Russia Invades Ukraine

[Konrad von Carstein]

1 hour ago, Sawdust Caesar said:

This is great, Solovyov is one of the Kremlin mouthpieces who in the past has accused others of cowardice but he has been served call-up papers and is shitting himself. He gets called out on his own show and takes a hissy fit.

It's fake... unfortunately.

[Pap]

Good to see Serbia refusing to recognise the votes.

[redjambo]

Putin is being progressively cornered. As are the Russian troops in Lyman. The Nord Stream pipelines may be fiendishly difficult and expensive to repair. Citizens are fleeing Russia, recruitment centres are being attacked around the country, and his new recruits will be cannon fodder. The US Embassy in Russia has just issued a security alert for American citizens in the country, telling them to leave immediately if they can. If Putin is going to do something stupid, he's going to do it very shortly, and if he looks like doing so, I just hope there is enough opposition in the country to usurp him before he does.

[Pap]

18 more HIMARS on their way over

[ScotsAndy]

Just to be absolutely clear  - the video purporting to show Solovyof being drafted has incorrect translated text on it - presumably somebody having a bit of a laugh.  The actual conversation is them having a form of debate about the de-merits of trying to draft inexperienced members of the public rather than ensuring they draft experienced ex military with experience.  It would be brilliant if they had called up the plonker as he is one of the most distateful persons on the planet in my opinion !

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, Pap said:

18 more HIMARS on their way over

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

 

Would come in handy round my way on bonfire night.

[Mister T]

23 minutes ago, ScotsAndy said:

Just to be absolutely clear  - the video purporting to show Solovyof being drafted has incorrect translated text on it - presumably somebody having a bit of a laugh.  The actual conversation is them having a form of debate about the de-merits of trying to draft inexperienced members of the public rather than ensuring they draft experienced ex military with experience.  It would be brilliant if they had called up the plonker as he is one of the most distateful persons on the planet in my opinion !

Well that's disappointing. on more than one level

[Watt-Zeefuik]

The Nordstream explosions are a head-scratcher. There's no national actor for who has the right combination of capability, rational motive, and recklessness that it makes sense for them to have done this. Russia's gas exports are keeping it alive financially, and it's the prime piece of leverage it has over places like Germany, why would it blow that up and make its exports dependent on a pipeline running through Ukraine? Why would Ukraine deliberately weaken an ally by pushing it into an even bigger energy crisis?

 

The ones who benefit the most financially from this are probably China and India, as it probably decreases their costs for getting gas, but even if one of them managed to get a sub into the Baltic, would they be so rash as to risk infuriating everyone with this? I suppose in Europe Norway benefits the most, now becoming Europe's primary gas supplier, but blowing up two pipelines to get there doesn't seem likely. Even in my most cynical views of the US I can't work out any reason for this to be some kind of CIA sabotage job. Our LNG export facilities are already operating at capacity, it's not like this benefits us, and of course it weakens our closest allies.

 

The best I can muddle up is that it was for some kind if intra-state conflict, like a rogue Norwegian extremist trying to buff up his country, or an oligarch who's in an internal fight with the leaders of Gazprom. I'm sure actual experts have a better idea of this, but from the armchair, nothing makes much sense.

[redjambo]

30 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

The Nordstream explosions are a head-scratcher. There's no national actor for who has the right combination of capability, rational motive, and recklessness that it makes sense for them to have done this. Russia's gas exports are keeping it alive financially, and it's the prime piece of leverage it has over places like Germany, why would it blow that up and make its exports dependent on a pipeline running through Ukraine? Why would Ukraine deliberately weaken an ally by pushing it into an even bigger energy crisis?

 

The ones who benefit the most financially from this are probably China and India, as it probably decreases their costs for getting gas, but even if one of them managed to get a sub into the Baltic, would they be so rash as to risk infuriating everyone with this? I suppose in Europe Norway benefits the most, now becoming Europe's primary gas supplier, but blowing up two pipelines to get there doesn't seem likely. Even in my most cynical views of the US I can't work out any reason for this to be some kind of CIA sabotage job. Our LNG export facilities are already operating at capacity, it's not like this benefits us, and of course it weakens our closest allies.

 

The best I can muddle up is that it was for some kind if intra-state conflict, like a rogue Norwegian extremist trying to buff up his country, or an oligarch who's in an internal fight with the leaders of Gazprom. I'm sure actual experts have a better idea of this, but from the armchair, nothing makes much sense.

 

It is indeed a puzzler, LT. Russia has requested a UNSC meeting on Friday to discuss the issue. It will be interesting to see what they say. It is strange though that they're not more upset than they seem to be.

 

Edit: Ok, here's one theory off the top of my head. Putin and his pals have got wind of a plot to overthrow them by a faction in Russia who would be supported by the West in return for them retreating from Ukraine, paying compensation, and providing gas through both Nord Stream pipes to alleviate the West's energy problems. Putin had already decided that Nord Stream 1 wouldn't restart operations and that Nord Stream 2 wouldn't be activated, so decided to blow up the pipes in order to make the faction's agreement with the West unviable and take the steam out of their possible usurpation.

Edited September 28, 2022 by redjambo

[ArcticJambo]

High stakes russian roulette, they better be goddam sure they played (are playing) this out right!

[Sooks]

10 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

A vile excuse for a human 

[Mikey1874]

38 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

High stakes russian roulette, they better be goddam sure they played (are playing) this out right!

 

The big worry is escalation as Putin has to 'win'. 

 

The big hope is while Ukraine strengthens, Russian forces get bogged down including the untrained new recruits. Then probably things mostly stop for winter. 

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The big worry is escalation as Putin has to 'win'. 

 

The big hope is while Ukraine strengthens, Russian forces get bogged down including the untrained new recruits. Then probably things mostly stop for winter. 

 

Highly unlikely, imo. The more time Russia has, the more it can consolidate its position and entrench its defences. See how difficult it is, for example, on the flank on the west border of Donetsk for the Ukrainians to make any progress - the Russians have had since 2014 to create a stronghold on the borders of the LPR, the DPR and, presumably, the northern border of Crimea. The Ukrainians won't want to let up the fight for a minute, despite colder climes.

Edited September 28, 2022 by redjambo

[the posh bit]

8 hours ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

It's fake... unfortunately.

 

I can't believe people thought otherwise. 

[trotter]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

The Nordstream explosions are a head-scratcher. There's no national actor for who has the right combination of capability, rational motive, and recklessness that it makes sense for them to have done this. Russia's gas exports are keeping it alive financially, and it's the prime piece of leverage it has over places like Germany, why would it blow that up and make its exports dependent on a pipeline running through Ukraine? Why would Ukraine deliberately weaken an ally by pushing it into an even bigger energy crisis?

 

The ones who benefit the most financially from this are probably China and India, as it probably decreases their costs for getting gas, but even if one of them managed to get a sub into the Baltic, would they be so rash as to risk infuriating everyone with this? I suppose in Europe Norway benefits the most, now becoming Europe's primary gas supplier, but blowing up two pipelines to get there doesn't seem likely. Even in my most cynical views of the US I can't work out any reason for this to be some kind of CIA sabotage job. Our LNG export facilities are already operating at capacity, it's not like this benefits us, and of course it weakens our closest allies.

 

The best I can muddle up is that it was for some kind if intra-state conflict, like a rogue Norwegian extremist trying to buff up his country, or an oligarch who's in an internal fight with the leaders of Gazprom. I'm sure actual experts have a better idea of this, but from the armchair, nothing makes much sense.

Those pipelines are done. They won't be getting repaired anytime soon. As soon as the internal gas pressure drops below the external pressure imposed by the height of water above the seabed (1 bar of pressure roughly equals 10 m of water depth), the water will flood the pipelines. You are then faced with the very unenviable task of repairing them, pressure testing them, then dewatering and drying them before final inspections. For pipelines that diameter and length it is not an easy job - it'll be easier if they have frequent block valves to isolate sections of the lines, but i'm not sure if they do or not. The last subsea pipeline I commissioned back in 2017/18 (24" and 7 km) took almost 2 months to dry fully. You can't put gas into a pipeline that contains any real quantity of water as the gas will absorb it and 1) put it out of spec for the end consumer but more seriously 2) you run the risk of creating gas hydrates ('fire ice' - youtube it, it's cool), which will freeze solid and block the pipeline completely. 

IF, and it's a big if, they do decide to repair them. We are talking months, if not years as well as multi, multi-million pounds to do so. 

Fully agree it doesn't seem to make sense, this has got scorched earth policy written all over it for me. Similar to Saddam and the Kuwaiti oil fields back in 1990.

Edited September 28, 2022 by trotter

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, trotter said:

Those pipelines are done. They won't be getting repaired anytime soon. As soon as the internal gas pressure drops below the external pressure imposed by the height of water above the seabed (1 bar of pressure roughly equals 10 m of water depth), the water will flood the pipelines. You are then faced with the very unenviable task of repairing them, pressure testing them, then dewatering and drying them before final inspections. For pipelines that diameter and length it is not an easy job - it'll be easier of they have frequent block valves to isolate sections of the lines, but i'm not sure if they do or not. The last subsea pipeline I commissioned back in 2017/18 (24" and 7 km) took almost 2 months to dry fully. You can't put gas into a pipeline that contains any real quantity of water as the gas will absorb it and put it out of spec for the end consumer. 

IF, and it's a big if, they do decide to repair them. We are talking months, if not years as well as multi, multi-million pounds to do so. 

Fully agree it doesn't seem to make sense, this has got scorched earth policy written all over it for me. Similar to Saddam and the Kuwaiti oil fields back in 1990.

 

As far as I know, both pipelines had gas in them, even Nord Stream 2 in anticipation of its eventual operation. Would it have been possible for someone at the European end to suck a fair quantity of that gas out of them? Given the length of both pipelines, would this have amounted to much gas? Just considering another outré theory that Putin had decided that under his regime, not a cubic metre more gas would be passing through the pipelines, and they were blown up partially to stop the Europeans sucking up what was left in them. I await to be lambasted with science.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

22 minutes ago, trotter said:

Those pipelines are done. They won't be getting repaired anytime soon. As soon as the internal gas pressure drops below the external pressure imposed by the height of water above the seabed (1 bar of pressure roughly equals 10 m of water depth), the water will flood the pipelines. You are then faced with the very unenviable task of repairing them, pressure testing them, then dewatering and drying them before final inspections. For pipelines that diameter and length it is not an easy job - it'll be easier if they have frequent block valves to isolate sections of the lines, but i'm not sure if they do or not. The last subsea pipeline I commissioned back in 2017/18 (24" and 7 km) took almost 2 months to dry fully. You can't put gas into a pipeline that contains any real quantity of water as the gas will absorb it and 1) put it out of spec for the end consumer but more seriously 2) you run the risk of creating gas hydrates ('fire ice' - youtube it, it's cool), which will freeze solid and block the pipeline completely. 

IF, and it's a big if, they do decide to repair them. We are talking months, if not years as well as multi, multi-million pounds to do so. 

Fully agree it doesn't seem to make sense, this has got scorched earth policy written all over it for me. Similar to Saddam and the Kuwaiti oil fields back in 1990.

 

Cheers, thanks for the informed response!

 

Some have pointed out that Russia seems pretty calm about it. It may be that they've done the math and decided that they don't really need to sell to Europe after all, and that they have plenty of demand from China and India, so this was just a way of blowing up their contracts, so to speak.

 

15 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

As far as I know, both pipelines had gas in them, even Nord Stream 2 in anticipation of its eventual operation. Would it have been possible for someone at the European end to suck a fair quantity of that gas out of them? Given the length of both pipelines, would this have amounted to much gas? Just considering another outré theory that Putin had decided that under his regime, not a cubic metre more gas would be passing through the pipelines, and they were blown up partially to stop the Europeans sucking up what was left in them. I await to be lambasted with science.

 

TMK while it sounds like a lot and you certainly don't want to let it into the atmosphere or dissolve it in the ocean, the amount of methane in that pipeline was a pittance, certainly compared to the amount of money they've forgone by blowing them up.

[trotter]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

As far as I know, both pipelines had gas in them, even Nord Stream 2 in anticipation of its eventual operation. Would it have been possible for someone at the European end to suck a fair quantity of that gas out of them? Given the length of both pipelines, would this have amounted to much gas? Just considering another outré theory that Putin had decided that under his regime, not a cubic metre more gas would be passing through the pipelines, and they were blown up partially to stop the Europeans sucking up what was left in them. I await to be lambasted with science.

 

Entirely possible, but depends on the capacity of the compressor(s) that is doing the sucking. 

 

Some quick fag packet calculations: (48" pipeline, 1,200 km length, pressurized to 100 barg) gives 140 million standard cubic meters of gas. To put that in perspective, the entire UK daily gas consumption is about 220, so in other words all the gas leaking from just one of the pipelines could supply us entirely for roughly 12 hours. Or for a visual example, it's the energy equivalent contained within a Q-Max size LNG carrier. 

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by trotter

[John Gentleman]

4 hours ago, trotter said:

Those pipelines are done. They won't be getting repaired anytime soon. As soon as the internal gas pressure drops below the external pressure imposed by the height of water above the seabed (1 bar of pressure roughly equals 10 m of water depth), the water will flood the pipelines. You are then faced with the very unenviable task of repairing them, pressure testing them, then dewatering and drying them before final inspections. For pipelines that diameter and length it is not an easy job - it'll be easier if they have frequent block valves to isolate sections of the lines, but i'm not sure if they do or not. The last subsea pipeline I commissioned back in 2017/18 (24" and 7 km) took almost 2 months to dry fully. You can't put gas into a pipeline that contains any real quantity of water as the gas will absorb it and 1) put it out of spec for the end consumer but more seriously 2) you run the risk of creating gas hydrates ('fire ice' - youtube it, it's cool), which will freeze solid and block the pipeline completely. 

IF, and it's a big if, they do decide to repair them. We are talking months, if not years as well as multi, multi-million pounds to do so. 

Fully agree it doesn't seem to make sense, this has got scorched earth policy written all over it for me. Similar to Saddam and the Kuwaiti oil fields back in 1990.

Indeed. Irrational actors do irrational things. 

[redjambo]

4 hours ago, trotter said:

 

Entirely possible, but depends on the capacity of the compressor(s) that is doing the sucking. 

 

Some quick fag packet calculations: (48" pipeline, 1,200 km length, pressurized to 100 barg) gives 140 million standard cubic meters of gas. To put that in perspective, the entire UK daily gas consumption is about 220, so in other words all the gas leaking from just one of the pipelines could supply us entirely for roughly 12 hours. Or for a visual example, it's the energy equivalent contained within a Q-Max size LNG carrier. 

 

 

Brilliant, thanks for that, trotter. I was interested to read last night that the Nord Stream pipelines were built in three separate sections with different thicknesses, the section nearest Russia being thicker since the gas pressure decreases from Russia towards Germany, and the section nearest Germany being the thinnest. You asked the question about block valves. Perhaps there could be block valves between those three different sections, but that of course wouldn't isolate that little of the pipeline in the case of an explosion and seawater ingress.

[trotter]

22 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Brilliant, thanks for that, trotter. I was interested to read last night that the Nord Stream pipelines were built in three separate sections with different thicknesses, the section nearest Russia being thicker since the gas pressure decreases from Russia towards Germany, and the section nearest Germany being the thinnest. You asked the question about block valves. Perhaps there could be block valves between those three different sections, but that of course wouldn't isolate that little of the pipeline in the case of an explosion and seawater ingress.

I didn't know that, but would make sense. Laying subsea pipelines is an expensive business so any unnecessary costs are always good to chop. Block valves will let you isolate sections and minimize the leak, but what they really need is the connections to install PIG launchers/receivers. PIGs (pipeline inspection gauges, but also because they squeal as they travel down a pipe) are essentially plugs or spheres that are expanded to completely fill the internal diameter of the pipe. You then use the contents of the pipe (in this case natural gas) to push the plug from one end of the pipe to the other, pushing debris/liquids in front of it as it goes. It's really the only efficient way of removing large quantities of liquids. If they don't have them at regular intervals, then a design engineer needs shooting, and they will have to push one the entire 1,200 km, and that won't be a particularly fun or easy job. 

EDIT: looks like it's only one at either end. Jesus, this will be some mess to clean up, especially as you need to treat/dispose of all that water as well...

 

https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img86.html
https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img80.html

Edited September 29, 2022 by trotter

[John Gentleman]

It turns out that Nord I and II each comprised two pipelines (four all-up), of which one remains intact. I guess the question is, was it left intact deliberately, or is it a booby-trap?

[Sawdust Caesar]

18 hours ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

It's fake... unfortunately.

 

13 hours ago, ScotsAndy said:

Just to be absolutely clear  - the video purporting to show Solovyof being drafted has incorrect translated text on it - presumably somebody having a bit of a laugh.  The actual conversation is them having a form of debate about the de-merits of trying to draft inexperienced members of the public rather than ensuring they draft experienced ex military with experience.  It would be brilliant if they had called up the plonker as he is one of the most distateful persons on the planet in my opinion !

 Yeah, it's all made up, apologies to JKB for posting fake news. My mate said there was no way he would get conscripted but seen as he's ex-military I thought it might be true given they have called up some ex-soldier in his 50s who had suffered a stroke ( I think). Oh well, at least it gave me a laugh for a couple of minutes.

[Konrad von Carstein]

1 minute ago, Sawdust Caesar said:

 

 Yeah, it's all made up, apologies to JKB for posting fake news. My mate said there was no way he would get conscripted but seen as he's ex-military I thought it might be true given they have called up some ex-soldier in his 50s who had suffered a stroke ( I think). Oh well, at least it gave me a laugh for a couple of minutes.

Wasn't meant to be a put down, I only found out as I read the subsequent thread on Twitter.

[Japan Jambo]

12 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

The Nordstream explosions are a head-scratcher. There's no national actor for who has the right combination of capability, rational motive, and recklessness that it makes sense for them to have done this. Russia's gas exports are keeping it alive financially, and it's the prime piece of leverage it has over places like Germany, why would it blow that up and make its exports dependent on a pipeline running through Ukraine? Why would Ukraine deliberately weaken an ally by pushing it into an even bigger energy crisis?

 

The ones who benefit the most financially from this are probably China and India, as it probably decreases their costs for getting gas, but even if one of them managed to get a sub into the Baltic, would they be so rash as to risk infuriating everyone with this? I suppose in Europe Norway benefits the most, now becoming Europe's primary gas supplier, but blowing up two pipelines to get there doesn't seem likely. Even in my most cynical views of the US I can't work out any reason for this to be some kind of CIA sabotage job. Our LNG export facilities are already operating at capacity, it's not like this benefits us, and of course it weakens our closest allies.

 

The best I can muddle up is that it was for some kind if intra-state conflict, like a rogue Norwegian extremist trying to buff up his country, or an oligarch who's in an internal fight with the leaders of Gazprom. I'm sure actual experts have a better idea of this, but from the armchair, nothing makes much sense.

 

One could posit that this completely removes any potential option of Germany doing a 180 in two months time when German industry is shut down and pensioners are dying of cold as a result of energy shortages...

[Sawdust Caesar]

4 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Wasn't meant to be a put down, I only found out as I read the subsequent thread on Twitter.

That's okay, mate, I didn't take it that way and apologies if my post looked like I was snapping back. I'm more than happy for someone to let me know I've posted something that isn't true. My red face will cool down in due course. 

[Dawnrazor]

25 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

One could posit that this completely removes any potential option of Germany doing a 180 in two months time when German industry is shut down and pensioners are dying of cold as a result of energy shortages...

Good point.

[AlphonseCapone]

14 hours ago, ScotsAndy said:

Just to be absolutely clear  - the video purporting to show Solovyof being drafted has incorrect translated text on it - presumably somebody having a bit of a laugh.  The actual conversation is them having a form of debate about the de-merits of trying to draft inexperienced members of the public rather than ensuring they draft experienced ex military with experience.  It would be brilliant if they had called up the plonker as he is one of the most distateful persons on the planet in my opinion !

 

I know the Russians are desperate but surely no one believed desperate enough to call up that moron. 

[BlueRiver]

So formal annexation announcements inbound. 
 

 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

It is time for China to annex back Outer Manchuria. See how the Russians like that! they can't complain as annexation is something they approve of.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Another challenge for the west. Expect a harsh response from Germany 🙄

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 hours ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

One could posit that this completely removes any potential option of Germany doing a 180 in two months time when German industry is shut down and pensioners are dying of cold as a result of energy shortages...

 

But that just almost guarantees incredible pressure on the German government to cut some kind of deal with Russia to bring as much gas as possible through the more southerly pipelines, and severely weakens our closest allies. I can't get my head around even the most shiteating cynical CIA heads deciding that's a good idea.

 

As I think about it I'm coming around to a fit of pique by Putin just to screw over Europe, damned the cost. But again, I would think he'd rather have the leverage.

[Japan Jambo]

7 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

But that just almost guarantees incredible pressure on the German government to cut some kind of deal with Russia to bring as much gas as possible through the more southerly pipelines, and severely weakens our closest allies. I can't get my head around even the most shiteating cynical CIA heads deciding that's a good idea.

 

As I think about it I'm coming around to a fit of pique by Putin just to screw over Europe, damned the cost. But again, I would think he'd rather have the leverage.

 

The video attached to escobri's posting is Biden expressing his desire for NS2 to not go ahead so the idea part goes to a paygrade above the CIA. Biden's comments were not in isolation, his administrations policy preference was that NS2 should not go ahead. (On 27/09/2022 at 17:34, escobri said:)

 

Germany has lignite coal power stations that they have been firing back up again, I suspect this unfortunate 'incident' will have a few more getting cranked up before it gets much colder. If Russia really wanted to feck up Germany I'd have waited till winter...

 

All said though it's a bit of a head scratcher - Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Russia all 'attacked' in this move. I think it'll be quite some time before we know the truth.

[Japan Jambo]

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Another challenge for the west. Expect a harsh response from Germany 🙄

 

all exports to Russia of heated seat switches banned or a strongly worded letter?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

13 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

The video attached to escobri's posting is Biden expressing his desire for NS2 to not go ahead so the idea part goes to a paygrade above the CIA. Biden's comments were not in isolation, his administrations policy preference was that NS2 should not go ahead. (On 27/09/2022 at 17:34, escobri said:)

 

Germany has lignite coal power stations that they have been firing back up again, I suspect this unfortunate 'incident' will have a few more getting cranked up before it gets much colder. If Russia really wanted to feck up Germany I'd have waited till winter...

 

All said though it's a bit of a head scratcher - Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Russia all 'attacked' in this move. I think it'll be quite some time before we know the truth.

 

Right, but jockeying over energy policy is one thing, blowing up a pipeline when your ally is dealing with extremely difficult energy prices is quite another.

 

I suppose one other black mark against us is that if any country has a $20 million submersible drone that can deliver an undersea bomb to precisely the right place to damage a pipeline, it's us. 🙄

[Mikey1874]

On 24/09/2022 at 09:11, stuart500 said:

It's getting more and more difficult to see a good ending to this. 

 

Once the results of the sham referenda are confirmed, these areas will, in Putin's eyes, be part of Russia. He won't care if the International community reject it.

 

He has pledged to his people that nuclear weapons will be available for use if there is an attack on 'Russian' soil.

 

We can't however allow him to succeed in these areas though and simply back off. He will just rinse and repeat the process in other areas, gradually taking over further parts of Ukraine. Yes Ukraine has fought magnificently well but they would eventually be overpowered through sheer weight of numbers and Russia's nuclear threat.

 

The West needs to call Putin's bluff. Dangerous stuff for all of us, when they have the power to destroy us with the press of a button. We need to maintain support for Ukraine even if it means helping them attack the stolen areas. 

 

There will be Russian generals at the moment getting twitchy. They understand the consequences of any nuclear usage by Putin. No point taking over small parts of Ukraine to have large parts of Russia itself obliterated by a massive NATO response.

 

We need to hope somewhere in Russia sanity will prevail because I believe only they can end this madman's ambitions.

 

 

Taking areas of Ukraine into Russia shows that Putin isn't interested in a settlement. He needs to win. Hence how dangerous it is. 

 

Although this feels like a long time ago at the beginning Zelensky was talking about giving independent status to Crimea and Lugansk / Donetsk. So Putin has removed one of the key potential parts of a settlement. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

Taking areas of Ukraine into Russia shows that Putin isn't interested in a settlement. He needs to win. Hence how dangerous it is. 

 

Although this feels like a long time ago at the beginning Zelensky was talking about giving independent status to Crimea and Lugansk / Donetsk. So Putin has removed one of the key potential parts of a settlement. 

What about us giving them George Galloway and them ****ing off out of Ukraine. A win win for everyone.

[Cade]

Does Putin even know that he's losing the war?!

Do his people even tell him the truth?

His best troops have been shot to shite and run away. Now he's sending 300,000 forced conscripts into the grinder, who will also get shot to shit and run away.

 

Trying to kid on that entire provinces have voted to join Russia is laughable.

We've all heard the stories of forced deportations, massacres and the "referendums" being done at actual literal gunpoint.

 

What's his strategy? Claim that Ukraine are the aggressor and have invaded "Russia" and use that as an excuse for nukes?!

 

He and his entire cabal of cold war fantasists have totally lost the plot.

 

[Victorian]

Just now, Cade said:

Does Putin even know that he's losing the war?!

Do his people even tell him the truth?

His best troops have been shot to shite and run away. Now he's sending 300,000 forced conscripts into the grinder, who will also get shot to shit and run away.

 

Trying to kid on that entire provinces have voted to join Russia is laughable.

We've all heard the stories of forced deportations, massacres and the "referendums" being done at actual literal gunpoint.

 

What's his strategy? Claim that Ukraine are the aggressor and have invaded "Russia" and use that as an excuse for nukes?!

 

He and his entire cabal of cold war fantasists have totally lost the plot.

 

 

It's nothing new.  The Russian playbook is to immediately accuse others of doing the exact same stuff that they did,  are doing,  will do,  threatening to do.  They never had a plot to lose.  They've always been a part of some alternative reality.

[Pap]

The South Carolina senator made a very good point regarding nuclear weapons. He said that a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would be an attack on Nato as the radiation from the blast would affect many other countries.

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 minutes ago, Pap said:

The South Carolina senator made a very good point regarding nuclear weapons. He said that a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would be an attack on Nato as the radiation from the blast would affect many other countries.

 

Including Russia.

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, Pap said:

The South Carolina senator made a very good point regarding nuclear weapons. He said that a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would be an attack on Nato as the radiation from the blast would affect many other countries.

 

Although never yet used in anger, a tactical nuclear weapon, which is the sort that Putin would most likely employ, normally has a lower yield than your common or garden strategic nuclear weapon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

[Pap]

5 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Including Russia.

 

Yeh but meh.

[Pap]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Although never yet used in anger, a tactical nuclear weapon, which is the sort that Putin would most likely employ, normally has a lower yield than your common or garden strategic nuclear weapon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

 

Yeh but much simpler for Nato countries to "detect radiation".

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, Pap said:

 

Yeh but much simpler for Nato countries to "detect radiation".

 

If it's very low yield, its effects may be reasonably contained (I'm no scientist, I'm just thinking out aloud). Putin may have his army launch an artillery shell with a low yield nuclear warhead to make a statement that more high-yield projectiles will be used if Ukraine don't back off.

 

If Putin does resort to going nuclear, which I certainly wouldn't put past him, there is going to be some really quick horse trading going on, the likes of which we haven't seen since 1962. There's even an outside possibility that in this event, the USA and China would join together in a game of brinkmanship with Russia to force it to stop walking down the nuclear path.

 

Without sounding too pessimistic, those guys with the Doomsday Clock must be wondering how close they can move the hands to midnight without actually touching it.

 

However, hope springs eternal.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Where can you buy one of these? Asking for a friend in Pyongyang.

 

Rubleland Vladivostok would be their nearest emporium. They'll have to get one quickly though as they sell like hotcakes when a new supply comes in.

[il Duce McTarkin]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Without sounding too pessimistic, those guys with the Doomsday Clock must be wondering how close they can move the hands to midnight without actually touching it.

 

However, hope springs eternal.

 

F minus.

 

Go to the bottom of the class.

[Mister T]

37 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Although never yet used in anger, a tactical nuclear weapon, which is the sort that Putin would most likely employ, normally has a lower yield than your common or garden strategic nuclear weapon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

So basically a tactical nuke is like the bomb dropped on hiroshima? I think this whole tactical / strategic labelling is a load of pish. They're nightmare weapons that must never be used. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

15 minutes ago, Mister T said:

So basically a tactical nuke is like the bomb dropped on hiroshima? I think this whole tactical / strategic labelling is a load of pish. They're nightmare weapons that must never be used.