Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 263

On October 04 2022 06:26 Godwrath wrote:
I don't see Putin getting canned anytime soon. We are not seeing any kind of real societal disobedience to even entertain that idea beyond wishful thinking.

On October 04 2022 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:

IMO the poll I posted shows the Russian public has a "full stop" point. I think Crimea going back to Ukraine ends up being GG after that.

On October 04 2022 06:49 Godwrath wrote:

I had seen US presidents with similar public approval ratings, and you wouldn't think they would get canned anytime soon other than the next elections, and well, that's not going to happen in Russia.

On October 04 2022 06:49 Godwrath wrote:

I had seen US presidents with similar public approval ratings, and you wouldn't think they would get canned anytime soon other than the next elections, and well, that's not going to happen in Russia.

Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.

In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.

On October 04 2022 06:52 Simberto wrote:


But that is the difference. In the US, you know (at least currently) that there will be a next election, and that person can be removed democratically.

The same is not true in Russia.

This is one of the core advantages of democracy. Peaceful and routine transfer of power.

In an autocracy, the only way to transfer power is by force. So if the popular breaking point is reached, people won't wait until the next election. Because they know that the election isn't one. They will act quickly and immediately.

I have no idea when that point is reached, though.

On October 04 2022 07:26 Acrofales wrote:
I think someone already posted this, but it's a good article so I'll post again:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

However, I want to highlight a section:


It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.

On October 04 2022 07:26 Acrofales wrote:
I think someone already posted this, but it's a good article so I'll post again:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

However, I want to highlight a section:


It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.

On October 04 2022 07:26 Acrofales wrote:
I think someone already posted this, but it's a good article so I'll post again:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

However, I want to highlight a section:


It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.

On October 04 2022 07:30 Slydie wrote:


Some claim that the key is with the oligarchs, not the public. Russia has a wide reaching homeland security force, so a full revolt will be of the violent and messy kind the Russian population has endured too many of already.

Russia hasn't learned to be a stable democracy yet, and the transition from dictatorship is usually through some kind of war or violence. Fortunately, most western countries were done with that a long time ago.

On October 04 2022 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily.
Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.

On October 04 2022 16:57 KlaCkoN wrote:


That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist.
If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis.
The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.