isn't expecting to lose a battle destroy morale and helps it become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Posted on April 28, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor isn't expecting to lose a battle destroy morale and helps it become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
two more weeks
also, wrong board
>major defeat in Ukraine
Vatniksisters...I don't feel so good...
Regardless how funny that sounds, it was the main narrative on vatnig propaganda for weeks now.
Not only that, it's an okrainian expert.
Maybe Putin calculates Russia needs to suffer a major defeat first, with loss of Crimea imminent, to enact a full-scale nugget-armed-meat-wave mobilization and/or employing nukes in a test/threat or actually on the battlefield.
>use nukes on the battlefield
>NATO responds with a First Strike
Not even the Russians are that retarded. If they decide that nuclear weapons are necessary, they're going to launch an all-out attack on all of their enemies at once. Both the USA and USSR ran limited nuclear use scenarios during the Cold War and every last one of them ended in escalation to a full-scale exchange.
Why give your enemy the warning and moral precedent to initiate a full exchange on their terms? Better to launch everything you have first and hope for the best.
>Both the USA and USSR ran limited nuclear use scenarios during the Cold War and every last one of them ended in escalation to a full-scale exchange.
To be fair, that's when everyone thought Russia wasn't incompetent. There may actually be a scenario where the vast majority of their nukes just don't work.
Even if only 600 (1/10th of the entire arsenal) of their warheads were still operational, that would still be upwards of 600 American and European cities and military bases gone. Even if you decided to concentrate multiple warheads per target and only 50 American and 50 European targets were hit, the demographic and economic results of that would be downright catastrophic.
Lol, they don't have 6000 delivery systems to immediately send all those warheads. They have about 1200.
One missile carries many warheads (and decoys).
Total arsenal is not the same as deployed arsenal. Their deployed arsenal is something like 1800 warheads. Then you have to consider not just dud warheads, but dud delivery systems. Russia's decrepit military causes compounding issues.
A huge chunk of Russia's launch points are reachable conventionally. We'd probably see a combined conventional and limited nuclear response.
Fuck 600, few landing in western Europe or USA will cause absolute meltdown of society for years.
Nooks aren't that dirty, they're honestly rather overrated. Sure, it'll blow a bunch of shit up but if suits blown up everywhere then it's blown up nowhere.
Nobody aims at cities first in nuclear war retard.
Russia probably would.
In a nuclear war you'll have to launch ALL your warheads at once, because otherwise they will be most probably destroyed under inevitable enemy strike. So yes, retard, cities would be targeted, along with anything that would cause as much damage and losses as possible.
>cities would be targeted
No they wouldn't. I could explain to you, but you're so fucking retarded I don't know what to say.
Yeah, I'd love to see Ruskies try to hit all their enemies at once with their faulty rockets and shitty military, then get BTFO by the entire Western world's superior defensive systems.
They couldn't even hit America from where they are even if they tried.
MAYBE they'd hit some euro cities, maybe, but I doubt it.
Lol. This is what Eastern Euro retards actually believe. Every NATO capital is targeted for destruction for sure. Then any sort of logistical crossroads cities as well. Any sort of industrial hub is guaranteed too.
>American cities would be gone
What's the problem then anon?
Wiping out the scum of the US by hitting its major cities would be a net benefit for the country,
>Even if only 600 (1/10th of the entire arsenal) of their warheads were still operational, that would still be upwards of 600 American and European cities and military bases gone.
lmao no, you vatniks don't have
>functional launching systems
>war head deterance
>skilled soldiers who could launch said nukes
>any reasonable long range capability
You'd be lucky to get a couple off without blowing yourselves up, and 600 warheads i s GENEROUS. Considering Russia "lost" a ton of functional briefcase nukes, and can't even maintain any of their armor, air or water equipment.
Realistically, you fuck ups would launch one, if that, and if you didn't blow yourselves up with it, you would be ground to dust after the first strike by the collective efforts of the US military, before you count EU intervention.
In that scenario you're assuming a 1:1 use of bombs to cities with no accounting for actual strategic targets.
But then again, this is Russia we're talking about so hell maybe that's fair. I think the big trouble is that for all the speculation on numbers, we just don't know how many working warheads the Russians have. Hell, it's entirely possible the Russians don't even know how many working warheads Russia has. I'd be willing to bet the lives of every man woman and child that has ever or will ever live that there's no way in hell the actual effective stockpile is nearly as large as Russia claims it is on paper, but anything beyond that seems like pure speculation.
the demographic results would be downright based lmao
Putin has options that won't trigger a NATO first strike. He can do a test inside of Russia. He can nuke Snake Island or some other place that doesn't have any civilians. He might think he has a chance of scaring the West into abandoning Ukraine. It won't work but Putin is a fucking retard so he might try it, and neither of the above mentioned would necessitate a NATO fulls scale nuclear response. A test probably just leads to Ukriane getting literally whatever kit it wants up to F35s ASAP. A test or tactical strike in-theatre probably leads to NATO ultimatum for Russia to withdrawn completely which Putin would comply with since it keeps him alive albeit ruling a totally isolated North Korea-style bunker state. He may view that as the best outcome available. He might want NATO to give him the push to withdrawal and retrench: better than being defeated by Ukraine.
...come to think of it, blowing up apartment buildings in Ukraine may be his attempt to get NATO involved so he can admit defeat vs. NATO and withdrawal with his army mostly intact vs. the alternative of being defeated by Ukraine.
he already tried testing nukes three times though. All three failed.
What exactly failed though, was it the devices failing to reach critical mass or was it a failure of the delivery system, or in an ideal though admittedly highly unlikely world where God truly does hate Russians, both?
In all three cases I believe it was failure of the delivery systems.
>He can do a test inside of Russia. He can nuke Snake Island or some other place that doesn't have any civilians. He might think he has a chance of scaring the West into abandoning Ukraine.
Oh hey, someone saved the comic I drew
You are legendary
Its a good one, saved it. Seeing own OC reposted is always a pleasure.
Fair enough, but what I was talking about was straight up battlefield use of nuclear weapons.
A test or detonating the bomb over open water where it won't cause any deaths would be met with a lesser response for sure. Although it still presents the problem that NATO would immediately beginning readying its nuclear deterrent for a First Strike, rendering any hope of catching them by surprise non-existent.
>A test or tactical strike in-theatre probably leads to NATO ultimatum for Russia to withdrawn completely which Putin would comply with since it keeps him alive albeit ruling a totally isolated North Korea-style bunker state
A test, probably. Tactical use in-theatre? Would be met with an immediate First Strike, no warning or ultimatums given for one simple reason. Anything less than likely ends in a total exchange anyway and any time wasted on pursuing an alternative dramatically decreases the effective of a NATO First Strike.
Non-response? Not even considered an option.
NATO gives an ultimatum? Russians either laugh it off or realize their bluff has been called, launch first, and kill 100 million people.
NATO launches conventional retaliation? Russians realize their bluff has been called, launch first, and kill 100 million people.
NATO launches limited retaliatory nuclear strikes? Russians realize their bluff has been called and launch first, and kill 100 million people.
NATO launches a First Strike and catches the Russian nuclear arsenal on the ground? Maybe 10 million people die in the few missiles the Russians are able to fire off before their military completely disintegrates. Whatever the number, it will still be dramatically fewer fatalities than a Russian First Strike would have resulted in.
>NATO launches a First Strike and catches the Russian nuclear arsenal on the ground? Maybe 10 million people die in the few missiles the Russians are able to fire off before their military completely disintegrates. Whatever the number, it will still be dramatically fewer fatalities than a Russian First Strike would have resulted in.
Holy fucking retard. Nuking an island 26 miles of the Romanian coast is 100% going to draw in NATO involvement. And it won't just end with him having to withdraw from Ukriane.
strongly worded letter?
more like the destruction of the russian black sea fleet and all drawdown restrictions being lifted from US and NATO stocks for ukraine at the bare minimum. Which is why I hope he does it, I want to see burning ships in sevastopol and f-35s in ukraine's skies.
>NATO directly attacks russian fleet
Are you retarded or yes you are?
>just let them normalize dropping nukes
>just start WW3 by initiating it yourself
That would be Russia if they cope nuked ukraine
no you're right, we should just let russia do whatever the fuck it wants. KYS
Why don't we just send the F35s anyway. Fuck it. The longer this war drags on the more it costs us and the higher the risk of losing.
Democracies breed weak willed politicians incapable of decisive action. Simple as that. Why the fuck do you think Putin even decided to invade a nation supported by an economic block twenty times the size of Russia??
Because authoritarian regimes breed delusion and incompetency.
I'd love to see it.
>test one of many non functional nukes as a show of farce to scare the West
>try to nuke Snake island
>bomb misses and doesn't detonate in the water
>bomb won't launch
>silo doors don't open bomb explodes in silo
>blame it on the West
>rally troops to storm Ukraine in human wave retaliation
>get btfo by HIMARS again
China already said they'd join up against whatever country uses Nukes first. So either Russia looses their only partner of consequence or China loses their credibility
>chang is trustworthy and never lies
China already has no credibility as far as the people who need it are concerned.
It is in their geopolitical interest to fight the USA regardless of the circumstances.
>It is in their geopolitical interest to fight the USA
Why would you fight your biggest economic partner and country that makes up the majority of your food imports?
because Geopolitics is about more than just economic growth
The continued existence of a stable democracy anywhere on earth poses an existential threat to the internal security of the Communist Chinese regime
Therefore, one way or another, America (or more specifically American democracy) MUST be destroyed
As a result, armed conflict between China and the West becomes inevitable
Yeah I really don’t get why it’s in their interest to bite that hand that feeds and pays them.
>or China loses their credibility
>China loses their credibility
They don’t have an option m80. This isn’t some 5d checkers grand strategy the Russian military is just literally not going to be capable enough.
Have you ever heard of the Britsh Empire?
British empire is the reason a bunch of pajeets speak English. American empire is the reason everyone in Europe speaks English.
And American empire would absolutely assblast a bunch of dumbass wood boats.
>everyone in Europe speaks English.
you're putting too much faith into us I'm afraid.
You're fucking retarded. You do realize the British were building nukes in WW2, right? In fact, that's where we got the research from? Had we not entered WW2, they would have nuked Berlin. There is no situation where they lose the war short of Operation Gunnerside failing.
The image is just flat out wrong and fucking dumb. Even the French have better soft power than we do.
This isn’t true and the UK was 100% dependent on both American resources, money, and facilities to make atomic weapons a reality.
NATO gayS SERIOUSLY THINK THIS LMAO
Are you gong to actually refute it, or just keep seething?
your brain got fried being contrarian for too long.
American Operating System
better than having false hope
Is it? In what way?
Leave it to Russia to put more effort into planning to scapegoat their loss than into planning the fucking invasion to win.
Why would you think russian troops on the ground would know about this? They can barely read russian, nevermind English
its just the prelude to the game of musical chairs to find out who gets windowed next and who get the blame on case of failure
Arming Afghans to fight the Russians was one of the few morally righteous things the CIA has ever done, unironically.
>Helen Fein notes that charges of the U.S. committing genocide during the Vietnam War were repeated by several prominent intellectuals, yet comparatively little attention was paid to the allegations of Soviet genocide against the Afghan people. However, Fein argues that the claims against the Soviets have considerably stronger evidentiary support. Fein states that 9% of the Afghan population perished under Soviet occupation (compared to 3.6% of the 1960 population of Vietnam during the U.S. war and approximately 10% of non-gnomish Poles during the Nazi occupation of Poland) and almost half were displaced, with one-third of Afghans fleeing the country. (By contrast, the sustained refugee flows out of Vietnam occurred after the 1975 defeat of South Vietnam, although millions of Vietnamese were internally displaced by the war.) Furthermore, statements by Soviet soldiers and DRA officials ("We don't need the people, we need the land!"; "if only 1 million people were left in the country, they would be more than enough to start a new society") and the actual effect of Soviet military actions suggest that depopulation of rural, predominantly Pashtun areas was carried out deliberately in order to deprive the mujahideen of support: 97% of all refugees were from rural areas; Pashtuns decreased from 39% to 22% of the population. The US committed war crimes in Vietnam through inconsistent application of its rules of engagement and disproportionate bombardment, but it at least attempted to hold individual soldiers accountable for murder, especially in the case of the only confirmed large-scale massacre committed by U.S. troops. By contrast, Fein cites two dozen massacres perpetrated by the Soviets in Afghanistan, which went unpunished, adding that in some instances "Soviet defectors have said that there were sanctions against not killing civilians."
You need a twitter account nowadays to see NSFW
Try again mr twiterati
Remember. Tsar is never at fault. It’s always the traitorous advisors faults.
Noooo, Mizintsevsisters, how could this happen? How could a man like this fail?
I was taught to not make comments about people's appearance, but there is something wrong with this man's face. It's the face of a rat
it looks like a face that was edited to look off, its like that one elon musk car that looks like it was made in the Halo CE engine
He’s trying his best to prove that physiognomy is real after all.
Never noticed that he looks a lot like Malcolm in the middle
Ez casting decision for when they make the moobie about this in 10 years
They could also cast T1
Look, I'm expecting a bunch of units trained and equipped with halfway decent Western kit to absolutely push mobiks shit in but
Morale isn’t exactly something the Russian army had in the first place. As it is, the Russians have no way to address any breakthroughs; so they can only brace and prepare for a retreat if it comes down to it.
Now everyone knows everything, the ass is in the ass.
No because they still tell the grunts everything is going to plan
>we never wanted the deputy defense minister