Scholz, whose SPD party traditionally maintains close ties with Russia, has variously argued that providing heavy weapons to Ukraine could provoke Putin.
Some in Germany and elsewhere have also questioned Germany's commitment under a Scholz / SPD government to NATO's mutual defence pledge because those arguments used to avoid supplying Ukraine - that it could provoke confrontation with Russia - could also be used as an argument against Germany invoking the pledge.
Which side is Germany going to definitely come down in the current situation is the question.
Our friend Solovyov said on radio today that the bombing of Kyiv while Guterres was there was a warning to western leaders not to visit "the capital of the Nazis". Interesting to hear the talk being so explicit.
If Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine I wonder would Germany take the nuclear option themselves and stop buying Russian gas?
Or would it have to be a strike on German territory before they make such a decision.
You just have to admire the ingenuity of the Ukrainians.
Sure they are already convinced that one Russian missle can blow up the planet and they think that's a glorious idea because Russians go to heaven.
They are overdosed on Kool aid
I genuinely don't get why people believe Russia using a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine would prompt a military response.
Russia have killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians and caused hundreds of billions worth of damage to Ukraine. The West haven't intervened militarily. Why do you think NATO or the West would step in militarily just after Russia has literally demonstrated it's willing to use nuclear weapons against its enemies?
It would certainly galvanise the West and probably some neutrally minded nations against Russia but I absolutely do not believe it's a given to lead to military escalation.
A lot of the Russian talk is based on them getting nothing in return should they choose to drop a nuke on a Nato country. And I think deep down for all their big talk they know they would be annihilated should they continue down that path and drop one.
There's not much point bringing a knife to a gunfight.
If he uses the weapon in Ukraine and you attack his army there, regardless of how you do it, you can expect an attack on yourself
I think the whackjobs on state TV discussing dropping nuclear weapons is actually a good sign. It means they know they are losing the war in Ukraine and the nuclear option is pretty much all they have to fall back on. In other words, they know the game is up and that the "special operation" may well fail. All the nuclear stuff is just hot air and a desperate attempt at deflection.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I mean if Russia are crazy enough to deploy any kind of nuclear weapon in Ukraine then all bets are off really.
The whole premise of trying to avoid NATO and Russia directly involved in combat becomes an even bigger concern when Russia has shown its willingness to use nuclear weapons.
I dont think NATO would go anywhere near putting troops on the ground or forces in the air.
Absolutely, any sort of 'small' nuclear weapon used by Russia, would bring swift and immediate response from EU states / NATO and other allies. Conventional forces on the ground and in the air to demolish what remains of the Russian military in Ukraine. The scenarios and battle plans are surely in hand after two months to intervene at short notice.
Except we don't have 2,000 Javelins; we have "around 100" of them. And that number is likely to be closer to 50 than 100 since the army generally fires around two of them per year and we first started receiving them around 2002.
And contrary to what people might think our army do actually need to keep a few of them on hand for foreign deployments.
The anti-tank weapon we actually do have larger numbers of is the AT4. Of which Ukraine already has literally tens of thousands; and which is also comparable to various Soviet RPG systems and other anti-tank munitions Ukraine have been sent which again number well into the tens of thousands.
If people really want the Irish Defence Forces to send more aid to Ukraine then argue about sending armoured vehicles, trucks, off-road vehicles, whatever. Sending weapons isn't likely to make a huge difference and it also clearly and unequivocally violates any notion of military neutrality.
Speaking of the subs, I've recently read and watched a number of assessments on the state of the Russian ballistic missile submarine fleet by the likes of HI Sutton. Apparently, they are the focus of most of the attention and funds appropriated to the Russian Navy.
Whilst the majority of their SSBN fleet is made up of old Delta-IV class ballistic missile boats, these are generally believed to be in good shape, with proper maintenance and a pretty comprehensive number of training and patrol operations. Okay, technically, there's also a solitary Typhoon class boat still in operation, the Dmitry Donskoy, but she is mostly used as a testbed for the development of the RSM-56 Bulava ballistic missile, which is being introduced together with the new Borei class ballistic missile boats. The general assessment is that this force, despite being a generation behind their SSBN counterparts in western navies, generally operates at the same state of readiness, state of repair, and proficiency as their US and Royal Navy counterparts.
What's more, Russia is currently introducing a new class of ballistic missile submarine to replace the Delta-IVs, the Borei class. These boats are a full generation ahead of anything currently operated by western navies with regards to the technology and systems used onboard, at least until the US Columbia class and Royal Navy Dreadnought class ballistic missile boats enter service from the mid-2020s onwards. Six of these new boats have been completed, of which five are operational, with a sixth boat, Generalissimus Suvorov, currently working up before joining the Pacific Fleet later this year. A further four boats are currently under construction, with the final aim being a total of fourteen boats, likely split 50-50 between the Northern and Pacific Fleets.
Whatever scenarios people are contemplating with regards to nuclear weapons, it would be foolish not to assume that these ballistic missile submarines will be operational and able to respond to any launch order issued by the Kremlin, whatever the state of the land-based nuclear forces may be.
Delusion on 2 levels. Hard to top that.
I think in his world they're taking the Donbas at lightning speed. Everything is opposite, lightning = glacial and vice versa
A low yield weapon in a remote area wouldn't kill too many civilians. Especially if they'd evacuated. It'd cause less damage than the largest conventional weapons. That's the problems with those kind of weapons. They blur the lines.
Bush wanted to develop low yield "Bunker Busters" and there was huge pushback. Because even though they were less powerful than conventional weapons, they were still nukes. And people didn't want nukes to be used on any level. Once you use a very small one, what to stop you using one just a little bit bigger and so on.
Generally I'm against slippery slope arguments but when it starts and finishes with nukes, I'm ok with it.
I think that's why North Korea is doing this nuclear tests. They are able to produce them and show that they can, but I think it would be too costly to maintain them in a longer run. So it is just a show off. As well as this Satan 2 in case of Russia.
I'd say the state of their silo missiles would be a sorry state - but even they would surely ensure their nuclear subs were working.
I see the odd comment about the possible state of Russia's nuclear deterents what with the way the army is at the moment.
Back in the 1980s Thatcher was doing her nut at one stage thinking that US would even contemplate a nuclear deal with USSR, because the then Red Army was forecasted to be able to conquer Europe in months.
Nuclear was what was minding Western Europe.
The Red Army suffered a lot in Afghanistan and not sure it ever recovered, even as it morphed into basically the Russian army.
Russia has been a corrupt place since it's very creation and the breakdown of the Soviet Union.
That corruption has gotten even worse since Putin took over.
Now the big question is what state is the nuclear arsenal in.
It might not be great, but damn I still wouldn't want to test it.
But using nukes they would kill also those they allegedly wanted to liberate, so it would be difficult to spin it off
It's interesting to see that the old policy of punishing subordinates by sending them to the Russian Front is making a comeback. 😀
Not historical, of course, but here's a masterclass in threat delivery by Mr Neeson:
We said that about this war.
Anyway, China has a nuclear umbrella pact with Ukraine, if Ukraine is attacked by nuclear weapons China has to step in (whether they would honour the pact is another debate)
Don't know if this has been posted. This one envisages a nuclear strike and afterwards the Russians go to heaven. Pfff...
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1519622195877720065?s=20&t=N5I8uRUNJd4u5T_prjOiAA
I think the Ukrainians are sharing too much.
They got caught before through too much information on social media.
Actually the NVA fought pitched battles with the Americans.
It wasn't all this myth of just guerrilla tactics by the Viet Cong.
Khe Sanh was a good old fashioned siege ala Dien Bien Phu, except this time the Americans had the airpower to keep it.
The Viet Cong were obliterated in actual urban battles during the Tet offensive, so wasn't just hit and run.
The battle for Hue lasted over three weeks.
The Vietnamese didn't have tanks in the field nor air cover per say, and yes the Americans never officially invaded North Vietnam but by christ did they bomb it.
BTW here is little bit of trivia, the famous picture of the South Vietnamese officer executing the Viet Cong officer in Saigon, that helped define the war, was take during the Tet Offensive and the guy executed had by all accounts just executed a South Vietnamese officer, his wife, their 6 children and the officer's 80-year-old mother.
Yes, there's so many things they meddled with it's easy to forget one or two....
I'm not debating whether or not fracking is good or bad, the point here is that it was banned because russia wanted to. And since you mentioned nuclear, see above.
They can but most of the larger weapons would be noticed. However there's still bombs and even nuclear shells. The US developed them years ago but got rid of them. Maybe Russia has them? And there's the fact that
However when Putin says he'll retaliate with weapons that no-one else has he could be talking about biological or chemical or nuclear. He could even be talking about cyber attacks on critical infrastructure.
I'd imagine some people here are familiar with names like Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear. They're state affiliated Russian hacking groups. And they've done serious damage in the past. Fancy Bear have even hacked Ukrainian artillery. And another russian criminal group attacked the HSE. They aren't "State affiliated" but I'd imagine that there's some kind of communication between them. Who knows what they have up their sleeves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear#Ukrainian_artillery
If the Russians said it was Friday i'd check the calendar.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
