minsk II, which Ukraine then refused to implement. So there is no reason for Russia to believe that such a compellence strategy would work again. If Ukraine knows that Russia is trying to achieve its maximalist political aims while trying to avoid paying the cost of occupation then rationally the optimal Ukraine response is to refuse to implement what Russia wants and force it to occupy. Hence regime change becomes the only logical strategy for Russia.

[It’s so Joever]

https://twitter.com/JoshMandelOhio/status/1495155709100666888

I do believe Mandel is also a communist as he is a Republican, but I would agree with this tweet. Whether or not Putin truly is communist or just some authoritarian nut job…it doesn’t matter. The semantics are of little use for the millions of innocent Ukrainians at risk of invasion.

[It’s so Joever]

Anyways Biden MUST protect Ukraine. Even if direct troops aren’t on the ground, he MUST publicly be sending supplies to Ukrainian rebels and providing daily updates on how America is fighting the invasion (even if indirectly) if he doesn’t, his political career is DONE. Like it’s over, no more.

[Person Man]

Anyways Biden MUST protect Ukraine. Even if direct troops aren’t on the ground, he MUST publicly be sending supplies to Ukrainian rebels and providing daily updates on how America is fighting the invasion (even if indirectly) if he doesn’t, his political career is DONE. Like it’s over, no more.

This could be how we get Trump again and probably another Republican after that. The silver lining is that maybe it will give people who have totally new ideas eventually a shot. Maybe we will have the next Bill Clinton in 32 or 36.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

So is Macron's allegedly successful diplomatic intervention BS or...?

Yes. Putin wants LePen to win the French elections. So he tells Macron he will do something for peace and withdraw troops, and then does the opposite. This has the effect of making Macron look like a fool.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

What are the chances this escalates into something worse? As in WW3? Or nukes being launched.

[Torie]

What are the chances this escalates into something worse? As in WW3? Or nukes being launched.

Is that a serious question? If Putin wants to annex Ukraine he can. The result will be another Cold War where Russia is cut off from economic commerce with the West. That is how this not in the loop, not an expert, old fossil sees it as he pounds his keyboard. The planet has been moving to a very bad place the last five years. I hope I don't regret not dying two years ago.

[jaichind]

Macron Proposed Putin-Biden Summit, Accepted by Both Sides: AFP