Butschi

And that is really the point. Even if 90% of one side don't go boom are intercepted or whatever and all the warheads of the other side explode on target, so one side can technically say they have won, they will still have lost millions. Congrats for your great victory. Nuclear war means that both sides lose, just maybe one side loses more badly than the other.

You already quoted the difference yourself there. The quote is about labor camps. It talks about the concentration camp part of Auschwitz. Not the extermination camp. Those were rather unique, I think. You can argue that if they compare mortality, who cares about how they did it. I still think, there is a difference in forced labor, not caring that people die in the process and sending them directly to the gas chambers.
Anyway, we should not get into a competition on who had the bestest evil empire.
And I still stand by what I said earlier: modern day Russia, as bad as it is, is not on par with Nazi Germany and also, I think, not with the USSR under Stalin. We don't do us any favour if we neglect to see nuances.

Ineed. There sure are Nazis in Russia but as bad as Russia is right now, it still has some way to go to reach the level of the 3rd Reich.

No, nothing really compares to german engineering.
On a serious note I don't mean to downplay the Gulag years, it is that those times were different and very harsh in history of humans. Even Russia has moved on since then although they still feel like a caricature mutation of soviet union and tsarist russia.  

And that is really the point. Even if 90% of one side don't go boom are intercepted or whatever and all the warheads of the other side explode on target, so one side can technically say they have won, they will still have lost millions. Congrats for your great victory. Nuclear war means that both sides lose, just maybe one side loses more badly than the other.

And that is really the point. Even if 90% of one side don't go boom are intercepted or whatever and all the warheads of the other side explode on target, so one side can technically say they have won, they will still have lost millions. Congrats for your great victory. Nuclear war means that both sides lose, just maybe one side loses more badly than the other.

Good points thanks. You might be correct that a lot of warheads are of questionable condition. I don't know how time will treat such complicated devices. But I would bet their rocket fleet is in good shape and the platforms can achieve all the stages of flight most of the time. 
The real question is, how many of the warheads are needed to go boom to erase a big country from the map and If it's logical to bet on these chances at all. If say 100 are launched and only 3 out of 10 goes boom, you will still have most big cities wiped from the map. 
I guess until we hear again about resuming nuclear test detonations we are still away from that scenario. 

Yes, let's not because implying that the Bundesrepublik Deutschland of 2022 would somehow not honour their obligations because the 3rd Reich didn't either is such utter BS that its bot worth discussing. I mean, seriously, why did Finland want to join NATO in the first place? UK and France didn't help Poland, either, after all.
Really, I've said it before this is not the time for pet peeves and bashing each other, this is just making Putin's work easier.

You may not agree with @panzermartins opinion but it is far from being anywhere near to "Der Stürmer".

Yeah, I was thinking of using tactical nukes for... well, tactical purposes, I guess. Off the top of my head there is no instance where terror bombing had the desired effect, right?
It didn't work for the Germans against the UK, it didn't work for the Allies against Germany. It didn't work in Korea. And that was a bombing campaign that was an order of magnitude worse than against Germany (25% of the North Korean civilians were killed I seem to remember). Failure against North Vietnam... has it been tried afterwards? There is Japan in WW2, of course, and the official narrative says that the two nukes ended the war. But nowadays at least some historians (including from the US, I'm not talking about Russian propaganda) say that the Japanese didn't care that much - in the sense that it didn't matter if the enemy can wipe out a city with one big bomb instead of thousands of smaller ones. (They claim it was actually the Russian invasion that made them surrender to the US because the Russians certainly would have deposed of the emporer). So, I don't think a terror bombing campaign would "help" the Russians in Ukraine. Boy, that sounds cynical... And who knows, learning from history is not for everyone.
Still, I was thinking about military use, where a big enough boom could certainly offset a lack of accuracy.

Look at the numbers, it's not like the pandemic exactly ended  

Perun said it better than I can in his nuclear and escalation video (and someone just linked it), but to reiterate:
Russia doesn't have many options that would help.
Chemical attacks aren't really effective against anything not static in warfare. Russians could for sure use them as terror weapons (and they did and still do use them for that in Syria), but they are not all that effective at that either - kilogram for kilogram, explosives cause bigger damage than chemical weapons. Using them would also probably just make the West angrier. 
(https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ this is a good article on chemical weapons, tho I'd love a review by the local gang, what the guy says about static and dynamic systems seems very similar to what I heard here)
If Russians start fielding chemical weapons in Ukraine, it is more likely a signal they are running out of conventional weapon.
Nuclear weapons are more complicated. Going ICBM might trigger MAD even if the target is Ukraine. Tactical nuclear weapons those are big booms. They can destroy a town, or devastate a city.
Old Warsaw Pact materials I read said they expect those to for sure kill everyone within like a kilometer or two, maybe more. Half that in buildings, even less in fortifications or armored vehicles. (Quoting from memory, happy to be corrected) The reason why I say that is that is probably the same warheads Russia would use.
Now killing everyone in a few kilometer radius is certainly more than conventional weapons can do, and it is pretty horrific, especially as Russians would for sure target housing estates and city centers first and hospitals. But from military point of view, having ability to destroy a village with one shot instead of larger artillery barrage is nice, but I'm not sure it is a gamechanger. Not unless they can reliably hit close to large logistic centers, staging areas or massed formations (assuming Ukraine even has those).
But of course there's the question of Will. Could they make Ukraine surrender by nuclear terror bombing? Could they scare West with it to withdraw support? I have no idea. It would certainly make me more supportive and angry, but at this point anything Russia does will do that, probably.
Also unlike other people here, I'm not an actual military strategist, so this is just my impression.

I continue to be astounded at how incredibly stupid RU has been on the international propaganda.  The correct way to run this war is to say this is an internal conflict since Ukraine is part of Russia.  Repeat it over and over and over and over.  Continually say how RU is not a threat to anyone.  continue to say how RU can be trusted in business dealings by keeping gas flowing. 
Instead Putin has taught us that he is a rabid dog that will never stop trying to take more territory and undermine democracies.  After Ukraine, they have stated they will conquer Poland, the Baltics, they will make Finland and Sweden pay for joining NATO, along w nuking the UK.
It's really just incredibly stupid.  The western pro-RU factions, which should be working to undermine the war effort (Tucker Carlson, et al), don't have a leg to stand on once RU starts talking about invading and nuking all of the EU.

What dominant and shallow media you are talking about. You mean the ones have been bombarding us with the evil Russia thing since forever. The ones that were claiming that Russians sold their fuel for vodka or they are running out of missiles or tires since week 1. Or that Russia executed the heroic defenders on snake island. Because these make the 95% of mainstream World news. Yes, thats shallow. 
I mostly rely on info here, some Twitter accounts and surprisingly some pro russian places . Sometimes, among their blatant propaganda, they have more accurate info on what's going on the battlefield like in 2014. They quickly proved the 2000 russian encriclement that circulated here, was not true, as Haiduk confirmed. 
The rules of this western dominated world are set by the most powerful. Russia is not there among them, it's actually the underdog. Their friends are Iran and North Korea ffs. Underdogs don't set the rules and don't have the initiative that's why I don't agree with the thought that Russia had some grande world domination plan apart from securing its national interests NEXT to its borders and in mostly russian dominated areas. We ll see how the energy powerplay will unfold, I think it's their only serious leverage, as their military is so backwards as you all agree. 
 

Forced because Ukraine was slipping away from them each passing day and was cleary not possible to reverse the situation with political intervention. NATO presence in Ukraine would be a direct threat to the existance of the current status quo in Russia. And ironically, its NATO aid and intel thats killing most russians right now.  
With a heavy heart, because they mistakenly hoped Ukraine will collaspe by a sudden show of force. I dont think anyone wished for a prolonged bloody war , one that would cost them thousands of losses. They still call this a "special operation" and are reluctant to mass mobilize. Apart from the extremists, I don't think the army had much will to do this. The first days with massed abandoned equipment were a clear indication.
Unprepared because they could never match the aid of a coalition of the most advanced western military powers in the long term. 

You can say what you want about Germans, but we honor contracts. Finland will soon be in NATO and there is also an EU defense pact. There is no doubt that both countries would come to help Finland.
I also like to add that Germany historically has quite a good track record for helping Finland vs the Russians.
I'd like to argue that the Greens have the best stance wrt nuclear power, but that is beyond this thread.
That is a political maneuver that needs some explanation. No speed limit on the Autobahn is a holy cow of German politics. Similar to US gun law. But most parties have silently abandoned that position, except for the FDP, who have made it to one of their mayor points. The coalition contract both says that there will be no speed limit and nuclear will end this year.
The Greens got under pressure to prolong nuclear, so they put pressure on the speed limit. This is insofar clever, as the Greens can live with a little nuclear extension while the FDP cannot agree to the speed limit.
Important to note is that both issues do not save gas, but CO2.
Increased investment in renewables is going to happen anyway.

That is a possible explanation but maybe not necessary. German soldiers the 1944 Ardennes Offensive were highly motivated. And not (only) because they were fanatic Nazis but because they were finally attacking again. It gave them hope that maybe there was a chance to still win this war.
Plus, just speculating here, definding in this war basically means waiting for the often invisible drone to find you followed by death raining from above without much you can do about it. This situation is in a way similar to soldiers in a trench in WW1. Although casualties, overall, weren't higher than in WW2, the number of traumatized soldiers was. The word "Kriegszitterer", something like shell shocked in english, was specifically used during WW1, WW2 had this much less because although fighting was no less fierce at least the front was moving.
So, although attacking is probably still way more dangerous than defending, it at least gives a small sense of taking fate in your own hands.

That is a possible explanation but maybe not necessary. German soldiers the 1944 Ardennes Offensive were highly motivated. And not (only) because they were fanatic Nazis but because they were finally attacking again. It gave them hope that maybe there was a chance to still win this war.
Plus, just speculating here, definding in this war basically means waiting for the often invisible drone to find you followed by death raining from above without much you can do about it. This situation is in a way similar to soldiers in a trench in WW1. Although casualties, overall, weren't higher than in WW2, the number of traumatized soldiers was. The word "Kriegszitterer", something like shell shocked in english, was specifically used during WW1, WW2 had this much less because although fighting was no less fierce at least the front was moving.
So, although attacking is probably still way more dangerous than defending, it at least gives a small sense of taking fate in your own hands.

That is a possible explanation but maybe not necessary. German soldiers the 1944 Ardennes Offensive were highly motivated. And not (only) because they were fanatic Nazis but because they were finally attacking again. It gave them hope that maybe there was a chance to still win this war.
Plus, just speculating here, definding in this war basically means waiting for the often invisible drone to find you followed by death raining from above without much you can do about it. This situation is in a way similar to soldiers in a trench in WW1. Although casualties, overall, weren't higher than in WW2, the number of traumatized soldiers was. The word "Kriegszitterer", something like shell shocked in english, was specifically used during WW1, WW2 had this much less because although fighting was no less fierce at least the front was moving.
So, although attacking is probably still way more dangerous than defending, it at least gives a small sense of taking fate in your own hands.

Ok, so what is keeping the RA in the fight?…and they are in the fight.  That slow grinding action at Severodonetsk was very costly for the RA but we did not see mass mutinies or even desertions.  The Russian system is clearly under stress but the signs of a complete morale failure are not there.  It may very well happen or even be happening but RA troops are believing in something right now.
I get the cynicism, find me a soldier without it, however, the state of mind of the Russian soldier is directly related to their performance.  I have no doubt there is fear of their own side - the Russians have a long history of that, but I suspect there are deeper belief systems at play.  Or at least I would be cautious until we can confirm otherwise.
We also have to be careful with the de-humanization of the Russian troops.  Not because we have sympathy or “like them” but instead to build a clearer picture of their mindset and how to exploit it.  If we consider them “un-human” then we are left with “kill them all” and/or grossly misunderstand their resolve.
Based on what we have seen the RA definitely has issues with moral and motivation; however, they are still attacking.  And in my experience troops do this very dangerous work for various reasons but at the foundation has to be a level of belief in something. 
I, for one, am waiting for the whole rotten edifice of the RA to fall apart again like it did in Mar, but until it does, I am very interested in what keeps them going as it will shape decisive battles, such as the one that could be forming up at Kherson.

Fact is whole of Europe / Nato 'neglected' their military apart from pounding on failed states ;-). The big exception is USA and their MIC. 
Obviously Poland for example was less neglient than Germany, however it is indicative that Poland feels it is now in urgent need of vast masses of military hardware which only one nation can provide in the desired timeframe. 
Personally I hope Europe will learn to stand on it's own legs and not (again) depend fully on USA. Cooperation between allies is of course a good thing.
FWIW France mainly was trying to get a European army and that's what would/could be much more effective militarily imo. But politically.... difficult. 
Instead of various countries with 30-50 airframes and a few hundred tanks max all with their own infrastructure/training/acquirement/etc, an integrated European army could be among the most powerful in the world. 
It's more sustainable long term imo instead of Poland (or other single countries) becoming a huge military hub in record breaking time. 
Because buying a lot of stuff with debt is one thing, maintaining them and keeping the forces trained well and operational for a long time is another thing. How much will the people of Poland be willing to spend on defense in let's say 10 years?

Kadryovites must have got their first helicopter?
Also as others have pointed out the media needs a story. 18 is less than 5% of the House of Representatives. So instead of a headline reading "95% of lawmakers vote in support of Ukraine!!" they can attack the less than 5% dissenting as negative headlines get more reaction than positive nowadays. 
Edit: Also, this should be taken as a huge positive for Ukraine. This type of bilateral support on an issue from both sides of the aisle in the US Congress has been absolutely unheard of for a long time. It should show almost unanimous support for Ukraine to Russia and the world. Actually a big deal and a good sign if looked at from this perspective and not the media focus on the negative.

I havn't account on twitetr, so can't watch the video. But this is fact - BTRs can survive several RPG, western light AT-wepon (like Matador and other) or even ATGMs, because they just a metal box with engine and without dozens of powder charges for several-kg HE rouds inside. If HEAT doesnt' hit engine or 30 mm gun ammunition, there is just nothing to burn inside APC. You can recall Russian video from Mariupol, when the tank tried to pull damaged BTR-82A - it got three RPG-7 in front full, but didn't set fire. Also you can recall a video how UKR forces ambushed BTR-80 with some light western AT-weapon. BTR got two hits, but kept capability to move and only third hit to rear part caused fire. 

IMHO that is a common misconception. We are look at the first industrial revolutions that happend so far and extrapolate that it will always be so.
But the taxi driver who will be replaced by autonomous vehicles will not do AI development. And it is not 10 jobs in AI development for 10 jobs taxi driver jobs because an AI developer is more expensive than a taxi driver. Plus, and that is the real issue here: Average human intelligence is limited. While the average human can drive a taxi, the average human is not able to develope complex machines. This is something that is not widely discussed because it means admitting that not all humans have the some chances and abilites and hard work goes only so far. AI means a total paradigm shift because contrary to whats happened in the past, it will even increasingly replace jobs that require higher educaction. Even now AI is able to do (very, very basic) programming - wait another 20 years and even jobs in software development will vanish.
With increasing capabilites of machines it will then be what is cheaper, human or machine? There will be jobs but with lower and lower wages. And this is what we see already now: In many industrialized countries unemployment itself is not that high but there are lots of people who work all day but can hardly make a living from that.
 
 

Cluster bombing any country is a terrible idea. Cluster bombing your *own* country?
 
All wars end, sooner or later. Tidying up afterwards is hard enough without leaving yourself boobytraps to play with.