User Controls
Ukraine to hold referendums on joining Russia
-
2022-09-24 at 2:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Can't trigger MAD if your target doesn't have nukes.
Putin using nukes in the first place is pretty unlikely. Always on the table, of course, but even assuming he did use one - do you honestly think anyone is going to engage in nuclear retaliation on Ukraine's behalf? Who do you foresee, for the sake of nobility and justice alone, putting themselves in the line of fire for the all out mutual nuclear annihilation MAD entails? Nobody. Biden is not going to end the world for Ukraine's sake. Neither is Liz Truss, or Xi, or Modi, or any other leader at the helm of a nuclear power. Putin could glass Ukraine tomorrow and the only punishment Russia'd face is more sanctions (heaven forfend! however would Russia survive?). Putin himself would go before the Hague one day, maybe, and the ICC would then maybe hand him a life sentence instead of the usual 30 years. That's it. That's all.
MAD does not mean "if anyone uses nukes ever, everyone dies". MAD means having nukes is a massive deterrent, specifically to nations who might wish to use nukes against you. If you don't have nukes of your own, you have nothing to deter your enemies from using nukes against you. This is the primary - if not sole - motivator for Iranian and North Korean interest in nuclear proliferation, by the way, regardless of any fantasies you might have heard in western media about Israel or Hawaii getting vaporized. Attacking non-nuclear powers with nukes makes bad economic sense due to inevitable sanctions, it's terrible optics (absolute PR nightmare really), and it's not conducive to accomplishing most "standard" war aims - conquest, securing resources, etc - on account of the risks posed by fallout. Those are literally the only reasons the US didn't nuke Afghanistan into submission. They're the same reason Russia will almost certainly, unless as an act of utter desperation, refrain from nuking Ukraine. MAD has nothing to do with it.
i think ur wrong because think about it no one has enemies except china with taiwan that just wannaw get evaporated
the us didn't use nukes in the desert cuz it wasn't shit to explode after 15 cruise missiles knocked everything down in 45 minutes during shock and awe -
2022-09-24 at 2:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Can't trigger MAD if your target doesn't have nukes.
Putin using nukes in the first place is pretty unlikely. Always on the table, of course, but even assuming he did use one - do you honestly think anyone is going to engage in nuclear retaliation on Ukraine's behalf? Who do you foresee, for the sake of nobility and justice alone, putting themselves in the line of fire for the all out mutual nuclear annihilation MAD entails? Nobody. Biden is not going to end the world for Ukraine's sake. Neither is Liz Truss, or Xi, or Modi, or any other leader at the helm of a nuclear power. Putin could glass Ukraine tomorrow and the only punishment Russia'd face is more sanctions (heaven forfend! however would Russia survive?). Putin himself would go before the Hague one day, maybe, and the ICC would then maybe hand him a life sentence instead of the usual 30 years. That's it. That's all.
MAD does not mean "if anyone uses nukes ever, everyone dies". MAD means having nukes is a massive deterrent, specifically to nations who might wish to use nukes against you. If you don't have nukes of your own, you have nothing to deter your enemies from using nukes against you. This is the primary - if not sole - motivator for Iranian and North Korean interest in nuclear proliferation, by the way, regardless of any fantasies you might have heard in western media about Israel or Hawaii getting vaporized. Attacking non-nuclear powers with nukes makes bad economic sense due to inevitable sanctions, it's terrible optics (absolute PR nightmare really), and it's not conducive to accomplishing most "standard" war aims - conquest, securing resources, etc - on account of the risks posed by fallout. Those are literally the only reasons the US didn't nuke Afghanistan into submission. They're the same reason Russia will almost certainly, unless as an act of utter desperation, refrain from nuking Ukraine. MAD has nothing to do with it.
you're conflating actual mutually assured destruction with its more important purpose as a deterrent to escalation beyond a certain point -
2022-09-24 at 3:04 AM UTC
-
2022-09-24 at 3:06 AM UTC
-
2022-09-24 at 3:06 AM UTCWhat a stupid war. Pro Russian sentiment has gone down significantly in those areas in thebm years since 2014 which makes the timing of the invasion all the more idiotic. Nobody is going to recognize those elections but they're an important step for an eventual denouement in the fighting that Russia so desperately needs so as not to destroy their human resources department. Ukraine isn't going to let them up and the cost will just increase for Russia and they'll be forced to enact a half assed occupation on an area they hoped not to occupy. STUPID
-
2022-09-24 at 3:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo What a stupid war. Pro Russian sentiment has gone down significantly in those areas in thebm years since 2014
there's no reliable data on this. I'd expect it to be the opposite though, considering they were all Russian-speaking regions that'd been targeted with punitive political action and mortars, and they bore the brunt of the irregular units (azov, adar etc.) until the Russians put them in mass graves and detention camps -
2022-09-24 at 3:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra there's no reliable data on this. I'd expect it to be the opposite though, considering they were all Russian-speaking regions that'd been targeted with punitive political action and mortars, and they bore the brunt of the irregular units (azov, adar etc.) until the Russians put them in mass graves and detention camps
I read some stuff about sentiment shifting in articles to do with the militias along the dniper, specifically the one with the billionaire oligarch governor who had his own semi nazi inspired militia he used to take out his opponents. Hard to find anything that isn't super skewed now but back then was a lil less overt bias. There are definitely anti Russian protests and next to no welcoming parties greeting the Russian army as liberators.
There are still protests in the southern regions 6 months after Russia has occupied them. Russian language and heritage doesn't necessarily correlate to Russian identity and to welcoming an occupying army. I think putin read the room wrong and thought they'd find recruits and collaborators wherever they went because it looks like an even messier logistical nightmare on paper if the existing russian army is supposed to be conquering and occupying with the paltry numbers they've committed so far.
It's pointless to pontificate about positive local sentiment towards the invading army when it doesn't translate to any real results. If a mayor in the south or east is thought to be collaborating too closely with the occupying army the locals threaten to kill him which has happened several times already. There's really no evidence of welcoming sentiment that I've seen -
2022-09-24 at 3:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo I read some stuff about sentiment shifting in articles to do with the militias along the dniper, specifically the one with the billionaire oligarch governor who had his own semi nazi inspired militia he used to take out his opponents. Hard to find anything that isn't super skewed now but back then was a lil less overt bias. There are definitely anti Russian protests and next to no welcoming parties greeting the Russian army as liberators.
people still wear white armbands, but they tend to be very careful about it (especially after the counteroffensives) because they're afraid of reprisals should the AFU retake their towns.
large swathes of the population will vote to join Russia simply on the basis that pensions, social benefits and general economic opportunities are far better than they previously had
Originally posted by Sudo It's pointless to pontificate about positive local sentiment towards the invading army when it doesn't translate to any real results. If a mayor in the south or east is thought to be collaborating too closely with the occupying army the locals threaten to kill him which has happened several times already. There's really no evidence of welcoming sentiment that I've seen
It's not the locals doing the threatening, and as above, any locals who would outwardly accept Russian forces are terrified of them. -
2022-09-24 at 4 AM UTCWhat's important is that this is not just a war between Russia and the Ukraine, it's effectively become an almost direct war between Russia and NATO, so there's more at stake than just wargaming territorial gains and losses. Initially I don't think Russia expected NATO to throw so much money and manpower at this specific front (see: the flare-up between Armenia and Azerbaijan, what appears to be an attempt at a colour revolution in Iran) and has been trying to adjust accordingly, but has to act slowly in order to not alienate allies and neutral countries (they'd have a much harder time if India, Turkey and China opposed them) and to convince their own people that a much more serious commitment is necessary.
-
2022-09-24 at 5:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra you're conflating actual mutually assured destruction with its more important purpose as a deterrent to escalation beyond a certain point
it is literally only a deterrent to escalation between parties with nukes. no nuclear power is going to use their nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons by another country against some third, nukeless, unaffiliated party. i'm not conflating anything. mutually assured destruction is mutually assure destruction.
nukes are not some magical boon that provide a +3 bonus to escalation resistance to countries who don't even have them. sorry, cunt. your shits just as fucked as ours is here in canada. you should make peace with this fact now. the only thing standing between australia and nuclear hellfire is the mistaken belief that the global community will be upset to learn someone vaporized all the chinks, bogans, abos, and other poisonous/terrifying creatures inhabiting your godforsaken continent. 🤷 -
2022-09-24 at 5:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra What's important is that this is not just a war between Russia and the Ukraine, it's effectively become an almost direct war between Russia and NATO, so there's more at stake than just wargaming territorial gains and losses. Initially I don't think Russia expected NATO to throw so much money and manpower at this specific front (see: the flare-up between Armenia and Azerbaijan, what appears to be an attempt at a colour revolution in Iran) and has been trying to adjust accordingly, but has to act slowly in order to not alienate allies and neutral countries (they'd have a much harder time if India, Turkey and China opposed them) and to convince their own people that a much more serious commitment is necessary.
Ya it was pretty dumb to not see the potential for ukraine to be a draining proxy war, considering that's pretty much what Ukraine exists to do and always historically has been a country playing tug of war at the crossroads. The whole campaign reeks of short sighted group think and poorly thought out plans. The social,political and economic cost is getting higher for Russia the longer it goes on and Ukraine and its backers don't care how much it decimates the country and how much western money it takes to slow the advance. Russia is having a hard time framing a victorious narrative when they have to keep fighting to retain territory that will never be recognized. Putin wants the war to end more than Ukraine does and the longer it goes on the more draining it is on resources and the more unfavorable public support will be. It's a zero sum game at this point and Ukraine/NATO are winning by forcing Russia to engage on its terms. Zelensky can't surrender and Putin can't mount an offensive that leads to decisive victory. Such a shitty modern war, only noteworthy by the stupidity of it -
2022-09-24 at 5:46 AM UTCiMAGINE if they dirty bombed Kiev
Spell it with a Y now you fucks!
-
2022-09-24 at 6:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai it is literally only a deterrent to escalation between parties with nukes. no nuclear power is going to use their nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons by another country against some third, nukeless, unaffiliated party. i'm not conflating anything. mutually assured destruction is mutually assure destruction.
nukes are not some magical boon that provide a +3 bonus to escalation resistance to countries who don't even have them. sorry, cunt. your shits just as fucked as ours is here in canada. you should make peace with this fact now. the only thing standing between australia and nuclear hellfire is the mistaken belief that the global community will be upset to learn someone vaporized all the chinks, bogans, abos, and other poisonous/terrifying creatures inhabiting your godforsaken continent. 🤷
You're looking at this in the same myopic way that Jigaboo is. Put away the term MAD and consider what the doctrine is - essentially an agreement not to use nuclear weapons for fear of other parties using them in response. The reason it works at all is because there's a quasi-religious belief in the massive power of nuclear weapons (thermobarics and other conventional weapons have largely closed the gap since the 50s anyway) and as such, nuclear weapons are held to a different standard than conventional weapons. Nuclear countries must have strict and open defensive nuclear doctrines so that their peers and rivals can avoid red lines that lead to nuclear lolocaust territory. It is a predictable system that allows for planning.
If a country uses nuclear weapons outside of the agreed-upon framework, regardless of whether the target state is nuclear or not, it effectively destroys the agreement. Other nuclear states can no longer predict when or where their rivals will use nuclear weapons, so they will be forced to attempt to pre-empt each other in unpredictable ways. There will no longer be a hard line between nuclear and conventional weapons, and they will begin to be used more and more often unless another agreement can be made - but if states have already violated the previous agreement, what collateral would be enough to guarantee the new one? -
2022-09-24 at 6:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Ya it was pretty dumb to not see the potential for ukraine to be a draining proxy war, considering that's pretty much what Ukraine exists to do and always historically has been a country playing tug of war at the crossroads. The whole campaign reeks of short sighted group think and poorly thought out plans. The social,political and economic cost is getting higher for Russia the longer it goes on and Ukraine and its backers don't care how much it decimates the country and how much western money it takes to slow the advance. Russia is having a hard time framing a victorious narrative when they have to keep fighting to retain territory that will never be recognized. Putin wants the war to end more than Ukraine does and the longer it goes on the more draining it is on resources and the more unfavorable public support will be. It's a zero sum game at this point and Ukraine/NATO are winning by forcing Russia to engage on its terms. Zelensky can't surrender and Putin can't mount an offensive that leads to decisive victory. Such a shitty modern war, only noteworthy by the stupidity of it
no
What I'm saying is judging by the way Russia's behaving, especially lately, they consider Ukraine to be a battleground in the real war between them (and much of the 'global south') and NATO. So far it's been largely economic, but there are signs that it can and will escalate rapidly.
English translation of Putin's speech announcing partial mobilisation: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/09/text-of-putin-speech-announcing-partial-mobilization.html -
2022-09-24 at 10:30 AM UTCaldra ur thoughts please:
https://niggasin.space/thread/77275?p=1#post-1623989 -
2022-09-24 at 1:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra You're looking at this in the same myopic way that Jigaboo is. Put away the term MAD and consider what the doctrine is - essentially an agreement not to use nuclear weapons for fear of other parties using them in response. The reason it works at all is because there's a quasi-religious belief in the massive power of nuclear weapons (thermobarics and other conventional weapons have largely closed the gap since the 50s anyway) and as such, nuclear weapons are held to a different standard than conventional weapons. Nuclear countries must have strict and open defensive nuclear doctrines so that their peers and rivals can avoid red lines that lead to nuclear lolocaust territory. It is a predictable system that allows for planning.
If a country uses nuclear weapons outside of the agreed-upon framework, regardless of whether the target state is nuclear or not, it effectively destroys the agreement. Other nuclear states can no longer predict when or where their rivals will use nuclear weapons, so they will be forced to attempt to pre-empt each other in unpredictable ways. There will no longer be a hard line between nuclear and conventional weapons, and they will begin to be used more and more often unless another agreement can be made - but if states have already violated the previous agreement, what collateral would be enough to guarantee the new one?
yes, due to imbecils like trump, biden, truss and various european unmanned head of states, MAD has lost its voodoo powah.
FAGS is the new thing.
First-strike Always Guarantee Survivality.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-09-24 at 2:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny yes, due to imbecils like trump, biden, truss and various european unmanned head of states, MAD has lost its voodoo powah.
FAGS is the new thing.
First-strike Always Guarantee Survivality.
Russia has the opposite policy, the NIGER doctrine
Nukes Incoming? Glass Everything RandomlyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-09-24 at 2:37 PM UTCIf Australier had a referendum on joining Russia Alder would vote "да".
-
2022-09-24 at 3:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump If Australier had a referendum on joining Russia Alder would vote "да".
and then pull a lee harvey oswald and regret it after 1 year
[quote pk=1308151 author="Ghost"
"Oswald wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."
