What are Putin's Options for Revenge that he has promised?

[Donald H]

Sitting Ducks: Are Aircraft Carriers Too Easy To Sink?

Here’s What You Need to Know: Large ships come with large problems. Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers. “China and Russia appear to have focused many (but not all) their efforts...

nationalinterest.org

Is this one of the options that has made it to the top of the list?

Could it be as simple as Iran supplying one of their proxies with the effective missile(s) needed.

Don't consider this to be the only option. It's only mentioned here because it's obviously on the list of options available to Russia/Iran/China.

Or is it too soon for any of the superpowers to start playing their trump cards?

 

[Donald H]

I should have included the fact that the nuclear option is not available to the US/Nato. There's nothing to gain in that for either side. That then means that conventional warfare means will be looked to if Putin intends on keeping up the appearance of Russia's resolve that any interference with Russia's nuclear capabilities, will bring similar reaction coming from the Russian military.

Or has Putin's/Russia's bluffing now run it's course?

Does this mean that Russia is near accepting defeat?

 

[Litwin]

I should have included the fact that the nuclear option is not available to the US/Nato.

DO IT ***** or shut up!

this is what we do , how do you feel about it ivan ?

Post in thread 'BREAKING : US made F-16 Shoots Down putin´s 🇷🇺 Su-35 Over Kursk! | First F-16 Air-to-Air Kill of the War'

Jun 9, 2025

lost another Su-35. Theory is that Ukraine now has operational their Swedish SAAB AEW&C planes with their F-16 fleet.This capability took years to fight for and obtain for Ukraine.

• Litwin

• 

 

[Zavulon]

Sitting Ducks: Are Aircraft Carriers Too Easy To Sink?

Here’s What You Need to Know: Large ships come with large problems. Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers. “China and Russia appear to have focused many (but not all) their efforts...

nationalinterest.org

Is this one of the options that has made it to the top of the list?

Could it be as simple as Iran supplying one of their proxies with the effective missile(s) needed.

Don't consider this to be the only option. It's only mentioned here because it's obviously on the list of options available to Russia/Iran/China.

Or is it too soon for any of the superpowers to start playing their trump cards?

Any sort of deniable proxy attack. Including, of course, weapons supply and training to California Liberation Army (if it is created).

 

[Donald H]

Russia confirms strikes on defense industry in Kiev

Moscow has hit missile, aircraft, tank, and shipbuilding facilities in the Ukrainian capital, the Defense Ministry has said

www.rt.com

Russia tries to play down the severity of their revenge attack on civilians.

 

[alang1216]

Any sort of deniable proxy attack. Including, of course, weapons supply and training to California Liberation Army (if it is created).

Not a viable option. If Iran attacks Israel, the US will support Israel with weapons, intelligence, and money. If Iran attacks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran's military. If Iran sinks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran.

The Liberation Army thing works both ways. We aided the Afghans and the USSR pulled out. If we aid the Chechnya Lib Army, will Russia be forced out?

 

[Zavulon]

Not a viable option. If Iran attacks Israel, the US will support Israel with weapons, intelligence, and money. If Iran attacks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran's military. If Iran sinks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran.

Really? And if Californians attack US SSBNs what will you do?

The Liberation Army thing works both ways. We aided the Afghans and the USSR pulled out. If we aid the Chechnya Lib Army, will Russia be forced out?

You aided Chechen militants and now most of Chechen militants are dead and survived Chechens are the most pro-Russian population in the Russian Federation. You already aid Ukraine (which, in some way, is Russian California) and it means that Russia (and China, and Brazil and Mexico) can, and, probably should, support Californians.

 

[Zavulon]

Not a viable option. If Iran attacks Israel, the US will support Israel with weapons, intelligence, and money. If Iran attacks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran's military. If Iran sinks a US carrier, the US will decimate Iran.

And yes, thats the difference between a dog and a bear. Dog can attack a stick, a bear will kill a person who hold the stick.

 

[alang1216]

Really? And if Californians attack US SSBNs what will you do?

I'd be VERY surprised.

You aided Chechen militants and now most of Chechen militants are dead and survived Chechens are the most pro-Russian population in the Russian Federation.

I'm sure free and fair elections would show how the feel, not who they fear.

You already aid Ukraine (which, in some way, is Russian California) and it means that Russia (and China, and Brazil and Mexico) can, and, probably should, support Californians.

Except only Russia would have anything to gain.

 

[alang1216]

And yes, thats the difference between a dog and a bear. Dog can attack a stick, a bear will kill a person who hold the stick.

I have no idea what that means but I do know that if Iran or Russia should attack the US or it's military, NATO would be dragged in. Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Turkey and the Baltic Countries might decide to they'd been invaded by Russia one time too many.

 

[Zavulon]

I have no idea what that means but I do know that if Iran or Russia should attack the US or it's military, NATO would be dragged in. Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Turkey and the Baltic Countries might decide to they'd been invaded by Russia one time too many.

Really? Ok. Let's play the game: You are the President of France. After the extremely provocative American actions, the short escalation, and half-demonstrative partial evacuation&mobilisation, Russia attacked the US nuclear forces. All US siloes and bombers destroyed, as well as both bases of SSBNs and unknown number of SSBN in the sea. But few, likely, survived. No one American city is destroyed yet. Civilian losses (with inevitable soon-expected) in the USA are lesser than one million killed. May be much lesser. After this Russia suggest humanitarian moratorium for two days for the attacks against cities and negotiations about peaceful settlement of the conflict. If no one launch missiles - no one city will be destroyed. For every damaged Russian city Russia will destroy seven cities in the USA (or in France, if France attack), and then will continue FUBARing until unconditional surrender.

Americans, while didn't formaly accepted the terms, they didn't retaliated yet. Two days for evacuation of civilians is a good chance for decreasing the possible civilian losses.

So, the fact is, that America was caught with her pants down, and not just f#cked, but elbow-deeply fisted. In this situation America can't win. Russian superiority in the nukes became absolute. America can accept Russian peace terms (quite generous, given the circumstances) and survive or make a useless jesture of retaliation, deliberately attack civilian population in Russia, kill few million of Russian civilians and get vanished from history.
France, that wasn't attacked yet, can:
1) attack Russia and die out,
2) declare neutrality and survive,
3) swipe the sides, join the obvious winner and add diplomatic pressure on the USA to accept Russian (quite generous) terms of peace.

What would you choose? (Non-nuclear NATO members are not even pawns in this game).

 

[Zavulon]

I'd be VERY surprised.

VERY, means "Pearl Harbor-like surprise"? But what will you do with Californians and/or Russians?

I'm sure free and fair elections would show how the feel, not who they fear.

Oh, my... Wasn't it western media, who told as that The Brave Chechen warriors fear nothing?

Except only Russia would have anything to gain.

Really? California is relatively big and rich, everyone can find something for him. What is even more important - California could be merely first step for the "decolonisation" of the USA.

 

[alang1216]

Really? Ok. Let's play the game: You are the President of France. After the extremely provocative American actions, the short escalation, and half-demonstrative partial evacuation&mobilisation, Russia attacked the US nuclear forces. All US siloes and bombers destroyed, as well as both bases of SSBNs and unknown number of SSBN in the sea. But few, likely, survived. No one American city is destroyed yet. Civilian losses (with inevitable soon-expected) in the USA are lesser than one million killed. May be much lesser. After this Russia suggest humanitarian moratorium for two days for the attacks against cities and negotiations about peaceful settlement of the conflict. If no one launch missiles - no one city will be destroyed. For every damaged Russian city Russia will destroy seven cities in the USA (or in France, if France attack), and then will continue FUBARing until unconditional surrender.

Americans, while didn't formaly accepted the terms, they didn't retaliated yet. Two days for evacuation of civilians is a good chance for decreasing the possible civilian losses.

So, the fact is, that America was caught with her pants down, and not just f#cked, but elbow-deeply fisted. In this situation America can't win. Russian superiority in the nukes became absolute. America can accept Russian peace terms (quite generous, given the circumstances) and survive or make a useless jesture of retaliation, deliberately attack civilian population in Russia, kill few million of Russian civilians and get vanished from history.
France, that wasn't attacked yet, can:
1) attack Russia and die out,
2) declare neutrality and survive,
3) swipe the sides, join the obvious winner and add diplomatic pressure on the USA to accept Russian (quite generous) terms of peace.

What would you choose? (Non-nuclear NATO members are not even pawns in this game).

My turn. Russia is essentially Putin. If Putin calls for a nuclear surprise attack on the US, his military has two choices. Obey or assassinate. If they obey and find the US alerted to the attack (they have expected and planned for this for 60 years) the US will immediately launch their land based missiles at the Russian military before they can be destroyed. Bombers in the air and boomers at sea will attempt to destroy the remainder of the Russian military and decapitate the Russian elite, military and civilian. There will be no time for a moratorium.

If they assassinate Putin they keep their privileged positions and become heroes. What would you do in their place? Can Putin be sure of what they will do?

 

[alang1216]

VERY, means "Pearl Harbor-like surprise"? But what will you do with Californians and/or Russians?

You may just as well ask about extra terrestrials too. All equally likely.

Oh, my... Wasn't it western media, who told as that The Brave Chechen warriors fear nothing?

No idea.

Really? California is relatively big and rich, everyone can find something for him. What is even more important - California could be merely first step for the "decolonisation" of the USA.

It is rich, way richer than Russia, so far better to sell it stuff than kill the Golden Goose.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sitting Ducks: Are Aircraft Carriers Too Easy To Sink?

Here’s What You Need to Know: Large ships come with large problems. Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers. “China and Russia appear to have focused many (but not all) their efforts...

nationalinterest.org

Is this one of the options that has made it to the top of the list?

Could it be as simple as Iran supplying one of their proxies with the effective missile(s) needed.

Don't consider this to be the only option. It's only mentioned here because it's obviously on the list of options available to Russia/Iran/China.

Or is it too soon for any of the superpowers to start playing their trump cards?

I know. He could QUIT Murdering Women AND CHILDREN IN Ukraine!

 

[Zavulon]

My turn. Russia is essentially Putin.

Of course no. Putin is not a Dark Lord who rule the Army of Zombies by a powerful magic. He is just a man. Expendable as everyone else.

If Putin calls for a nuclear surprise attack on the US, his military has two choices.

No. Putin doesn't "call" for a nuclear attack. He just "give permission" to do it.

Obey or assassinate. If they obey and find the US alerted to the attack (they have expected and planned for this for 60 years) the US will immediately launch their land based missiles at the Russian military before they can be destroyed.

No one can blind America better than Americans.

Ukraine (as well as Poland and Germany) is not really vital for the USA. If the US decision makers believe that there is actual preparations for the Russian attack - America will make few steps back to defuze the situation. The almost only situation in which they don't do the step back - is when they actively denie the facts they see, and count them as a bluff or something.

Bombers in the air and boomers at sea will attempt to destroy the remainder of the Russian military and decapitate the Russian elite, military and civilian. There will be no time for a moratorium.

Of course there will be time. Read American nuclear posture and US Constitution. Americans are more interested in the saving american lives rather than in killing some random Russians (for Russian elite is already in the shelter under Yamantau mountain, and America doesn't posses thermonuclear cumulative warheads to reach them).

If they assassinate Putin they keep their privileged positions and become heroes. What would you do in their place? Can Putin be sure of what they will do?

You watch too many bad movies. It is not the way how the things works. Good commander doesn't sent his forces. He unleash them.

Did you serve in army?
A bit exaggerating, one can say: "In the Army, everyone, up to the 1st lieutenant, must be able to work and fight by themselves. Captain must be able to organise their work or fight. Major must be able to clearly report what is happening. Lt. Colonel must be able to find the place were to put his signature. Colonel must be able to sign where they tell them. General must be there, where they bring him".

As one of our Generals once said to one of his subordinates, who tried to play a great tactician: "The battle planning is very easy - you just paint red arrows over blue eggs. Why, the f#ck, you have blue eggs in one place and the red arrows in the different?!?", and, of course, all those eggs and arrows are not painted by the Generals nor the Colonels themselves. They are painted by the Lieutenants and Sergants from their stuff, who paint them according Field Manuals written by other lieutenants from the higher staff.
Same way, when "Ukrainian" UAVs attacked strategic bombers, nobody (including Putin) started thinking "What should we do now?" The heads of the MoD, SVR, FSB, other organisations, just got from the shelves preplanned and already signed files "The actions at the level of the deniable proxy attacks against strategic nuclear forces", and act accordingly. In the case of "extremely provocative actions" they just took another file named "The Special Operation of Strategic Deterrence Forces" and act accordingly. Putin's role (or, to be more accurate, the role of ministry of foreign affairs, ministry of economic and development and civilians from President's Administration) is not to block those actions. And he simply can't block those actions without proper reasons. It is the system. You try to act against the system, whoever you are - you are a deadman. Something like what has happened with Eltsin after his attempt to stop the march on Prishtina.

Anyway. Of course, nobody will launch a nuclear attack just out of "caprice of a dictator". It will be launched as the lesser evil, when there is the difference between say, one million killer and sixty million killed. Like it was demonstrated in the classic "Dr. Strangelove" movie.


(With the obvious difference that it is not dialogue for a war room, it is the dialogue for the younger and aggressive technical personel aka back room boys).

The choice is - if they launch the attack, they (both generals and back room boys) have a good chance to survive and become rich and powerful. If they don't attack - they will be killed by FSB or by NATO soldiers.

 

[alang1216]

Of course no. Putin is not a Dark Lord who rule the Army of Zombies by a powerful magic. He is just a man. Expendable as everyone else.

Stalin was just a man.

No. Putin doesn't "call" for a nuclear attack. He just "give permission" to do it.

A distinction without a difference.

Ukraine (as well as Poland and Germany) is not really vital for the USA. If the US decision makers believe that there is actual preparations for the Russian attack - America will make few steps back to defuze the situation. The almost only situation in which they don't do the step back - is when they actively denie the facts they see, and count them as a bluff or something.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of US interests. The situation is so dangerous because Putin is always red lines that never seem to get crossed.

Of course there will be time. Read American nuclear posture and US Constitution. Americans are more interested in the saving american lives rather than in killing some random Russians (for Russian elite is already in the shelter under Yamantau mountain, and America doesn't posses thermonuclear cumulative warheads to reach them).

Once you are attacked, it is total war. We won't wait to see what Russia will do next.

You watch too many bad movies. It is not the way how the things works. Good commander doesn't sent his forces. He unleash them.

More semantics.

Anyway. Of course, nobody will launch a nuclear attack just out of "caprice of a dictator". It will be launched as the lesser evil, when there is the difference between say, one million killer and sixty million killed. Like it was demonstrated in the classic "Dr. Strangelove" movie.

Great movie but it is unlikely that the US will launch a nuclear first strike so for the Russian military it is a choice of one million or zero deaths.

The choice is - if they launch the attack, they (both generals and back room boys) have a good chance to survive and become rich and powerful. If they don't attack - they will be killed by FSB or by NATO soldiers.

If they don't attack one of their number becomes supreme leader. Probably the goal of most of the generals.

 

[Zavulon]

Stalin was just a man.

Yes, of course.

A distinction without a difference.

There is the difference. When you "send" people - they don't want to do it, but you, with threats or bribing, force them to do it. But when you unleash people - they do it because they wanted it.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of US interests.

Really? Do you believe that Ukraine worth for America more than Vietnam and Afghanistan? That Americans are ready to sacrifice even one million of American lives to allow Kievan regime to discriminate local population? That the USA prefer a nuclear war (even victorious nuclear war) to defeat of Kievan regime?

The situation is so dangerous because Putin is always red lines that never seem to get crossed.

And America is crossing real red lines one by one. Right now we are at the level "proxy attacks against nuclear forces" and it makes us more close to a nuclear war than any time during Cold War (including Carribian Missile Crisis).

Once you are attacked, it is total war. We won't wait to see what Russia will do next.

Did you read the American nuclear posture? Do it. It's not even classified. No. In the case when deterrence is failed (and Russia actually attacked the USA) the USA will seek the opportunity to finish this conflict on the lowest level of losses and dameges possible.
I mean, if you have the choice to retaliate immediately (and after the next Russian strike lost sixty million killed) or wait two days and evacuate your cities first (and then Russian strike will kill less than 10 mln American), and there is no significant difference for Russians (because they already evacuated their cities), you shouldn't lost tye opportunity to save fifty million Americans. And if there is an opportunity to avoid total extermination of American people (even by the price of losing Alaska) - it would be stupid to lost it.

Great movie but it is unlikely that the US will launch a nuclear first strike so for the Russian military it is a choice of one million or zero deaths.

No. America (and NATO) need Ukraine for only one reason - to use it to fight the war against Russia. NATO in Ukraine (or Shanghai block in Canada or California) is not a gun pointed in ones forehead (as missiles in Cuba or Turkey), it is the barrel of the gun in one's mouth. Allowing it is pretty suicidal.

If they don't attack one of their number becomes supreme leader.

Of course no. And even if it was so - he'll still have NATO threat to eliminate. And as there was no other option (as they all agreed before), the new supreme leader won't also have a choice but to push the button.

Probably the goal of most of the generals.

Many of those generals need assistance of their grandchildren to install an application on their smartphones. Do you believe that they can rule Russia's economy?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, of course.

There is the difference. When you "send" people - they don't want to do it, but you, with threats or bribing, force them to do it. But when you unleash people - they do it because they wanted it.

The results are the same, military people do what they are told to do.

Really? Do you believe that Ukraine worth for America more than Vietnam and Afghanistan? That Americans are ready to sacrifice even one million of American lives to allow Kievan regime to discriminate local population? That the USA prefer a nuclear war (even victorious nuclear war) to defeat of Kievan regime?

Most of the West has zero trust in what Putin says so the worry of a nuclear war is not seen as real over here.

And America is crossing real red lines one by one. Right now we are at the level "proxy attacks against nuclear forces" and it makes us more close to a nuclear war than any time during Cold War (including Carribian Missile Crisis).

I have no reason to believe the attacks are anything but Ukraine striking military targets.

Did you read the American nuclear posture? Do it. It's not even classified. No. In the case when deterrence is failed (and Russia actually attacked the USA) the USA will seek the opportunity to finish this conflict on the lowest level of losses and dameges possible.
I mean, if you have the choice to retaliate immediately (and after the next Russian strike lost sixty million killed) or wait two days and evacuate your cities first (and then Russian strike will kill less than 10 mln American), and there is no significant difference for Russians (because they already evacuated their cities), you shouldn't lost tye opportunity to save fifty million Americans. And if there is an opportunity to avoid total extermination of American people (even by the price of losing Alaska) - it would be stupid to lost it.

Considering how poorly Russia has done against tiny Ukraine, it would be stupid to take on a superpower when there is no existential threat to Russia.

No. America (and NATO) need Ukraine for only one reason - to use it to fight the war against Russia. NATO in Ukraine (or Shanghai block in Canada or California) is not a gun pointed in ones forehead (as missiles in Cuba or Turkey), it is the barrel of the gun in one's mouth. Allowing it is pretty suicidal.

There is no stomach here to fight Russia, it is Russia that chooses to fight.

Of course no. And even if it was so - he'll still have NATO threat to eliminate. And as there was no other option (as they all agreed before), the new supreme leader won't also have a choice but to push the button.

There is no NATO threat, certainly no short-term one. Without Putin's need to save face there is no need to push any button.

Many of those generals need assistance of their grandchildren to install an application on their smartphones. Do you believe that they can rule Russia's economy?

Who's running the economy now? A former KGB agent?

 

[GLASNOST]

What are Putin's Options for Revenge that he has promised?​

None other than his stated goals.