Ukraine - somebody explain to me

[Omaha 680]

So you all worried putin is crazy enough for nukes or not

That is the question, isn't it? MAD only works if both sides are rational and have self-preservation as #1 priority. Which is why regimes like the one in Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I know people are all over Musk and calling his roadmap dumb. Morally it is repugnant to me. But it does one thing that the west has yet to show any (public) interest in: offering Putin an off-ramp to end the conflict instead of him being ever more boxed-in, isolated, and desperate and having nothing to lose by using a nuke. I still think that morally, continuing to isolate/pressure him and hoping he is deposed is probably the right path. But what is the west prepared to do if he pushes the nuke button, even if it is "only" with a smaller tactical weapon? Are we prepared to bring NATO assets to bear in direct conflict with Russian forces, risking a rapid escalation? Six months ago I thought the chance of a Russian missile being launched at the United States after a rapid escalation was zero percent. I think it is still low but not zero, which is weird/unsettling to think about.

[Goatnapper'96]

So you all worried putin is crazy enough for nukes or not

Worried, always. Nukes exist and folks attracted to power are often crazy. Putin is just he one we know about. However, I don't believe the West should capitulate. He invaded Ukraine and I have no moral reservation to the support the West is providing.

I don't think it will end in nuclear war. We should keep the pressure on by helping Ukraine to fight and win back its territory-at some point I think it more likely that Russia has a coup and replaces Putin regime with a new strongman regime. Conceding to Putin to avoid nuclear war is not a good idea.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...Conceding to Putin to avoid nuclear war is not a good idea.

Agreed, as it would certainly not be the end of Putin's expansive ambitions. There's a reason that Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are providing disproportionately much more support to Ukraine than the rest of the world.

This ends either by Putin being killed/ousted, or by the West/Ukraine making some minor, innocuous concessions that will enable Putin to save face (at least in his mind), declare victory, and withdraw.

[Goatnapper'96]

Agreed, as it would certainly not be the end of Putin's expansive ambitions. There's a reason that Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are providing disproportionately much more support to Ukraine than the rest of the world.

This ends either by Putin being killed/ousted, or by the West/Ukraine making some minor, innocuous concessions that will enable Putin to save face (at least in his mind), declare victory, and withdraw.

Other than Crimea what concession could Ukraine make? There will be some formal type of mutual aid with NATO or membership. This will end with there being some type of border patrol keeping an eye on Russia...2nd Cav heading to the Donbass! There is so little trust of Russia and Ukraine is going to have a pretty competent core for a professional army once this fight is done.

What concessions could there be?

[Pelado]

Other than Crimea what concession could Ukraine make? There will be some formal type of mutual aid with NATO or membership. This will end with there being some type of border patrol keeping an eye on Russia...2nd Cav heading to the Donbass! There is so little trust of Russia and Ukraine is going to have a pretty competent core for a professional army once this fight is done.

What concessions could there be?

Importing Russian nesting dolls?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Other than Crimea what concession could Ukraine make? There will be some formal type of mutual aid with NATO or membership. This will end with there being some type of border patrol keeping an eye on Russia...2nd Cav heading to the Donbass! There is so little trust of Russia and Ukraine is going to have a pretty competent core for a professional army once this fight is done.

What concessions could there be?

Dunno, but perhaps easy giveaways like no foreign (i.e., NATO) bases in Ukraine, no offensive weapons from NATO, no making fun of Putin's height--nothing significant from a sovereignty or defensive perspective.

[BigPiney]

Importing Russian nesting dolls?

[Pelado]

Imported?

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is the question, isn't it? MAD only works if both sides are rational and have self-preservation as #1 priority. Which is why regimes like the one in Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I know people are all over Musk and calling his roadmap dumb. Morally it is repugnant to me. But it does one thing that the west has yet to show any (public) interest in: offering Putin an off-ramp to end the conflict instead of him being ever more boxed-in, isolated, and desperate and having nothing to lose by using a nuke. I still think that morally, continuing to isolate/pressure him and hoping he is deposed is probably the right path. But what is the west prepared to do if he pushes the nuke button, even if it is "only" with a smaller tactical weapon? Are we prepared to bring NATO assets to bear in direct conflict with Russian forces, risking a rapid escalation? Six months ago I thought the chance of a Russian missile being launched at the United States after a rapid escalation was zero percent. I think it is still low but not zero, which is weird/unsettling to think about.

Other than leaving behind radiation in a limited area, tactical nukes are way less powerful than most people imagine. Not that much different that large conventional bombs. So using tactical nukes would not likely give them a strategic advantage in the war. The ukranians have already said that they would continue to fight regardless. So the biggest benefits of tactical nukes is as a threat and because it makes dumbasses like Elon Musk say things to undermine Ukraine. Once Putin uses one, he loses that leverage and he faces the very high likelihood that the entire world would be against them and their economy would truly be finished.

[BigPiney]

Imported?

import/export

[Omaha 680]

Other than leaving behind radiation in a limited area, tactical nukes are way less powerful than most people imagine. Not that much different that large conventional bombs. So using tactical nukes would not likely give them a strategic advantage in the war. The ukranians have already said that they would continue to fight regardless. So the biggest benefits of tactical nukes is as a threat and because it makes dumbasses like Elon Musk say things to undermine Ukraine. Once Putin uses one, he loses that leverage and he faces the very high likelihood that the entire world would be against them and their economy would truly be finished.

Yes a tactical nuke would be public perception move, not a means to a battlefield victory. Putin is banking that nuclear weapons detonating on European soil will fracture western resolve as everyone worries about escalation to real nukes. The question is obviously is he bluffing? If the west thinks he is and wants to call that bluff I 100% support that. But we need to simultaneously make it clear what the consequences will be if he uses nuclear weapons (i.e. sink every Russian ship and devastate the Russian military at the front lines with NATO air strikes) and offer some kind of off ramp to avoid those consequences. Failure of credible western deterrence is what got us to a Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place and allows Putin to think he can successfully use nuclear blackmail. If now is the moment we re-establish deterrence so be it and about damn time, but the messaging needs to be clear. I hope that behind the scenes it is.

The reality is that as Mr. Putin’s failing military skedaddles east across occupied Ukraine, nuclear weapons look more attractive. That is not so much because a tactical nuclear strike would be effective against widely scattered Ukrainian forces in the field. It is more that Mr. Putin hopes the political shock waves set off by nuclear explosions in Europe would shatter the West’s resolve to support Ukraine. Is Germany willing to lose Berlin to save Kyiv? Are Americans ready to risk New York to keep Odessa free? These are the questions Mr. Putin is asking himself.

The future of the world may depend on his answers. Meanwhile, the Biden administration faces a terrible dilemma. To yield to Mr. Putin’s nuclear blackmail would be a cowardly act of appeasement from which Neville Chamberlain would recoil—and which would open the door to more nuclear blackmail. Yet to lead the Western alliance into an open-ended nuclear confrontation with Russia is to risk the most catastrophic of wars.

To avoid these unacceptable alternatives, the Biden administration must deter Mr. Putin from using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict even as it continues to support Ukraine in its battle to drive the invaders back.

Deterrence is more complicated than it looks, and the Biden administration’s efforts to deter Russia have had little success. In February, Mr. Putin blew past the Biden administration’s barrage of threats and diplomacy to launch the war in Ukraine.

Not deterring Russian aggression was one of the costliest failures in recent American foreign policy. But it isn’t clear that the Biden administration understands what went wrong—and how similar mistakes might be undercutting its diplomatic efforts today.

[Bo Diddley]

Other than Crimea what concession could Ukraine make? There will be some formal type of mutual aid with NATO or membership. This will end with there being some type of border patrol keeping an eye on Russia...2nd Cav heading to the Donbass! There is so little trust of Russia and Ukraine is going to have a pretty competent core for a professional army once this fight is done.

What concessions could there be?

Fun to think about, but I can't imagine anything less palatable to the gawdless commies than US forces on their border. As you say, Ukraine will have a professional military, and will likely be left with the means to protect their own border. I see this as a likely condition of peace, that Ukraine stands alone. No treaties, no foreign militaries.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes a tactical nuke would be public perception move, not a means to a battlefield victory. Putin is banking that nuclear weapons detonating on European soil will fracture western resolve as everyone worries about escalation to real nukes. The question is obviously is he bluffing? If the west thinks he is and wants to call that bluff I 100% support that. But we need to simultaneously make it clear what the consequences will be if he uses nuclear weapons (i.e. sink every Russian ship and devastate the Russian military at the front lines with NATO air strikes) and offer some kind of off ramp to avoid those consequences. Failure of credible western deterrence is what got us to a Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place and allows Putin to think he can successfully use nuclear blackmail. If now is the moment we re-establish deterrence so be it and about damn time, but the messaging needs to be clear. I hope that behind the scenes it is.

The experts I have heard all say that a strike would unify the world against Putin like nothing else would.

Also, they say that the US government has already communicated privately to Putin what the US response would be if he launches a nuke.

[Bo Diddley]

Other than leaving behind radiation in a limited area, tactical nukes are way less powerful than most people imagine. Not that much different that large conventional bombs. So using tactical nukes would not likely give them a strategic advantage in the war. The ukranians have already said that they would continue to fight regardless. So the biggest benefits of tactical nukes is as a threat and because it makes dumbasses like Elon Musk say things to undermine Ukraine. Once Putin uses one, he loses that leverage and he faces the very high likelihood that the entire world would be against them and their economy would truly be finished.

Doing a little reading on tactical nukes, they vary in yield from roughly .1 to 50 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Our largest conventional bomb is the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) at 11 tons of explosive power. Doing the math, the lowest yield tactical nuke is about 9 MOABs dropped at once.

As I've considered how Putin might employ one of these, I wonder if he'd go after Zelensky, sending a nuke to his location in Kyiv strong enough to make sure he gets wiped out with it. Would he go after infrastructure like ports? Or would he limit his strikes to formations on the battlefield? Some of the larger tactical nukes could do some damage there.

[myboynoah]

Yeah, I think it's time to call that bluff. Other states are watching and seeing the power the nuclear threat is having against us, namely China (with designs on Taiwan), Iran (with designs on regional hegemony), and NKorea (with designs on reunification on its terms). This crap will come back at us elsewhere.

Time to ratchet up our support. It looks like we are going to facilitate the transfer of Soviet-made tanks. Why not get those Mig 29 delivered as well? And how about some more robust antiair missile systems. And how about some covert special ops missions, like taking down that Kerch Straits bridge, thereby cutting off Crimea from road access to the Russia and trapping (at least for a time) the parts of the Russian fleet that are in the Sea of Azov supporting the siege of Mariupol? And facilitate more attacks on Russian soil.

It's about time!