Can someone give me an informed, no-bullshit assessment of how the war is looking for both Ukraine and Russia? It's hard to find educated info amongst all the hot takes and propaganda.
Can someone give me an informed, no-bullshit assessment of how the war is looking for both Ukraine and Russia?
>inb4 shills
stalemate
bottom text
preemptive much obliged
>It's hard to find educated info amongst all the hot takes and propaganda.
yeah this thread will go well
>yeah this thread will go well
It was either ask /k/, /misc/ or Reddit so...
Ask deviantArt, they'll sort you out.
Can someone draw Putin buying wonder bread?
try tumblr
Go ask furries, I hear they're pro Wagner and a few got arrested in Moscow
Ukraine is very slowly gaining ground. The war is mostly at a stalemate. Russia has lost virtually all of its offensive capabilities because of hideous losses. Ukraine is trying to avoid that same fate.
Russia is searching for an off-ramp but Ukraine at current is unlikely to sign any ideal that allows Russia to keep anything post-2014.
A good analogue for this is that russia attempted to steal shit from Ukraine, but was not counting on the mighty anus clenching shut and keeping its fist trapped until Russia lets go of the shit it grabbed
Russia has had the entire winter to prepare defense as Ukraine currently has the initiative. Russia lacks something (IDK as you dont want BS). Ukraine is currently trying to pentrate Russian defensive lines in order to reclaim there territory, preferably to the Azov sea in order to isolate Crimea.
Russia via domination. Wagner is just tearing through buttholes left and right, including their leader's own
It's currently a stalemate because neither side has air dominance. Assuming there isn't a successful coup attempt, Ukraine will likely run out of resources first.
>Ukraine will likely run out of resources first.
I would not be too sure of that, despite frequent posting of "the picture" Russia too has been mauled pretty hard so far (see picrel) and their losses are not being replaced by aid packages.
what is "the picture"
>Ukraine will likely run out of resources first.
>Who's winning
if we define winning as achieving all of their goals, Ukraine is getting closer to achieving theirs. which are
>liberate all of its occupied territory
Which is outlandish, nevertheless, they're doing so slowly and while there's basically no chance they'll actually take back all of it they've objectively taken more land back than they've lost by far
Russia's goals are ambiguous, and so far mostly undefined but they range from
>fully annexing Ukraine
to
>secure their claims of the regions of Zaphorizia, Kherson, Donetsk, Lughansk and Crimea
to
>demlitarize Ukraine
to the fabulously stupid
>denazify Ukraine
So far they lost Kherson, they have not taken the entirety of Donetsk and Lughansk, they're fighting to keep Zaphorizia and they've had Crimea since 2014 so it doesn't really matter.
Assuming Ukraine is and continues to gain some success, will it become exponentially harder to take things as the war progresses (ie as Russia concertrates as what they have to defend is smaller and smaller)?
If so, I can only see that moving into Russia itself would counter this.
Thoughts on this?
Maybe, but overtime, they have more himars, more bradleys, more thermals and nightvision, etc..
Who will use that equipment?
The ones who are killing the vatBlack folk, duh
Ukrainians?
Honestly if Ukraine runs out of people they should just start mass-immigrating Polish people and putting guns in their hands.
I just wait for them taking older, half spent fricks such as myself.
As long as i have my blood pressure medicine i can help.
Strap me to a rocket and shoot me into the Duma.
Depends what they take and when. If they take Tokmak or Mariupol and cut the supply lines to Crimea then Russia won't be able to hold it. Keeping pressure on the borders so Russia can't leave them undefended is the smart move even if Ukraine has no plans to take any Russian territory.
interesting, thanks
I'm not a Z-boy, but even by your own definitions, how are the Russians losing?
>Ukraine is getting closer to achieving their [goals]
>liberate all of its occupied territory
Crimea isn't going back, and Luhansk and Donetsk remain question marks.
Russia's goals:
>fully annexing Ukraine
Not gonna happen
>secure their claims...
Yeah Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea seem likely to fall under Russian control.
>demilitarize Ukraine
Maybe. This war is a meat grinder, and even if UAF have better trained and equipped dudes, RAF have more meat.
>denazify Ukraine
That one's just public relations, right? Ukraine has some people who might be called Nazis, Russia has some people who might be called Nazis; no one really wants to stop fielding motivated dudes with questionable ideals.
Putin signed a claim declaring Kherson is forever Russian. That city is now firmly back in Ukraine control after Russians ran away. That was back in November. Now Ukraine has crossed the river and Russians don't know what to do.
Putin claimed that Zaporozhzhia oblast is Russian land. He's now rapidly losing land there too. Same with Donetsk and Luhansk.
Crimea is the furthest step but Ukraine might not even have to attack it. Just hit the supply lines like what happened at Kherson, starve the Russians until they run.
No.
But defenders tend to win quagmires.
neither rustsia nor ukringe can move an inch, as expected of thirdies.
Russia lost when they could not take Kyiv. Everything beyond that point is just Ukraine grinding down Russian troops until they give up. When Ukraine reaches Melitopol this war is over.
the ukraine junta lost 60% of nato equipments in the first week of their winter, oops spring, I mean summer counteroffensyiv. they captured about 3 hamlets and 2 empty fields. this means they are winning according to /k/eddit
>your brain on /misc/
Sad thing
>my comment was posted twice in the collage
Kek.
Good morning sis, how's the time in Calcutta
What's that?
Stalemate, taking turns attempting to find weak areas and then exploiting said weak areas, exchanging territories back and forth, attrition, blah blah blah.
Biggest shake has been the whole gayner thing but it's too early to tell exactly what kind of fallout the whole thing will have.
It was really interesting to see all the people that turned out to cheer priggy on as he drove towards moscow.
Ukraine is attempting to revert Russia's initial gains, so far it has achieved some success, meanwhile the russians are struggling to recover the initiative.
Ukrainians are rebuilding their country.
The trenches have caused them to target conscripts and officer to break up morale and drain resources its working given the fact Russia just had 20,000 desertions.
Russia it's devolved into a same Hyde mde sketch. No one has any control. no one is in charge.
Russia can't make any substantial gains without horrific losses. Ukraine is currently putting pressure on as much of the front line as they can, but especially in the south hoping to cut off supply lines to Crimea. Russia is relying heavily on minefields and pre-sighted artillery to hold off any armored pushes, Ukraine is using their western PGMs to hit everything that stays in one spot too long, artillery, AA, supply depots. Time will tell if the Russian defenses will hold up long enough for the ground to get muddy again and halt any major offensives. If the Ukrainians make any breakthroughs we'll likely see large swaths of territory abandoned by Russian forces.
Russia is seeking to slaughter hohols, eschewing anything else. The hohols are helpfully walking into prepared killboxes, absent air support and with insufficient artillery, and their unprotected mineclearing efforts are getting annihilated. So they are being decimated. Russia has lots of time, and the hohols can achieve none of their stated objectives. So they will continue to be slaughtered, for nothing.
and donkeys fly, vatnik
Very slow progress from either side leading to an eventual frozen conflict.
I would personally love to see total zigger death, however I doubt it will happen unless arms deliveries to Ukraine increase.
Russia as we know it will not exist in a year or two. Ukraine is slightly less fricked in that they will return to 1991 borders with a demographic crisis
None is winning per se.
Objective wise Ukraine is trying to force Russia to retreat by fricking up supply routes. This might succeed but a lot depends on Russia fricking things up. The march to Moskov may have helped since part of the army will probably have to retreat in order to avoid similar scenarios in the future.
Russia is currently stalling, hard to say what they really want to achieve anymore. As it stand, everything south of Dnipro river is fricked and worthless for the next decades due to them blowing up the dam.
>This might succeed but a lot depends on Russia fricking things up
>Russia fricking things up
That's pretty much guaranteed success then.
Ukraine has ceased gaining ground and has suffered massive defeats at Bakhmut. This is going to become a frozen conflict even in the best circumstance for Ukraine, and in the worst they completely run out of manpower and lose everything. Zelensky needs to start negotiating and accepting that Russia has effectively won the war.
LMAO Russia lost 3x more vehicles than Ukraine since offensive started. All ukrainian losses will be replaced with even more NATO vehicles. Vatniks lost more ground in 2 weeks than they gained in a year.
>population of Russia: 150 million
>population of Ukraine: 48 million officially, actually down to 30 million after casualties and evacuations
>30 million
No
You are also conflating casualties and KIA, like a moron would
And all it would theoretically take to undo that advantage is other people joining in on Ukraines side but the cowardly west has chosen to sit on the sidelines because they are still spooked that Putler might nook.
>150 million
Krokodil addicts. Pollution damaged, mongolids and old people
Just airdrop the addicts and old people over kiev with assault rifles and explosive vest, problem solved
>lost 3x more vehicles than Ukraine since offensive started. All ukrainian losses will be replaced with even more NATO vehicles. Vatniks lost more ground in 2 weeks than they gained in a year by a country that is 1/5 the size
People are going back. I experience it personally seeing a friend hosting parents and niece, then the parents went back, then the niece is going back too.
I know you revel in destruction because you are literally an orc, but is not going to end like you hope.
>pic related
Are they allowed to specify it's just refugees from Ukraine? Sounds a bit racist, someone might think the Black person ones are mostly men of fighting age.
The vast majority of casualties are not from small arms fire. Having more meat for the grinder is not going to win this war.
Pretty much. It's not just men, it's morale and material. I've yet to see a ukrainian commit suicide on the battlefield, but we've seen them apply tourniquets after having their legs blown off with a mine whereas I've seen 7 vatniks an hero on camera.
Manpower doesn't mean shit if you can't properly equip them.
Ukraine literally stopped drafting people 10 months ago because there is no need. They have more than enough manpower.
Name a single war that has been one because the other side ran out of men
Then after you've said paraguay, name a second war won in that fashion
>paraguay
explain
Aar of the triple alliance, 1860s, south America
By some estimates up to 90% of paraguays male population was dead before they were forced to surrender
If we use it as a comparison to Ukraine Russia still has millions and millions of Ukrainian men to kill before manpower shortages get serious enough to decide the war
>population of Russia: 150 million
Now how many of those will desert, are unfit to fight, are supressed local populations in the north and East who will not fight even if you can find them, are Chechens planning on bombing Russian apartments already, are immigrants who will just leave, are part of the work force that will not be asked to fight, etc etc etc.
All of this on top of the fact that population really doesn't mean as much as you think it does.
Russia just had a coup and the people who did it were let go with a slap on the wrist
That dude is as good as dead. You can't swing at the "king" and expect to walk away. Polonium poisoning or a car/elevator bomb within 6 months.
That does not send the same message as arresting him for treason. Putin cucked and showed the world that he’s scared
Who’s going to drive these vehicles dumbass?
Ukrainians?
what is it on a per capita basis? honest question given the population differences
midwit question
sure, tankie. Spill more propaganda lies for your soon dead clown-leader
Russia is very slowly gaining ground. The war is mostly at a stalemate. Ukraine has lost virtually all of its offensive capabilities because of hideous losses. Russia is trying to avoid that same fate.
Ukraine is searching for an off-ramp but Russia at current is unlikely to sign any ideal that allows Ukraine to join NATO
I guess you mean gaining metaphorical ground, because they're losing literal ground.
Ukraine is stronger now than when the war started. Russia is far weaker. One more year of NATO equipment flooding by the billions and Russia is completely fricked.
cute pig
Is a magic cat, have a piggy.
It is very slowly turning in Ukraines favor.
Albeit losses, Ukraine has taken more ground in a month than russia did for almost a year. It is a very slow and painful grind though and Ukraine need to really step it up if they want to make any meaningful gains.
Shit sucks. So much that one side tried to overthrow the army leadership a few days ago
>It's hard to find educated info
So you come to fricking PrepHole.
>Can someone give me an informed, no-bullshit assessment of how the war is looking for both Ukraine and Russia?
No? What are you 12? Do you think the world is all easy answers and people are just lying to you but someone fundamentally knows "the truth"?
Here's the non-bullshit answer nobody really knows and no one is going to know until its over at which time people will retroactively claim they knew all along. There are different perspectives on how its going. There are all sorts of more or less accurate statistics and opinions you can look up. But you can only really come to your own conclusions at the moment because quite literally anything could happen. You could even make the argument that the longer this goes on the more both sides effectively 'lose' as they sacrifice men and treasure on the alter of war.
Then as now, and as shall ever be, the Slav is the greatest killer of the Slav.
Russia no longer has the capability to commit to major offensives, they've lost far too many armored vehicles and the stuff they're carting out of siberian storage is not comparable to what they wasted early in the war. Without mobilization they will not have the necessary manpower to use the human wave tactics that ground down Bakhmut either. The main advantage they have is in aviation, though they do not have and cannot achieve air superiority. So they are committing to a combination of fortifying what they have already taken and slinging missiles and drones, in theory at ammunition depots but in practice it just ends up being terror bombing.
Russia will not secure "Novorossiya" which is the smallest identified war goal on the laundry list. I think it's fair to say that at this point, Russia can only cope with partial occupations of a few now depopulated, bombed out regions.
Ukraine has its own problems, an inherent manpower disadvantage and lack of ability to deploy air assets near the front. It also struggles to mount offensive operations having received only a fraction of what it asked the west for but it is unknown how much of their reserve has actually been committed. It's hard to judge the success of their offensive so far. Delivering a solid defeat to Russia this year is probably necessary to maintain western interest in the story. If they can break the land bridge to Crimea I think Russia is fricked, if not, it devolves into a stalemate. But basically all Ukrainians hate Russia now, the most pro-Russia parts of Ukraine have been depopulated, bombed and annexed by Russia so there is basically zero hope of a politically negotiated peace.
tl;dr Russia lost, but it remains to be seen if Ukraine can actually win.
It's pretty much a stalemate.
Currently a stalemate and it might stay that way.
Russia is fricked and has no chance at taking over all of Ukraine, unless support for Ukraine almost completely stops. The only major russian goal that's somewhat feasible is them taking Donetsk Oblast, but I doubt even that can happen. Their realistic goal now should be keeping as much land as possible.
I can see Ukraine potentially taking back southern Ukraine, if they manage to take Melitopol then the rest should be easy in comparison. Crimea would honestly be the easiest part if they reach it. They just need to blow up the bridge and then they can siege it while it receives minimal supplies. Taking back the northern parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts would definitely be doable afterwards.
Donetsk city is an absolute fortress and I do not see Ukraine ever managing to take it back. It would only be possible if other countries give them massive amounts of equipment.
If Ukrainians get close to Mariupol entire russian army will collapse. Morale is already trash.
>non biased opinion
Russia has been the only one to take and hold territory in this war, regardless of casualties and munition expenditure. Ukraine with it's extensive foreign backing hasn't shown swift enough advances into Russian defenses, which will embolden groups in the West to sue for peace (irregardless of political allegiance) and eventually Ukraine will be forced to secede territory to Russia.
>reeeeeeee
See the Winter War between Finland and the USSR to see this in action. Ukraine has the choice to sacrifice a generation of men for territory comfortably held by Russia or give Russia what it wants at the cost for everything else for Russia.
why not both
thing is, there are to many countries pissed off by russia, election interferences, internetvtrolls, lobbying, invading other countries, cross firing everywhere, not to speak of the costs of the cold war.
the support wont stop, the sanctions wont stop because russia in its current state is now seen as an existencial problem by many european states.
landgrab will not be tolerated, and reperations will be payed, one way or the other.
they pushed their "some mafia asshats hiding behind nukes and shitting around the globe" too far.
putins system is off the rail, it only goes by the momentum it still has, but that wont last many more blows.
Russia was gaining ground during the winter war. The opposite is true now. You don’t sue for peace when you stand to gain all of your territory back.
Sorry you won’t get this from /k/ which is a safe space for propaganda-frazzled anti-Russians. But I’ll give you a very condensed info capsule. Over the winter and into the early summer Russia and Ukraine fought a major battle for Bakhmut which Russia ultimately won. During this battle Ukraine was setting up a major counteroffensive using new armor brigades trained and equipped by NATO hardware. Russia was simultaneously digging in across the front, setting up deep defensive lines in preparation for the counteroffensive. The counteroffensive kicked off several weeks ago after a few days of Ukrainian cross-boarder raids. After a few weeks of force-recon probing attacks Ukraine was unable to find any weak points to exploit and has made only very minor advances in a few areas of the front. Russia has also tried to launch counter-counterattacks during this time also with limited success. The new armor brigades haven’t been able to breach the lines, but a general front-wide push is still ongoing.
>Russia has also tried to launch counter-counterattacks during this time also with limited success.
Limited success is being extremely generous.
That is the propaganda-frazzled anti-Ukrainian description.
Let us describe it equally, Russia was unable to to breakthrough the deep defensive Ukrainian lines of Bakhmut. In 10 months they struggled to take the small city and only tentatively claimed control, but could never break past the outer-city deep defensive lines.
And now Ukraine is struggling to push through Russian deep defensive lines across the whole front, with small claims here and there.
My lord, Ukraine is full of so many wiggly red lines, the defensive lines, they go on for hundreds of kilometers. My god, I love wiggly red lines.
That’s a really confused comparison. Russia (Wagner with RuAF support) took Bakhmut entirely. Ukraine does have some positions just outside the town and have been stubbornly continuing to attack into what are now Russian defensive positions holding Bakhmut. The Ukrainian fortification of Bakhmut was extensive but constrained to an area inside the city. Russian defensive lines across the fronts are even more extensive with a very deep, multi-layered setup also slathered with mines in front making assaulting especially difficult.
Attrition favours Ukraine. Russia loses irreplaceable equipment, soldiers, pilots and officers and becomes unable to conduct offensives. Ukraine will only gain equipment capabilities.
Russia will lose the war due to lack of political support, eventually. It is already just a meatgrinder for ziggers.
Russia is winning (technically Ukraine is winning at this moment due to minor forward movement but it’s obviously non-sustainable). Attrition favors Russia having a much larger population base which they’ve only just barely tapped into. Russian industry can replenish all common material like shells, vehicles, guns, etc but it’s very doubtful that it’s at the level required to fully replenish heavy expenditures, forcing them to ration. Ukraine has little industry in operation and it’s unclear what it produces and how much — but they do benefit from NATO supply which has basically equipped them with almost all of their modern gear. NATO also can’t produce replacements anywhere near their consumption level due to peacetime industrial capacity so they’ve been "stingy" with deliveries forcing Ukraine into a perpetual rationing situation. So even with the Soviet stockpiles running low Russia is still better off in this regard.
>Attrition favors Russia having a much larger population base
The age of human wave tactics was over since World War 1. The side that can supply its troops better with more armor, air support, and ammo will win, and Ukraine has the entirety of NATO behind it for that while Russian struggles along with a GDP smaller than Italy and the unwillingness to commit to a full time war economy
"Human wave tactics" and lots of artillery is exactly what has been winning Russia this war. Ukraine is even less militarily capable than Russia, so these tactics are effective.
>"Human wave tactics" and lots of artillery is exactly what has been winning Russia this war.
But they’ve been losing the war so…
How much of Russia is being occupied by Ukraine right now?
How much of Germany did France occupy in 1917?
Sorry, America isn’t going to deploy troops no matter how much you ghouls want WW3
I don't remember saying they would, Ukraine will kick Russia out on its own with western equipment if Russia doesn't spiral into civil war and fall apart first.
According to Russia? A significant portion of their territory around Kherson.
>the bear's foot is caught in a bear trap and slowly bleeding to death, but because he's still in the hunter's territory, that means he's winning.
Russia is losing HARD. Americans have spent less than 5% of afghanistan's war spending and Ukraine has so far liberated 50% of its territory and and made the only military leader to make territorial gains for russia this year desert the battlefield and caused a damn near civil war. Russia has no offensive ability now, but Ukraine does, and because they do, they will keep making territorial gains and blowing Russia's absolutely shit logistics until the whole thing collapses on itself like Kharkiv, kyiv, and kherson.
>"Human wave tactics" and lots of artillery is exactly what has been winning Russia this war.
Anon, first off you need a magnifying glass to measure the progress Russia made since switching from disastrous thunder run on Kyiv to the "Human wave tactics and lots of artillery" strategy, second is that Russian artillery is significantly down in both guns and ammunition while Ukraine's is just getting better.
Recently Russia has been losing artillery hand over fist, meaning the future is going to be Ukrainian artillery vs Russian meat and that is not an outcome that favors Russia.
There’s no evidence of very large Russian gun losses, are you just extrapolating from a few drone vids? It’s a straight fact that Ukraine, even being the defender and fortified their positions beforehand LOST Bakhmut from massed artillery fire. Bakhmut is a rubble heap today. Ukraine simply does not have that level of arty fire. A major problem with the Ukrainians is failing to use their heavy guns in a fire support role for frontline troops. Those troops get lame 80mm mortars, something the troops themselves in a media report say is insufficient.
The Ukrainians have been saying for weeks they are raiding. I don't think some people understand that. That aren't going for trenches. I just don't know what else to say. They aren't concerned with taking miles of trenches.
>What is counterbattery fire
I've said it before and I'll say it again
MANPOWER IS NOT IMPORTANT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE EQUIPMENT TO WAGE WAR
Having 50 fricktillion infantry doesn't mean shit if you can't fricking supply them.
Russia able to supply their forces, they just have to ration shells now that Soviet stockpiles are depleting. I have no idea what their shell production output is but I very much doubt it’s enough to sustain very heavy usage as seen earlier in the war. However it’s recently reported that Russia has managed to secure deals to buy shells from various countries so they’re still keeping ahead of the supply issue (they just can’t spam non-stop). Ukraine is reliant on NATO production which is very low due to peacetime and new factories were announced only several months ago. Ukraine is stuck doing very heavy rationing, never having anywhere near enough shells and rockets.
So they have shells, but what about armor, artillery, aircraft? Russia has been losing these things in huge numbers, even compared to the massive Soviet stockpiles they're pulling from, and it's not clear if they can replace them fast enough (or at all in the case of the more advanced stuff).
>say that thirdies cant into warfare
>ur saying le both sides....le bad!!!
moron, thirdies cant do SEAD/DEAD/competent combined arms operations on a large (or from this conflict a moderate) scale. Stating this fact doesnt mean LE BOTH SIDES LE BAD
post guns + stamp + nods
From a tactical standpoint it's mostly a stalemate, with Ukraine very slowly gaining ground. Russia has managed to hold on with severe battlefield losses both in manpower and equipment, and grim tactics such as blocking detachments and missile attacks on critical civilian infrastructure.
With that said, Russia is highly unlikely to give in, since to the political structure in the Kremlin, a recapture of the entire Donbass region is a nightmare scenario, to say nothing of a recapture of Crimea. The political fallout would make the Wagner mutiny look like a fricking square dance by comparison, and an internal coup highly likely. Russia historically has not treated leaders who lose wars very kindly.
At this point, Putin and the ruling siloviks are hoping that Ukraine gives up the territories they annexed on paper in exchange for peace (highly unlikely at the moment, the Ukrainians are beyond pissed). What they're probably hoping for is fatigue from the West in supplying arms and finances, which could force Ukraine to accept a peace deal. Expect an absolute shitstorm of political interference from Russia in favor of an anti-war candidate if they manage to hang on until the next US election, since Putin and his friend's lives are basically on the line.
tl;dr - Tactical stalemate (mostly), Russia at a severe political disadvantage, looking for a peace treaty with goodies to show their populace in order to save face so Putin and friends don't end up on Liveleak getting sodomized by bayonets.
The chance of an internal political overthrow of Putin is essentially zero. Every person with significant power is closely connected to Putin, and Putin is the nexus of power and mega-wealth through which the government system operates. The only way Putin is overthrown outside of a popular uprising (which Prigo tried to spark with his march on Moscow and NO ONE but a small part of Wagner joined him) is if one or more ruling oligarchs breaks with Putin. The entire government owes fealty to Putin directly or indirectly and its major institutions are run by his inner circle. Putin’s hold on power is virtually unassailable.
>Putin’s hold on power is virtually unassailable.
If that's the case why doesn't he bail on this war already? The amount of casualties and material losses are unheard of in a first world country, and he's resorted to penal battalions and blocking detachments.
He can't be this desperate for a victory unless he's worried about being deposed by someone else backed by a wave of popular support against him.
>He can't be this desperate for a victory unless he's worried about being deposed by someone else backed by a wave of popular support against him.
I think this is exactly why he's not pulling out. If they keep sending meat into the grinder they can at least pretend like objectives are being accomplished. Pulling troops out means admitting defeat, and a crushing one at that.
Because if he "bails" on the war he will lose his power or at least greatly weaken it. That’s the reason the invasion and attempted regime change. The West KNOWS that which is WHY they pulled Ukraine onto their side to begin with — to develop major shale reserves in the country to replace and cut-off Russian energy exports to Europe — the very bedrock of Putin’s power. It’s a play to get rid of Putin, and Putin won’t accept being gotten rid of.
He could have just retired with 250 billion is his penis that bad?
The pursuit of a place in the anals of history can create an insatiable thirst that transcends material wealth
>Can someone please spoonfeed me
Frick off and lurk more you gigantic homosexual
Russia will win, because big
NATO bigger
jesus christ is my Black person
Nato is weak and does not knowings of great sacrifice
URRHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
One side has a stable government and an endless supply of money, equipment and ammunition
The other side is losing ground every day and recently had a group of armed men sieze its most important lohistical hub, then march 800km through the russian interior in a day and force the president into political concessions by threatening to take the capital
Its still a bit early to say for sure but I think Ukraines got this one
Ukraine has lost most major battles so far and the counter-offensive has been very disappointing — don’t pretend there wasn’t VERY high hopes for turning the war around. They haven’t even reached the main defensive lines yet and there’s a good chance they may never do so. Current level of NATO support ISN’T enough to ensure an Ukraine victory. Russia meanwhile has made net gains throughout the war — they’re winning, plain and simple.
>Russia meanwhile has made net gains throughout the war
They’re literally being occupied by a country a fraction of their size
May I see it?
Kherson, forever Russian, formally annexed, currently occupied by Ukraine.
Every location you just mentioned it rightfully Turkey's anon.
>>was hoped
by whomst?
They israelite media? Literally anyone with a modicum of military knowledge kept low expectations of this whole effort this year.
Jesus you propaganda guzzling homosexuals are insufferable.
The main phase of the Ukrainian offensive was supposed to land North of Bakhmut, with their left flank covered by the Severodonets river.
There are 20 Ukrainian brigades staged there, including the best veteran units like the 92nd brigade, on standby.
They were supposed to be launched when certain conditions in the helper/feint offensive in the Zaporozhe region were triggered, primarily, breaking the Russian defensive lines and more importantly - forcing the Russians to deploy their reserves in Zaporozhe region.
This has not happened. The 1st Guards Tank Division has not been re-deployed from its bivouac area and probably won't given the very slow progress the Ukrainians have made.
Not really sure what happens next tbh.
>Not really sure what happens next tbh.
The Ukrainians keep advancing, autumn is still a long time away and the russians aren't about to stop them anytime soon
>The Ukrainians keep advancing
Where?
It's rather late (going on 3 weeks) for this offensive to manifest as anything.
In all the same places they've been advancing so far
That's what it means to "keep" advancinh
wow no troony or nafo mentions yet, where are the vatniks?
>Manpower
Both sides have taken massive losses and well trained and experienced troops are especially difficult to replace for both sides. Russia has a bigger pool of potential recruits, while Urkaine might have an advanatge in training better troops due to NATO training. With a general mobilization not being possible in Russia in the moment and Ukraine also losing massive chunks of their population due to the war, the situation is difficult for both sides.
>Verdict: stalemate right now, long term advantage Russia
>Material
Russia has taken some catastrophic losses early in the invasion, but also started off which a much bigger stockpile. However, Ukraine has the most powerful industrial complex in the world as a provider for a steady influx of new weapons and systems, while Russia suffers from sanctions, corruption and incompetence in key positions. This already has results and Russia has already lost its massive artillery advantage it used to have in some parts of the front. Russia also seems to have lost its ability to conduct anny effective offensive operations that dont involve meat grinding its own soliders. Ukraines equipment on average is more modern and more effective.
>Verdict: small advantage Russia right now, long term advantage Ukraine
>Society and economy
Russias economy might suffer from sanctions, but is strong enough to support the war effort in its current from. Ukraines economy has suffered massively, but as long as its western allies continue their support, they will be able to outspend Russia. Russian strikes on ukrainian infrastructure remain concerning, but it looks like ukrainan society can deal with it for now.
>Verdict: advantage Ukraine
>Tactics, strategy, logistics
Western allies provide superior intel for the ukrainians, but the strong russian defensive lines make a quick breakthrough impossible for Ukraine. However, russian supply lines might become vulnerable IF the lose some ground.
Verdict: small advantage Ukraine
>Total verdict
Its a stalemate right now. Ukraine can make small gains, but its a slow and painful process. Russia is in a strong defensive positions, but lost any ability to make further gains or conduct effective offensive operations. Long term, western support and sanctions will grind Russia down and make the situation on the front worse and worse for them, but the entire war has massively damaged the Ukrainan economy, population, society etc. Its not certain that the long termn advantages Ukraine holds will ultimately bring victory in the near future or if the parties involved prefer to settle for a deal to end the suffering on both sides.
The NATO-trained brigades are undoubtedly better-trained than Russian troops — but general Ukrainian troop training is really bad. Last year mobilized troops were getting a few days, and it was reported that most troops don’t even get to fire their gun ONCE before being sent to the front. I don’t know if it’s still that bad, though.
Ukrainian advancements have slowed to a crawl, Russian advancements stopped existing at all. At the current rate Ukraine might be able to recapture all of it's territory in two more decades assuming Russia lasts that long as a state; vatBlack folk will claim PMC troops nearly reaching Moscow and shooting down a bunch of helis is a sign of how strong and united Russia actually is, take their word for it if not their conclusions.
>The Eyebrow is raised
>The Ass is in the Ass
>All parties are comparing the eggs.
morons fighting morons with increasingly moronic weapons in increasingly moronic ways
enjoy popcorn
Russians tactics have improved markedly since 2022, that said both sides are essentially locked in a war of attrition right now. If things keep going as they do Ukraine wins by sheer virtue of having Western support and being able to draft more of its population, whereas Putin has been going out of his way to avoid imposing a general draft. The mutiny also puts Putin in a weaker position because now he’s gonna wanna end the war before the next uprising takes place, and nobody knows how long that’s gonna be. Probably Ukraine will retake all of its main, Russia will keep Crimea assuming the naval situation doesn’t change significantly.
Thoughts?
Running donations to the Ukies, so I'm pretty biased, but here's a very quick QRD, only from mil. perspective. Feel free to ask anything.
>Current status Ukraine?
Ugly. Ukies are having good success in trench operations with some units being unironic modern day WW1 stormtroopers. Their combined arms is lackluster due to lack of AA and air superiorty. There are notable issues with high command, namely Sirsky.
Morale ranges from abyssmal (5%) to adequate (20%) to good (60%) to excellent (15%).
RU strikes on civilian targets are increasingly radicalising the population. There are already two large terror cells in development that I know of. If they get going, the 2010's terror wave in Europe will look like a joke.
There is lack of equipment, biggest problem is specific ammo (longrange fires, AA of all sorts).
Manpower is complicated. Volunteer batalions are partially depleting experience of existing units. Significant mobilisation(s). Situation not as rosy as we think, nowhere near as bad as Russia claims.
>Current status Russia?
Even more ugly. Russians are having trouble establishing institutional experience in units, but are adapting at higher levels of command. The issue of shell hunger has plateaued at what I'd call a "sustainable" level. Russia has developed skilled drone warfare units and is trying to catch up with UA. Barrel life is a significant issue for artillery.
Mechanized reserves are being comitted to questionable counterattacks. RU forces appear increasingly stretched thin. At times counterattacks are conducted by third-rate troops with minimal equipment.
Significant bottleneckt for experienced pilots.
(cont.)
>Morale ranges from abyssmal (5%) to adequate (20%) to good (60%) to excellent (15%).
>Overall situation?
Frick Journos and politicians for hyping up the counteroffensive this much. Puts incredible and unnecessary pressure on the Ukies. Do not make your support contingend on temporary battlefield results.
There is increasingly heavy fighting along the whole line of contact. UA suffered significant losses in terms of quality around Orikhiv (47th brigade). RU is suffering significant losses in terms of quantity around Piatykhatky.
UA established foothold across the Dnipro river close to Kherson. RU forces are struggling to dislodge units. Significant UA longrange fire presence, significant RU losses.
RU attempts to pressure UA into screwing up. Attacks even with overwhelming superiority (Kreminna axis) fail to achieve much.
>Power comparisson?
At the moment, UA holds superiority in terms of infantry, both quality and quantity, tanks, intel and local artillery superiority. UA has moderate offensive potential.
RU holds overall superiority in aviation, longrange fires and artillery. RU defenses are, contrary to narrative, significant obstacle. RU has very limited offensive potential.
>Stalemate?
Territorialy almost. Both sides are suffering various types of significant attrition. RU suffered several heavy losses in terms of C2 and ammo depots. UA struck several crucial logistic nodes.
Do not be fooled into the RU "defense in depth" narrative, there are strict orders to hold ground as much as possible. The fact UA was able to advance as much as they did so far is noteworthy.
Mines and air power are playing a crucial role and will almost decide the future.
>Prediction?
Incredibly difficult to tell. The outlier scenarios have become very unlikely - no catastrophic collapse of RU defenses, no complete breakdown of UA offensive. UA has probably scaled down expectations to getting Kerch bridge into HIMARS range and crucial rail line into tube artillery range. The conflict can continue for a long time.
UA success is a function of Western support.
Why not give Ukraine longer range missiles?
There's a bill to send ATACMS but it hasn't passed yet.
That's moronic if NATO is seriously committed to helping Ukraine they should give them long range missiles, bring navy to the black sea and put troops on the ground.
Because if Ukraine uses longer range missiles then Russia will start using long range missiles too. Do you really think that Russia currently does not possess the capability of completely destroying Kyiv if they wanted to? There is still a lot of restraint happening in this war, that's why we aren't seeing WW2 levels of civilian death tolls
>Do you really think that Russia currently does not possess the capability of completely destroying Kyiv if they wanted to?
No. That much is pretty obvious by them having to borrow Iranian drones just to hit Kyiv at all.
>No. That much is pretty obvious by them having to borrow Iranian drones just to hit Kyiv at all.
Russia is lacking in terms of precision missiles/drones. They absolutely have an endless amount of cold war era old school conventional missiles with with they could completely level every city in Ukraine if they wanted to. Obviously could also just nuke Kyiv if they wanted to. Nothing Ukraine could do about that at all. So far Russia has not been willing to escalate things to that degree
>They absolutely have an endless amount of cold war era old school conventional missiles with with they could completely level every city in Ukraine if they wanted to
Is that why the waves of Russian conventional missile strikes get smaller and further apart every time they happen?
Russia launched 200 missiles in a single day during its initial invasion, now we'll be lucky to see 200 a year
Russia currently does not possess the capability of completely destroying Kyiv if they wanted to.
Holy shit people are still doing the "russia is holding back" thing? It's been an entire fricking year.
and Russia is winning.
>Russia currently does not possess the capability of completely destroying Kyiv
>Holy shit people are still doing the "russia is holding back" thing?
Ok genius, so how is Ukraine going to defend itself from a Russian nuclear ICBM? Did you forget that Russia is a nuclear power?
>b-but nukes
NATO would wipe russia off the map if they tried
>NATO would wipe russia off the map if they tried
Ukraine is not in NATO. If NATO retaliated then Russia would launch all of its remaining nukes at America, Europe and it would be the end of the world.
Do you think NATO would risk the fate of the world over Ukraine? Lol
It's not NATO putting it at risk.
Any nuclear attack would spread fallout into NATO countries, directly attacking their citizens and poisoning their land.
>Any nuclear attack would spread fallout into NATO countries, directly attacking their citizens and poisoning their land.
And so what? The fallout might kill a few thousand people but if they retaliate against Russia it would guarantee the end of the world.
You think all the rich people in America, Western Europe would risk giving up their awesome lives, the lives of their families, just because of a couple of thousand people getting radiation poisoning in eastern/central Europe?
If Russia nukes Kyiv, nothing will happen. That's the cold hard truth. Putin knows that the upper class of the Western world will never risk any harm to themselves, they'd sacrifice all of Eastern Europe to Russia one country at a time before letting that happen.
No, it would guarantee the end of Russia.
Or do you actually believe in le nuclear winter?
Russia only has to nuke a few key cities to destabilize the entire world, destroy the financial system, and send the world into complete anarchy.
The second Russia nukes Kyiv, every billionaire in America would call Biden to demand that the US doesn't retaliate against Russia.
You're crazy to think that billionaires in the West would be willing to risk dying in a nuclear war over Ukraine. All of history shows us that people with a lot of wealth/power will always chose self-preservation.
>Russia only has to nuke a few key cities to destabilize the entire world
And the world only has to nuke a few cities to destabilize Russia. You do realize threats go both ways right? Russia went into this war assuming their enemies wouldn’t fight back and they’ve been wrong at every turn. I don’t know why you continue to insist on the same other than pure cope and delusion.
>World leaders are prepared to end the world in a nuclear exchange over Ukraine
delusional
>Russia is prepared to end the world over Ukraine
Delusional
Kiev does not have a MAD shield nafotroony
Neither does Russia. What’s stopping the USA from sending nuclear weapons to Ukrainian insurgents to nuke Russia with?
Nuclear retaliation by Russia
They’re already sending conventional weapons and yet Russia has not responded with conventional weapons. Russia has shown an unwillingness to fight back against NATO.
>we can nuke you but you can’t do anything neener neener
Jesus Christ why must those opposed ideologically to the west be THIS moronic?
The Ukraine is not a western country.
Based moron showing off his complete lack of reading comprehension
The party being nuked is not the US or any of it's core allies
Based moron completely not understanding actions and consequences
Despite all the military aid to Ukraine, America's nuclear launch codes were not included in that.
Yet
They literally have a treaty with the US and China to defend them in the event of a nuclear attack vatBlack person
And the name of that agreement is?
Budapest Memorandum
>Russia
>United States
>United Kindom
>France
>China
All agreed to immediately act to defend Ukraine if Ukraine is subject to a nuclear attack.
>Budapest Memorandum
>Reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
>Reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
This is not a guarantee to launch a nuclear strike against any country that attacks them with a nuclear strike. It's a guarantee to go to the UNSC to discuss it.
Defend != launch nukes.
None of the signatories would need nuclear weapons to forcefully remove Russia through conventional means.
Yeah it does. If it gets nuked a bunch of nato countries have radioactive fallout. Then article 5.
Did the west escalate to a general nuclear exchange over Chernobyl?
No it didn't
No it just was another nail in the coffin of the ussr
Also no one was at war and they admitted it was an accident you absolute moron, do you just like getting called stupid?
That doesn't make any sense. One is using a thermonuclear weapon and the other is a nuclear fission plant meltdown. Anyways. If Russians use nukes article 5 will happen. There you go.
>If Russians use nukes article 5 will happen.
1. No it won't
2. Article 5 being invoked does not mean that there will be a general nuclear exchange
How do you manage move goal posts in one comment?
You're explaining a fantasy scenario you invented in your mind and there are multiple things wrong with it and core false assumptions baked into it.
America will not launch strategic nuclear weapons over Ukraine
Based moron repeating himself
Ukraine is not even an ally of the United States.
The US is using Ukraine as a pawn to weaken Russia.
And yet I'm a moron for stating the obvious - that America won't launch ICBM's on behalf of what is essentially a distant colonial campaign for America.
How does launching strategic nuclear weapons into Eurasia lower the potential for nuclear fallout in Europe?
Russia is not nuking the US or a US ally in this scenario, they are nuking a client state that the US is using to weaken Russia.
It's like saying that the US would have nuked Russia if Kabul was nuked during the Soviet-Afghan war.
>Ukraine isn’t a US ally
Absolutely the stupidest comment I’ve read today
>we’ve been supporting Ukraine for the last year as an accident
You guys aren’t sending your best kek
>ukraine isn't a US ally
Post hand.
But it will to prevent further radioactive fallout over Italy, Germany, Poland, Baltics, Finland Romania. That will happen. Then the Indians are really fricked and the Chinese are kind of fricked.
>WE NOOOOK YOU, YOU DO NOTHIN!!!!
Jesus Christ
Okay but if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine it's going to be decimated into the stone age and most likely nuked. It's not a good idea. No one wants them to use nukes. China and India especially not.
Honestly I'm convinced that the US could wipe out Russia with conventional weapons at this point, and there's nothing non-nuclear they could do in response.
Mutually assured destruction doesn't just mean you nuke someone who nukes you
It can also mean: You nuke someone who does something to you (without the use of nukes) that pushes you to near defeat
Meaning that Russia would view nuking Kyiv as a last resort of self defense, because the alternative of not nuking Kyiv would be losing the war, getting invaded, crumbling apart, etc
>because the alternative of not nuking Kyiv would be losing the war, getting invaded, crumbling apart, etc
No, it would just mean losing the war. The chances of invasion or dissolution are small.
>Invade a neighboring country
>Lose so bad you're genuinely worried about the continued existence of your nation
>AAAAHHHH NOOOOOOK
You deserve whatever happens to you after that, conventional or otherwise.
Because Chernobyl was stupidity run amok, not a deliberate attack.
Nobody is going to endure a Russia that is willing to use nukes offensively. What would Moscow do next?
>Nobody is going to endure a Russia that is willing to use nukes offensively. What would Moscow do next?
Get a peace treaty in their favor
And then they’d nuke Mongolia and force them to capitulate, and then nuke Japan, and then Brazil, and on and on.
Even if their goal was world conquest they wouldn't be able to accomplish that, integrating east Ukraine is only feasible because East Ukraine is in large part Russian.
They might be able to integrate the former Soviet states but that's historically the limit of what Russia is capable of controlling.
You have to occupy and govern these territories which is extremely difficult without a certain level of local support. Just look at both the US and Russian occupations of Afghanistan and their inability to pacify it for the likely results.
This whole subject is sort of fraught because many anon's ITT are acting deliberately obtuse or have no historical knowledge to draw from discuss the topic rationally.
>Even if their goal was world conquest they wouldn't be able to accomplish that
They don’t have to conquer the world, just bully everyone into doing what they want with nuclear threats.
It's one thing to attempt it with a non-nuclear power, it's another to attempt it with a a nuclear one.
The difference being that following through on the threat with a non-nuclear power, the non-nuclear one has no clear retaliation except to work towards developing nuclear weapons or conceding.
With the nuclear power, following through on the threat means massive retaliation.
>it's another to attempt it with a a nuclear one.
Which is why nuclear powers protect non-nuclear powers with their nuclear power. There are 195 countries. Only 9 of them have nukes. If you think Russia could nuke 185 non-nuclear countries on Earth and nobody would nuke them back you’re an idiot.
The example is ridiculous because the only relevant theatres to the Russians are East Europe and Asia ex-India.
In those regions there are America's client states which are protected with security guarantees, China, India and Pakistan. So really Russia's field of operation is limited to it's historic imperial stomping grounds.
Ukraine happens to be one of those countries and happens to not have a nuclear guarantor.
>In those regions there are America's client states which are protected with security guarantee
UKRAINE IS ONE OF THEM moron
If you're going to ignore Ukraine because "you're going to end the world over Ukraine?" then you have to do the same with ALL of them because that applies to ALL of America's allies.
Ukraine does not a have a nuclear MAD security guarantee from the US
Neither does Japan, or South Korea, or Brazil.
Sounds correct. If some of America's close allies don't have that guarantee, what makes you think Ukraine does?
>Defend != launch nukes.
I'm glad you agree and conceded to point
>If some of America's close allies don't have that guarantee
And what makes you think Russia could launch nukes on 95% of the countries of the world without getting nuked in return?
It's an imaginary scenario but say Russia nuked the Congo, is it your belief that America would engage in massive retaliation over that?
Yes, along with the UN coalition.
Most likely, yes. Russia would've proven itself to be a rogue terrorist state willing to randomly nuke countries, and the entire world would know that they're too much of a threat to leave alive since there's nothing stopping them at that point from nuking them as well.
Nukes are deterrents, not weapons. It has become a major taboo to actually use nukes. Anyone who actually uses a nuclear bomb and isn't punished for it would set a dangerous precedent. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in.
Yes, of course. It is explicit policy to ensure the nuclear taboo remains in place, and to restore it by destroying any violators.
>Russia would nuke every major city
Let's ignore your childish fantasy in which the nuclear powers aren't invested to uphold the nuclear taboo. Which is specially moronic considering Russia has stopped the nuclear saber rattling at this point. Not even Russia considers its nuclear threats credible enough to continue with them. Let's go to purely technical terms.
American nuclear readiness is dogshit, despite spending the entire Russian defense budget just on maintaining the warheads.
Just by budget. There's no scenario in which more than a quarter of Russian nukes work. And no scenario in which more than a quarter of Russia's delivery vehicles can clear the silo.
And they know it. And they know that the nukes and missiles that work aren't together except by happenstance.
Add to that the unbelievable corruption Russia has, and how ridiculously low risk it is to pocket the money (if you're ordered to use them you're dead anyway, why mantain the nooks? You die either way, better live with a mansion) and I'd good money down right now that less than 10% of Russian nukes and delivery vehicles work, and that the kremlin knows that they don't know which ones work, nor if the rockets that work are with nukes that work.
Again, Russia itself has stopped the nuclear saber rattling.
Russian leadership would have to have become unhinged to nuke some random country for literally no reason. In that case we would have to kill russia before it kills us.
They would already have launched before the russian missile even makes it to its target
The argument being made was that the west would back down and allow Russia to nuke Ukraine, this is not the case.
The argument that was being made at the start of the thread was that America would do a general nuclear exchange with Russia over a nuclear strike on Kiev.
Now that we've gone 100+ posts deep and you've realized that's a pipe dream, you are redefining it as "the west wouldn't support them anymore"
I accept your concession.
>Congo is nuked
>This means we must destroy the entire world now
Delusional
If Russia uses a nuke anywhere in the world and no one cares, North Korea would get some very ambitious ideas, Pakistan/India would get some ambitious ideas. Maybe even China would too. Fricking Israel would get ambitious ideas. One nuclear bomb used without consequences opens the door for every other nuclear equipped nation
If North Korea attempted nuclear blackmail Japan and SK would just develop nukes in 2 weeks.
Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and exist in a state of detente.
The comparison doesn't make any sense.
Why would nk just let them develop nukes? It’s black mail, you don’t just let them defend themselves you moron
>If North Korea attempted nuclear blackmail Japan and SK would just develop nukes in 2 weeks.
Get it through your thick ass skull that this is exactly the reason why nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to be used unpunished. The last thing the world needs is MORE nuclear weapons.
>just allow every country on earth to develop nukes, because if they don't, any other country can nuke them and won't face consequences
Again, unacceptable, and in no one's interest to allow to come.
>If North Korea attempted nuclear blackmail Japan and SK would just develop nukes in 2 weeks.
Congratulations, you now live in a world where ALL 195 COUNTRIES HAVE NUKES, instead of the world we used to have where 9 countries do. What are the chances that there'll be a nuclear exchange when 195 countries are all nuclear capable? Pretty fricking high.
Nooo you just let the attacker nuke people, it’s all fun and games anon!
A world where if someone has enough nukes they can freely nuke any other country without facing retaliation is unacceptable, and allowing such a world to exist would be an existential threat to literally every country.
No no you can trust Russia 😉
>MIGHTY RUSSIAN BEAR CAN DESTROY ENTIRE WORLD WITH PUSH OF ONE BUTTON
No, russia cannot destroy the entire planet.
Russia does not have the ability to destroy the world. The rest of the world--or just the US, really--does have the ability to destroy Russia, and quite easily at that.
There is no way out. Your misstep was fatal. You're going to die.
>I know better than 60 years of nuclear war strategists
Sure you do champ
1. Each scenario is contextual and generalizing it doesn't make any sense.
2. Most countries do not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
>doesn’t respond to me
lmao based moron
>South Korea develops them in secret
>Announces they have them
>NK: n-no I thought I would be able to uh stop you from doing that somehow
So South Korea is psychic and has precognition? Sure why not this is all your fricking fantasy anyway
Explain your fantasy scenario in more detail then
MAD doesn't extend to a random country getting nuked
Based utter moron
>America will defend me from nuke, go ahead and nuke me vatnik
I'm telling you right now that won't happen piotr
>I'm telling you right now that won't happen piotr
Then what's the worry? Go nuke Ukraine already and denazify it
I'm not Russian so I don't have an interest in what they do there other than I don't want my money going to fuel a conflict which is killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of white men.
They have their own strategic calculus which I'm not privy to.
>I know better than 60 years of nuclear war strategists
Sure you do champ
>Mr. President, Malawi was nuked
>Damn... I guess it's time to fire 10k nuclear warheads at Russia and China
This is what you actually believe
>NOOO I KNOW BETTER THAN THEM!!!
ok gay
>US announces it will respond proportionally
>Random Russian military base gets glassed
>Russia proceeds to nook world over it's right to nook African shithole??
>Mr President, we have detected a nuclear launch
>we have no way of knowing where the weapon is headed, how many warheads it is carrying, or what the follow up volleys will look like
>the pentagon has moved to DEFCON one and a second strike package is being prepared as we speak
>it has been an honour serving with you, Mr. President
Not him but end of last year Russia launched multiple Kh-55 (2500km range nuclear capable missiles) towards Kiev without the nukes inside of them. Notable also is that Kh-55s is what Ukraine handed over to Russia to assure peace with them.
So maybe someone in a US monitoring station shit their pants when they were notified of it, but the response was absolutely nothing happened.
Why are you guys even here, the thread is at bump already
The UkaiBlack person posting is obnoxious, especially when it comes to them assuming that America would look at a nuclear strike on them like it hit the US.
>Most countries do not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
No, but we sure as hell can send them nukes, which is what we'll HAVE to do if we decide to make it a new policy that NOT having a nukes means other countries can nuke you without consequence.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
There are 4 nuclear weapons systems in existence
Nuclear bombers which requires infrastructure and pilot training
Nuclear submarines which technology transfer, and crew training
Strategic nuclear weapons which are in underground missile silos
Mobile rocket launchers which requires technology transfer
Even if you gave a bomber wing to the congo and bunch of nukes they wouldn't be able to do anything with it except perhaps crash the plane you gave them and sell the nuke to Iran.
Anon, nuclear war strategists are the ones who decided MAD was the only option, and that the correct deescalation from a nuclear attack in Ukraine from Russia would be to annihilate Belarus in nuclear hellfire.
I notice that Russia has not nuked any non-nuclear countries in the last 60 years while rolling in its own shit and screaming "I NOOK BUT YOU NO NOOK BACK"
You're in a trench. It's muddy and cold, and you're frightened. It's not fair. You were doing an excellent job. You shouldn't be here. But there was no one else to send, and so you were sent. There is a sudden, incredibly loud ringing that will not fade, and you are now on the ground and in unimaginable pain. You try to reach for your rifle to end it quickly, but your arms won't respond. You feel momentary hope when you see a squadmate, but he quickly begins rifling through your pockets and removing your boots. He tries not to look you in the eye.
You're going to die.
Do you have a quote for Putin saying they would nuke chechnya or georgia?
"Ook ook, ooh ooh AHH AHH NOOK NOOK."
I'm sure YOU know it, but for those unaware, translated from Russian this means:
"My diaper is full. Where is banan. You go to front now."
>Most countries do not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
If the Russians could figure it out then even the the very blackest of Black folk should have no problem (except funding)
>hurr durr I'm going to kill someone and if you get mad I'll kill you too
It's really easy to make people comply with very little force when their other option is nuclear annihilation.
If nobody else had nukes, Russia would be sending its troops around the world for mass rape and pillaging in 5 minutes in the name of Russian Superiority. And a breath of resistance would have the offending city hit with an atomic warhead.
>Just let us be a nuclear bully, or we’ll kill everyone
Based moron not understanding why MAD was created
If I recall correctly, Eisenhower threatened China with nuclear weapons to end the Korean war and that worked.
>threatened
Yeah
MAD is not a shield, its a concept
Nuke gets launched, everybody dies. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter where, doesn't matter why.
That's MAD
>Russia went into this war assuming their enemies wouldn’t fight back and they’ve been wrong at every turn.
There's a difference between sending weapons to Ukraine from a safe distance and risking your own death in a nuclear war...
All the calculus changes once Russia detonates a nuke over Kyiv. At that point the only choice the West has is to A) begrudgingly accept it or B) mutually assured destruction
Which option do you think the billionaires that the Western leaders are accountable to will choose?
>or B) mutually assured destruction
What makes you assume Russia has the nukes to destroy the entire world when most of their Air Force isn’t even functional
Actually anon there is only one response
As soon as a launch is detected NATO will begin a second strike, they arent going to wait around to find out where the nuke is going and how many are following after
Right, Im sure oligarchs like abramovich are totally willing to get irradiated for the sake of mother Russia
Putin is accountable to much less people than Biden, Sunak, Macron are. In a nuclear standoff, dictators have an advantage.
You’re literally arguing that the USA wouldn’t nuke Russia because rich and powerful oligarchs would pressure Biden not to. Well guess what, Russia has rich and powerful oligarchs too, and they don’t want to die.
The second the USA conventionally bombs Moscow, every oligarch in Russia would call Putin to demand that Russia doesn't retaliate against the USA.
You're crazy to think that oligarchs in the Ruskyy Mir would be willing to risk dying in a conventional war with the USA over Ukraine. All of history shows us that people with a lot of wealth/power will always chose self-preservation.
Putin is an increasingly deranged dictator in a completely centralized state and is accountable to nobody. Biden is accountable to a bunch of different billionaires and interest groups and has work within a convoluted democratic system with many checks and balances. It's much more likely that the West would back down if Russia nukes somebody than vice versa.
>just let us nuke you, think about the polls!
“No”
Kiev is not in the US
It's not in France
It's not in Britain
It's not in Germany
It's not in Italy
It's not in Poland
See
Russia is not in the US
They’re not in France
They’re not in Britain
They’re not in Germany
They’re not in Italy
They’re not in Poland
It's not in Russia.
You are delusional if you think US Billionaires would allow Biden to launch retaliatory nuclear strikes against Russia just because they nuked Kyiv lol
From all accounts, Putin is not driven by self-preservation. He wouldn't be taking such big risks if his primary concern was his own well-being. He's a wild card like Hitler
All Putin has to do is make up some shit like "Ukrainian neo-nazis planned to launch an improvised nuclear missile at moscow from kyiv and they forced us to nuke them first!" to justify it and the West will back down
Based moron thinking America is run exactly like Russia and has any direct say in military matters
You’re delusional if you think Russian billionaires would allow Putin to launch a nuke at all
Biden is accountable to US billionaires
Putin is not accountable to Ruskie billionaires
Imagine if Hitler had nuclear weapons. Do you think he wouldn't have launched them just because the CEO of Rheinmetal told him no?
Russia is controlled by an insane megalomaniac who doesn't give af if he lives or dies. The West is controlled by a bunch of billionaires who will always choose self-preservation
>Putin is not accountable to Ruskie billionaires
He absolutely is. The recent coup proved that more than ever. All the oligarchs have to do is tell Wagner to come in and kill him and he’s helpless to stop them. Also, Putin hasn’t been nearly as aggressive as Hitler, he’s proven himself far more cautious.
>literally tried to blyatskrieg into the country day one
>that fricking conga line of armor running out of gas
>fricking Chernobyl
Yes a tactical genius
He’s not smart, but he is cautious. He cut a deal with Wagner rather than try to fight him. He’s kept peace with NATO rather than try to fight them. He hasn’t increased conscription out of fear of upsetting the public.
One desperate move does not make up for this absolute cluster frick of a war anon
If this war is such a clusterfrick what makes you think he’s going to be playing 9D chess where he gets to nuke any non-nuclear power he wants and nobody ever retaliates against him?
I don’t?
>He's a wild card like Hitler
Hitler declared war on the USA when they provided their enemies with weapons. Putin has shown himself to either be too reasonable or cowardly to do likewise. Putin is nothing like Hitler, he’s too cautious.
Hitler declared war when Japan attacked everyone. He probably should not have; he let the US protect convoys to Britain until 8 Dec 42.
>Hitler declared war when Japan attacked everyone
Yet he didn’t have to. He had no agreement to.
>From all accounts, Putin is not driven by self-preservation
Hmm
If that happens every oligarch in Russia would just get the frick out. They crapped their pants and booked every flight out of Moscow when Wagner was approaching lol.
>every billionaire in America would call Biden to demand that the US does retaliate against Russia.
FTFY, Some moron dropping nukes out of pettiness is bad for investments.
>if they retaliate against Russia it would guarantee the end of the world.
No. If they retaliate against Russia a few cities might be nuked but they’ll recover. If they don’t retaliate, it sets the precedent that Russia can nuke whoever they want without retaliation, and THAT leads to the end of the world.
you are fricking moronic
what part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand?
>what part of mutually assured destruction do you not understand?
The other side needs to actually have enough nukes, and there’s no reason to assume Russia does
No they wouldn't.
>i get to nuke anyone with no consequences because i have nukes
yeah im sure a rogue state nuking anyone they feel like would be left alone instead of the entire planet descending on them to disarm them
>Do you think NATO would risk the fate of the world over Ukraine? Lol
That’s not the question. It’s not up to NATO. The question is if Russia would.
>end of the world
Will this meme please end? If USA, France, UK, Pakistan, China, Russia, India, and Kim Kim Korea all got into a nuke fest there'd be a couple years of winter, a few billion dead, and Argentina would finally be able to liberate the Malvinas. The world wouldn't be over, just significantly less. There'd still be billions of people left, there'd still be countries, there'd still be a corrupt president residing over South Africa, and there'd still be an internet to post apocalypse memes on.
>liberate
invade
>Monroe
>Doctrine
I said what I meant.
too obvious
>Ok genius, so how is Ukraine going to defend itself from a Russian nuclear ICBM?
Escalation dominance
There is no scenario in which Russia launches a nuke and the situation in Ukraine does not become immediately and significantly worse for them, so they won't do it
it's not restraint, it's fear
if, for example, Russia uses a nuke, then other countries will start involving themselves in an active shooting capacity
>if, for example, Russia uses a nuke, then other countries will start involving themselves in an active shooting capacity
Do you really think other countries would risk a nuclear world war over Ukraine?
If Russia nukes Kyiv to end this war, it would go down as the worst human tragedy since the holocaust, but nobody would start WW3 over it. People would literally move on and forget about it a few decades later.
Why do you think that everyone would be ok with russia trying to normalize nukes?
You're dead wrong. Leaving that precedent is not acceptable. There is a reason mutually assured destruction exists. The entire force of hell would descend upon Russia and I'd the country isn't neturalized in the next week it's because Putin will have been publicly executed.
>There is a reason mutually assured destruction exists. The entire force of hell would descend upon Russia and I'd the country isn't neturalized in the next week it's because Putin will have been publicly executed.
Mutually assured destruction only covers the event of Russia nuking another nuclear power. There is no stipulation where the US, Britain, and France would be obligated to launch nukes at Russia in response to Russia nuking a non-NATO country.
Russia literally spent the entire cold war making sure that they have the capacity to destroy all of Western Europe and North America in nuclear hellfire if they are attacked themselves.
Do you think that wealthy Americans/Europeans will be willing to take that risk if Russia nukes Kyiv?
>There is no stipulation where the US, Britain, and France would be obligated to launch nukes at Russia in response to Russia nuking a non-NATO country.
So Russia would have no problem with NATO nuking Belarus and Mongolia to kingdom come then.
>Do you think that wealthy Americans/Europeans will be willing to take that risk if Russia nukes Kyiv?
They won’t have a choice. It’s either nuke Russia, or Russia takes over most of the world.
>There is no stipulation where the US, Britain, and France would be obligated to launch nukes at Russia in response to Russia nuking a non-NATO country.
US and China are both signatories to the Budapest Memorandum, obligating them to protect Ukraine in the event of a nuclear attack.
>t. Absolute unknower
Ending the nuclear taboo also ends China's ambitions about Taiwan and India, not even the Eternal Ally would stand for Russia telling the world that nukes are acceptable to use.
On ironically, because they’re all already earmarked for various Chinese targets when Taiwan eventually pops off.
I believe it. I am 100% convinced that Putin and the Chinks had some deal to make simultaneous (or nearly so) moves on their respective claims, but China got cold feet after the Kiev rush collapsed. China moving on Taiwan required the tying down of significant US forces in Ukraine. But the Ukies are able to hold with '80s scraps, so none of the actual forces which would oppose an action in Taiwan have been diminished. Thus demonstrating once again that there is one military superpower, and if you aren't the USA, then you aren't it.
>Victory conditions? Who's winning?
Who the frick even knows. Most Ukies I talk to want to see all RussBlack folk expelled, including Crimea. Short term goal is to not allow a frozen conflict.
Russia has no victory conditions. They can sell anything as victory at home. Maximalist objectives probably are: Regime change into Triune state, followed by challenging NATO in the Baltic before 2030. "Realistic" victroy conditions are: Kherson (partial), Zapo (partial), Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality. Short term goals are: Stopping UA offensive from reacing crucial logistical areas, freezing the conflict.
Personally, I think it's very much possible that UA will reach crucial logistic lines. A breakthrough and cutting the landbridge to Crimea is unlikely in the short term. That said, there are some interesting developments near Robotyne and Bakhmut. We may soon reach a point where all RU mechanized reserves are comitted, while UA has not deployed all offensive capabilities. If that happens, things may go much better for UA.
Thank you for your input. What exactly are the issues with Sirsky? How do volunteer battalions deplete existing unit experience? As per your third post, how do you think UA using its as yet undeployed strength would play out?
threads like this are fricking trash, just an excuse for lazy ziggers to spread their doghsit propaganda - tell them to frick off but don't bother engaging as doing so is just a waste of time.
Since the military side of this question has mostly been answered, here's speculation on the social side of things: both Russia and Ukraine are fricked. Russia is fricked economically (sanctions, people fleeing the country), demographically (lots of dead young men), militarily ("2nd best military in the world" lmao), internationally (everyone now hates them even more) and probably also politically (see: Wagner). Ukraine is just fricked economically and demographically. Zelensky wasn't a good president, but now people will at least tolerate him, the military might be in okay shape if western aid keeps up after the war "ends" (there will likely be ongoing ethnic conflict), they've got a propaganda makeover of the nation's image by western media.
Unless NATO gets directly involved it's a war that will last for decades.
I wouldn't bet on Putin's regime lasting a decade.
They will replace him with someone from his close circle.
That assumes A: the circle will get the opportunity to do so and B: that such a replacement would be interested in continuing the war.
Money wins. Putin will leave no sooner than 2030. Shoigu will replace him as a old man who isn't too crazy. The next long term Russia leader was created out of this war. We just don't know his name yet. Some former war hero.
Hasn't Ukraine nearly ran out of available manpower by now?
Ukraine has a much smaller population, and a big chunk of their population has A) fled the country and B) is too westernized, i.e. unwilling/unable to fight in this war.
Meanwhile Russia has a nearly endless reserve of uneducated, easily brainwashed military aged males that they can keep throwing against Ukraine.
Giving fighter jets and other advanced tech to Ukraine won't make a difference if they run out of manpower.
Most likely scenario: Russia keeps on grinding forward for the next 1-2 years and takes over all of Southern Ukraine, links up with Transnistria, and then forces Ukraine to sue for peace and establish a DMZ around its border with Ukraine.
Best case scenario is peace as soon as possible. At the end of the day this is a war for resources and power between competing oligarchs. For the average human living in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, etc. the quality of life won't change if they live under Ukrainian or Russian rule. Their life will continue to suck and they will continue to be exploited by corrupt oligarchs regardless. However an end to the war will mean less human deaths.
>Hasn't Ukraine nearly ran out of available manpower by now?
neither side is at risk of running out of manpower. They each have millions of able men and only tens of thousands of casualties.
(you)
Is there really any possible peace scenario that isn't a complete victory by either side?
Russia has formally annexed all the land they now occupy, they cannot back down from that. Neither can Ukraine, and they have said as much multiple times.
>Russia has formally annexed all the land they now occupy, they cannot back down from that
They don't have to. Ukraine will do it for them.
If you look at Prighozin's rhetoric before and during the coup attempt, he was harping on how the whole invasion of Ukraine was essentially started on false pretenses as nothing but big ego trip so that Shoigu could get glorious victory and be promoted to Marshall. He went into some significant details about the financial looting of the army in the decade before, and the partial conscription measures in the aftermath of last year's offensives by Ukraine, describing it as a betrayal of the country and an act of genocide of the Russian people, via sending untrained and poorly equipped kids to the front lines to get slaughtered. He was openly saying how the leadership was concealing the number of wounded and killed, that there were 1000+ KIA a day, and how there were huge freezers full of bodies being hidden.
I don't believe he's any less of a thug than any of the others, but what this does demonstrate is that this is what a lot of people in Russia, especially among the elites, are thinking these things, but are too afraid to say them. So by saying these things out loud, he was hoping that he would step into this anti-war vacuum and rally their support to his side.
I will remind everyone that no western country looks like this.
Look up Canada's density graph.
Not even close.
Canada does
Russians just had 20,000 veterans say frick this war and went for a coup but were convinced to go to Belarus.
Indians are trying to pretend this isn't a big deal.
Ukrainians are targeting unarmed conscripts in the back, artillery and armor up front and officers in raids.
The weather has made the Russian trenches very bad.
Crimea is almost out of water.
Ukrainians are still looking for hole to punch through with a thrust hehe
Russians keep reinforcing the trenches
It appears Russian forces are splintering against each other. The major officer's are hoarding weapons, food and water.
Ukrainians are stuck in a catch 22. Weapons they can't fire into Russia. Russia can keep regenerating because of oil sales. What's happening now is an entire Russian generation is being fed into a meat grinder. Ukrainians have fully adopted the main don't kill mentality.
Disease is killing more Russians than bullets now. It's burning through them. That's where the war and how it goes is decided. If Russians can stop the diseases they can hold. If they can't they lose the war.
>Ukrainians are targeting unarmed conscripts in the back, artillery and armor up front and officers in raids.
Yet, all I see is Ukrainian armor and soldiers dying by the hundreds.
I'm not going to give that nuke moron a (you) by replying to him. It needs to be said however that, if Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the US would have no choice by to respond. If countries failed to respond to a nuclear attack, then every single dictator on earth would seek to acquire nuclear weapons which would, inevitably, lead to a general nuclear exchange. Nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to be used as tools of intimidation and blackmail. Every nuclear power has an obligation to ensure that when a nuclear weapon is used, that the consequences are such that the user would gain no benefit. We went through this with cold war nuclear deterrence theory. There MUST be a credible threat of retaliation to prevent first use.
This is why Russia has been deterred from attacking Europe and the United States with either conventional or nuclear weapons. They recognize that it would escalate into a conflict they can't win. Equally, this is why the NATO has not sent troops into Ukraine. It would make it inevitable that the Russian military, weak as it is, would lose and Russia would have no choice but to surrender or risk a nuclear strike to avoid collapse. It is kind of sad. Ukrainians have to die unnecessarily because Russia sucks too hard at war.
>the US would have no choice by to respond
US billionaires would not let the president respond. They would let Russia get away with it, let Russia take over Ukraine, and then draw the line at NATO via MAD.
>then every single dictator on earth would seek to acquire nuclear weapons
Already the case lol
Why do you keep saying us billionaires will stop them when are against Russia too and a world where Russia can nuke anyone will absolutely kill their cash flow?
>just let Russian win, They’ll totally stop nuking people after the first time they got away with it, mad totally isn’t dead
This.
Russia using a nuclear weapon on a non-nuclear-armed state to force its compliance, and receiving no backlash, will just have them convinced that lobbing nukes is the cheap and easy way to win wars of conquest.
Georgia not jumping at the Kremlin's command? Nuke Tbilisi. Moldova throwing a dirty look about Transnistria? Nuke Chişinău. The Stans don't want to be vassal states of Moscow? Nuke nuke nuke nuke nuke. Why waste troops and tanks in a long grinding war?
That is geopolitically unacceptable, and a thousand times worse than pre-WWII appeasement.
>Georgia not jumping at the Kremlin's command? Nuke Tbilisi. Moldova throwing a dirty look about Transnistria? Nuke Chişinău. The Stans don't want to be vassal states of Moscow? Nuke nuke nuke nuke nuke
They would only have to use a nuke once to enforce compliance from all their other neighbors. Just like how America only needed to drop 2 nukes on Japan instead of nuking every single one of their cities
No they wouldn’t. By doing that you’re arguing that Russia should be able to nuke MOST OF THE WORLD without repercussions. Brazil? Nuke them. Mongolia? Nuke them. Japan? Nuke them.
If Russia nukes Ukraine, the USA nukes Belarus. One non-nuclear ally for another.
Billionaires have absolutely zero control over NATO nuclear policy.
I think he looked at Russian nuclear placements and world air currents and realized if Russia gets nuked most of the fallout hits India
Never mind
Ukrainian problems:
>minefields
>lack of air superiority
>lack of equipment(they can't shell indiscriminately like Stalin's can)
>West thinks they are watching Netflix show and want some movie-like fast win, yet this war is ugly, slow and really lethal(everyone is, but this one is one of those where sides are almost equal so shit needs to be done slowly and carefully).
>Russians need to be beaten couple of times to get their act together
Russian problems:
>morale( they are in the wrong and they know it)
>corruption galore
>they don't even know what they are doing there
>they ARE Russians
>they wasted their best of the best like it's nothing
END: Ukraine will get their 2014 borders back and start living their rightful western way of life, Russia will turn to east, Africa and middle-east
But, will this be in 10 months or 10 years, no one can answer you that.
>ukraine is winning
>”garbage pro-HATO take!”
>russia is winning
>”ok vatBlack person shill”
>still too early to tell
>”u fricks are moronic, spoon feed me intel!”
OP, go blow some dicks.
It's like this:
Imagine the situation was reversed and America was Russia and Mexico was Ukraine.
Things get to the point where the US military is falling apart and the Mexicans (with Russian/Chinese weapons) are getting close to overwhelming American lines and invading US territory
In this situation the US would obviously nuke Mexico City as a last resort, not giving a shit how the other nuclear powers might react
>are getting close to overwhelming American lines and invading US territory
That’s not what’s happening though moron. Ukraine isn’t invading Russian territory and has no plans to. They’re literally just planning to push the Russians out. The USA did not nuke Afghanistan after the Taliban took over and we left.
This is why Kabul and Saigon are both nuclear wastelands. moron.
NATO/US cannot give Russia any sort of benefit from using nuclear weapons. If they did, then North Korea nukes South Korea. China nukes US over Taiwan. Pakistan nukes India. Israel would nuke Iran. The west (and Russia by extension) cannot allow nuclear blackmail to work or countries would just do it over and over again until someone refused to submit and there was a nuclear war. Failing to uphold nuclear deterrence arguably makes a worldwide nuclear Armageddon MORE likely, not less likely. The west has no option but to use nuclear weapons or conventional forces to ensure Russia doesn't benefit from nuking Ukraine The most likely responses to a nuclear attack would be:
1. A conventional attack to expel Russia from Ukraine backed by credible nuclear threats and/or
2. A conventional or nuclear attack aimed at destroying Russia's nuclear retaliation capability. This likely includes a decapitation strike on Putin that ensures he can't launch more.
The other problem with Russia using a nuclear weapon is that, in order to do so, a whole bunch of people need to know and actions taken. This sort of preparation might get caught in the planning stages by the USA, in which case 1 or 2 happens. Which means that, not only would Russia lose but they might not even get the chance to nuke Ukraine before getting ass fricked.
>1. A conventional attack to expel Russia from Ukraine backed by credible nuclear threats and/or
>2. A conventional or nuclear attack aimed at destroying Russia's nuclear retaliation capability. This likely includes a decapitation strike on Putin that ensures he can't launch more.
In both cases Russia would nuke every major city in North America and Western Europe.
If there was a way to take out Russia without getting nuked yourself, Reagan or any other cold war US president would have done it.
Since the cold war, the offensive capabilities of nuclear weapons have increased dramatically, whereas defensive capabilities haven't improved much at all. Most likely Russia also has a dead hands switch in place, so there is way to launch a "decapitation" strike.
Again it comes down to this: Russia nukes Kyiv, and the West has the option of backing down or ushering in a nuclear world war where billions would perish.
Billions would perish in a world where using nuclear weapons offensively is acceptable.
there is no "just let them nuke people bro", once nukes start flying it's over, there is no scenario in which one country successfully uses a nuke to get what they want and nobody else tries the same thing.
Russia doesn't operate under the assumption that the West wouldn't respond, otherwise they would have used a nuke already or in any previous war they had difficulty. Any russian leader knows that Russia continuing to exist minus donbabwe is preferable to the risk of Russia not existing at all
Again, for this fiftieth time, there is no scenario where Russia gets to use a nuclear weapon with no response. Such a scenario would ultimately result in nuclear war anyway and therefore, the west's only options would be to ensure Russia could not benefit. If that means billions die, so be it. Both options ultimately result in billions dying anyway since nuclear war would be inevitable.
I know this is messing up your fantasy, but there is a reason no one has used nukes. They war game this all the time.
>Russia nukes Kyiv, and the West has the option of backing down or ushering in a nuclear world war where billions would perish.
What happens is all the ex-Soviet countries arm up with nukes making it a powder keg. And the match that sets it off would probably be Russia being moronic and sending one of their Tu-95s to buzz someone's airspace.
>Again it comes down to this: Russia nukes Kyiv, and the West has the option of backing down or ushering in a nuclear world war where billions would perish.
Again it comes down to this: Russia nukes Kyiv ushering in a nuclear world war where billions would perish, or they have the option of just not doing that.
It's not just the US that relies on nuclear stability; if Russia was foolhardy enough to use even a tactical nuke in Ukraine the response would likely involve China assisting a NATO coalition to destroy Russian millitary capability, remove the Putin regime, secure all nuclear stockpiles within Russia, and carve up the Russian state into easily managed chunks.
Russia is slowly collapsing:
Their pre-war professional army is dead, and is mired not only with the Ukrainian army before them, but an insurgency behind their lines of which we don’t hear much of except when they pull off something spectacular like killing another collaborating administrator.
Their air force has suffered irreplaceable losses from combat and sanctions.
The Black Sea Fleet was its best naval force, and they have lost several important vessels.
More importantly, Russia is burning through its cash reserves so quickly that the come the end of this year they will be bankrupt. We shall see if China will bankroll them.
The Ukrainians meanwhile:
Have suffered terrible losses as well with their infantry bearing the brunt of the fighting for want of materiel.
Are outgunned both in numbers and range by various artillery and rocket/missile systems.
Are wholly dependent on foreign aid to carry on fighting. We’re not only equipping them, but effectively funding the Ukrainian government’s day to day operations through extensive lending.
They are in the process of destroying themselves like the Russians did a year ago by smashing into the Russian defensive lines of southern Ukraine in the vain hope they could win by Christmas despite inferiority in numbers, firepower, equipment and, yes, experience.
Their NATO allies are always effectively a year late in delivering what Ukraine needs to win, and only half of what was asked for.
This war will rage on for at least two more years as each side exhaust themselves without landing the knockout blow they were hoping for.
2 more weeks
It's literally the same goddamn homosexual in here every fricking time stroking his wiener while sobbing and begging us to please let him have a fantasy scenario where they get to nuke Ukraine and win.
The only fantasy scenario is the one being cooked up where the US views a nuclear strike on Kiev the same way it would view a nuclear strike on Paris or London.
Russia is not going to nuke Kyiv. It's going to continue getting slaughtered until they lose and withdraw and Monke is hung from a streetlamp. There's no nuclear angel to save you. You're going to die.
Zelensky paid wagner to attempt coup and then make a deal with Putin. Ukraine will make offensive at the same time Wagner sleeper agents activate.
I just can't believe this is still ongoing. The Americans literally just left Afghanistan, and the Russians and Ukrainians try to out clown them?
Looks like it's going pretty well for Ukraine if the useful idiots have to resort to screaming NOOK
>JUST LET ME NUKE BRO
>JUST LET ME NUKE
meat grinder.
simple as.
One country gets annihilated if they lose, with the promise that it will all happen all again but with no support next time. The other country is an unstable clusterfrick that just had a military mutiny with one of the PMCs fighting on the front line in the most publicized battles of the war like this was some stupid Metal Gear Solid plot but written while huffing carbon monoxide.
Ukraine is doing about as OK as you could possibly expect them to be, and are frequently impressive even if they frick up just as frequently. Their narritive is quite simple, and that means that the world abroad is generally willing to accept them as "normal." Even if that's not true, it means that I've heard more people talking about the war in Ukraine than I ever did about the war in iraq. Its not just "some guy died?" its normal people you see every day talking about specific battles over specific towns. This isn't some brown-sand-people country being Muslim extremist morons, they are just white people that talk more funny than usual. That matters a lot. They don't have a 1:1 compatibility with the west as a whole, but they are nationally doing their best to sell the idea that they are so they can get more help.
I cannot fricking eloquently describe how fricked Russia is, economically and strategically. They haven't achieved a single thing they set out to do, they got multiple semi-neutral states to immediately sign up to be NATO countries, most of which having significant military bases. They have lost an absurd amount of assets for less-than-nothing, and I'm not even talking about hardware like tanks. I'm talking about economic assets and holdings. It doesn't even seem like they have a plan, after the whole run for the capital didn't work out, and have been staggering forward ever since while just hoping the west gets bored. If they were to win TOMMOROW, this war still would have been a fricking disaster for them.
there is no situation where ukraine loses so badly they cease to be as a country.
They might get cucked, lose sea access, lose everything east of the dnipro, but the country will still exist in the end
and the second peace is signed they get fast tracked into EU and NATO with all usual requirements omitted
Question for the nuke moron who clearly thinks that if russia nooks ukraine, i just want to know his mindset on this.
If america does nothing japan, south korea and fricking taiwan would rush there own nukeprogram, wouldnt take that long for japan and south korea i think to build nukes, which im sure china is going to love.
Also you know the thing about how america loves oil, perhaps they might see south america as, hey its free real estate become our 51st state or get NOOKED. whats to stop america who loves oil from doing that and i bet you hate the idea of america winning.
Too much propaganda and not enough accurate info for any regular person to say for sure. Ukraine will say they're winning no matter what.