Myself, I think he’s a bully and a thug, and he figures that if he threatens the west with nuclear weapons they will back down, especially the Europeans, but also countries like Japan who are also ramping up sanctions. If he can get enough countries to back down he wins. If not, he just tries something else. I have a feeling that if he were to actually try and use a nuke that he’d get a severe case of lead poisoning. That’s my own thought experiment. Could be full of shit as well. 
I’m leaning that way as well. He doesn’t launch nukes himself, he tells other people to launch, who are then going to have to push the button, or relay the order that they have to figure is going to leave their home a smoking ruin once all the missiles are launched. Not over capitalist pigs trying to destroy our homeland, but over our unprovoked invasion going poorly.
Yeah. Plus, you know, everyone dies. That’s fine if you are really, really committed to something and willing to do that because you are a true believer. But, I’m thinking in the current (or even previous) Russian system, there aren’t going to be that many who are willing to cause an unprovoked nuclear attack that is going to kill everyone just because Putin wants it.
Looking for a Hail Mary scenario for the West, what would Putin, after “reminding” us that he has nukes, make of it if nearly every country bordering Russia and Ukraine unilaterally withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty? That would send a stronger message than firing off a nuke in Siberia.
I think there’s been a LOT of historical examples since WWII of the effectiveness of insurgencies and asymmetrical wars, and the Ukrainians almost certainly have paid attention (how many Ukrainian Afghan War vets were there?) , and there’s a good chance for an insurgency/asymmetrical war to start up once organized hostilities end.
But I think what @XT is talking about is more along the lines of the Russians having the gloves on and going out of their way to minimize civilian death and destruction. As a result, they’re not as effective fighting the Ukrainians as they could be; they’re not calling in air strikes or fire missions on suspected enemy positions, or (it sounds like) known enemies, because of the civilian impact.
I kind of suspect that the Russians haven’t really trained for this, nor have they really developed a doctrine for it, unlike the US, who has done both. For example, I’d be willing to bet that the Russians don’t have concrete bombs in their inventory (bombs filled with concrete rather than explosive) for destroying things with a minimum of collateral damage.
This means that their combat effectiveness will be considerably less than it otherwise might be, if they were allowed to just light suspected enemy positions up with artillery/air strikes.
Shades of Blazing Saddles.
Let’s face it, the construction of the UN Security Council means that Russia will never allow a peacekeeping-type resolution to pass, unless there’s some way the other nations can find to disregard a veto. And that still doesn’t mean Putin wouldn’t escalate further. But even a couple blatantly self-interested vetoed resolutions would help in world perception.
Exactly…although, they seem to be shifting away from this recently, with more rockets and airstrikes on civilian targets happening. This could be what you are saying later, which is they don’t seem to be as well trained as I thought they were, as often it seems almost random attacks on office buildings or apartments or whatever. But it could be that the gloves are coming off. Or, it could be that Russia is attacking in a lot of places, but what is making the various news feeds are the few attacks that are against civilian targets.
I hope that what we have been seeing in the last day or so where there are more and more attacks on civilian targets are simply fuckups, but…well, it’s a hope. I don’t want to see the Russians going all out and really hammering the Ukrainians, especially not the Ukrainian civilians. Though, if they really intend to take those cities, a lot of folks are going to die on both sides.
More or less; basically that they’re probably reasonably well trained in more “traditional” high-destruction warfare, and not so well in low collateral damage warfare.
This is interesting… I’d have expected more broad-picture coverage of where the Russians are advancing, where they’re not, where actual force-on-force battles are occurring, where it’s sporadic infantry skirmishing, and so on. ISTR getting a much better picture of where the US forces were even in 1991 vs. Kuwait, than we’re getting in 2022 Ukraine.
Instead, we’re getting weird coverage about 40 mile long convoys, random fighting, etc… without any real picture of what’s going on.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that. I have an interactive map of Ukraine where fighting is happening, but even that is not being updated all that much and doesn’t give any sort of feel for what’s going on. It’s all really fragmentary.
It’s way more fragmentary than I recall any war coverage being. I wonder if a lot of it is maybe a sort of OPSEC on the part of the Ukrainians- less useful coverage, positive or negative, means less the Russians know about what’s going on.
Would you mind posting that interactive map?
I am guessing it’s happening since, actual on the ground situation isn’t very good.
In 6 days, the Russians are 250 km inside Ukraine.
Sure, though I got this from another poster in an earlier thread on this.
Thanks!
Then, why frame it as if you didn’t know?
“This is my last territorial demand!”
Might as well put on the armband.
A theory I read from an apparent expert was that Putin’s goal is to engage in some war-theatre then deliberately allow the war to diminish into a relatively lukewarm, but endless, disputed border fight. It was said that because NATO will not allow any country that does not control its own borders in, Putin will thereby achieve his goal of a buffer zone (ie Ukraine) between Russia and NATO.
I don’t know anything about this stuff but on the face of it, this sounds plausible. Does anyone know more?
That was already the case for years before the invasion because of the unstable situation and low-key conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk. Long before the invasion there was no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO in the foreseeable future because of that.
That guy is no expert. He’s simply trying to justify Putin’s failure in Ukraine as a deep-laid plot.
One other scenario would be that Putin grinds his way to an occupation of Ukraine and a plausible claim of “victory” that satisfies his ego and keeps his twitching finger off the Button.
All the while the world refuses to acknowledge any such legitimacy, supplies and supports insurgencies in the country and makes it as expensive and bloody as possible for Russia to hold on. An even worse Afghanistan.
At the same time sanctions bite, a better informed Russian population feel the pinch and know exactly who to blame, dissent spreads.
Assuming he is sane would Putin take on an even bigger mouthful after that? A NATO country? I suspect not. The scene could then be set for someone in Russia to seize the opportunity if the dissent and dissatisfaction is wide enough.
The rest of the world leaves that person an open goal in terms of negotiations, the lifting of sanctions and the fairly instant improvement of living conditions for Russians, i.e. the handing back of full sovereignty to Ukraine and a gutting of the existing political hierarchy.
Not as simple as that of course, the rising of a viable opposition in Russia absolutely needs a popular revolt of some kind and that seems a long way off but if Russia does occupy then that itself, along with very harsh sanctions, will be a long, long grind with plenty of opportunity for resentment to fester.
Comrade, why don’t you see that my demand for occupying the east bank of the Mississippi is fair and just
I completely agree … he engages NATO and he is toast
Russia and its army has become the world’s laughing stock and been publicly humiliated by Ukr. babushkas, tractor drivers and unarmed and peaceful entrance doors (like THIS one).
Just think about YOUR very own perception of the strenght of the russian army a week ago and today! The schoolyard bully got caled out and punched in the face and walked off. He will not be seen the same way he was before - Putin diminished the military value of Russia by 50% in a week.
I am sure that Ukr. is already full of NATO observers who have a field day of seing russian weaponry engaged and taking notes on strengths and weaknesses;-)