Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Mar 1 2023 04:15pm)

The fear surely stems from the potential retaliation from Russia not the act itself of jets being used against Russia proper.

The question I am continually asking is what escalation.
Nobody seems to be able to clearly say what that is.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Mar 1 2023 02:14pm)

I see that point but I also think its pedantic at this stage. It's also relative because from Ukraines point of view its total war.

So is the literal potential escalation from Russia a full mobilization?
Or is it something else. If so, what is it.

Theres a fear of escalation. Okay. What escalation. Precisely.

Quote (JohnnyMcCoy @ Mar 1 2023 04:58pm)

for ukraine its total war

for russia not so much for two reasons: its not clear how the public opinion would change, if they started conscripting the sons of the middle class in the big cities

and its clear by now that russia does not have the capacity to train and equip a million (or another large number) additional troops

maybe putin secretly hopes that ukraine attacks russian territory to get the support for a large mobilisation, but so far western powers have been somewhat careful on this topic

Quote (ownyaah @ Mar 1 2023 01:58pm)

There are many steps of escalation left, long before nukes. Also ignoring China as part of the equation is nonchalant.

Lastly, the logistics/maintenance would be massive and jets, as proven by this conflict aren´t very useful against sophisticated integrated long-range anti air.

Quote (ownyaah @ Mar 1 2023 01:59pm)

They obviously can field/train a 1 million man army, it is a question of political/public will.

Quote (ownyaah @ Mar 1 2023 02:59pm)

They obviously can field/train a 1 million man army, it is a question of political/public will.

Quote (JohnnyMcCoy @ Mar 1 2023 01:58pm)

for ukraine its total war
for russia not so much for two reasons: its not clear how the public opinion would change, if they started conscripting the sons of the middle class in the big cities
and its clear by now that russia does not have the capacity to train and equip a million (or another large number) additional troops
maybe putin secretly hopes that ukraine attacks russian territory to get the support for a large mobilisation, but so far western powers have been somewhat careful on this topic
so for me the next escalation would be ukraine attacking russia proper with western arms

Quote (JohnnyMcCoy @ Mar 1 2023 02:04pm)

the leader of the wagner mercenaries has publicly complained about lack of material and ammo

and the last partial mobilisation was as far i know mostly to have more men for work behind the front or in other words free up regular troops performing these tasks

they clearly have a problem in that regard

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Mar 1 2023 07:52am)

You realize Ukraine already have jets? What in actuality do you foresee going wrong with sending Ukraine jets? I mean specifically, not just an affirmation of an impending world war 3.
Personally I don't think it would be advantageous to send Western jets. Mainly because of the logistics/training required is too great; Sending MiG's from Poland would make the most sense if they were to do it.






Yes I think its important to be clear. Putin did NOT make a clear statement along the lines of "If Leopard 2's arrive in Ukraine, I will launch nuclear weapons at 13 hundred hours."
It is fair to extrapolate from the statements that Putin was implying he WOULD use a nuclear weapon in response to NATO's continued support for Ukraine.

I actually believe the idea of a repercussion from Russia, for supplying Ukraine, is a self imposed idea in the West; It is also an achievement of Putin sabre rattling and getting a response from adversaries.

When we are objective about the potential of Russia using a nuclear weapon, what are we seeing as possible gains for Putin/Russia?
The implied threat of nuclear force is far more powerful than actually using one, in terms of benefit/cost.

The only scenario where using a nuke would benefit Russia in the short term at least, more than the cost. Would be to attack say Warsaw, Berlin or London.
Is that likely? I highly doubt it, as the midterm cost to Russia is mutually assured destruction.

Unless I am missing something here, the probability of Putin using a nuclear weapon is extremely low; Never zero, but low.

Quote

It is speculated that for every Ruble spent on defence in Russia since 2012, Sergei Shoigu and his subordinates probably stole half.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 02:32pm)

Ukraine is not in NATO. If they were, this war would never have happened.
Queue Finland and Sweden joining NATO, because they see what happens if your not protected.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 01:43pm)

No, no they are not. Perhaps in your mind NATO is doing that.

Quote (fender @ Feb 27 2023 10:22pm)

yes? how does simply naming that place prove your baseless claim that "NATO has taken over russian naval bases"? oh right, it doesn't, it's just another dumb kremlin narrative that you keep throwing around - but have no arguments to back it up.

maybe educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

at no point did NATO have control over the base, kremlin bot.

Quote

Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Mar 1 2023 02:34pm)

That is called brinksmanship, not a smart strategy when you are dealing with nukes.




By who? Link?

Quote (ferdia @ Mar 1 2023 02:49pm)

just to state my understanding of events, and this has been said before, The US asks Russia before it does certain things in this war.

i.e. it asked about tanks. the russian response was: this will not cause ww3. so tanks were OK to go. Russia also clarified that Sweden and Finland in Nato would also be OK and not cause WW3, so full steam ahead there. Russia did however say: if you give Ukraine the capability to attack Russia directly you have to accept the dire consequences. The US has been slow therefore to do this.