Ukraine

[Gergar12]

You'll note that the Falklands islands are British territory, and when Britain lost those, it responded without nuclear devices.

You can blame a mix of British restraint, third-world moralizing about the mean colonial powers (soft power), and the US carrot of giving the British the French anti-ship missile radar signatures vs stick of we will do the Suez Crisis again.

Personally, that sounds like a great deal in exchange for not threatening to glass Argentina's staging points and showcasing the triple usage/hypocrisy of Western powers using nukes in a hot war. Everyone complains about the US support of Israel, but the US wouldn't let Israel strike preemptively at Egyptian, and Syrian staging points for their invasion of then Israel either, and they likely wouldn't have let Israel turn the Nile Basin into a wasteland.

 

[Gergar12]

There was never any such prevailing theory, not in serious circles. Russia, like any country, is not going to throw a nuke unless it is critically threatened. Putin just wanted Westerners to believe he was relatively trigger-happy because it made them feel more scared about supporting Ukraine so they might bug their governments to stay out.



Why bother? China already owns it, indirectly.

Russia is already dependent on China - for goods, technology, finance. Russia is nothing but fossil fuels and an army, and even the latter isn't going to last long given its population is withering away due to one of the worst birth rates in the world. Russia is stagnant: it doesn't make much anyone wants, doesn't innovate, there's no motivation to improve because oligarchs have already raided and rigged the state. What China wants from Russia it will get, because Russia is in no position to disagree.

Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine

For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era.

www.nytimes.com

Crimea isn't Moscow either.

 

[Gergar12]

There are still no anti-top attack, or anti-drone systems on the T-90M, the most advanced Russian tank in Ukraine.

 

[Satinavian]

The prevailing theory was that if Ukraine, like any other country, invaded Russian soil, it would almost certainly get nuked. So my question is where are the nukes?

The core of the issue is that Russia doesn't want escalation. It didn't want escalation before the Kursk incursion either. That is why all the red lines and the constant threat of nukes exist - to hold back an escalation to a level Russia is less comfortable with.

The resaon is that Russia is nearly out of options for escalations aside nuclear. They are already doing everything they can and hold nothing back. While the West in their support of Ukraine is holding plenty back. Not only is no other country directly engaging in war, we also have limits on the use of weapons, no no-flight-zone, no embargo on Russias western coast, not even directly shooting down Russian missiles near the border, the frozen funds are still not confiscated. Russia has nothing to respond to any of the other possible step.

They could escalate to nuclear war only once and even they don't know what would happen then (they would lose Chinas support but as well as scaring the West away it might instead make them full participants). They really have to think very carefully which of the many step is worth going nuclear.

The only other thing they could do is going full conscription - but that might kill the regime. And the regime values itself higher than victory.


There has been talk in France and the Baltics of actually sending troops into the war. Russia is scared of that one. That is a more important thing to keep the nuclear threat for.


There is also the thing that Russia, even if it gives up, could get the pre-war borders back, likely even keep the Crimea. That would still be hard to swallow and dangerous for Putin. But it still looks more favorable than a nuclear war, no matter from what angle.

 

[Agema]

The Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, has said that Vladimir Putin has formulated a response to the Ukrainian incursion in the Kursk region, Reuters reported.

“I tell you sincerely that the president has made a decision,” the Russian ambassador said.

“I am firmly convinced that everyone will be severely punished for what has happened in Kursk region,” he added.

Okay then! I'm sure "everyone" is thoroughly terrified.

To be fair, the Russian military commanders and senior administrators of the Kursk oblast during the incursion may well be.

 

[Worgen]

 

[Agema]

So, India's leader, Narendra Modi, has been visiting Ukraine.

Zelenskyy says that Modi has affirmed India's support for Ukraine's support and territorial integrity. This is potentially interesting, because India is traditionally very close to Russia. On the other hand, it's entirely possible this is the usual diplomatic niceties, photo op hot air, and India actually couldn't care less. Although I don't doubt if India could place itself as a peacemaker and mediator, it would do wonders for India's global reputation. Given China de facto siding with Russia and the USA very clearly behind Ukraine, it's the perfect opportunity for other major players to try to make their presence felt.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Might’ve been posted earlier (haven’t followed this thread at all) but here we go again it seems -

 

[Silvanus]

https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-moscow-will-respond-if-kyiv-uses-us-atacms-missiles-strike-russia-2024-09-11/

Ukraine has requested that it be allowed to use US and UK armaments to strike targets in Russia.

Putin has said this would mark a major escalation, and that it would be unacceptable if Ukraine is allowed to do what Russia has been doing daily for 2.5 years.

He also says this would mean NATO would be "at war" with Russia, although he has also said NATO is already at war with Russia. Keep in mind that Russia has already been using imported weaponry (from Iran and North Korea) to strike inside Ukraine, but seemingly does not consider this to mean those countries are at war with Ukraine. Also recall that Russia's proxy force shot down a Malaysian flight and killed 300 international civilians in 2014, Russian agents have murdered civilians on the streets of NATO countries including the UK, and Russian leading politicians have repeatedly threatened to invade various other NATO countries, so it seems just a mite hypocritical to consider this the line.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-moscow-will-respond-if-kyiv-uses-us-atacms-missiles-strike-russia-2024-09-11/

Ukraine has requested that it be allowed to use US and UK armaments to strike targets in Russia.

Putin has said this would mark a major escalation, and that it would be unacceptable if Ukraine is allowed to do what Russia has been doing daily for 2.5 years.

He also says this would mean NATO would be "at war" with Russia, although he has also said NATO is already at war with Russia. Keep in mind that Russia has already been using imported weaponry (from Iran and North Korea) to strike inside Ukraine, but seemingly does not consider this to mean those countries are at war with Ukraine. Also recall that Russia's proxy force shot down a Malaysian flight and killed 300 international civilians in 2014, Russian agents have murdered civilians on the streets of NATO countries including the UK, and Russian leading politicians have repeatedly threatened to invade various other NATO countries, so it seems just a mite hypocritical to consider this the line.

Putin's red lines are all done in watercolors, because he knows his military is a paper tiger and the nuclear option will ensure that his legacy will be turning Russia into a glowing parking lot.

 

[Cicada 5]

Kremlin Revives Soviet-Style Youth Indoctrination as It Eyes ‘Forever War’ With Ukraine and the West - The Moscow Times

The Kremlin is working to systematically instill “patriotic” values in children and teenagers through a Soviet-style propaganda campaign as it looks toward preparing the next generation for a life shaped by conflict with Ukraine and the West. “We need warriors, gunmen, stormtroopers — those who...

www.themoscowtimes.com

 

[Gergar12]

China's Xi accused the US of trying to trick him into invading Taiwan, but said he won't take the bait, report says

Xi Jinping told an EU leader that the US was trying to trick China into invading Taiwan, per the Financial Times, amid increasing tensions.

sg.news.yahoo.com

TLDR:

I love US policy being a Morton's fork against China. If Xi invades Taiwan, we/US sanctions him, NATO sanctions him, AUKUS sanctions him, most of the EU, if not all of them, sanction him, and major non-NATO allies like Japan and South Korea sanction him, and maybe India does too. And while we would all face a recession, it wouldn't be US soldiers dying; it would be a proxy war that China and Taiwan would fight, and China would get a depression of its own making.

If he doesn't invade Taiwan and tries to grow the economy to aggregate China's aggregate national power or just national power to weather the sanctions better, it could be that Xi could fear dying before Taiwan becomes a part of China and under its political and military control, and dictators hate that. Look at Putin right now.

The middle ground option is a blockade of Taiwan by the Chinese Navy, maritime militia, and Coast Guard, which would lead to some sanctions, but could allow Taiwan to build up its preparedness.

Again, the lesson the US, and the only best foreign policymakers figure out is that you attack when you can (Gulf War 1), and if there is a world war, you let other people do the fighting unless it's on home turf at least in the beginning, or just sit it out and freeload, which could reap dividends in terms of economics.

So Russia, and China's only option is to interfere in the US's elections and get Trump elected. About that...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Trump says Taiwan should pay more for defense and dodges questions if he would defend the island

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has demanded the self-governed island of Taiwan pay for U.S. protection.

apnews.com

Now do I think the US will protect NATO and treaty-bounded allies? Yes, because it makes sense the US isn't a charity or world police even under Trump due to the influence of the bureaucracy on any candidate.

If I were asked by any news channel, I would lie and say the US would protect Taiwan to the fullest, but even if nuclear weapons were out of the question, you don't attack China on its own turf; you crater their economies like the US vs. the Soviets and Russia today.

 

[Agema]

Now do I think the US will protect NATO and treaty-bounded allies? Yes, because it makes sense the US isn't a charity or world police even under Trump due to the influence of the bureaucracy on any candidate.

Yes and no.

The bureaucracy exercises its influence over decision making through the interface of the higher level civil service and cabinet ministers, to the presidency.

But when Trump talked about the "Deep State", he meant the bureaucracy. His first administration evolved throughout to gradually replace "insiders" with "outsiders", people with heterodox views and more directly loyal to the president. Then, Project 2025 is an overt attempt to place political appointees throughout the bureaucracy in order to bring it more directly under the president's control and direction. It stands to reason all those political appointees - who owe their loyalty to president and party, not the state - will be much more inclined to tell the president what he wants to hear.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

It stands to reason all those political appointees - who owe their loyalty to president and party, not the state - will be much more inclined to tell the president what he wants to hear.

And that they'll care more about keeping him happy than, say, following the Constitution or rule of law.

 

[Agema]

And that they'll care more about keeping him happy than, say, following the Constitution or rule of law.

The President has recently had extensive rights of immunity granted by SCOTUS in the ambit of his Constitutionally-defined duties. How that plays out with his executive branch underlings might be complex, but it could be that as far as they are concerned, he is the law.

 

[Gergar12]

Yes and no.

The bureaucracy exercises its influence over decision making through the interface of the higher level civil service and cabinet ministers, to the presidency.

But when Trump talked about the "Deep State", he meant the bureaucracy. His first administration evolved throughout to gradually replace "insiders" with "outsiders", people with heterodox views and more directly loyal to the president. Then, Project 2025 is an overt attempt to place political appointees throughout the bureaucracy in order to bring it more directly under the president's control and direction. It stands to reason all those political appointees - who owe their loyalty to president and party, not the state - will be much more inclined to tell the president what he wants to hear.

Well they are about to lose so....

Also to every video game company that does modern warfare. Can you idiots stop picking Russia? This was evident in the 2000s when their GDP was as big... as modern-day Italy's.

For fuck sake.

It's either that or scary Middle Eastern Arabs or Iranians.

Pick China for fuck sake. Everyone here complained about a COD that picked South America, but I am more scared about fighting Brazil 2-3 times than I am about Russia.

 

[bluegate]

Well they are about to lose so....

Also to every video game company that does modern warfare. Can you idiots stop picking Russia? This was evident in the 2000s when their GDP was as big... as modern-day Italy's.

For fuck sake.

It's either that or scary Middle Eastern Arabs or Iranians.

Pick China for fuck sake. Everyone here complained about a COD that picked South America, but I am more scared about fighting Brazil 2-3 times than I am about Russia.

Call of Duty could mix it up and pick Russia and have the player play as a hamstrung Ukrainian.

Tell a story of a good guy hamstrung by allies, strungling to fight off a has been super power.

 

[Schadrach]

The President has recently had extensive rights of immunity granted by SCOTUS in the ambit of his Constitutionally-defined duties. How that plays out with his executive branch underlings might be complex, but it could be that as far as they are concerned, he is the law.

He can write pardons and is immune himself, therefore any of his bureaucracy he wants is functionally also immune, short of him being impeached and convicted before he can write such pardons.

 

[Bedinsis]

Armenian authorities have thwarted a coup attempt by Russia.

Armenian Authorities Report Another ‘Coup Plot’

Law-enforcement authorities announced on Wednesday the arrests of three persons accused of trying to set up an armed group to overthrow Armenia’s government.

www.azatutyun.am

 

[Agema]

short of him being impeached and convicted before he can write such pardons.

It would have to be one hell of an impeachment to be fast enough to stop the president have a flunky type up a few dozens to hundreds of pardons and sign them.

I assume that a Presidential pardon would not stop Congress from impeaching other public officials - although as that is nothing more than being barred from office, being protected from criminal prosecution by a pardon is as near as it matters to getting away with it.