The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[El Lazaro]

Stop pushing the “we’re one step way from a nuclear war” narrative, nuclear war won’t happen unless someone has literally nothing to lose and the threat levied against them is just one step below nuclear war. Killing a few soldiers doesn’t put anyone in a position where they want to start a nuclear war.

Where did I say that nuclear war was going to happen? I'm just saying why Russia isn't going to nuke the west for supplying Ukraine with weapons and supplies.

Disabling nearby airbases with nuke is impractical and totally overkill, why wouldn’t Russia use conventional weapons if they chose to?

[Hukhalia]

i guess this is what lenin meant when he said "there are decades when weeks happen and weeks when decades happen."

How does it feel to live through major world events that are pressing the international order to breaking-point?

[Senkaku]

Belarus pretending to be anything close to democracy is even dumber than North Korea pretending to, the people still know it’s a load of crap.

Yeah, I doubt anyone's genuinely buying it. You have to admire the commitment though.

you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"

[Hispida]

Okay, what major stuff did I miss since 12:00pm CST today? I'd appreciate a quick update if y'all don't mind!

- massive explosion reported in chelyabinsk oblast
- belarus ditches non nuclear status
- belarus has also joined the war
- ukraine has received NATO planes
- the ruble is crashing faster than a drone i flew a few years ago
- russia has halted before kyiv
- ukraine has filed an international lawsuit against russia
- berdiansk has fallen

[Hispida]

i guess this is what lenin meant when he said "there are decades when weeks happen and weeks when decades happen."

How does it feel to live through major world events that are pressing the international order to breaking-point?

euphoric.

[Des-Bal]

War between NATO and Russia would quickly escalate to nuclear attacks.

That's not necessarily true. It's a possibility buy people act like it's somehow inevitable. It's likely that NATO would fight Russian forces in Ukraine without actually attacking Russia and Russia isn't going to throw a tantrum that ends the world just because they stand to lose an offensive war.

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

Okay, what major stuff did I miss since 12:00pm CST today? I'd appreciate a quick update if y'all don't mind!

- massive explosion reported in chelyabinsk oblast
- belarus ditches non nuclear status
- belarus has also joined the war
- ukraine has received NATO planes
- the ruble is crashing faster than a drone i flew a few years ago
- russia has halted before kyiv
- ukraine has filed an international lawsuit against russia
- berdiansk has fallen

Much appreciated. It was only a matter of time before Belarus joined in, in my personal opinion. What's surprising to me is the fact that Belarus is putting up an act of democracy by showcasing a referendum in regards to nuclear status. That seems totally unnecessary, given that I'm pretty sure most of the west realizes Belarus is anything but democratic in nature.

[Grenartia]

Whenever a Republican says that Biden "hasn't done enough" to stop Russia in Ukraine, they are implicitly telling you one of 3 things: they want a nuclear war, only a conservative authoritarian strongman could get Putin to stop (i.e., become Putin to stop Putin), or some combination of the other two.

Refuse to buy into it.

[Saiwania]

Who cares about Russia anymore, if they can't handle taking on Ukraine? If that is the case in the end, we need to recognize the weak power Russia is to prevent it from recovering. We need to be formenting a successful coup which upon taking power in Russia, will dismantle their entire nuclear arsenal in exchange for a backroom deal. Like perhaps making the new leaders in charge never have to work again, just showering them with riches that'll make them and their children's children set for life without lifting a finger.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

How does it feel to live through major world events that are pressing the international order to breaking-point?

euphoric.

bruh

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

Whenever a Republican says that Biden "hasn't done enough" to stop Russia in Ukraine, they are implicitly telling you one of 3 things: they want a nuclear war, only a conservative authoritarian strongman could get Putin to stop (i.e., become Putin to stop Putin), or some combination of the other two.

Refuse to buy into it.

Insane amount of warhawks in congress. Quite alarming, but I guess people who haven't seen the brutality of war can only get a glimpse of a romanticized version through media or other means.

[Hispida]

Who cares about Russia anymore, if they can't handle taking on Ukraine? If that is the case in the end, we need to recognize the weak power Russia is to prevent it from recovering. We need to be formenting a successful coup which upon taking power in Russia, will dismantle their entire nuclear arsenal in exchange for a backroom deal. Like perhaps making the new leaders in charge never have to work again, just showering them with riches that'll make them and their children's children set for life without lifting a finger.

because imperialism is bad. if putin is to be overthrown, then the people should overthrow him.

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

Who cares about Russia anymore, if they can't handle taking on Ukraine? If that is the case in the end, we need to recognize the weak power Russia is to prevent it from recovering. We need to be formenting a successful coup which upon taking power in Russia, will dismantle their entire nuclear arsenal in exchange for a backroom deal. Like perhaps making the new leaders in charge never have to work again, just showering them with riches that'll make them and their children's children set for life without lifting a finger.

Russian people can and will* take care of internal matters given enough pressure. I believe I saw somewhere earlier in this thread suggesting Russia was attempting big dog plays as a mid-rate power.

*given time, opportunity, and motive.

[Shekelesh]

War between NATO and Russia would quickly escalate to nuclear attacks.

That's not necessarily true. It's a possibility buy people act like it's somehow inevitable. It's likely that NATO would fight Russian forces in Ukraine without actually attacking Russia and Russia isn't going to throw a tantrum that ends the world just because they stand to lose an offensive war.

Actually that is very incorrect. https://www.ft.com/content/e12976cf-59be-414e-b90f-56875df79753

But according to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, published in 2020, the Kremlin “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons”, including “for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
Western countries interpreted that as a lowering of the bar for the use of nuclear weapons: until 2020, Moscow’s stated policy was to use nuclear weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened”.

Whether such an order would actually be followed though is up in the air.

[Des-Bal]

Insane amount of warhawks in congress. Quite alarming, but I guess people who haven't seen the brutality of war can only get a glimpse of a romanticized version through media or other means.

Frankly it's hard for me to see Russia looking this weak and not entertain laying down a solid whupping.

[El Lazaro]

Whenever a Republican says that Biden "hasn't done enough" to stop Russia in Ukraine, they are implicitly telling you one of 3 things: they want a nuclear war, only a conservative authoritarian strongman could get Putin to stop (i.e., become Putin to stop Putin), or some combination of the other two.

Refuse to buy into it.

Republicans don’t do anything but concern trolling at this point, it’s better to assume nothing they say is genuine unless it’s especially outlandish.

[Diopolis]

---Snip---

Well that's not exactly true, it's made up of sycophants and people with no ambition because that's who ends up at the top of the military in a dictatorship. You don't get people of ability at the top because the dictator feels threatened it gets filled with yes men. Second even if they know that what has been planned is a total shitshow they aren't going to say so, they will nod their heads whilst said dictator tells them how great the plan is and how we'll be in Kyiv three hours into the offensive.

The top ranks of any military are rarely hypercompetent outside of major war scenarios for the simple reason that they're political appointees and appointed partly for being sycophants. Dictatorships aren't generally(generally, Saddam was an exception) worse about that than other styles of regime because anybody in line for those kinds of positions is already coopted by interest groups backing the dictator.
What tends to happen in dictatorships- or rather, in personal dictatorships of the kind Russia's got- is actually aimed more at handicapping the competence of middle ranking officers as a form of coup proofing. We tend to forget that the top brass are very much part of the regime in a system like that and have no interest in overthrowing the system because they benefit from it. It's middle ranking officers who are a genuine threat- they're not the leadership of the system and they know it. This was a major reason South Vietnam was dependent on American leadership; letting competent native majors and colonels make decisions was extremely dangerous for the regime.
On the other hand, monarchies have historically performed very well in comparison to dictatorships because the top spot is by definition limited to people who are already coopted by the regime and military shenanigans are definitionally not seen as a form of legitimacy. You see similar dynamics with theocracies and sometimes communist regimes.
Note I'm not talking about democracies here because to be a full democracy tautologically requires firm enough civilian control of the military that that kind of coup d'etat usually doesn't happen without foreign interference.

[Hukhalia]

- massive explosion reported in chelyabinsk oblast
- belarus ditches non nuclear status
- belarus has also joined the war
- ukraine has received NATO planes
- the ruble is crashing faster than a drone i flew a few years ago
- russia has halted before kyiv
- ukraine has filed an international lawsuit against russia
- berdiansk has fallen

Much appreciated. It was only a matter of time before Belarus joined in, in my personal opinion. What's surprising to me is the fact that Belarus is putting up an act of democracy by showcasing a referendum in regards to nuclear status. That seems totally unnecessary, given that I'm pretty sure most of the west realizes Belarus is anything but democratic in nature.

The law's weird like that. Belarus has a constitution, laws, &c which are totally bypassed but nevertheless must be observed ceremonially for shreds of legitimacy. It's the same reason the U.S. Senate no longer enters "recess", but instead litters its de-facto recess with pro forma sessions - everyone knows it's bullshit but it's politically convenient to commit to it and not raise too many questions.

[Adamede]

Where did I say that nuclear war was going to happen? I'm just saying why Russia isn't going to nuke the west for supplying Ukraine with weapons and supplies.

Disabling nearby airbases with nuke is impractical and totally overkill, why wouldn’t Russia use conventional weapons if they chose to?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about Russia using nukes on military bases (however if there was an actual war they would), I'm saying that if Russia attacked NATO airbases because of supplied Jets being given to Ukraine are flying out of them, then that would spark a war between Russia and NATO which would quickly turn nuclear.

[Des-Bal]

[
Actually that is very incorrect. https://www.ft.com/content/e12976cf-59be-414e-b90f-56875df79753

But according to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, published in 2020, the Kremlin “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons”, including “for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
Western countries interpreted that as a lowering of the bar for the use of nuclear weapons: until 2020, Moscow’s stated policy was to use nuclear weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened”.

Whether such an order would actually be followed though is up in the air.

Yeah they're not doing that. Russia would definitely rather lose this than end the world.

[Diopolis]

Whenever a Republican says that Biden "hasn't done enough" to stop Russia in Ukraine, they are implicitly telling you one of 3 things: they want a nuclear war, only a conservative authoritarian strongman could get Putin to stop (i.e., become Putin to stop Putin), or some combination of the other two.

Refuse to buy into it.

The republican narrative appears to be that Trump threatened a nuclear war and Putin backed down. I don't find this implausible for the simple reason that it sounds like something Trump would do(he was, umm, seemingly fond of nuclear weapons) and Putin was sane prior to his year and a half of total isolation.

[Adamede]

War between NATO and Russia would quickly escalate to nuclear attacks.

That's not necessarily true. It's a possibility buy people act like it's somehow inevitable. It's likely that NATO would fight Russian forces in Ukraine without actually attacking Russia and Russia isn't going to throw a tantrum that ends the world just because they stand to lose an offensive war.

Yah I don't see it. This isn't Syria where it's a shit storm of dozens of different factions in at least 4 way civil war and anything can happen. This is a war where Russia is THE major belligerent. NATO intervention would be war against Russia. Putin likely isn't bluffing with his nuclear threats, and it's not a risk I would be willing to take.

[Big Jim P]

Whenever a Republican says that Biden "hasn't done enough" to stop Russia in Ukraine, they are implicitly telling you one of 3 things: they want a nuclear war, only a conservative authoritarian strongman could get Putin to stop (i.e., become Putin to stop Putin), or some combination of the other two.

Refuse to buy into it.

The republican narrative appears to be that Trump threatened a nuclear war and Putin backed down. I don't find this implausible for the simple reason that it sounds like something Trump would do(he was, umm, seemingly fond of nuclear weapons) and Putin was sane prior to his year and a half of total isolation.

Putin waited for a weak president.

[Adamede]

- massive explosion reported in chelyabinsk oblast
- belarus ditches non nuclear status
- belarus has also joined the war
- ukraine has received NATO planes
- the ruble is crashing faster than a drone i flew a few years ago
- russia has halted before kyiv
- ukraine has filed an international lawsuit against russia
- berdiansk has fallen

Much appreciated. It was only a matter of time before Belarus joined in, in my personal opinion. What's surprising to me is the fact that Belarus is putting up an act of democracy by showcasing a referendum in regards to nuclear status. That seems totally unnecessary, given that I'm pretty sure most of the west realizes Belarus is anything but democratic in nature.

Appearances like that are for the citizens/subjects.

[El Lazaro]

Disabling nearby airbases with nuke is impractical and totally overkill, why wouldn’t Russia use conventional weapons if they chose to?

I think you're misunderstanding mean. I'm not talking about Russia using nukes on military bases (however if there was an actual war they would), I'm saying that if Russia attacked NATO airbases because of supplied Jets being given to Ukraine are flying out of them, then that would spark a war between Russia and NATO which would quickly turn nuclear.

Why? The entire point of nukes is that nobody wants to use them. If anyone does it, everyone dies. Nukes aren’t just a toy to send over whenever you’re upset at something.