Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
If the Russians knew that USAF is serious about it they wouldn't dare invade. Why would they? It would be a certain defeat for them.
But even if they did invade, USAF would destroy the first few tanks in their columns and the whole thing would probably end there.
Do you think that Putin would go full nuclear holocaust in this case? Just because he lost a few tanks? Then, if he loses the war a few months from now, why wouldn't he do the same? After all, the Russians are certain that without American help, Ukraine would not be able to fight for long (and they are not wrong).
That’s just not a risk that we should be cavalier about. Ultimately, no one wants war to expand beyond Ukrainian borders for obvious reasons.
I think it's funny that you think that.
Probably more like "... and the world would begin to end there".
300,000... alrighty then.
I'm assuming that's rapid deployment forces spanning the entire army/navy/air force spectrum.
How do you think Putin would be able to sell that 'the whole thing would probably end there' scenario to the Russian population and to his inner circle? If the US would strike and Putin would then immediately cancel things, he'd probably lose his position right there and then. He'd never let that happen.
Of course, you could argue that Putin would therefore never have invaded under those circumstances. But that's a game of chicken - what if he does? Who would want to risk that?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Putin would say that he is the wise leader who does not want to destroy the world, unlike warmongering NATO, or something to that effect. He will say that at this moment, Russia cannot win against all the NATO countries. Russian TV often admits that NATO is much stronger, that's not a secret inside Russia. It is not a shame to back down faced by an overwhelming force.
Having said that, Putin is not stupid. He does not want to die, either. He is a bully, and bullies only attack when they are certain that the bigger bully (USAF) will not directly hit them. Yes, he miscalculated the Western response, he expected even less. But he waited for 2 months to make sure that USAF is not going to defend Ukraine. So, he liked his odds. Biden practically assured him that USAF will not do anything.
Putin can end the world any time he wants, he has the nukes to do it. Why should he want to do it in this scenario if not now? He lacks now everything he would lack in that scenario, so why end the world? No one is invading Russia even if the Russian and forces goes into NATO countries and gets destroyed, because of those same nukes, so there's no threat, then or now. If there was, NATO would have attacked in defense of Ukraine.
I can see that, but ultimately, it's risk calculation. What are the chances Putin will react in this way or that, and would be the consequences? I suppose most leaders will conclude that we should not go on a path that might lead to nuclear war, even if the risk percentage is fairly low.
First, Biden said that USAF will do nothing if Russia invades, but Russia "will pay" (what? when? how? ). Why did he say that? Keep all options open. Make your own threats. Try to scare the Russians. Then Russia does invade and Biden says that US will give Ukraine weapons, but only defensive short range weapons. Then he said that US will give Ukraine long range weapons, but Ukraine cannot hit inside Russia, while its own cities are completely destroyed, one after the other.
We can try to sell all that as smart policy that minimizes risk, but for Putin is simply cowardice. Always a step behind because the West is scared that Putin might get too angry. It is the Russians that should be scared that NATO will get angry, given the disparity of the two forces. But Biden, Scholz etc do not scare anyone. And Ukrainians are paying with their blood. In this hour of difficult decisions we got leaders who are scared to take the initiative. (And yet, thanks god it is not Trump!... the poor Ukrainians would be completely fecked... )
We can try to sell all that as smart policy that minimizes risk, but for Putin is simply cowardice. Always a step behind because the West is scared that Putin might get too angry. It is the Russians that should be scared that NATO will get angry, given the disparity of the two forces. But Biden, Scholz etc do not scare anyone. And Ukrainians are paying with their blood. In this hour of difficult decisions we got leaders who are scared to take the initiative. (And yet, thanks god it is not Trump!... the poor Ukrainians would be completely fecked... )
But you should remember who is doing the "risk calculation". Do you really have any confidence on the "risk calculations" of Biden, Scholtz, Macron, etc? I don't. Afghanistan is fresh. In January, Scholtz was still enthusiastic about Nord Stream 2, etc ...
(And I am sure they receive a lot of reports, many of them conflicting, but the buck stops with the person who makes the final decision. )
And guys (and gals), I am for peace. I am 100% for peace. I hate war. I am a dove. I am really sad that so many people are dying. They are dying for nothing. This is a stupid war. All wars are stupid, but this one is perhaps one of the most stupid wars ever.
The question is how could we have avoided this war completely, given that Putin is a dictator with nukes and fascist ideas about a new Russian Empire? (This was known, it was not hidden from us. )
After reading various things these past few months, I agree with Kasparov. If Putin thought that the bigger bully (NATO) will hit him directly, he would do nothing. We wouldn't have war now. Putin would wait for his buddy Trump to become president again, and work on the next US elections. But after seeing the Afghanistan debacle, after seeing what kind of "leader" Scholtz is, he decided that his odds are good enough right now. In 2 years Ukraine might be stronger and Trump might lose anyway, US politics are unpredictable now.
The question is how could we have avoided this war completely, given that Putin is a dictator with nukes and fascist ideas about a new Russian Empire? (This was known, it was not hidden from us. )
After reading various things these past few months, I agree with Kasparov. If Putin thought that the bigger bully (NATO) will hit him directly, he would do nothing. We wouldn't have war now. Putin would wait for his buddy Trump to become president again, and work on the next US elections. But after seeing the Afghanistan debacle, after seeing what kind of "leader" Scholtz is, he decided that his odds are good enough right now. In 2 years Ukraine might be stronger and Trump might lose anyway, US politics are unpredictable now.
An direct attack by NATO on Russian forces would more than likely fall into their scenario of existential threat to Russia. The chances of things getting out of control would escalate enormously.
Orcs hiding in the school.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Putin is using the Nuke threat to keep NATO from helping Ukraine. The chances of him using them is very slim since we know NATO won't want to become involved in a conflict with Russia.
It's unfortunate for Ukraine because without this threat I'm sure NATO would already have helped militarily. Even if there is a less than 1 percent chance of Putin following through with the threat, NATO still can't take the risk and Putin knows it.
It's unfortunate for Ukraine because without this threat I'm sure NATO would already have helped militarily. Even if there is a less than 1 percent chance of Putin following through with the threat, NATO still can't take the risk and Putin knows it.
Fecking animals.
A stock of Tomahawk missiles will be at Ukraine's disposal sooner than later.
You were saying that if Russia invaded a Ukraine that was defended by the US, and got destroyed, that it would be the beginning of the end of the world, that Russia would launch either a full nuclear volley at NATO countries or launch smaller nukes that would lead to escalation and then Armageddon.
I’m not sure why you’re now responding about how Russia would respond to an invasion. I said that no one would do that because of nukes, so I agree that’s a bad way go. Russia doesn’t have to worry about their army being destroyed because no one will invade.
But that’s not at all the same as helping a country destroy an invading Russian army.
Not really. A direct hit by NATO on Russian forces INSIDE UKRAINE, is no existential threat for Russia. They can just retreat back into Russia.
But what I am saying is that in December 2021, just a (serious) threat of NATO doing that, would have prevented the invasion altogether.
Of course they can take the risk, US Presidents took far greater risks standing up to the USSR.
And as insane ideologues as the leaders of the USSR were, none of them wanted to use nukes. Sacrificing Ukraine because of that threat…doesn’t sit will with me.
I mean look at all the destruction already caused. Surely much, much greater than the destruction that would be caused by one “normal” nuke (perhaps their biggest bomb on Kyiv would have been worse, but then Russia aren’t done).
Not if the "normal" nukes were fired all over Europe
I agree with you.
The Western leaders made NO THREATS vs Russia in December 2021. Why not? Biden was certain they will invade. Why didn't he threaten Putin's army with USAF? With bombing every Russian soldier inside Ukraine. With something concrete and scary.
They told us that this is because Biden is careful and tried not to make Putin angry, because if Putin is angry he may invade Ukraine. These were the "calculations" of Biden, Scholtz, etc. If we do nothing, Putin may not invade. How good were these calculations?
Yes, precisely because they didn’t do what you’ve suggested.
But their calculations were that if they do not offend Putin in December, he may not invade. Did their calculations work?
1) Remind me again who told Zalensky that Putin was going to invade.
2) Again… you’re asking the US Air Force and NATO to chance starting World War III for a non-NATO country. That isn’t smart.
I feel like blaming the likes of Biden for not reading the situation exactly correctly at every turn is a bit unfair. It's not like there is a manual for nuclear war, you have to make your judgements as you go along and you can argue they've been too cautious but then...can you be too cautious about starting the end of the world? Much better to be overly cautious than overly hawkish in such a situation, not that it's perhaps much comfort to the people of Ukraine right now.
I didn't say anything about an invasion?
You've lost me.
I'm saying they will take it as such.
Given how much they've amped it up to their own population, their people would take it as such on their own with no further propaganda push needed.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Weapons manufacturer prays for lasting peace. Well that's a new one!
I was reading somewhere that the effect of large drones like the bayraktar has diminished in this phase of the war, hence we’re seeing nowhere near as much footage as in the first phase.
Allegedly it’s because now the war efforts are concentrated in smaller areas where Russians have deployed air defences thus making the large, slow drones easy targets.
Allegedly it’s because now the war efforts are concentrated in smaller areas where Russians have deployed air defences thus making the large, slow drones easy targets.
At this rate, this is going to continue until Trump is President again, and he tells Putin to keep the east of the country and to stop the attack.
I don't see any other way for this to end...unless Ukraine surrender?
I don't see any other way for this to end...unless Ukraine surrender?
The bigger picture you’ve missed is NATO would be revealing itself to the world as an organisation who were offensive when it suited them. Basically the whole ‘world police’ image the US had. Yes they would carry a huge threat but it would create a need for Russia and China (and others) to work more closely together to combat them and, make no mistake, the US (who are basically NATO’s trump card) is vastly more concerned with China than Russia.
As it stands China is doing a lot less than people suspected to help Russia (they could do less but I’m not sure that’s realistic) and a big part of that is because Russia isn’t facing NATO directly. They can’t really go asking for military hardware without looking weak (whereas they could with direct NATO intervention) and so by supplying Ukraine but not directly engaging Putin is now locked in this ridiculous conflict where he’s losing record amounts of troops, has united NATO and even got it looking likely that NATO will grow all whilst his country slowly economically collapses. Ukraine is suffering, we shouldn’t forget that but the outcome of your scenario was either WW3 or the above
I heard it mentioned on a twitter space that Turkey, or the manufacturer, had requested they stop publishing Bayraktar footage. Though I can't find anything to back that up.
Though the air defense line makes sense. It was a massive shock at the beginning that these things were so successful, as they shouldn't be too difficult to shoot down.
Orcs, the lot of them
That’s just par for the course when it comes to these creatures.
This is utter madness. Eventually Putin is going to lash out. Why should the world be destroyed because the Americans and the Europeans have a fight between themselves and the Russians? The majority of the World don't want anything like this. They don't want the Russian invasion of Ukraine, neither do they want NATO to expand and create problems for the majority of the World.
Joke of a post. This is on Putin and Russia. Not NATO or the west (and BTW I am a big critic of US/western foreign policy). History shows appeasement doesn't work.