Ukraine Invasion: Part 31

[MagicFox]

31st thread, welcome all and thanks as usual.

Russian deputy foreign minister today:
"Moscow is not threatening anyone with nuclear weapons.....open confrontation with NATO and the US is not in Russia's interests"

Another senior Russian official reiterated that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought".

Finally Russian Ambassador to the US stated that he "wants to believe that the US and Russia are not on the verge of falling into the abyss of nuclear war"

Which was funny as fuck.

good, gooooood Palatine-like

Yes, and tomorrow they'll be threatening it all over again.

And then they'll say no, no, we won't.

And then they'll threaten it again and say it's all the US's fault

Have you ever watched little waves at the seashore coming in and going out, coming in and going out, ad infinitum?

Sky News:

"Washington has reportedly sent private warnings to Moscow about the use of nuclear weapons.
The Washington Post said messages about "grave consequences" had been ongoing for several months.
It added that the warnings were being kept "deliberately vague, so the Kremlin worries about how Washington might respond".
The newspaper reported that according to US officials, the messages "underscore what President Biden and his aides have articulated publicly"."

I read this, and thought it was worth posting here, especially for the last line.
www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-ukraine-will-never-forgive-russia-russian-nobel-laureate-2022-09-23/

Thank you. Great interview, very powerful last line.

Good for him. That man is braver than I am.

As live conflict provides the testing ground for new weapons and identifies areas for weapons development, I’m wondering what effect Russians unpopular mobilisation is likely to have on accelerating the development of robot ground soldiers in countries that can. They don’t drink cheap vodka for one thing and can be programmed not to feel fear.

I wonder if you well-informed people can help me. I am having a bit of a ‘moment’ over everything and wondered if anyone could supply a scenario where the current situation is resolved without the use of nuclear weapons. I am usually a pretty sensible sort but am having a real wobble. Will China intervene? Or Saudi? I can’t see a way out of things at the moment and thought this was probably the place to ask about it.

Infantry drones have been under development for at least a decade by major powers, with limited success. Just navigating terrain (stepping over rocks, climbing hills, navigating around obstacles, etc.) is very challenging. Coordinating their actions while allowing autonomous action is also hard. Much better progress has been made with Naval drones, like this one that recently turned up on a beach in Crimea.

Russia Finds Mystery Vessel On Crimean Beach: Is It A New Ukrainian Attack Drone?

I recall that one of the US military aid packages given to Ukraine had naval drones, but I have no idea if this is one of them.

The most likely resolution without nuclear weapons would be for Ukraine to win with conventional arms and throw the Russians out. Or Putin being deposed and his successor finding a face-saving way of withdrawing.

Tactical nuclear weapons are very good at destroying a geographically limited target, like an air or naval base. Ukraine is a big place and its military is quite spread out. To change the situation militarily, Russia would have use quite a few of them in different locations and risk NATO intervention or retaliation. Most people think that even for crazy Ivan, this is a bridge too far.

I think that Biden and the war-analysts in the US have planned for all contingencies and are not overly surprised at this next patch of blether from Putin.

No one can control him, but China, to some degree India and Saudi Arabia, perhaps others, and in a backhanded way the US can influence him. I suspect up to a point the US are 'managing' this particular way that things have gone.

I don't think anyone can give you a guarentee that nuclear war won't break out. But I do think very clever people have worked a great deal of overtime to think of ways to minimize the chances.

Lawrence Freedman, one of the most respected war analysts, says:

There is no evidence for now that weapons are being moved into position or being prepared for such strikes. US intelligence, which has been extraordinarily precise so far can be expected to pick up any details (or at least the Russian would need to assume that).

That could change but the profound taboo against using nuclear weopons would have extreme consequences for him - I think it would turn the whole world against him.

I had the same wobble the when this all first kicked off. What we need to remember is in terms of Nuclear threats absolutely nothing has changed in the last 6 months. Ukraine have been attacking pockets of Russian land on the Russian border for months and it hasn't escalated nuclear.

For me it could be as much as Putin worried that Nato boots could go on the ground etc and warning of no Nato action in those areas which was already unlikely. Personally I think the referenda is likely Putin gathering his bargaining chips, that along with the mobilisation will of course give Ukraine food for thought. This war eventually will be settled at the negotiating table. Ukraine will always say they won't give up any land (so they should say that) however if the right deal was offered to them then they would be silly not to consider it.

I think the short term likely scenario is both sides digging in for the winter. There will not be much close combat during those months as the terrain just won't allow it. The mobilisation will likely cover the defence over these months while the contracted soldiers rest etc.

Russia has still admitted a nuclear war can't be won and must never be fought. That still stands. The moment Putin uses a nuclear weapon will be his downfall 1 way or another. There are still ways out of this for Putin and while that is still the case Nuclear war is still very unlikely. Winter will be the time for negotiations to restart while not much fight can happen.

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I knew I’d get sensible, balanced answers. I think I’ve just got it into my (possibly not-quite-right) head that Putin will use the UK as a demonstration site for his nuclear weaponry. Perhaps I need to step away from the internet for a while and make a GP appointment next week. Honestly, I am usually very level-headed and rational.

Anyway. Thanks again for the replies. I follow all these threads and they are excellent.

This is why the UK has (4?) Trident nuclear attack submarines. If Putin nukes Birmingham, he will lose a comparable Russian city in response. The US might well coordinate a strike from one of our nuclear missile subs with one from yours, just to show unity.

The subject of unmanned US naval vessels piqued my interest, so I found this information on what it being developed. There are probably a few more that are heavily classified.

What’s new in Navy and Marine Corps unmanned boats

I think I’ve just got it into my (possibly not-quite-right) head that Putin will use the UK as a demonstration site for his nuclear weaponry.

If it helps (I know it may not) don't forget that the UK has own Trident submarine force - it's Independent Strategic Nuclear Deterrent....one reason for it's existence is to prevent the likes of Russia thinking they can target only the UK with nuclear weapons and there would be zero retaliation.

Putin wouldn't live long enough to see the result of his demo so that rather suggests he is very unlikely to try that course of action.

Very understandable to have a wobble, I've had a few. As PP said, Ukraine could win the war and expel Russia. Alternatively, it could drag on and Putin could either pop his clogs naturally or be deposed. Apparently he has personally been giving orders to the military, so I wonder if this could pave the way for a successor to blame the whole debacle on Putin (not unfairly 😆) and withdraw.

Whatever happens, I would be really surprised if Russia were even considering demonstrating its nuclear capabilities on the UK as mentioned in a later post. Our nuclear arsenal is much smaller but more than sufficient to provide an effective deterrent. I can't remember who said it, but there's a quote that says once you've got a certain number of these weapons, they're so destructive that arguing about who has more is like both of you standing up to your necks in kerosene and arguing about who has the most matches. My point is, the UK would be a really, really dumb target to pick if you wanted to try and force a victory in Ukraine.

So then there's the possibility of using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. It's a horrendous possibility but I'm not sure how that would benefit Putin either. From what I understand, Ukraine's forces are quite spread out so working out where to target with a battlefield weapon would be difficult. Plus I think any nuclear use would be the red line for China and that would be the end of Putin.

I think it’s important to remember that lots of wars drag on for years, decades even (20 years in Afghanistan anyone?) It might seem at the moment that there doesn’t seem to be any other way out than nukes but other avenues will open themselves up. Unfortunately the most likely scenario is a long war of attrition with immense suffering for the people of Ukraine.

I could have written this message myself a few months ago. I don’t write too much on mumsnet but avidly follow this thread. Lots of sensible posters who seem to understand things much better than me. Thank you to all of you by the way!!
I did end up seeing my gp and it massively helped… but also… limit the news. Don’t look on the daily fail website (utter scaremongering n*bheads!) and be kind to yourself. Sending hugs x

Thanks again. @Heyheyitsanotherday - hugs much appreciated!

This thread (and the others like it) are fantastic. I think an awful lot of people read them it don’t comment. They are a real public service.

Could not agree with this more. The Daily Mail (and other rags) have a lot to answer for regarding people’s poor mental health!

Totally agree that that. And far too influential.

The US Congress has lobbied the Pentagon to speed up the review of supplying Ukraine with Grey Eagle combat drones. These are large, armed, long-duration attack drones.

Pentagon to speed review of delivery of large armed drones to Ukraine

They can stay airborne for 27 hours, which means that they can loiter over an area looking for targets of opportunity or waiting to be called in to do ground support. The video in that article is well worth the two minute watch time. I hope we can get these deployed soon, as they proved very effective in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, they are a public service. I've been (I think under another name) a very, very occasional contributor on earlier threads and now read them now and again. I'm very grateful that there are posters with the knowledge, time and patience (which I don't have) to share information in such a thoughtful and rational way. Thank you.