There’s also the long-term goal of vandalism. It’s pretty clear now that Russia isn’t going to hold Kherson, or most of what they took early in the war. By blowing up the dam, they deny its use to Ukraine for years, at least, while also rendering a significant area of land uninhabitable. Even with a massive Marshall Plan-like investment in rebuilding Ukraine, building things like dams takes years. That will cause Ukraine economic and social hardships long after the war is over.
We can’t. Period. Nuclear powers are just different. I’ve been saying that all along. If Putin remains in power in Russia, no power in the world can put him on trial for real.
Putin will be solved by Russians in Russia, or not at all.
US announces they have moved an Ohio ballistic missile sub into the Arabian Sea
U.S. Central Command has taken the extremely unusual step of disclosing the presence of a U.S. Navy Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarine in the Arabian Sea. The announcement was framed as a visit by the command’s top officer, U.S. Army Gen. Michael Kurilla, to get a first-hand look at one of America’s key capabilities operating in the region. However, it’s hard not to see it as being a message intended for potential adversaries, such as Iran or Russia, as well as American allies and partners.
Well I guess this is a response to the talk of “What if the Russians use a nuke?”
While there is an equally active debate about whether or not it presents more of a risk than a deterrent, the U.S. military does now have a stockpile of W76-2 warheads with significantly reduced yields. The W76-2, which can only be employed via the Trident D5 and is known to be deployed, at least on some level, was developed specifically based on the argument that there was a need for a more flexible nuclear option to better deter countries like Russia from launching their own limited nuclear strikes.
I have not heard this - could you provide further information?
There’ve been some demonstrations protesting the energy crisis and rising living costs. Some protestors are critical of supplying military aid to Ukraine, but, from what I can tell, the protests don’t seem to be primarily about NATO or Ukraine.
The news sites I can see reporting the protests as being anti-NATO include Iranian news, a news site associated with Putin’s EU ally Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, and various Indian news sites.
Polls do show support for continued aid to Ukraine dropping, though.
The perfect target for a reduced yield nuke: Putin’s dacha. The only question would be whether to give an advanced warning so the workers there can get away.
Why is that several on the right in Europe do fall for the spin that looks to benefit Russia the most?
The latest protests, organized by right-wingers in Europe, do combine protests about energy with demands to end the sanctions against Russia. But what is important is to check how many are involved in favor or against.
For example, on a protest in Berlin around September 30th the estimate was that 24,000 were protesting in a demonstration in Germany, how many protested against Russian aggression and in support of Ukraine?
Of course, that was in back in February, but polls show that there is not much change nowadays, the right-wingers do make a big splash in the media, but the numbers are not really there to support their narrative.
(looking out my window at actual Europe)
“Huge” is, um, rather an overstatement. And “anti-NATO and anti-EU,” also, is off-target.
I’d say a huge overstatement. There were a large demonstration in Prague in September. A few smaller in Germany, mainly against high gasprices. I think there was one in France too earlier in the year. There may, probably was, be more around Europe, but not anything large.
Ok, in order to keep things TRUE, we can say that there are NO huge anti-nato / anti-EU protests throughout Eur.
let’s not create false-flags here …
Thanks, everyone, for clearing that up.
There have been huge protests against the rise of the cost-of-living over the past few weeks throughout Europe. There’s a recognition that the inflation is caused by the Ukraine war, and some protestors have stated that their governments should be supporting their citizens rather than Ukraine. However, I wouldn’t categorise the protests as anti-EU, mainly because they’ve been initiated by unions and pro-left organisations that tend to support the EU. I haven’t noticed any anti-Nato sentiment in the reports of the protests I’ve read.
Here’s one article about a protest in Romania that discusses several others.
It’s worth noting though that there have been occurrences of anti-EU sentiment in recent weeks, even if they weren’t massive street protests. The most significant one was the recent Italian election which is going to result in a right-wing government. The new Italian Prime Minister is apparently pro-EU and pro-NATO. However, it’s questionable if that’s the sentiment of her supporters, the Brothers of Italy party, and indeed of many Italians. Likewise, her coalition partners, especially Berlusconi, are less than fervent with their support for Ukraine.
Has Italy been sending a lot of help?
Some, but numbers are state secrets, so not disclosed.
I was under the impression it was the other way around. The North Crimean Canal draws its water from the Kakhovka Reservoir, so if the dam is destroyed the water supply to Crimea will be cut off.
Naturally, the ukrainians will cut of the supply if they regain control of the canal, so the situation is lose-lose for the russians.
This was the event I was referring to: North Crimean Canal - Wikipedia
Yes, but wouldn’t destroying the dam and by extension the reservoir, also remove the canal’s source of water?
I see what you’re saying. The canal draws water from the reservoir and if the dam gets blown it will likely drop water levels to a point where the canal can no longer draw water.
What do they think will happen to them if their governments stop supporting Ukraine? Is anyone really so stupid as to believe that Putin won’t take that as a license to keep going?
I think at this point many people have realized that Putin is incapable of going further, if by that you mean turning his irredentism towards place like the Baltics. I know early on there were worries about what Putin’s intentions towards places like Lithuania would be if he were allowed to overrun Ukraine. But it has now become painfully obvious that the Russian military would go down hard if it made a move on any NATO state.
So it is possible for someone on the street to feel simultaneously concerned about the war in Ukraine being a problem (possibility of nuclear escalation! rising fuel costs/shortages!), while otherwise feeling unthreatened by Russia themselves (tottering military that is already heavily beat up). I think that POV is the wrong take, but it isn’t illogical so much as it is selfish and amoral.