Is Ukraine about to have a war?
The Problem with TNW's
If using a TNW is the answer, then the guys(girls... other) are asking the wrong question.
If the question is how to stop something, TNW's don't do that, they demand a response. That response doesn't have to be MAD immediately, but MAD is certainly closer to an outcome following the deliberate employment of a TNW or NBC.
If the question is to escalate to deescalate, then again it is not the answer, as it absolutely demands a response, and that response has to be such to be a deterrent to the next 2 kopek tyrant that gets their hand on a few rusty old warheads and has malcontent and evil in their heart.
If the question is to defend against an existential threat, then again, it is not the answer, it brings on a response that will lead to that outcome being accelerated.
In the last case, there is no existential threat to Russia, commentary follows:
The use of a TNW doesn't have any obvious (there may be wild ass plays) outcome that doesn't include a massive and substantial response. That response is well within the NATO, US and Western defence capability to be given, to Russia's criminal presence in Ukraine, including the Crimea. They also make the United Nations either utterly irrelevant as it is established, (which led to NATO due to the limitations) or it obliges the UN to invoke the Article 27(3).
An abstaining member of the permanent security council has no veto authority....
Restated:" This means that in any non-procedural matter, a decision is made if two criteria are met. First, nine of the Council’s fifteen members must vote in favor of the resolution. Second, none of the P5 must vote “no”. A P5 member can show its disapproval either by abstaining from a vote or by voting no, effectively making a decision impossible. In other words, a P5 member cannot vote no and still allow the decision to pass. For the P5 a no vote and a veto are one and the same". [P5 refers to the 5 permanent members of the UNSC] In this case, a No by a P5 member defeats any resolution. HOWEVER, where they abstain voluntarily they are showing disapproval, but that does not defeat the motion. Where they "shall abstain" they have no means to give a "No" vote and therefore they cannot veto any resolution. China is the wild card, and is not happy with Vlad, and has problems of their own that being friendly with the 95% of their trading partners that are not Russia may have some weight .
Is Russia a party to a conflict in Ukraine? Only one country has declared an intent to nuke another recently, that is a threat, which the UN Charter also considers as a matter of bad behaviour by a signatory state, so yes, irrespective of the "eloquent and insincere rhetoric" (AKA "BULL$HI!T") describing a criminal war of aggression as a "Special Military Operation.... ".
Is this correct? Recall the UN action in Korea, 1950? Russia was out to lunch and did not vote, they abstained by their actions to boycott the UN. That was defined as a voluntary abstention. Today, they are assuredly a party to the dispute in Ukraine, and have no right to vote on any related matter. How would China vote? Right now, they are not happy with the actions of Russia, and their rice bowl is being messed with. They may surprise. However, China is not a member of NATO, well not yet. They have no say on what NATO perceives to be an armed attack on a NATO state. Nordstream 1 & 2 may actually be considered to be that. The threats made towards the UK, and Baltic states by Vlad recently would suggest that Vlad is getting pretty desperate to expedite the termination of his term in office.
Not responding globally to an aggressive use of a WMD which a TNW is, would be an invitation for all rational nations to get their own stockpiles prepared, and where they are on hand, to use them to settle current grievances, as there is no downside. That is an invitation to the front seat of the demise of civilisation.
NATO is in a unique situation, where they are very close to and may have already been technically drawn into an article 5 condition this week. A simple and prompt change of situation arises from an emergency meeting of NATO (there isn't one already???) and consideration of admitting Ukraine immediately as a NATO member, or affording Article 5 protection to circumvent the threatened actions by Russia. Is that possible? Turkey may actually accept that now, they stand to lose with any further escalation in their backyard, particularly ones that involve nuclear weapons. Expect in all cases that Lloyds and other insurance underwriters are furiously determining how many cancellations of hull cover will be forthcoming; they will not accept anything in the Black Sea being an insurance risk, so shipping will cease going through the Bosphorus, that happens to portend a famine in N Africa and in the Middle East as a foreseeable consequence. More wheels to come off wagons there. Hungary is the anomaly in the heart of NATO at present, their government has a strong leaning towards Putin and his cretins at present, and that brings up the fundamental problem with NATO membership; it requires unanimity, and there is no means to avoid a recalcitrant individual state with the current charter. Hungary has no means to stop other NATO country actions however, so if Nordstream 1 is considered to have been an armed attack (demo charges) against a NATO state (the line was in part owned by Germany... and was a supply to Germany of national needs under a contract... ) then NATO rolling gear into Ukraine to support Ukraine could be seen as a defensive response. Not ideal but not impossible.
Vlad will chose some other option, and we will be surprised, but popping off a TNW will not occur without requiring a severe response, whatever form that incorporates. It is not going to be limited to a sharply worded letter to Lavrov, Mishustin, Medvedev, or Vlad; reading doesn't seem to be in their skill set, given their inability to colour within the lines of all of the treaties that Russia scribbles over like a blind drunk that fell into a vat of Smirnoff's antifreeze mixture.
Gonna be an interesting few days ahead.
Military Aviation: There is not much doubt that there is sufficient TLAM, and B-52's B-2's and F-35s to get a message to every Russian helmet and piece of gear that is currently illegally parked in Eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Apparently the sortie rate and accuracy that was shown in the sand pit in 1991 and 2003 didn't get any airtime in the USSR/CIS. Target intel is rather better than that today, and the IQ of the smart weapons has taken lots of remediation.
If the question is how to stop something, TNW's don't do that, they demand a response. That response doesn't have to be MAD immediately, but MAD is certainly closer to an outcome following the deliberate employment of a TNW or NBC.
If the question is to escalate to deescalate, then again it is not the answer, as it absolutely demands a response, and that response has to be such to be a deterrent to the next 2 kopek tyrant that gets their hand on a few rusty old warheads and has malcontent and evil in their heart.
If the question is to defend against an existential threat, then again, it is not the answer, it brings on a response that will lead to that outcome being accelerated.
In the last case, there is no existential threat to Russia, commentary follows:
Spoiler
An abstaining member of the permanent security council has no veto authority....
Spoiler
Restated:" This means that in any non-procedural matter, a decision is made if two criteria are met. First, nine of the Council’s fifteen members must vote in favor of the resolution. Second, none of the P5 must vote “no”. A P5 member can show its disapproval either by abstaining from a vote or by voting no, effectively making a decision impossible. In other words, a P5 member cannot vote no and still allow the decision to pass. For the P5 a no vote and a veto are one and the same". [P5 refers to the 5 permanent members of the UNSC] In this case, a No by a P5 member defeats any resolution. HOWEVER, where they abstain voluntarily they are showing disapproval, but that does not defeat the motion. Where they "shall abstain" they have no means to give a "No" vote and therefore they cannot veto any resolution. China is the wild card, and is not happy with Vlad, and has problems of their own that being friendly with the 95% of their trading partners that are not Russia may have some weight .
Is Russia a party to a conflict in Ukraine? Only one country has declared an intent to nuke another recently, that is a threat, which the UN Charter also considers as a matter of bad behaviour by a signatory state, so yes, irrespective of the "eloquent and insincere rhetoric" (AKA "BULL$HI!T") describing a criminal war of aggression as a "Special Military Operation.... ".
Is this correct? Recall the UN action in Korea, 1950? Russia was out to lunch and did not vote, they abstained by their actions to boycott the UN. That was defined as a voluntary abstention. Today, they are assuredly a party to the dispute in Ukraine, and have no right to vote on any related matter. How would China vote? Right now, they are not happy with the actions of Russia, and their rice bowl is being messed with. They may surprise. However, China is not a member of NATO, well not yet. They have no say on what NATO perceives to be an armed attack on a NATO state. Nordstream 1 & 2 may actually be considered to be that. The threats made towards the UK, and Baltic states by Vlad recently would suggest that Vlad is getting pretty desperate to expedite the termination of his term in office.
Not responding globally to an aggressive use of a WMD which a TNW is, would be an invitation for all rational nations to get their own stockpiles prepared, and where they are on hand, to use them to settle current grievances, as there is no downside. That is an invitation to the front seat of the demise of civilisation.
NATO is in a unique situation, where they are very close to and may have already been technically drawn into an article 5 condition this week. A simple and prompt change of situation arises from an emergency meeting of NATO (there isn't one already???) and consideration of admitting Ukraine immediately as a NATO member, or affording Article 5 protection to circumvent the threatened actions by Russia. Is that possible? Turkey may actually accept that now, they stand to lose with any further escalation in their backyard, particularly ones that involve nuclear weapons. Expect in all cases that Lloyds and other insurance underwriters are furiously determining how many cancellations of hull cover will be forthcoming; they will not accept anything in the Black Sea being an insurance risk, so shipping will cease going through the Bosphorus, that happens to portend a famine in N Africa and in the Middle East as a foreseeable consequence. More wheels to come off wagons there. Hungary is the anomaly in the heart of NATO at present, their government has a strong leaning towards Putin and his cretins at present, and that brings up the fundamental problem with NATO membership; it requires unanimity, and there is no means to avoid a recalcitrant individual state with the current charter. Hungary has no means to stop other NATO country actions however, so if Nordstream 1 is considered to have been an armed attack (demo charges) against a NATO state (the line was in part owned by Germany... and was a supply to Germany of national needs under a contract... ) then NATO rolling gear into Ukraine to support Ukraine could be seen as a defensive response. Not ideal but not impossible.
Vlad will chose some other option, and we will be surprised, but popping off a TNW will not occur without requiring a severe response, whatever form that incorporates. It is not going to be limited to a sharply worded letter to Lavrov, Mishustin, Medvedev, or Vlad; reading doesn't seem to be in their skill set, given their inability to colour within the lines of all of the treaties that Russia scribbles over like a blind drunk that fell into a vat of Smirnoff's antifreeze mixture.
Gonna be an interesting few days ahead.
Military Aviation: There is not much doubt that there is sufficient TLAM, and B-52's B-2's and F-35s to get a message to every Russian helmet and piece of gear that is currently illegally parked in Eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Apparently the sortie rate and accuracy that was shown in the sand pit in 1991 and 2003 didn't get any airtime in the USSR/CIS. Target intel is rather better than that today, and the IQ of the smart weapons has taken lots of remediation.
Last edited by T28B; 2nd Oct 2022 at 15:36. Reason: decluttered
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
I still think the Kerch bridge is the answer, with Russia having lost the rail system and the ability to resource their forces in the Lyman and Kharkiv regions, cutting Crimea and its supply routes off from Ukraine it would put a stranglehold on Russias forces.
The rail line at least needs a stern interdicting, for being naughty; even if the road is avoided for now. Don't mind if the Russians can't take their garbage out, but not being able to bring munitions in would be a good thing.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Real in the bunker tone to his latest broadcast. If that’s reflective of the general mood….
The mood of Russia's top propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov in this clip can be summed up as "Hello darkness, my old friend." He demands some victories and complains that people are running away from Russia. He also sighs. A lot.
The mood of Russia's top propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov in this clip can be summed up as "Hello darkness, my old friend." He demands some victories and complains that people are running away from Russia. He also sighs. A lot.
Just seen that Russia has used an artillery strike against civilians fleeing Zaporizhzhia, 23 people killed including young children. Supposedly the column of refugees leaves everyday to cross into Ukrainian held territory.
(Don't search for it on Twitter, the pixilated images are horrific - it came onto my feed from someone I follow).
Perhaps its time for a signal to Russia that murder on a grand scale is going to be punished.
The UN should be recalled and Russia thrown off the Security Council, while an unexplained event should happen within ATACAMS full range, like the destruction of a big bridge, of a major rail hub, a ten ship strike on a Russian Artillery division followed by hours of HIMARs strikes to litterly wipe the feckers into history.
Everyone is banging on about this Russian tactic of 'Escalate to De-escalate' which is playing into Putes hands. The West should escalate in a hidden way by sinking several Russian Boomers and put out a press release - "What happened? Oh dear, how sad, never mind."
(Don't search for it on Twitter, the pixilated images are horrific - it came onto my feed from someone I follow).
Perhaps its time for a signal to Russia that murder on a grand scale is going to be punished.
The UN should be recalled and Russia thrown off the Security Council, while an unexplained event should happen within ATACAMS full range, like the destruction of a big bridge, of a major rail hub, a ten ship strike on a Russian Artillery division followed by hours of HIMARs strikes to litterly wipe the feckers into history.
Everyone is banging on about this Russian tactic of 'Escalate to De-escalate' which is playing into Putes hands. The West should escalate in a hidden way by sinking several Russian Boomers and put out a press release - "What happened? Oh dear, how sad, never mind."
The West should escalate in a hidden way by sinking several Russian Boomers and put out a press release - "What happened? Oh dear, how sad, never mind."
Destroy the rail link of the Kerch bridge, and major rail hubs, plus striking any rail links from Russia into Donbas or Crimea into Zaporizhia would be a legitimate and effective response.
Removing Russia for the UN SC would also be legal and appropriate.
If the question is how to stop something, TNW's don't do that, they demand a response. That response doesn't have to be MAD immediately, but MAD is certainly closer to an outcome following the deliberate employment of a TNW or NBC.
If the question is to escalate to deescalate, then again it is not the answer, as it absolutely demands a response, and that response has to be such to be a deterrent to the next 2 kopek tyrant that gets their hand on a few rusty old warheads and has malcontent and evil in their heart.
If the question is to defend against an existential threat, then again, it is not the answer, it brings on a response that will lead to that outcome being accelerated.
If the question is to escalate to deescalate, then again it is not the answer, as it absolutely demands a response, and that response has to be such to be a deterrent to the next 2 kopek tyrant that gets their hand on a few rusty old warheads and has malcontent and evil in their heart.
If the question is to defend against an existential threat, then again, it is not the answer, it brings on a response that will lead to that outcome being accelerated.
I agree that a single tactical nuke would change very little militarily and would only be used as a means to force a diplomatic resolution. Of course Biden and others have stated (rightly so) that any such use couldn't go unanswered, so where does this leave Russia? How would they in return respond to a NATO likely conventional strike - some direct action against a NATO target or member state? So then we will definitely into Article V territory. Putin - along with the rest of us - must be uncertain how this will play out and is likely also fearful it could spiral out of control, with devastating consequences for Russia in particular, given they'll likely be on the back-foot in any wider conflict.
I'll say it again - the role of China is critical here. They've stated publicly that any use of WMD is unacceptable. I contend that Putin is probably more worried about losing them as an ally than he his about his forces in Ukraine being swept aside by NATO.
The attack on NS1 was noteworthy in that it demonstrates that, despite his rhetoric, Putin is still wary of doing anything too overt or within the territory of a NATO member state. Its pretty apparent they carried out the attack, but the absence of any response from the west (other than yet more sanctions) must be infuriating for him: "When will they back down??"
Another thought. In response to Putin's annexation to Ukraine's territories, perhaps NATO should declare that the rest of Ukraine a NATO protectorate or safe haven, and move its forces in to assist with its defence? Putin couldn't argue with this, could he? It would be hypocritical if he did.
Sanctions would continue in perpetuity, and Putin could kiss goodbye forever to his ambitions in Europe.
Sanctions would continue in perpetuity, and Putin could kiss goodbye forever to his ambitions in Europe.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
“Enjoy whatever time you have left before the nuclear apocalypse, otherwise it would a shame”
Just another day on Russian TV…..
Just another day on Russian TV…..
In my opinion, the use of a nuclear weapon is an admission of failure, military failure, international diplomatic failure and political failure. I'm not sure that Putin would see it like that, I believe that his focus now is on his survival and by extension the survival of the Russian Federation, any threat to that could trigger a nuclear escalation. That really only leaves the option of a military defeat outside his borders and/or his political defeat inside his borders. The latter would probably end the war in Ukraine, but only if his successor(s) have a suitable spin for their population. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any visible progress in this direction but that doesn't mean that it's not happening. I hope that Russia's 'non aligned' friends are taking and giving appropriate advice and counsel.
I'd suggest that re-locating his forces away from Kyiv in the early days of the war was an admission of failure, as were the war crimes in the occupied regions, the terror strikes against civilian cities, and the mobilisation of 300,000 untrained civilians/reservists when his supposedly modern and well equipped army had failed to achieve his objectives. In fact, the entire conduct of Russia's war has been an admission of Putin's failure, but that hasn't stopped him from escalating previously and doubt it will do so this time.
Regarding what NATO would do in case of Putler tossing nukes.
Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said in an interview with Polish radio RMF FM that NATO would have a conventional response to a possible Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine.
Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said in an interview with Polish radio RMF FM that NATO would have a conventional response to a possible Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just to make the obvious point that whilst Russia has nukes, Belarus doesn’t.
In which case allied nations. (It doesn’t have to be NATO)) should make it clear they have UKR’s back and, if Belarus armed forces attack, they will use all weapons available to destroy them.
In which case allied nations. (It doesn’t have to be NATO)) should make it clear they have UKR’s back and, if Belarus armed forces attack, they will use all weapons available to destroy them.
I feel sure that in both diplomatic and also back channels to the Belarus government, ORAC's point will have been made in spades.
How the armed forces of Belarus will respond to an order to invade Ukraine, from the military generals down to the enlisted men is another unknown, both to us and probably to president Lukashenko.
And I wonder if the three Su30SM aircraft which arrived in Belarus were part of an attack force or a desertion. In this war you can never be sure...
How the armed forces of Belarus will respond to an order to invade Ukraine, from the military generals down to the enlisted men is another unknown, both to us and probably to president Lukashenko.
And I wonder if the three Su30SM aircraft which arrived in Belarus were part of an attack force or a desertion. In this war you can never be sure...
And I wonder if the three Su30SM aircraft which arrived in Belarus were part of an attack force or a desertion. In this war you can never be sure...
"Norway to deploy military to protect its oil and gas installations against possible sabotage following the Nord Stream pipeline attacks."
Link:
Link: