Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoMoreProphets t1_je6gf4u wrote

Reply to comment by jrabieh in Russia Says Ukraine Using Long-Range US Artillery by TallAd3975

That's why it's actually a little scary that they are threatening nukes over Crimea. I can see that being a hardline for them but I can't forsee the day they actually use nukes.

−10

ErikTheAngry t1_je6hyh5 wrote

Well luckily Russian warnings are about as serious as Chinese warnings.

Actual Russian territory has been struck (Belgorod as one example) and Crimea has been hit very hard a few times.

The only retaliation was yet another cruise missile strike against civilian infrastructure, that would have happened anyways.

The oligarchs won't nuke shit. The moment they do they know they get into a war that's fought inside Russia rather than in Ukraine which will, regardless of any other outcomes, end their lives.

34

NoMoreProphets t1_je6mw8i wrote

China plays a long game and their defining moment will be trying to take over Taiwan. Hong Kong proves they can be pretty ruthless against politically opposed "Chinese" nationals. If they manage to take over Taiwan then I dont expect them to allow much political dissent. I don't think its wild to think there will come a day when China tries to forcably take back Taiwan.

The Kremlin isn't their Oligarchs. Its a legitimate time of war and their propaganda feels like it would justify using nukes. Like half of the time they are talking about fighting Nazis and Satanists. That type of demonification feels intentional and pretty hard to reverse.

−4

Fredrickstein t1_je6p7xd wrote

I'm not so sure about China trying to forcibly take Taiwan without something significant changing. Namely a withdrawal of US support for Taiwan. Unlike some countries, the US does not make idle military threats. China would have to commit to an amphibious landing. Such landings are one of the most dangerous operations for any military. To do so without air and naval superiority is utter suicide.

11

Least_Growth4247 t1_je8c5fj wrote

We do sometimes

1

Quigleyer t1_je8grdh wrote

>We do sometimes

I'm not necessarily doubting you, but that's the kind of statement you bring examples for.

2

Least_Growth4247 t1_je8hlhy wrote

Obama threatened Assad with strikes from carriers before he enabled isis to become the new Al Qaeda

−1

PutlerDaFastest t1_je78htd wrote

They threatened nukes over a lot of things. Last time Putin bluffed he said he wasn't bluffing about not bluffing anymore but all he does is bluff bluff Bluffety bluff all bluffing day. At any rate, threatening nukes isn't a loophole for world conquest. That's not a precedent the world is willing to set.

9

TThor t1_je6tzl9 wrote

The reality is, no matter what hardlines they claim, the only actual hardline would be a direct military assault on the entirety of moscow. Anything less will never inspire a nuclear strike, because, so long as moscow isn't under attack, Russia will still have far more to lose by firing the nuke than whatever they gain.

5

[deleted] t1_je73vhf wrote

[removed]

0

FlamingMothBalls t1_je76xzq wrote

it's also his own best interests. No western power will make a move to dethrone Putin. He can lose Crimea and a have a full-blown civil war inside Russian territory, and none of that would threaten his reign - I don't think.

It would have to get a lot, lot worse inside Russia for him to want to lash out, and by the time that happens, he would lack the military and elite support to have such an attack take place.

1

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je78nek wrote

I do not even think it will get to a stage where he will get a full blown civil war. I mean, look at the protests at the start of the war, those were pretty huge and it died down. Of course, the protests will be even larger if he loses Crimea but I do not really see a pathway to outright rebellion. I mean, his army is puttin down refuseniks very effectively now. Unless the officers rebel too of course, but I cannot foresee that happening, at least not yet. Maybe once the officers realise they have a high chance of dying when US enters the fray, only then they will rebel.

Again, US should tilt Putin calculations such that losing Crimea is an acceptable risk.

1

FlamingMothBalls t1_je79avb wrote

I was thinking the same thing. Putin's reign is secure. He's not going anywhere, and because of that, he won't suicide himself by starting a nuclear war.

0

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je7bfnl wrote

Ironically, the fact that Putin's reign is secure might be better for Ukraine's prospects for retaking Crimea, because Biden might just decide to support Ukraine for retaking Crimea.

1

FlamingMothBalls t1_je7ceju wrote

true. tho I wonder if it's physically, militarily possible.

Real Life Lore had an interesting take on the issue. Not sure how on the money the video is, but it would be a massacre to try to take it by force. It's always been (except for 2014 when Ukraine had no choice but to mostly give it up without a fight).

1

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je7hdq8 wrote

Well, the alternative plan he talked about where Ukraine walks across the swamp, the Syvash, is probably the best plan. I have not yet seen any detailed operational plans discussed anywhere else so I will not say it here. I suggest you look at the Siege of Perekop, where the Soviets walked across the swamp, the Syvash, to flank enemy positions and take them by surprise. I think it might be workable for light infantry. Nevertheless, the Soviets took heavy casualties in taking Crimea.

1

dub-fresh t1_je6qezv wrote

They won't use nukes because a) they likely don't have 6000 functioning nukes as claimed b) NATO likely does have way more functioning nukes, and c) using nukes will cause WW3 and literally end the Russian state.

4

beetrootdip t1_je77pa1 wrote

If crimea were a red line the world would have ended months ago. Ukraine already are attacking crimea, as well as territory that the United Nations, ukraine and United States all agree is Russian.

4

grandroyal66 t1_je9e75g wrote

Nothing to gain and everything to loose for Russia. So no..

1