if russia wins against ukraine ….

[Kruska]

According Russian military doctrine, a war with the states of more than one region (for example, both Europe and North America) is not "regional", but "large-scale" war. And in which they will use "everything" (not only conventional and nuclear, but chemical, biological and other weapons, too). Whoever wins in such a war, Europe will lost more than 99% of its population.

No that's pure warmongering and IMO plain nonsense.

Russia certainly has "historic ambitions" towards e.g. Latvia - therefore IF Russia should attack Latvia - it is a regional conflict, that however involves ALL NATO member States (just as Ukraine) - therefore NATO participating in a regional conflict.

Since NATO is far superior to Russia - they do not need to involve nukes to trash Russian forces - and therefore they never will.
Russia won't be using nukes either - since they are fully aware of Europe's own nuke potential and that of the USA.

Furthermore, there is no Russian army that could attack simultaneously all Baltic States, plus e.g. Finland and Poland - to get into an all out war with NATO. Since two years Russia isn't even able to advance into Ukraine - but Ukraine managed to regain 50% of what Russian forces had initially overrun in the first 3 weeks. - The Russian Armed Forces are what they are - a joke. Just barely able to wrestle down tiny Georgia in 3-6 month.

The big "unknown" factor is Ukraine - IMO they will not be taken into NATO - thus a "neutral" Ukraine will get nukes on their own. And that is Putin's actual fear.

 

[Kruska]

The problem is that with our nucleophobic establishment we'd lost such a capability.

There isn't a single country on the planet - that could win a conventional war against the USA. Because the USA does have that capability - and they never lost it.

 

[Silver Cat]

No that's pure warmongering and IMO plain nonsense.

Just go to official site of the Russian President - kremlin.ru and read their doctrine.
Google translation of the definitions:
---------------------
d) military conflict is a form of resolving interstate or intra–state contradictions with the use of military force (the concept covers all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts);
e) armed conflict – an armed conflict of limited scale between States (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one State (internal armed conflict);
f) local war – a war between two or more States pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing States and which primarily affects the interests of only these States (territorial, economic, political and others);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons in the territory of the region with adjacent waters and in the airspace (outer space) above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political objectives. goals;
h) a large–scale war is a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can result from an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States
------------------
You make think, that it is warmongering and nonsense. But the Russians are insane warmongers (especially from the western point of view)

Russia certainly has "historic ambitions" towards e.g. Latvia - therefore IF Russia should attack Latvia - it is a regional conflict, that however involves ALL NATO member States (just as Ukraine) - therefore NATO participating in a regional conflict.

Since NATO is far superior to Russia - they do not need to involve nukes to trash Russian forces - and therefore they never will.
Russia won't be using nukes either - since they are fully aware of Europe's own nuke potential and that of the USA.

Europe won't have any significant nuclear potential after the Russian counter-force attack.

Furthermore, there is no Russian army that could attack simultaneously all Baltic States, plus e.g. Finland and Poland - to get into an all out war with NATO. Since two years Russia isn't even able to advance into Ukraine - but Ukraine managed to regain 50% of what Russian forces had initially overrun in the first 3 weeks. - The Russian Armed Forces are what they are - a joke. Just barely able to wrestle down tiny Georgia in 3-6 month.

The big "unknown" factor is Ukraine - IMO they will not be taken into NATO - thus a "neutral" Ukraine will get nukes on their own. And that is Putin's actual fear.

It's not just Putin's fear. If there is a choice:
1) fight a nuclear war now (and attack the USA first).
2) allow Ukraine possess nukes and allow them to attack Russia first,
any Russian decision-maker will definitely choose the first.

 

[Silver Cat]

There isn't a single country on the planet - that could win a conventional war against the USA. Because the USA does have that capability - and they never lost it.

A war between nuclear states is a nuclear war. Forget about conventional wars.

 

[Deadstick]

No that's pure warmongering and IMO plain nonsense.

Russia certainly has "historic ambitions" towards e.g. Latvia - therefore IF Russia should attack Latvia - it is a regional conflict, that however involves ALL NATO member States (just as Ukraine) - therefore NATO participating in a regional conflict.

Since NATO is far superior to Russia - they do not need to involve nukes to trash Russian forces - and therefore they never will.
Russia won't be using nukes either - since they are fully aware of Europe's own nuke potential and that of the USA.

Furthermore, there is no Russian army that could attack simultaneously all Baltic States, plus e.g. Finland and Poland - to get into an all out war with NATO. Since two years Russia isn't even able to advance into Ukraine - but Ukraine managed to regain 50% of what Russian forces had initially overrun in the first 3 weeks. - The Russian Armed Forces are what they are - a joke. Just barely able to wrestle down tiny Georgia in 3-6 month.

The big "unknown" factor is Ukraine - IMO they will not be taken into NATO - thus a "neutral" Ukraine will get nukes on their own. And that is Putin's actual fear.

Why would Russia attack Latvia?

 

[Kruska]

A war between nuclear states is a nuclear war. Forget about conventional wars.

There is no and there has never been a nuke war between anybody - for a known reason.
Nukes - aside from being used against Japan - were solely brought into the equation by the USA to prevent an all out conventional war between the USSR and the USA incl. NATO. And it absolutely proved it's purpose during the Cold-War - since there never was a HOT WAR.

If however tactical nukes might be used nowadays in a regional conflict, by e.g. Putin initiating it, is certainly worth a debate.

 

[Kruska]

Why would Russia attack Latvia?

IMO Putin beholds the same mindset/agenda towards the Baltic States as towards Ukraine. Geopolitically and thus militarily - if I would be Russia - I wouldn't accept a systemic rivals military next to my own borders. Finland having joined NATO places them onto Russia's agenda/watch list as well.

Just look at Americans, especially MAGA's - you honestly believe they would tolerate a pro-Russian Mexico and Canada, that additionally is in a military and economic alliance with Russia?? and/or China??

The Russian-Ukraine war/conflict isn't about Ukrainian people at all - it's solely in regards to protecting/preserving Russia's vital economic interests. The exact same interests that made the USA go to war in the Gulf.

 

[Silver Cat]

There is no and there has never been a nuke war between anybody - for a known reason.

It's a dangerous illusion.

Nukes - aside from being used against Japan - were solely brought into the equation by the USA to prevent an all out conventional war between the USSR and the USA incl. NATO. And it absolutely proved it's purpose during the Cold-War - since there never was a HOT WAR.

There was no an open conventional war between Russia and NATO because the possibility of the nuclear war was real. The Russians didn't attack the USA because the USA possessed more or less credible (i.e. not suicidal) first strike capability. Right now the Russians use nukes for the very same purpose. The threat of the Russian nuclear attack should prevent NATO's conventional (or nuclear) war against Russia even if Russia attack Ukraine, Latvia or Germany.

If however tactical nukes might be used nowadays in a regional conflict, by e.g. Putin initiating it, is certainly worth a debate.

Russia can use tactical nukes and the USA can't use them, because, de facto, the USA don't possess tactical nuclear weapons. The obsolete gravity bombs isn't a real weapon. So, if Russia use tactical nukes, the choice of the USA is simple -
1) make few steps backward.

2) escalate to usage of strategic nukes (and commit a national suicide).

 

[Desperado]

….. it will attack more other countries ….


i fear ……

Pulling out the old tried and true Domino Theory again

 

[ThirdTerm]

Russia only attacked its neighboring states in the post-Soviet era such as Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, where Russia's vital interests were at stake. Nobody complained about Russia's aggression against these small and insignificant states until Ukraine was invaded to protect Crimea and Russian-speaking populations in the east.

Asked by Carlson whether he could imagine a scenario where Russian troops are sent to Poland, the Russian president said: “Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest. It’s just threat-mongering.”

 

[Kruska]

It's a dangerous illusion.

It isn't an illusion - but a fact, that Strategic nukes and intermediate nukes - aka Pershing I&II (plus other goodies) prevented a Hot-war.

There was no an open conventional war between Russia and NATO because the possibility of the nuclear war was real.

No nuclear war was never real - since it was never an option - on neither side. And the ICBM potential on both sides - even made the use of e.g. Pershing and the SS-20, etc. none feasible.

The Russians didn't attack the USA because the USA possessed more or less credible (i.e. not suicidal) first strike capability.

The USSR never planed to attack the USA - neither the USA to attack the USSR - one word "suicidal"
It was about a possible conventional confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Centered primarily onto Europe. Made impossible via the existing nuclear deterrents.

Right now the Russians use nukes for the very same purpose. The threat of the Russian nuclear attack should prevent NATO's conventional (or nuclear) war against Russia even if Russia attack Ukraine, Latvia or Germany.

Okay great, and why should NATO attack Russia???
And if Russia attacks e.g. Latvia - NATO's conventional capability can and will kick the shit out of the Russian armed forces.
So Russia according to you, want's to use nukes to "win" in e.g. Latvia??? - thus causing a NATO nuke response???
You are turning in circles in regards to NATO

That Russia might be willing to use tactical nukes in Ukraine or against a non NATO member is feasible - but not against a NATO member. Regardless of what that idiot Trump or the Western Media sprouts.

Russia can use tactical nukes and the USA can't use them, because, de facto, the USA don't possess tactical nuclear weapons.

Wrong - off course the USA has tactical nuke warheads (not just via gravity bombs) in possession - not as many as Russia but nevertheless the USA has them. So does France and Britain. (and these work - I wouldn't place a bet onto Russia's tactical nukes working)

Most nuclear weapons today are variable-yield, or “dial-a-yield,” providing a set amount of explosive energy that can range from fractions of a kiloton to multiples of a megaton. (As such any e.g. cruise missile can be used as a tactical nuke weapon). W76-2 low-yield warheads are also deployed on some Ohio-class submarines.

Furthermore you believe that e.g. China will just stand by idle, and allow Putin to use nukes onto Europe?
However I do believe that Europe needs to set up an own, and enhanced nuclear deterrent force - independent of the USA - and thus even being able to reduce it's enormous defense budget of US$ 380 Billion, compared with Russia's mediocre US$ 30-60 billion. (depending on the currency-exchange rate).

 

[Kruska]

Russia only attacked its neighboring states in the post-Soviet era such as Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, where Russia's vital interests were at stake.

Chechnya wasn't and isn't a neighboring country - but a state within the Russian Federation. aka e.g. the state of Maine in the USA.

 

[GLASNOST]

if russia wins against ukraine ….​

….. it will attack more other countries ….


i fear ……

Based on what? Russia could take the whole of Ukraine within a month if Putin wanted to. Here's a quote by Putin himself: "Anyone who doesn't feel nostalgic for the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains"

 

[GLASNOST]

Russia has always been aggressively expansionist. Invading the Ukraine gives it massive food supplies which it can then use to bribe and extort other countries, and in turn feed larger armies and invasions.

Bull shit!

so it is!

Quatsch!

 

[Silver Cat]

It isn't an illusion - but a fact, that Strategic nukes and intermediate nukes - aka Pershing I&II (plus other goodies) prevented a Hot-war.

Nuclear deterrence is not just a philosophical consequence of the existence of the nuclear bombs. It's a game with high stakes, and right now the USA are losing this game.

No nuclear war was never real - since it was never an option - on neither side. And the ICBM potential on both sides - even made the use of e.g. Pershing and the SS-20, etc. none feasible.

It was pretty real, and, say, in 1962 the USA just dodged the bullet.

The USSR never planed to attack the USA - neither the USA to attack the USSR - one word "suicidal".

It never have been suicidal.

It was about a possible conventional confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Centered primarily onto Europe. Made impossible via the existing nuclear deterrents.

Nuclear deterrence is credible because it is not suicidal.

Okay great, and why should NATO attack Russia???

Latvians may decide that they want to expel or genocide local Russians.

And if Russia attacks e.g. Latvia - NATO's conventional capability can and will kick the shit out of the Russian armed forces.

And Russian nuclear capability will kick the shit out of the European forces.

So Russia according to you, want's to use nukes to "win" in e.g. Latvia??? - thus causing a NATO nuke response???
You are turning in circles in regards to NATO

Russia will use nukes against at least European nuclear and conventional forces, and the USA will prefer to settle things down by achieving possible peace treaty at the lowest level of destruction rather then commit suicide and attack Russia.

That Russia might be willing to use tactical nukes in Ukraine or against a non NATO member is feasible - but not against a NATO member. Regardless of what that idiot Trump or the Western Media sprouts.

Russia won't use nukes in the "special operation" or even in "local war". But they will use nukes in "regional war" (just by their definition of the term "nuclear war")

Wrong - off course the USA has tactical nuke warheads (not just via gravity bombs) in possession - not as many as Russia but nevertheless the USA has them. So does France and Britain. (and these work - I wouldn't place a bet onto Russia's tactical nukes working)

Most nuclear weapons today are variable-yield, or “dial-a-yield,” providing a set amount of explosive energy that can range from fractions of a kiloton to multiples of a megaton. (As such any e.g. cruise missile can be used as a tactical nuke weapon). W76-2 low-yield warheads are also deployed on some Ohio-class submarines.

It's a strategic weapon de jure. Anyway, Trident II missiles are not that reliable now. They are too old, you know.

British nuke sub missile launch FAILS as Trident misfires and 'plops' into sea

A TRIDENT missile dramatically misfired and crashed into the ocean yards from the British nuclear submarine that launched it, The Sun can reveal. The second failed launch in a row – after a misfire…

www.thesun.co.uk

Furthermore you believe that e.g. China will just stand by idle, and allow Putin to use nukes onto Europe?

Of course no. They will attack Taiwan, while the USA are distracted.

However I do believe that Europe needs to set up an own, and enhanced nuclear deterrent force - independent of the USA - and thus even being able to reduce it's enormous defense budget of US$ 380 Billion, compared with Russia's mediocre US$ 30-60 billion. (depending on the currency-exchange rate).

"And one of the fingers on the button will be German... " No, thanks.

 

[Zebra]

Based on what? Russia could take the whole of Ukraine within a month if Putin wanted to. Here's a quote by Putin himself: "Anyone who doesn't feel nostalgic for the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains"

did he really?

 

[GLASNOST]

Based on what? Russia could take the whole of Ukraine within a month if Putin wanted to. Here's a quote by Putin himself: "Anyone who doesn't feel nostalgic for the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains"

did he really?

Did he really what .... say that? Yes, he did say that. So the Ami/NATO fervour about Putin wanting all of Ukraine, all of Europe, all of the world, and bringing back the Sovjet territories is only Scheiß slander to expand NATO and diminish Russia's influence. The truth is (apparently it seems) that Russia is moving towards improving its Democracy while the United Snakes is moving toward Fascism. I lived near Nollendorfplatz in West-Berlin during the Cold War ('78 - '79) and even then(!) I could see what was happening. It was only a feeling I had and I wasn't completely certain but now (unfortunately) it is obvious that I was right.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... Strategic nukes and intermediate nukes - aka Pershing I&II (plus other goodies) prevented a Hot-war.

That’s probably true.

The USSR never planed to attack the USA - neither the USA to attack the USSR

I agree with that but the chips were on the table regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis and no one was sure about “the other guy”. Krustjev had the advantage. First of all, he was in the right plus he was more likely to push the button than Kennedy. 2 – 0 to Nikita who had every right to strike first if he wanted to.

- one word "suicidal"

I think so.

You are turning in circles in regards to NATO

Yes, he is.

 

[Silver Cat]

That’s probably true.

I agree with that but the chips were on the table regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis and no one was sure about “the other guy”. Krustjev had the advantage. First of all, he was in the right plus he was more likely to push the button than Kennedy. 2 – 0 to Nikita who had every right to strike first if he wanted to.

It was not about being right or wrong. It was about the delivering all SS-5s they needed for their counterforce strike in addition to all those SS-4s. They delivered only four SS-5 (of 16 necessary) and when Kennedy suggested mutually acceptable treaty (Russia withdraw missiles from Cuba and the USA withdraw their missiles from Turkey and the rest of Europe) he preferred it, because attacking the USA with SS-4 only (and may be without bombers and submarines either) would be a real gamble.

I think so.

You think wrong.

Yes, he is.

NATO are mostly useless parasites. They are decreasing our wealth and safety instead of increasing it. And I believe that American people should not be endangered because of a bunch of East European (including Baltic) nationalists, who failed to understood what does the words "democracy", "equal rights", "tolerance" or even "fair pay for the safety" mean.

 

[GLASNOST]

... the chips were on the table regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis and no one was sure about “the other guy”. Krustjev had the advantage. First of all, he was in the right plus he was more likely to push the button than Kennedy. 2 – 0 to Nikita who had every right to strike first if he wanted to.

It was not about being right or wrong.

It had everything to do with right or wrong. Krustjev was right, the US conglomeration was in the wrong. Krustjev challenged the American wrong-doers with a hard alternative and he forced the US to back down.

NATO are mostly useless parasites. They are decreasing our wealth and safety instead of increasing it.

NATO is your own creation and it is you who's turning up the heat. Don't piss in your knickers on a hot summer day if you don't like the stench.

I believe that American people should not be endangered because of a bunch of East European (including Baltic) nationalists, who failed to understood what does the words "democracy", "equal rights", "tolerance" or even "fair pay for the safety" mean.

Take a good look at the International Democracy Index to see how well "the American people understand what the word Democracy means". Note also that the US isn't even a full Democracy. After you've done that I'll prepare a plate of crow for your dinner.