How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Megalon Jones]

4 hours ago, acrashb said:

1) should have, but could not.  NATO countries combined GDP ~18.4 Trillion, Russia GDP pre-war ~1.6 Trillion (and much of that consumed by corruption).

2) "if accurate"?  Of course it's accurate.  Readily  verifiable.

3) Bull**** (I mean this in the academic sense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bull**** ).  Review the last twenty years of Putin's and other prominent Russian power-brokers statements.  It was a question of when, not if. 

But don't take my word for it: https://www.understandingwar.org/report/how-we-got-here-russia-kremlins-worldview

The "state of their army" and the "sat thing" was not a matter of choice or conflict avoidance, it was necessity driven by economics and social (corruption) factors.

At the outset of the war one could be excused for a shallow understanding driven by dominant (and shallow) media.  Now?  Not so much.

You’re a bit off on your calculations.  The US does north of $20 trillion in GDP by itself.  Once you end up with that many zeros the whole things does tend to get arbitrary and academic.

[Raptor341]

11 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I agree this war will end as a stalemate, but not this year and perhaps not even next year. And I don't believe in a diplomatic solution. The Russians want to destroy the Ukraine, or at least weaken it so much that they can destroy it anytime they want in the future. That's no peace, that's postponed execution for the Ukrainian nation. As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we must support them with all we can and make the Russians suffer. At the same time Ukrainians will also suffer, but that's their call. They are not fighting for a piece of land where the majority is Russian or for their right to belong to the West, but they are fighting for their very survival as a people and a nation. That's what folks who are talking about a diplomatic solution don't seem to understand. This is a fight to the death. And it must be the death of many Russian soldiers and with that the death of Russia's ability to wage war and inflict terror upon their neighbours. I agree that our support must be intensified, even if that means taking risks with our own safety. Ukraine must hold on, at ALL costs. The costs for the West don't interest me at all. Economical crisis, inflation, energy shortage? Welcome to the new reality, where finally the bill for all those cheap words about democracy, environment and freedom is presented to us all. Personally I would gladly give up my holidays, my second car and all of my luxury to get rid of the Russian menace once and for all. The price of facing an encouraged and vengeful 'Novorussiya' will be far greater than all that. So, yes, keep the Russians bleeding and the Ukrainians fighting. They have bloody good reasons for that. Remenber the Holodomor for instance. And let us keep our cheap Western lamenting for peace at all costs to ourselves. If I was an Ukrainian soldier, fighting in a destroyed and suffering country, I would vomit on that.

In the mean time and I'm ashamed to say it, Ukraine is buying us precious time to rearm and prepare for war, that will come in some form or shape. We must consider Ukraine to be part of the West, which it is, and act accordingly. By the end of this year Western Europe can't be blackmailed by Russian oil or gas anymore and we can go to the next level. Unlimited support and weapons for Ukraine and unlimited sanctions against Putin. Payback time.

1+

[Letter from Prague]

15 minutes ago, OldSarge said:

The_Capt defined his terminology in his post way, way, back in April.  Hard to keep up with all of the excellent information in this thread!

 

Thank you, I must have missed that. I do remember the followup post on books that made me finish The Expanse and reopen Dune  

On topic:

Rereading that post about negotiation positions made me think. I don't think Russians realistically believe they will attack Poland next. They probably don't even realistically believe they can take Odessa - to use a borrowed terminology, that future died when Moskva sank.

They just keep saying that, so that when they say "ok we promise to not attack Poland or take Odessa, but as a we'll keep what we occupied" it feels (and can be presented as by pro-Russia people in the West) like a deal, like a compromise.

Which is of course nonsense, they would do all those things if they could.

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, akd said:

Looks like they tried a different technique with the Inhulets bridge: hits distributed regularly down the entire length of the bridge:

 

This is "messaging" as the The-Capt calls it. Today you can leave, tomorrow, maybe not so much.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is all pretty much stuff I have built up over years.  It is a surface level framework really, each one of those components has a lot to unpack.  I am sure there is stuff out there on it.  I built it on professional observations and looking at history over the years; most of them based on the mistakes we made at the institutional level and  in places like Afghanistan - we sought positive decision in a place built on negative/null ones.

Heh, well I guess it gives me something to do when I finally do retire.

I will pre order that book the minute you are taking money. 

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

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.

They have been singularly unable to separate their internal messaging from their external messaging. The result has been a fiasco that can only be explained by too many drugs.

 

 

2 hours ago, Grigb said:

RU propaganda has the same issues as Armed Forces. Incompetence and stupidity (for loyalty reasons) + rampant corruption sprinkled with drugs (due to vodka is not elite enough for RU gov officials).

 

Again, all the other explanations are even worse.

2 hours ago, akd said:

This video gives a much better look into how forward observation with commercial quadcopters works on the front than the cut together clips we usually see:

Another massive secondary behind Russian lines:

 

The drone video is a case study in why guided rounds and military grade drones are worth the money. With excalibur and a drone capable of reading the coordinates directly that would be four rounds and four hits. 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

What Ukraine is doing to key bridges is some horror movie level messaging to Russia.

"Watch, while we draw dotted lines on all the bridges you need for your supplies or your retreat"

It's actually a kindness, because they'd probably let Russia retreat if they wanted to.  Watch out for when they start actually spelling things out with 155 mm craters.

YES, this...

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

TDA [Thermal smoke equipment] vs thermal imager.

• 00:12 As you can see, the TDA is not visible at all in the thermal imager. Absolutely.
• 00:18 All in smoke
• 00:19 And here everything is visible
• 00:23 There's the stern of the tank, here it is

Comments and Answers

• And how much exhaust gases are visible in the thermal imager? On a number of combat vehicles, the exhaust is located in front or on the side, for example, Merkava and Stryker. Does this prevent the use of a thermal imager?
• If you look at the stern, they interfere, but this is if the diffuser is not lowered down.

• It's a T-64, right?
• the first upgrades of 2017, judging by the field of view of the TVP [thermal imaging sight]. The later ones were slightly changed. Corrections were introduced for air temperatures, charge, barrel wear. The rangefinder scales and the choice of the type of shot were changed.

Sending ANY tank/ifv into combat without a good thermal imager is some combination of desperation and stupidity.

[The_Capt]

47 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Decision-making and intelligence doctrine disagrees with you on that point.  Any assumptions in planning should be covered by an IR/RFI to confirm/deny said assumption.

Otherwise ... a very interesting post.  In broad terms I work on the principle of "if it looks right then it probably is" and move from there by looking to prove/disprove the assertion.  The point that you make about what is not seen is well-made and an-oft forgotten element of intelligence trade craft - I continue to be surprised at the insights that can be derived from applying this principle.  

And lord knows the modern western military decision-making and intelligence enterprise has never been wrong.  Fair point, I was more referring to here in our little virtual world.  An assumption should not become a fact until fully confirmed and even then if it is human-based keep a close eye on it.  If we end up adopting assumptions as facts before that validation very bad things happen - like invading a smaller neighbour and treating the assumption that they will roll over in a weekend as fact, and then building an entire military operation off that “fact”….whoopsie.

And then there are meta-stable (there is that word again) facts, who can turn and bite one in the ass in a bippy, like the reliability of a partner nation force.  Or tautological loops where assumptions and facts feed upon each other into a self-fulfilling circle jerk.

It is what I tell students - war is complex enough it does not need your help.  Make sure your Observations, Deductions and Conclusions stay lined up, and that your assumptions and facts stay on speaking terms. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by The_Capt

[Butschi]

58 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

That's my point exactly. What will he do when his front starts to freeze or even collapse? This guy will stop at nothing. What will the West do if he goes nuclear or chemical against Ukraine? 

Depending on the situation, e.g. when it is evident that Ukraine is going to retake Crimea, I think it's realistic to assume that Putin will use tactical nukes at some point.

The West will ramp up sanctions and weapons deliveries to the highest level possible - there is still a lot of room for escalation there, including, possibly, extending sanctions towards China. Weapons deliveries will possibly stop a point where it is clear that Ukraine can't continue the fight, I don't know.

But that's it. On a diplomatic level everything that can be done will be done but there will be no military escalation unless NATO is attacked directly. Everything else is pure Tom Clancy style fantasy. Why? Because what would be the point? The Kremlin would have shown that there is a red line (e.g. Crimea that cannot be crossed). A conventional intervention would a) involve heavy casualties (because tactical nukes) and b) would at best threaten to cross that red line again, meaning that now the only possible answers can either be to back down (unlikely once you already escalated to nukes) or escalate to strategic nukes. At that point there everyone loses. The other option for the West is to instead directly escalate to nukes with the same result.

If in the end you can only lose, why try? If nothing else, the West will reliably weigh gains against costs. And this is also why I think, that the West will try to put pressure on Putin et al. but only up to a point where he can somehow get out of this mess.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

So positive, negative and null decidion space is something you defined? I'm not succeeding googling it.

Proprietary as far as I know, but it is gaining traction in some circles particularly in discussions about subversive/political warfare.

Up front, it is a point of contention with some particularly in certain conventional groups but you can see examples of all three being projected around in this war just fine.  In military circles I always go with “if it helps, use it, if not, well don’t”…I get the same pay either way.

The thing to understand is that each decision has power and influence on options spaces, the trick is understanding how to use them.

[Letter from Prague]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

That's my point exactly. What will he do when his front starts to freeze or even collapse? This guy will stop at nothing. What will the West do if he goes nuclear or chemical against Ukraine? 

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.

[acrashb]

44 minutes ago, Megalon Jones said:

You’re a bit off on your calculations.

Thanks for the correction.  Having said that, Bing was off and I did not scroll down in the second link far enough to notice that the GDP headline number inexplicably excluded the United States.  If we take the 18.4 T and add it to the US' 21.4 T we get 39.8 T USD in NATO vs. 1.6 T USD in Russia's GDP, for a 25-fold ratio.  Happily,  this correction strengthens my assertion that Russia's lack of action on obvious needs is / was driven not by a peaceful political culture but by economic reality as further degraded by corruption.  If the average NATO country spends 2% of GDP on armed forces (it doesn't) then Russia would have had to spend ~50% of GDP on armed forces to keep up, and that's plainly a) not what they do and b) completely unsustainable without a massive lend-lease program headed their way. 

 

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, akd said:

This video gives a much better look into how forward observation with commercial quadcopters works on the front than the cut together clips we usually see:

Here another one with Polish subs. The work of forward observer with UAV and battery command center showed. Russian tank got direct hit. At the end officer lough: "We hit not that tank, which targeted, but that, which was closer!"

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Haiduk

[Aragorn2002]

25 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

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.

That's the scary thing. Not even the experts know. Perhaps not even Putin himself. But that shouldn't prevent us from going all the way. 

[Letter from Prague]

1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

That's the scary thing. Not even the experts know. Perhaps not even Putin himself. But that shouldn't prevent us from going all the way. 

I'm out of likes so I'll just say: yes!

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I think few people realize how dangerous the situation is and how much worse it will get. Can anyone imagine Putin withdrawing from the occupied territory? I certainly can't. This is not Afghanistan where you can withdraw when it suits you and pretend that life goes on. This war will be the making or breaking of the Putin regime and he will do absolutely everything to survive. Even if Ukraine can turn the tide (which I personally doubt, but I'm not as smart as some people on this forum) the future looks very grim and dangerous. What will be the response of the West when a desperate Putin starts to use tactical nukes against an advancing Ukraine army or against Ukrainian cities? That's the question nobody dares to ask, but we better have an answer. I'm not implying we should go nuclear as well, but will we have the stomach to face such an escalation? I don't have the answers, but from which side you look at it, we're also in deep sh*t. Putin may be bluffing, but so are we. At least, that's how I see it. At the same time I think we can't back down and should go all in. Until the bitter end or until, as Frederic the Great put it, 'one of my cursed enemies gives up in desperation'. Which in his case were the Russians, if I'm not mistaken.

I get the sentiment but I think the danger is in another direction to be honest.  Putin cannot convince his people to do full mobilization, hence this “soft-opening” approach.  I am not sure they are willing to follow him into a certain inferno.  

The Russians also have to be worried about US ABM technology development, it spooked the crap out of them back in the late 80s and that was over 30 years ago.  They have to be wondering just how strong that hand is, or is not.  

So the old Capt has been going on about decisions and this is a Strange one - creating/making a decision from imagined conditions/stimuli.  Built on perception this space sees the Boogie man and drives off the road.  It is the land of Darwin awards and it has many champions in the pursuit of war.  So I am not saying that Russia cannot find itself down this dark road but it is more likely that someone bullets Putin before they do, if he ever did order it.

Far more dangerous is a fallen Russian without a safety net.  Fractured and possibly in a state of civil war, with about 6000 nuclear weapons rolling around the dance floor.  So I agree, we definitely are lovers in a dangerous time here, gas prices might be a quaint memory if this goes totally pear shaped.  Russia has ran into a house and set it on fire while nailing shut all the doors…and it is all our fault!  Which would be hilarious if they did not have nukes in the basement.

And even if Russia learns how to lose this thing, we still have the rise of China as it aims to re-wire global order, we will see if it can.  Oh and we can throw in a US which is frankly scaring the hell outta everyone and has been since about Jan 6th…I honestly hope it was just an anomaly and/or growing pain. Toss in climate change pressure etc…only thing missing are zombies, which at this point might be a stabilizing force.

Remember when we only had the pandemic to worry about?

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I get the sentiment but I think the danger is in another direction to be honest.  Putin cannot convince his people to do full mobilization, hence this “soft-opening” approach.  I am not sure they are willing to follow him into a certain inferno.  

The Russians also have to be worried about US ABM technology development, it spooked the crap out of them back in the late 80s and that was over 30 years ago.  They have to be wondering just how strong that hand is, or is not.  

So the old Capt has been going on about decisions and this is a Strange one - creating/making a decision from imagined conditions/stimuli.  Built on perception this space sees the Boogie man and drives off the road.  It is the land of Darwin awards and it has many champions in the pursuit of war.  So I am not saying that Russia cannot find itself down this dark road but it is more likely that someone bullets Putin before they do, if he ever did order it.

Far more dangerous is a fallen Russian without a safety net.  Fractured and possibly in a state of civil war, with about 6000 nuclear weapons rolling around the dance floor.  So I agree, we definitely are lovers in a dangerous time here, gas prices might be a quaint memory if this goes totally pear shaped.  Russia has ran into a house and set it on fire while nailing shut all the doors…and it is all our fault!  Which would be hilarious if they did not have nukes in the basement.

And even if Russia learns how to lose this thing, we still have the rise of China as it aims to re-wire global order, we will see if it can.  Oh and we can throw in a US which is frankly scaring the hell outta everyone and has been since about Jan 6th…I honestly hope it was just an anomaly and/or growing pain. Toss in climate change pressure etc…only thing missing are zombies, which at this point might be a stabilizing force.

Remember when we only had the pandemic to worry about?

O yes, those good old times, when life seemed so simple....

Edited July 23, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Letter from Prague]

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

[FancyCat]

If Putin can't call a mobilization for fear of the Russian people, there ain't no way he's dropping a nuke.

Remember nuclear escalation is very established due to the cold war. Mobilization is part of the ladder. Putin has not mobilized, seems to be absolutely fearful of mobilizing, the ladder is not being climbed.

[Battlefront.com]

Continuing on with the Kadyrov watching, this is from ISW's 22nd of July report:

Quote

Russian leaders may be de-emphasizing the rapid deployment of ad hoc proxy units to Ukraine. Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov announced on July 22 that personnel of the Chechen “West-Akhmat” Battalion (the formation of which was announced on June 26) will remain in Chechnya to further develop their skills and defend Chechen land if necessary. Kadyrov had previously stated that this battalion was formed with maximum urgency for deployment into Ukraine, which is consistent with ISW’s observations that the Kremlin likely seeks to deploy non-Russian ethnic minority groupings to support operations in Ukraine in the short term. However, Kadyrov now appears to be de-emphasizing the exigency of deployment, which may indicate that he is facing increasing domestic pressure to stop sending Chechens to fight in Russian operations in Ukraine. Russian and Russian-backed proxy authorities may experience increasing internal pressure to scale down deployments of ad hoc battalions in minority enclaves.

Something is changing in Chechnya, though it is unclear as to what that might be.  ISW puts forward the theory that Kadyrov is getting some pushback for the deployments and casualties.  Especially if the people are connecting the dots and realizing that their people are expected to die so ethnic Russians don't have to.  If correct, then it seems that there's trouble brewing in the regions it is leaning heavily on to provide cannon fodder. 

We've seen several examples of people expressing opposition to sending their people to Ukraine.  Buryatia and one of the Siberian Republics come to mine, but we also have issues with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the mix too.  Oh, and Dagestan.  This is not a good sign for Putin generally, but the news that even Chechnya might be starting to waiver is really bad news.

There's another possibility to consider.  Kadyrov might want to keep the units close to home in case of either domestic unrest or something bigger out of Moscow.  Kadyrov runs a nearly parallel state within Russia, so if anybody other than Moscow is going to have a sense of how bad things are domestically it is likely to be Kadyrov.

Steve

[FancyCat]

Also, NATO has not involved itself in Ukraine with active participation, not withstanding Russian state TV, and despite all that, Putin does not order mobilization. To use a nuke against weak old Ukraine when your supposedly winning? I doubt domestic reaction would allow it. Even if losing, this is Ukraine we are talking about. You can't launch a nuke when it's a SMO and not even a declared war.

The fact Putin is just absolutely allergic to declaring war, to mobilization, to actually seeing if the ground he stands on with the Russian people is firm or paper mache indicates a lot regarding his back to the wall and the will of the Russian people and government to follow him into nuclear war.

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

If Putin can't call a mobilization for fear of the Russian people, there ain't no way he's dropping a nuke.

Remember nuclear escalation is very established due to the cold war. Mobilization is part of the ladder. Putin has not mobilized, seems to be absolutely fearful of mobilizing, the ladder is not being climbed.

Perhaps, but if your propaganda can make the masses believe anything you want, and your secret police can silence the rest, you have not that much  to worry about in that respect. And mobilization is still an option. 

[theFrizz]

5 hours ago, panzermartin said:

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 think you've been reading too much of that other media. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by theFrizz

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Perhaps, but if your propaganda can make the masses believe anything you want, and your secret police can silence the rest, you have not that much  to worry about in that respect. And mobilization is still an option. 

If you recall the prior posts by Capt and Steve, mobilization requires training and equipping, and therefore time at the least. That Putin refuses to mobilize as Ukraine is about to potentially retake Kherson and his army is hollowing out from the inside, does not bold well for mobilization succeeding in stemming the tide in Ukraine. The longer he waits, the more offensive potential increases for Ukraine and the more Russia decreases.

Also, note how soft it is, no mobilization, no war declaration, it may be apathy. Note that Russia likes apathy, more than approved ideology. Why? Cause once the blame game begins, apathetic people don't overthrow governments. People who are tied to political ideologies are more prone to being betrayed.

[Haiduk]

One shot - one kill. Dovhen'ke, Izium axis

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Haiduk

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

To use a nuke against weak old Ukraine when your supposedly winning?

I used the imminent retaking of Crimea as an example. There are things that even Russian propaganda can't spin into a victory. The established way of escalation during Cold War was between NATO and Warsaw Pact. Not in a proxy war or similar. Look at Korea where the US were also close to nuclear escalation.

[Haiduk]

And counter-battery work - 8 Russian Msta-B howitzers cought the fire in forests near Prydonetske village, 10 km SE from Izium

 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Perhaps, but if your propaganda can make the masses believe anything you want, and your secret police can silence the rest, you have not that much  to worry about in that respect. And mobilization is still an option. 

When assessing if Putin is going to go nuclear, experts are looking for signs that he and his circle are acting irrationally in general.  So far this is not the case.  In fact, Putin is acting extremely rationally.  Poor judgement and lying are not inherently irrational activities.

The three biggest examples that Putin is a "rational actor" are:

1. He continues to act like a "normal" head of state.  The trip to Turkey is a prime example of this.  Signalling a closer alliance with China is another.  Hell, even going to Iran for drones is a pretty good example.
2. He has decidedly not done anything to provoke a direct military confrontation with NATO, despite the fact that NATO is the primary reason Ukraine is able to thwart Russia's plans for Ukraine.
3. Despite all the reasons to go forward with national mobilization, Putin has absolutely rejected the idea because evidence seems to indicate that it would wind up being a disaster for internal politics.

There's lots of other examples, such as no Stalinesque paranoia fueled purge of "enemies of the state" or ordering the remains of the VDV to parachute directly into Kyiv to kill Zelensky.

It is highly unlikely that Putin and his inner circle would view using nukes as a rational way to gain an advantage in this war.  They likely know that whatever they did with nukes would unleash even more unknowns than it sought to solve.  It is even possible that China has privately warned Putin to not use nukes.  Certainly I expect the US (at least) has made it clear that even a single tac nuke in Ukraine would face a major response.

This means, that Putin will not likely use nukes to win the war in Ukraine because it would take someone insane to think it would work.  No sign of Putin being insane.

Steve