kraze

Of course the West escalates. That's what I mentioned. Too slow for my taste as Leos would've been absolutely amazing about a year ago before russians mined our lands to hell and back - but that's my personal opinion. And of course defensive stuff is top notch. Problem is that at some point russians seem to have outpaced this escalation.

Because let's be realistic here and ask ourselves a serious question - if the only deterrent for russians from dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv after much of our crop lands being irradiated for the next few centuries - would be providing us with ATACAMS on a condition we never use them anywhere within a russian territory - how long would it take for a tactical nuke to get from its new shiny launch pad in Belarus to the sky over Kyiv?

As for Syria:

I had no illusions about russians once I started seeing their reaction towards their second invasion of Georgia back in 2008. Syria? I thought Aleppo is a very good indication of what russians will do to our cities once they are able to (after all they already invaded Ukraine at that point).

I just couldn't be too vocal or too idealistic about it because everyone would just look at me and tell me I'm being "russophobic", "hateful" or something. Pretty sure I'd be even quickly banned here if it was 2016 for my opinions about russians - as a bonus. Being right actually sucks.

Yes and my point here is that no weapons that can be realistically provided to Ukraine would deter Russia from using nukes. It's a fact, shouldn't be even discussed. However the point here is that by "outpacing" the escalation (e.g. we are still not allowed to strike targets within russian territory using storm shadow despite huge escalation on russian part as an example) russians may get an impression (and I'm not saying a legit one or not) that the West is hitting the breaks in this run - and they may consider using actual WMDs to get what they want.

If they are using exactly the same tactic as the West - boiling the frog slowly - and it works - e.g. ZNPP gets blown up, this makeshift dirty bomb irradiates large chunks of land and no real escalation happens in turn (as in - now you can absolutely smash russians anywhere with ATACAMS, oh and here have our 500 km storm shadows, blow all their **** up ASAP - for example) - so what would it tell russians if we get neutral "let's not get ahead of ourselves" reaction to an act of nuclear terrorism. If the West doesn't get off the couch and downplays the thing?

Are you certain possible terrorist act using ZNPP won't be downplayed resulting in de-escalation instead of escalation?

A year ago I myself would claim that no way, that would trigger the response. In fact we saw several countries take a similar stance a year ago. Even Stoltenberg hinted it's an Article 5 case. A year ago.

But right now - there's silence. Only Russia can be heard. And that's what makes me worried the frog is being boiled slowly and it may just work.

As for russians being on the defensive - sure, it's true. Nobody even remotely considers russians winning this war. But they may do enough damage for Ukraine to not win it either. We are already denied most of our industrial regions by them being wiped off the face of the earth - if the same happens to our agrarian lands - will there even be a victory for us save for being able to remain Ukraine?

Of course the West escalates. That's what I mentioned. Too slow for my taste as Leos would've been absolutely amazing about a year ago before russians mined our lands to hell and back - but that's my personal opinion. And of course defensive stuff is top notch. Problem is that at some point russians seem to have outpaced this escalation.

Because let's be realistic here and ask ourselves a serious question - if the only deterrent for russians from dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv after much of our crop lands being irradiated for the next few centuries - would be providing us with ATACAMS on a condition we never use them anywhere within a russian territory - how long would it take for a tactical nuke to get from its new shiny launch pad in Belarus to the sky over Kyiv?

As for Syria:

I had no illusions about russians once I started seeing their reaction towards their second invasion of Georgia back in 2008. Syria? I thought Aleppo is a very good indication of what russians will do to our cities once they are able to (after all they already invaded Ukraine at that point).

I just couldn't be too vocal or too idealistic about it because everyone would just look at me and tell me I'm being "russophobic", "hateful" or something. Pretty sure I'd be even quickly banned here if it was 2016 for my opinions about russians - as a bonus. Being right actually sucks.

Yes and my point here is that no weapons that can be realistically provided to Ukraine would deter Russia from using nukes. It's a fact, shouldn't be even discussed. However the point here is that by "outpacing" the escalation (e.g. we are still not allowed to strike targets within russian territory using storm shadow despite huge escalation on russian part as an example) russians may get an impression (and I'm not saying a legit one or not) that the West is hitting the breaks in this run - and they may consider using actual WMDs to get what they want.

If they are using exactly the same tactic as the West - boiling the frog slowly - and it works - e.g. ZNPP gets blown up, this makeshift dirty bomb irradiates large chunks of land and no real escalation happens in turn (as in - now you can absolutely smash russians anywhere with ATACAMS, oh and here have our 500 km storm shadows, blow all their **** up ASAP - for example) - so what would it tell russians if we get neutral "let's not get ahead of ourselves" reaction to an act of nuclear terrorism. If the West doesn't get off the couch and downplays the thing?

Are you certain possible terrorist act using ZNPP won't be downplayed resulting in de-escalation instead of escalation?

A year ago I myself would claim that no way, that would trigger the response. In fact we saw several countries take a similar stance a year ago. Even Stoltenberg hinted it's an Article 5 case. A year ago.

But right now - there's silence. Only Russia can be heard. And that's what makes me worried the frog is being boiled slowly and it may just work.

As for russians being on the defensive - sure, it's true. Nobody even remotely considers russians winning this war. But they may do enough damage for Ukraine to not win it either. We are already denied most of our industrial regions by them being wiped off the face of the earth - if the same happens to our agrarian lands - will there even be a victory for us save for being able to remain Ukraine?

Of course the West escalates. That's what I mentioned. Too slow for my taste as Leos would've been absolutely amazing about a year ago before russians mined our lands to hell and back - but that's my personal opinion. And of course defensive stuff is top notch. Problem is that at some point russians seem to have outpaced this escalation.

Because let's be realistic here and ask ourselves a serious question - if the only deterrent for russians from dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv after much of our crop lands being irradiated for the next few centuries - would be providing us with ATACAMS on a condition we never use them anywhere within a russian territory - how long would it take for a tactical nuke to get from its new shiny launch pad in Belarus to the sky over Kyiv?

As for Syria:

I had no illusions about russians once I started seeing their reaction towards their second invasion of Georgia back in 2008. Syria? I thought Aleppo is a very good indication of what russians will do to our cities once they are able to (after all they already invaded Ukraine at that point).

I just couldn't be too vocal or too idealistic about it because everyone would just look at me and tell me I'm being "russophobic", "hateful" or something. Pretty sure I'd be even quickly banned here if it was 2016 for my opinions about russians - as a bonus. Being right actually sucks.

Obviously it's not that simple:

See - the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - first the consensus was that sending any western made weapons bar ATGMs and MANPADS could "escalate" and then, gradually, as the West called russian bluff, first "dumb" arty started pouring in, then "smart" arty started pouring in, then tanks and missiles, now "escalation" sits at planes.

And just like the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - so did russians. But I think they started playing this "game" too. By gradually calling West's "bluff" more and more. We went from "russians aren't ever doing this" to "russians doing this" in just a few months with Kakhovka dam, itself a "bluff calling", being a logical step in between. With Kakhovka dam russians most likely killed a 5 digit number of people in one night but there was zero reaction. Even less than usual.

So russians didn't use chemical weapons or nuclear terrorism because they didn't know if it will trigger more reaction than they can handle because they certainly would not be able to fight NATO being exhausted in Ukraine. But now they are themselves "escalating". "Two can play that game" and all.

And that's where the "narrative" comes from. More like a bitter, gloomy observation about something out of one's hands.

"we will not stand by idly and watch these horrible warcrimes take place with cities being leveled using nukes - and promise that an international tribunal will eventually bring everyone responsible to justice"

I just hope I'll not see any BS like above while not seeing it because I get to live and not otherwise.

Yes and my point here is that no weapons that can be realistically provided to Ukraine would deter Russia from using nukes. It's a fact, shouldn't be even discussed. However the point here is that by "outpacing" the escalation (e.g. we are still not allowed to strike targets within russian territory using storm shadow despite huge escalation on russian part as an example) russians may get an impression (and I'm not saying a legit one or not) that the West is hitting the breaks in this run - and they may consider using actual WMDs to get what they want.

If they are using exactly the same tactic as the West - boiling the frog slowly - and it works - e.g. ZNPP gets blown up, this makeshift dirty bomb irradiates large chunks of land and no real escalation happens in turn (as in - now you can absolutely smash russians anywhere with ATACAMS, oh and here have our 500 km storm shadows, blow all their **** up ASAP - for example) - so what would it tell russians if we get neutral "let's not get ahead of ourselves" reaction to an act of nuclear terrorism. If the West doesn't get off the couch and downplays the thing?

Are you certain possible terrorist act using ZNPP won't be downplayed resulting in de-escalation instead of escalation?

A year ago I myself would claim that no way, that would trigger the response. In fact we saw several countries take a similar stance a year ago. Even Stoltenberg hinted it's an Article 5 case. A year ago.

But right now - there's silence. Only Russia can be heard. And that's what makes me worried the frog is being boiled slowly and it may just work.

As for russians being on the defensive - sure, it's true. Nobody even remotely considers russians winning this war. But they may do enough damage for Ukraine to not win it either. We are already denied most of our industrial regions by them being wiped off the face of the earth - if the same happens to our agrarian lands - will there even be a victory for us save for being able to remain Ukraine?

Yes and my point here is that no weapons that can be realistically provided to Ukraine would deter Russia from using nukes. It's a fact, shouldn't be even discussed. However the point here is that by "outpacing" the escalation (e.g. we are still not allowed to strike targets within russian territory using storm shadow despite huge escalation on russian part as an example) russians may get an impression (and I'm not saying a legit one or not) that the West is hitting the breaks in this run - and they may consider using actual WMDs to get what they want.

If they are using exactly the same tactic as the West - boiling the frog slowly - and it works - e.g. ZNPP gets blown up, this makeshift dirty bomb irradiates large chunks of land and no real escalation happens in turn (as in - now you can absolutely smash russians anywhere with ATACAMS, oh and here have our 500 km storm shadows, blow all their **** up ASAP - for example) - so what would it tell russians if we get neutral "let's not get ahead of ourselves" reaction to an act of nuclear terrorism. If the West doesn't get off the couch and downplays the thing?

Are you certain possible terrorist act using ZNPP won't be downplayed resulting in de-escalation instead of escalation?

A year ago I myself would claim that no way, that would trigger the response. In fact we saw several countries take a similar stance a year ago. Even Stoltenberg hinted it's an Article 5 case. A year ago.

But right now - there's silence. Only Russia can be heard. And that's what makes me worried the frog is being boiled slowly and it may just work.

As for russians being on the defensive - sure, it's true. Nobody even remotely considers russians winning this war. But they may do enough damage for Ukraine to not win it either. We are already denied most of our industrial regions by them being wiped off the face of the earth - if the same happens to our agrarian lands - will there even be a victory for us save for being able to remain Ukraine?

Of course the West escalates. That's what I mentioned. Too slow for my taste as Leos would've been absolutely amazing about a year ago before russians mined our lands to hell and back - but that's my personal opinion. And of course defensive stuff is top notch. Problem is that at some point russians seem to have outpaced this escalation.

Because let's be realistic here and ask ourselves a serious question - if the only deterrent for russians from dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv after much of our crop lands being irradiated for the next few centuries - would be providing us with ATACAMS on a condition we never use them anywhere within a russian territory - how long would it take for a tactical nuke to get from its new shiny launch pad in Belarus to the sky over Kyiv?

As for Syria:

I had no illusions about russians once I started seeing their reaction towards their second invasion of Georgia back in 2008. Syria? I thought Aleppo is a very good indication of what russians will do to our cities once they are able to (after all they already invaded Ukraine at that point).

I just couldn't be too vocal or too idealistic about it because everyone would just look at me and tell me I'm being "russophobic", "hateful" or something. Pretty sure I'd be even quickly banned here if it was 2016 for my opinions about russians - as a bonus. Being right actually sucks.

Of course the West escalates. That's what I mentioned. Too slow for my taste as Leos would've been absolutely amazing about a year ago before russians mined our lands to hell and back - but that's my personal opinion. And of course defensive stuff is top notch. Problem is that at some point russians seem to have outpaced this escalation.

Because let's be realistic here and ask ourselves a serious question - if the only deterrent for russians from dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv after much of our crop lands being irradiated for the next few centuries - would be providing us with ATACAMS on a condition we never use them anywhere within a russian territory - how long would it take for a tactical nuke to get from its new shiny launch pad in Belarus to the sky over Kyiv?

As for Syria:

I had no illusions about russians once I started seeing their reaction towards their second invasion of Georgia back in 2008. Syria? I thought Aleppo is a very good indication of what russians will do to our cities once they are able to (after all they already invaded Ukraine at that point).

I just couldn't be too vocal or too idealistic about it because everyone would just look at me and tell me I'm being "russophobic", "hateful" or something. Pretty sure I'd be even quickly banned here if it was 2016 for my opinions about russians - as a bonus. Being right actually sucks.

Obviously it's not that simple:

See - the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - first the consensus was that sending any western made weapons bar ATGMs and MANPADS could "escalate" and then, gradually, as the West called russian bluff, first "dumb" arty started pouring in, then "smart" arty started pouring in, then tanks and missiles, now "escalation" sits at planes.

And just like the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - so did russians. But I think they started playing this "game" too. By gradually calling West's "bluff" more and more. We went from "russians aren't ever doing this" to "russians doing this" in just a few months with Kakhovka dam, itself a "bluff calling", being a logical step in between. With Kakhovka dam russians most likely killed a 5 digit number of people in one night but there was zero reaction. Even less than usual.

So russians didn't use chemical weapons or nuclear terrorism because they didn't know if it will trigger more reaction than they can handle because they certainly would not be able to fight NATO being exhausted in Ukraine. But now they are themselves "escalating". "Two can play that game" and all.

And that's where the "narrative" comes from. More like a bitter, gloomy observation about something out of one's hands.

Obviously it's not that simple:

See - the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - first the consensus was that sending any western made weapons bar ATGMs and MANPADS could "escalate" and then, gradually, as the West called russian bluff, first "dumb" arty started pouring in, then "smart" arty started pouring in, then tanks and missiles, now "escalation" sits at planes.

And just like the West didn't know what would "escalate" too much - so did russians. But I think they started playing this "game" too. By gradually calling West's "bluff" more and more. We went from "russians aren't ever doing this" to "russians doing this" in just a few months with Kakhovka dam, itself a "bluff calling", being a logical step in between. With Kakhovka dam russians most likely killed a 5 digit number of people in one night but there was zero reaction. Even less than usual.

So russians didn't use chemical weapons or nuclear terrorism because they didn't know if it will trigger more reaction than they can handle because they certainly would not be able to fight NATO being exhausted in Ukraine. But now they are themselves "escalating". "Two can play that game" and all.

And that's where the "narrative" comes from. More like a bitter, gloomy observation about something out of one's hands.

"we will not stand by idly and watch these horrible warcrimes take place with cities being leveled using nukes - and promise that an international tribunal will eventually bring everyone responsible to justice"

I just hope I'll not see any BS like above while not seeing it because I get to live and not otherwise.

Yeah the West won't do anything. The dam non-reaction is a clear green light to Russia.

Given the trickle of equipment perfectly timed to give Russians time to dig in, and lack of airpower to break the defenses, I think the West is actually aiming for a stalemate - the politicians are just pretending to do useful stuff because the people generally want to support Ukraine - but not enough to be effective.
We will see if West dost something once Russia does nuclear terrorism. It is pretty inevitable they will, and I'm sure politicians are already preparing speeches about how "we must investigate" and "let's not be hasty" so that it can disappear into nothingness.
The zero Western reaction to Russian terrorism with the dam is basically a green light for Russia to continue and do what they want.
That is my pessimistic take, anyway.

All the kill-mame-death-destruction video's haunt me. And not just from this war.
(Overly-Sensitive kinda guy, probably.)
But the Ukrainians in the minefield-video struck me most because of the unbelievable courage those guys showed. Courage in a trench or fierce firefight can be an instinctive thing, because there is hardly time to really think about what is happening, until it's over.
But these guys in that minefield knew what was around them. And the ones that survived the first explosions, plus the ones that later arrived in the other Bradley, knew very well how utterly dangerous it was to try and get the wounded out.
But they went. And when those guys blew up in front of their eyes, the next guys never gave up and stepped on that mine-infested soil. WHILE THEY KNEW!!!
I wonder if I have ever seen more courageous people in this whole ****ty war.

I don't think potential war crime trials 10-20 years down the line help much with irradiated lands and the general course of the war now. And that's what LFP means.

Post-Prigs half assed coup so called "elite" and their desires and world view do not matter anymore.
More and more russians now openly voice support for wagnerites because "they get s-it done" (e.g. kill Ukrainians "properly"), it's a delayed time bomb with timer dependent entirely on AFU's successes. In a state where a year ago one would go to jail for a bad retweet - now absolutely nothing happens to people who openly support "terrorists".

Unless "elites" win somehow - that cattle is going to start the Animal Farm.
See, Orwell depicted totalitarian societies really spot on - you run that farm while the cattle is afraid/respectful of your power. But the moment the farmer is seen as weak - well... you read the book, I'm sure.

during the "coup" Prig was getting support and approval from russians that putin was getting in '00s. I don't think what oligarchs think even matters at this point. 1917 happened because Nikolai II lost the war so russians put in power those that would not lose again. And this wasn't 1917 - yet what we saw was that there is a high chance that a bunch of zeks could've taken Moscow and looted Rubliovka.

if anything oligarchs will be the first to get killed once russians take to the streets because the war was lost. Not their first time.

The difference is that when russia'll do it - all the "human rights" organizations will take a soul-crushingly neutral stance with "let's not get ahead of ourselves". Just like they (heck, even some Western governments) did with the Kakhovka dam.

But if Ukraine will do it in retaliation - you'll see every "human rights" defender blaming us for being horrible genocidal terrorists that are absolutely evil and must be stopped at all costs - and taking away all the Western support will be a good start.

I mean you don't have to go far back in history (or too far in geolocation, just across a sea and then some) for a similar example. I've been told in this very thread that I shouldn't bring Israel up because they are absolute evil since they retaliated in kind on several occasions.
So nah. Pretty sure we will be told right away "no retaliation or else", since we want to win the war and liberate our gloriously acute radiation syndrome inducing, lands.

Let me be cynical (realistic) here and say there will be no response and blowing up NPP will be heavily downplayed with arguments like "we need to investigate first to determine who is responsible based on facts" and "ambient radiation in Romania increased only by 3.6 roentgens, not great not terrible". After all most of the nuclear fallout will remain on a Ukrainian soil since this isn't RBMK and you can't turn it into a proper nuclear bomb like in Chernobyl - but you can turn it into a dirty bomb with a fairly limited radius.

I think after russians do it and there will be no consequences* for them - the only question that will remain is "tactical nukes when".
*sanctions aren't consequences, russians are broke and live in wooden barracks. They don't care if they get no iPhone, can't afford it anyway.

Let me be cynical (realistic) here and say there will be no response and blowing up NPP will be heavily downplayed with arguments like "we need to investigate first to determine who is responsible based on facts" and "ambient radiation in Romania increased only by 3.6 roentgens, not great not terrible". After all most of the nuclear fallout will remain on a Ukrainian soil since this isn't RBMK and you can't turn it into a proper nuclear bomb like in Chernobyl - but you can turn it into a dirty bomb with a fairly limited radius.

I think after russians do it and there will be no consequences* for them - the only question that will remain is "tactical nukes when".
*sanctions aren't consequences, russians are broke and live in wooden barracks. They don't care if they get no iPhone, can't afford it anyway.

The difference is that when russia'll do it - all the "human rights" organizations will take a soul-crushingly neutral stance with "let's not get ahead of ourselves". Just like they (heck, even some Western governments) did with the Kakhovka dam.

But if Ukraine will do it in retaliation - you'll see every "human rights" defender blaming us for being horrible genocidal terrorists that are absolutely evil and must be stopped at all costs - and taking away all the Western support will be a good start.

I mean you don't have to go far back in history (or too far in geolocation, just across a sea and then some) for a similar example. I've been told in this very thread that I shouldn't bring Israel up because they are absolute evil since they retaliated in kind on several occasions.
So nah. Pretty sure we will be told right away "no retaliation or else", since we want to win the war and liberate our gloriously acute radiation syndrome inducing, lands.

Let me be cynical (realistic) here and say there will be no response and blowing up NPP will be heavily downplayed with arguments like "we need to investigate first to determine who is responsible based on facts" and "ambient radiation in Romania increased only by 3.6 roentgens, not great not terrible". After all most of the nuclear fallout will remain on a Ukrainian soil since this isn't RBMK and you can't turn it into a proper nuclear bomb like in Chernobyl - but you can turn it into a dirty bomb with a fairly limited radius.

I think after russians do it and there will be no consequences* for them - the only question that will remain is "tactical nukes when".
*sanctions aren't consequences, russians are broke and live in wooden barracks. They don't care if they get no iPhone, can't afford it anyway.