Politics

[bowjijohn]

… and who has the tech to operate at depth with ROVs / drones?
as @Red Leg said, not many

Reports are also coming in of drones sniffing around Norwegian pipes and oil rigs.

Motive for these 2 pipes is not clear, however a threat to Norwegian gas supply to Europe perhaps discloses Russia’s hand in this

Putin cannot win a conventional war - I suspect this is the beginning of a tip towards the unconventional

One of the many things that frightens me is the Russians’ reported belief that NATO lacks the stomach to respond against a theatre nuke strike in Ukraine

When both sides underestimate each other and neither can afford to lose you get increasing brinkmanship in the hope and false belief that the other will blink

Only leads to hells gate?

One ray of hope comes from some reports of increasing social unrest within Russia - perhaps as reality dawns?

As for outrage- I think we are well beyond that - now is the time for cold calculus

 

[Sabattiboy]

Since you laughed at @Red Leg and his post and then reading your post, I assume you’re assuming that the U.S. did this. My question is if so, to what purpose?

It is hard to see much that makes sense coming from american leaders since 2020 so it is short thinking to assume if the USA was responsible, it would have some logic behind it.

 

[Sabattiboy]

Well, Hitler or Stalin. Remember, Stalin "eliminated" some THREE MILLION of his "friends and closest advisors" in his mentally deranged purge of those that were "out to get him". He had their faces removed from every photograph ever taken. Putin hasn't gone that far yet, but then again, he now has nuclear weapons to "purge" any perceived enemies or threats against him. Truly a nightmare scenario for the entire world.

Just a thought, if we have a nuclear war would the nuclear winter that follows fix global warming?
With the last couple of years of demonstrated leadership and thinking this would not be an impossible strategy.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

You might think automatically that it was the Russians who did this, but the biggest winner would be the US actually.

If there would come some kind of truce/agreement / whatever in the Ukraine question, it would normally follow that Russia starts gas deliveries again. However due to these leaks this would then not be possible immediately. Meaning the US would remain one of the big exporters of gas to the EU.

Alternatively, if you like some conspiracy theories, this could be the Russians after all, trying to show that pipelines in the North Sea are not safe… hint hint Norwegian pipes.

What, demonstrate they can blow up an undersea pipeline? Everyone knows they can do that any time they like.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

 

[Ray B]

they caused thousands / tens of thousands to die from hypothermia

But according to Greta. John Kerry and the others Winter is not cold- Global Warming prevents that even in the arctic.

And as for that Russian gun being towed by Ukrainians- those Russians should put better tires on the guns.

 

[wesheltonj]

Europe can manage the winter, if there leaders will let them. Turn back on the Nuclear power plants and we can supply LNG. Certainly not as cheap a pre-war Russian gas, but Trump warned them and they all laughed.

 

[Wheels]

 

[shootist~]

obviously to cut the gas source to Germany to push the Europeans into finding different sources of gas instead of making rubles for Russia
if Putin wanted to cut the supply he has a spigot to shut it down he did not need to blow it up or hide what he would do, he has been dealing with Germany from the start about how to keep the gas flowing to Germany while Germany is against the Russians LOL
Europe is going to go through some very tough times this winter

strange days ahead now that the referendum to join Russia outcome is being announced
l'm sure there will be a few changes made, but hey instead of sending more nato weapons of war and billions of American dollars to create peace for the common people of Ukraine, Ukraine could always cut their losses and try to work things out instead

Putin ally issues 'apocalypse' warning as Kremlin prepares to annex parts of Ukraine

Pro-Moscow officials say residents in four occupied areas of Ukraine have voted to join Russia in a Kremlin-orchestrated vote that has been dismissed by the US and its Western allies as illegitimate.

www.abc.net.au

Why overthink it?
Someone seems to have a beef with Russia. Blew up their stuff.
Makes you wonder what else could be in the works.

 

[Dragan N.]

… and who has the tech to operate at depth with ROVs / drones?
as @Red Leg said, not many

Reports are also coming in of drones sniffing around Norwegian pipes and oil rigs.

Motive for these 2 pipes is not clear, however a threat to Norwegian gas supply to Europe perhaps discloses Russia’s hand in this

Putin cannot win a conventional war - I suspect this is the beginning of a tip towards the unconventional

One of the many things that frightens me is the Russians’ reported belief that NATO lacks the stomach to respond against a theatre nuke strike in Ukraine

When both sides underestimate each other and neither can afford to lose you get increasing brinkmanship in the hope and false belief that the other will blink

Only leads to hells gate?

One ray of hope comes from some reports of increasing social unrest within Russia - perhaps as reality dawns?

As for outrage- I think we are well beyond that - now is the time for cold calculus

The big question here is the state of Russia's nuclear weapons. Russia is claimed to have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They also have the Cold War era strategic planning etc.. for how to deploy them against America and the West. If Russia, using its nuclear weapons, truly has the capability to destroy several large western cities with its nukes- think London, NYC, LA, D.C. etc... then i highly doubt NATO would respond militarily to a tactical nuke in Ukraine. Any country that has the capability to destroy 2-3 large american cities is pretty much insulated from being attacked by America first.

 

[Dragan N.]

You might think automatically that it was the Russians who did this, but the biggest winner would be the US actually.

If there would come some kind of truce/agreement / whatever in the Ukraine question, it would normally follow that Russia starts gas deliveries again. However due to these leaks this would then not be possible immediately. Meaning the US would remain one of the big exporters of gas to the EU.

Alternatively, if you like some conspiracy theories, this could be the Russians after all, trying to show that pipelines in the North Sea are not safe… hint hint Norwegian pipes.

This kind of reminds me of Operation Condor in Latin America during the Cold War. The whole premise behind Operation Condor was to committ acts that where brutal, terrifying and visible but at the same time deniable. Now there is strong circumstantial evidence that the US was the puppeter behind Operation Condor, but a "smoking gun" proving US involvement is still lacking...

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I see Virgin Atlantic is allowing their air crew men to wear women's dresses if they wish. Thats the last time I fly with them.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Wheels]

 

[Woodcarver]

The big question here is the state of Russia's nuclear weapons. Russia is claimed to have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They also have the Cold War era strategic planning etc.. for how to deploy them against America and the West. If Russia, using its nuclear weapons, truly has the capability to destroy several large western cities with its nukes- think London, NYC, LA, D.C. etc... then i highly doubt NATO would respond militarily to a tactical nuke in Ukraine. Any country that has the capability to destroy 2-3 large american cities is pretty much insulated from being attacked by America first.

They were also purported to have the second best army in the world. Considering how this war has proved they don't live up to that billing, the real question is if Russia actually has anywhere near the capabilities we've all been conditioned to think they have. If their nuclear capability is on par with the (lack of) demonstrated conventional strength, this could well be another of Putin's bluffs. Question is whether or not anyone will call it. The consequences if it isn't a bluff could be catastrophic; if he is bluffing, he'll keep drawing a new line in the sand as he continues threatening the world. Eventually, he will run out of sand.

 

[PARA45]

 

[Hunter4752001]

It's also possible that even if Putin's nuclear forces are at a similar state to his Army, he may not know it. A chronic weakness of dictators is that their underlings are afraid to tell them the truth about deficient capabilities.

 

[Red Leg]

The big question here is the state of Russia's nuclear weapons. Russia is claimed to have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They also have the Cold War era strategic planning etc.. for how to deploy them against America and the West. If Russia, using its nuclear weapons, truly has the capability to destroy several large western cities with its nukes- think London, NYC, LA, D.C. etc... then i highly doubt NATO would respond militarily to a tactical nuke in Ukraine. Any country that has the capability to destroy 2-3 large american cities is pretty much insulated from being attacked by America first.

I think you are very wrong.

As a disclaimer, the following is pure speculation on my part.

My expectation, and it would have been the same under Obama or Trump, is that "NATO" would respond with a massive conventional counter attack within the theater of operations to any tactical nuclear weapon. As it would have been then, I am sure something rather clear has been communicated to the Russians with respect to that. The F35 and B2 are essentially undetectable beyond the range of their deliverable weapons by anything the Russians have. The latest generation of cruise missiles are very difficult targets and somewhere between 80-90 % would get through. After all, the Russian military can't stop a GMLRS from a HIMARS, much less a ground hugging and maneuvering Tomahawk. The initial wave of strikes would be against ADA (particularly S300 and 400 sites) and theater level command and control centers and airfields. Second stage strikes would likely be against things such as the Russian Black Sea Fleet and its infrastructure. F22 Raptors, against which Russia has no peer counterpart would own the airspace.

So now what?

Russia has a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons (the majority of which are moldering in bunkers in questionable condition) than the US, but both countries have about the same number actually deployed. The US currently spends around 50 billion dollars annually on the maintenance and improvement of its nuclear weapons. That represents roughly 80% of the total Russian defense budget. To reach anticipated yields, plutonium based weapons require extensive maintenance to insure implosion timing is exact. Otherwise a 5 megaton warhead may actually detonate as a 5 kiloton weapon or not at all. Whatever assumptions one may make in a nuclear exchange, one can be assured 99.99% of US weapons will function and will strike within feet of where aimed.

The Russian submarine based ballistic missile fleet has declined greatly since the end of the Cold War. The Typhon was a powerful weapon system which Tom Clancy made rather famous. None are operational. The only new class of boomer in Russian service is the Boeri class boat. It is a pretty good design. The Russians have exactly four operational. That means 1.5 of them are actually at sea at any time. Russia has 6 Soviet era Delta class boats configured as boomers still operational. I would be stunned if a Sea Wolf or Virginia class attack boat isn't a kilometer off the stern of each of these currently deployed.

Russian strategic bomber delivery systems are in even worse shape. A number could likely break through and hit some European targets in a first strike scenario, but a fully alerted NATO ADA network would attrite them significantly. Some Backfires would likely succeed in launching cruise missiles against the US.

Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces represent their most capable delivery method. I have no doubt they would succeed in launching many and a significant number of those would get through. What is unknown is the actual effectiveness of those warheads. Certainly, even a 5kt explosion in NY would be catastrophic. But the Russians must balance the hope that most or some of their weapons will reach their targets and perform as advertised against the certainty that nearly all the US weapons would.

No one will win in such an exchange. But Russia would catastrophically lose. I have difficulty envisioning a calculus that certain national and cultural suicide is a preferred outcome of the current debacle.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I think you are very wrong.

As a disclaimer, the following is pure speculation on my part.

My expectation, and it would have been the same under Obama or Trump, is that "NATO" would respond with a massive conventional counter attack within the theater of operations to any tactical nuclear weapon. As it would have been then, I am sure something rather clear has been communicated to the Russians with respect to that. The F35 and B2 are essentially undetectable beyond the range of their deliverable weapons by anything the Russians have. The latest generation of cruise missiles are very difficult targets and somewhere between 80-90 % would get through. After all, the Russian military can't stop a GMLRS from a HIMARS, much less a ground hugging and maneuvering Tomahawk. The initial wave of strikes would be against ADA (particularly S300 and 400 sites) and theater level command and control centers and airfields. Second stage strikes would likely be against things such as the Russian Black Sea Fleet and its infrastructure. F22 Raptors, against which Russia has no peer counterpart would own the airspace.

So now what?

Russia has a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons (the majority of which are moldering in bunkers in questionable condition) than the US, but both countries have about the same number actually deployed. The US currently spends around 50 billion dollars annually on the maintenance and improvement of its nuclear weapons. That represents roughly 80% of the total Russian defense budget. To reach anticipated yields, plutonium based weapons require extensive maintenance to insure implosion timing is exact. Otherwise a 5 megaton warhead may actually detonate as a 5 kiloton weapon or not at all. Whatever assumptions one may make in a nuclear exchange, one can be assured 99.99% of US weapons will function and will strike within feet of where aimed.

The Russian submarine based ballistic missile fleet has declined greatly since the end of the Cold War. The Typhon was a powerful weapon system which Tom Clancy made rather famous. None are operational. The only new class of boomer in Russian service is the Boeri class boat. It is a pretty good design. The Russians have exactly four operational. That means 1.5 of them are actually at sea at any time. Russia has 6 Soviet era Delta class boats configured as boomers still operational. I would be stunned if a Sea Wolf or Virginia class attack boat isn't a kilometer off the stern of each of these currently deployed.

Russian strategic bomber delivery systems are in even worse shape. A number could likely break through and hit some European targets in a first strike scenario, but a fully alerted NATO ADA network would attrite them significantly. Some Backfires would likely succeed in launching cruise missiles against the US.

Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces represent their most capable delivery method. I have no doubt they would succeed in launching many and a significant number of those would get through. What is unknown is the actual effectiveness of those warheads. Certainly, even a 5kt explosion in NY would be catastrophic. But the Russians must balance the hope that most or some of their weapons will reach their targets and perform as advertised against the certainty that nearly all the US weapons would.

No one will win in such an exchange. But Russia would catastrophically lose. I have difficulty envisioning a calculus that certain national and cultural suicide is a preferred outcome of the current debacle.

With regards to your last sentence, I don't think Putin cares in his current state of mind. He knows he's finished on the world stage as a leader and could give a rat's a** about the Russian people. I'm sure he's holed up in a bunker somewhere planning his next move. And HOW can Russia still be on the UN Security Council after illegally invading Ukraine and NOW repeatedly threatening to use nuclear weapons against NATO and various non NATO countries in Europe?

 

[marksman]

Are you seriously suggesting that Ukraine sue for peace and give up territory to this lunatic? That would not appease him, it would only give him a chance to regroup and re-engage. It would also abandon all of their stranded countrymen to a life of horror in the new Russian territory. At what price peace?

In my mind, Ukraine has no option but to recapture all lost territory. At that point, with a thoroughly beaten Russia, they must join NATO to secure future protection when the bear rebuilds.

to give you an honest answer WAB, but it is "speculation" LOL
l do not see this war ending on the battle field, l see it ending in negotiations

"at what price peace?"
what l do not get is that it seems NOBODY thought that the Biden Governments idea on how to escape from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban (the so called enemy) all those weapons of war was a good idea but there is trust in the same government or nato that its a good idea to keep sending game changers that will be the one to bring peace to Ukraine?
so how much peace has it bought so far? the place will be completely destroyed so who wins if Putin backs out now? you and l will still be paying for it and so will our children while the Ukrainians wont have anything to fight for, that's right America keep sending money and himars we will pay for it LOL
this would never have happened under Trump

maybe l just dont get it but you cannot trust a farkup one moment and then not another and its not just the sleepy joe face of the party making these farkup decisions
make up yer farken mind "do you trust what your leaders are getting you into and what they have done so far?"
you want the fight then dont complain about the cost
what l think anyway