Ukraine Invasion: Part 32

[MagicFox]

Gosh, that last one filled up quick! Welcome to 32, all 🇺🇦

Nina Wilson B.Sc. On Twitter has plotted the advance of the Ukr AF, flags depict geo located with images. Question mark symbol means reliable reports but no images as yet.

twitter.com/ninawilsonstats/status/1577262852393422849?s=61&t=3DZf7iI-9jQCT3TpaK0fMA

Ukraine have retaken Dudchany, Kherson.

This was being talked about stratecially significant a couple of days ago, as this now puts an airbase held by Russia south of the river in range. It was thought to also have been used as an command and control post.

Not that easily recognized considering the pile on I got, the Pms and the attempt to get me banned for not conforming to the echo chamber. Of course the poster failed miserably when MN found out a little more about me.

With regards Africa they are facing food and energy crisis due to the war which in turn leads to unrest. Are we going to jump in and help them? No, so why on earth would they support the West. Compounding their problems is climate change leading to terrible droughts etc whilst they are only responsible for 3% of the world's energy related co2 emissions

With that and the way the West treated Afghanistan in comparison with Ukraine, I think moaning about Africa not supporting the West a bit rich. Never mind the whole Covid vaccine carry on. The West doesn't look good in all this but Putin is behaving badly enough for no one to notice. One day though.

‘3) He says Ukrainian units painted "V" and "Z" markers on their vehicles which confused Russian forces. He suggests this means Ukraine has a C2/tracking system in all of their vehicles.‘

Nice combination of high and low technology by Ukraine there.

Russian tactical nukes are in the 10 kiloton range, Hiroshima was 15kilotons, so will cause very significant loss of life and long term health issues.

As for a conventional response, as said, by whom & where? that in itself would lead to even greater instability.... Russia isn't going to sit back and do nothing.... and as he would have got away with using one nuke, why not use another?

I think that the Russians need to be under no illusions what that will mean if they use one, no one in their high command wants to die in a nuclear fire storm or even risk it.

We may soon be facing a situation not encountered since the early 1960s.

Everyone goes on about energy prices or bond yields but the real risk is in Ukraine.

The difference between those and the ones used in Japan was they were dropped in highly populated civilian areas. This is why it caused so many deaths.

Even if one was used in Ukraine it would be on a military target which are widely dispersed. Not even Russia could convince China they needed to nuke a civilian city in Ukraine. Russia will absolutely not risk relations with China.

What we have on our side is that China need the west for their exports. I do believe they are the key to getting Putin to back down.

The response even if one was used wouldn't be instant either. There would be a period of making sure it was a nuclear weapon, followed by some form of diplomacy trying to get Russia to back down and then a retaliation strike. If Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon and was instantly condoned by China, the west may feel that is enough damage towards Russia without directly getting into the conflict themselves.

I think Tuba is correct. There is a difference between the use of a nuclear weapon to gain a military advantage and to the use on civilian populations which is effectively terrorism on a mammoth scale.

The use of nuclear weapons on WW2 was at the tail end of a brutal period of human history and did bring about Japanese surrender. Whether Nagasaki and Hiroshima as cities could be viewed as legitimate military targets or the collateral damage was too great is up to the historians to decide.

The point here is we have a slightly different scenario where we have multiple nuclear weapon holders and potentially the need for very sound judgment. I think a 'scare' nuclear blast (above sea?) or a weapon on a number of Ukrainian units is the most likely scenario if such a weapon was used.

We would not want to precipitate ww3 from such a singular event so there would be a period of the world looking on with bated breath to guage the world's reaction. There would be political and diplomatic outrage certainly and we would need to see Russia's response before determining action.

I think there is going to have to be at a civil level an element of calm if such an event occurs and it is up to our leaders to manage information to some extent. Good journalism may be important in this scenario.

Russia has shown no such reticence in destroying and killing civilian areas, i'd not be so sure he would use one in a rural area, to what purpose?

China wouldn't condemn Russia, Xi has even less respect for human life than Putin does.

Lets hope and pray it does not happen.

More positively, i find myself cheering with each announcement that Ukrainian forces are pushing back the Russians, Putins war is turning more and more into their version of Vietnam every day.

We would not want to precipitate ww3 from such a singular event so there would be a period of the world looking on with bated breath to guage the world's reaction. There would be political and diplomatic outrage certainly and we would need to see Russia's response before determining action

Thats turning the whole MAD scenario on its head.

The USSR never set off a tactical weapon in West Germany because as far as they were concerned, the use of one such weapon would trigger an over whelming nuclear response.

Russia needs to fear such a response now as do other lunatic states.

Russian tactical nukes are in the 10 kiloton range,

Unfortunately that's towards the bottom end of what's available, FWIW Iskander is quoted as potentially carrying a 50kt warhead...

I wouldn't write off the value of a conventional response on Russian Forces on Ukraine territory....Remove a significant amount of the Russian order of battle (which US/NATO almost certainly could do very quickly) and I'd speculate it would certainly sow doubt in some of Putin's cronies about whether it is time to call a halt by whatever means possible and maybe give them some spine.

The poster upthread is mistaken in their claims about the West and African food security.

The World Food Programme has been, at the invitation of many African countries, "jumping in and helping" them for years.

it is the national government who must request WFP's intervention in emergencies or development projects
www.wfp.org/governments

The World Food Progamme is an international organisation, part of the UN family, and is funded by many, many donors – including Russia and the US.

WFP donor figures over the last 5 years:
docs.wfp.org/api/documents/3f66543adf5c482a95810d57a2b1518b/download/?_ga=1.238301824.1091995705.1483692580

Snippet showing totals for last 5 years, ranked from largest donor:

1 USA $13,720,506,263
2 Germany $4,561,248,455
3 European Commission $2,877,323,756
4 United Kingdom $2,563,307,284
5 Canada $1,120,722,377
6 Saudi Arabia $833,130,651
7 Japan $826,316,472
[...]
16 Republic of Korea $329,715,559
17 Netherlands $327,535,339
18 Denmark $286,989,412
19 Russian Federation $220,471,150

(Sorry can't get C&P to work for full table, so have just typed out egs.)

I absolutely don't feel African countries in any way "owe" support to any of the donors for this. It's humanitarian.

But it would be flat out false to suggest "the West" isn't helping or doesn't care about African food supplies.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine, on the other hand, was carried out with the specific knowledge that it would trigger famine. A poster previously linked to the actual speech or document where Putin or one of his proxies discussed this before the invasion..

Public support is now Important after mobilisation. They need to know they are fighting for "something" (not that they are) if they just a civilian town they will hurt an already fragile relationship with the public.

@Alexandra2001 I think I will, with respect, have to disagree with you. I would not favour a nuclear response to a TNW being used.

This is my fault, reading back through my posts, i don't want a nuclear response either, it would be the end of history!

But what i do want is the west to be very clear to Russia that we will respond with nuclear, in other words, even though we may not use nukes in retaliation, we want the Russians to believe we will.

Thats our best bet that they wont use.

Got a bit of a fever atm, so i'm not quite with it lol!

If I were starving in Ethiopia or Somalia it would not be Russia I was cheering for selling me (Ukrainian) grain; it would be Ukraine for giving it to me.

ukrainetoday.org/2022/09/19/ukraine-will-give-tons-of-grain-to-starving-african-countries-for-free/

I do suspect a few people get accused of being shills when they're not. But unless you know someone irl you can't tell, and there really have been quite a number of bad-faith actors. It's a case of being caught up unfairly due to a pile of bad-faith actors.

That's the thing with Nukes. The scariest thing about them is the threat of unleashing them. I would almost say that using them is an admission by Putin that they can't defeat Ukraine conventionally. That itself will be an embarrassment for Russia and will almost certainly be then end of Putin politically, regardless of what the escalation or response is from the west.

The use of nuclear weapons massively increases a huge response from the west and will essentially take all of Russias gains from the last 8 years from them in the space of a couple of days. Then closer to home protests I can imagine would be insane and he would lose far to much public support.

There is just nothing to gain from him using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine

@Alexandra2001 no worries, 🙂 get well soon!

There are plenty of people who repeat things they half understand because they lack the capacity to think critically beyond what they are told.

They need challenging, not because you can change your mind, but in order to make the point to third parties who are also reading.

Omg, has anyone looked at Kherson region on Deep state? Some serious gains there, Russian Z patriots must be hysterical.

Yes.
I tend to get it wrong when posters seem too naive and ignorant to be real, particularly when it’s associated with the sort of arrogance where they assume we’ve never heard their points before. I have a tendency to misread that as a shill taking a wide eyed innocence pose, as indeed they often do.

What's deep state Owls?

Don't worry found it!

There are plenty of people who repeat things they half understand because they lack the capacity to think critically beyond what they are told.

I think there are also some "useful idiots," as Lenin called them, who have a romanticized view of Russia from the Soviet Union days as a worker's paradise that had solved all of society's problems. This is from the days when communism was considered cool in some circles, the gulags be damned. Russia is always right, always the victim for these people.

Omg, has anyone looked at Kherson region on Deep state? Some serious gains there, Russian Z patriots must be hysterical.

They're mad about Lyman falling, the screw-ups of the partial mobilization, and now Kherson. I think they're running out of copium, even if Putin invited them to the annexation party in Moscow.

For others who are looking, it's a map service.

deepstatemap.live/en#6/49.438/32.053