Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 1151 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,070
8,085
136
I wonder if it has occurred to the Russians that Ukraine could do this to them too.
Ukraine has limited naval presence.
Pretty sure they've been doing what they can.

We, however, are sitting on our arses while the world food supply is attacked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,676
136
Ukraine has limited naval presence.
Pretty sure they've been doing what they can.

We, however, are sitting on our arses while the world food supply is attacked.

How well do we think say a Russian flagged fuel tanker would fare against a couple Ukrainian USVs? Not well I think.

The Russians do not have the resources to protect their shipping if they want to go this way.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Turkey needs to implement a 'no sail zone' over the black sea - with the exception of grain ships.
To do that, they would need the help of the US Navy. Not going to happen. Can't see any special freedom of navigation directive coming from the UN that would give Turkey and the US legal cover as a peacekeeping force. Russia and China will veto. Even if they allowed it, we would have to physically put destroyers and subs in the Black Sea to enforce this.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
How well do we think say a Russian flagged fuel tanker would fare against a couple Ukrainian USVs? Not well I think.

The Russians do not have the resources to protect their shipping if they want to go this way.
Hmm. Geopolitical fallout of that are is a bit hard for me to understand at the moment. To what countries are fuel shipments through the Black Sea going?
 
Last edited:

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,676
136
Hmm. Geopolitical fallout of that are a bit hard for me to understand at the moment. To what countries are fuel shipments through the Black Sea going?

Many. Though they'd likely be targeting empties going back to Russian ports. Any non-Russian flagged ships would clear out due to insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,070
8,085
136
Lets give them the nukes to.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I do, there are red lines that should not be tested.

I generally oppose nuclear proliferation. I must especially oppose it if I believe it to be placed in a situation for immediate use.
My mind fails to grasp any other purpose behind your suggestion. Russia is incapable of backing down, it would not have that effect. It would be a bluff that must be called... and must be used.

We are at war, and we should recognize that. We should act on it. But we should not escalate to a nuclear war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drach and hal2kilo

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,488
3,604
126
A certain annoying insect in this thread might seem to think Ukraine isn't doing much with their counter offensive. But if that's really the case then man oh man does Russia look inept in comparison. In 5 weeks Ukraine's offensive took back the same amount of land that Russia took 6 months to gain


And now they have more tanks than Russia has - including some very generous donations from Russia itself of around 545 tanks. Not to mention Russia is pulling T-54s and T-55s from storage while Ukraine is getting slightly nicer Leopards.

 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
While I appreciate the sentiment, I do, there are red lines that should not be tested.

I generally oppose nuclear proliferation. I must especially oppose it if I believe it to be placed in a situation for immediate use.
My mind fails to grasp any other purpose behind your suggestion. Russia is incapable of backing down, it would not have that effect. It would be a bluff that must be called... and must be used.

We are at war, and we should recognize that. We should act on it. But we should not escalate to a nuclear war.
It is really quite simple.

I don't think Russia has functioning nukes. Or functioning launchers. Both those things cost lots of money to maintain. Especially the Russian versions. Which use corrosive propellants and maintenance unfriendly designs. Top Secret mainteniance program, very expensive, difficult work, dangerious work, easier to divert that money into buying that 11th yacht. No audits, no one will ever know.

We have seen the troops who are supposed to be maintaining those things on the front lines in Ukraine serving as infantry. Think about that!

We have seen Ukraine shot down incoming hypersonics. A functioning nuke is just another hypersonic.


I believe if we give Ukraine nukes it will show Russia as the emperor with no clothes. That all the nuclear threats were empty threats.

The revelation would end the nuclear threat. Destroy the last visage of Russian glory. The last thing they cling to on Russian propaganda channels over and over. And with it, accelerate the shattering of Russia. In 10 years Russia would cease to exist, 1200 years of tyranny come to an end.

The EU/NATO could then continue its peaceful eastward expansion, picking up Ukraine, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, and etc.


(I admit, I just stuck that last part in to light grasshopper on fire)
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Many. Though they'd likely be targeting empties going back to Russian ports. Any non-Russian flagged ships would clear out due to insurance.
Duh, thanks. Empties, because large oil spells are frowned on rather harshly. This also prevents other countries from bitching about Ukraine interfering with their commerce - not that any of these recipients are pro-Ukrainian to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,281
10,935
136
It is really quite simple.

I don't think Russia has functioning nukes. Or functioning launchers. Both those things cost lots of money to maintain. Especially the Russian versions. Which use corrosive propellants and maintenance unfriendly designs. Top Secret mainteniance program, very expensive, difficult work, dangerious work, easier to divert that money into buying that 11th yacht. No audits, no one will ever know.

We have seen the troops who are supposed to be maintaining those things on the front lines in Ukraine serving as infantry. Think about that!

We have seen Ukraine shot down incoming hypersonics. A functioning nuke is just another hypersonic.


I believe if we give Ukraine nukes it will show Russia as the emperor with no clothes. That all the nuclear threats were empty threats.

The revelation would end the nuclear threat. Destroy the last visage of Russian glory. The last thing they cling to on Russian propaganda channels over and over. And with it, accelerate the shattering of Russia. In 10 years Russia would cease to exist, 1200 years of tyranny come to an end.

The EU/NATO could then continue its peaceful eastward expansion, picking up Ukraine, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, and etc.


(I admit, I just stuck that last part in to light grasshopper on fire)
Maintaining nuclear deterrent is extremely expensive and a must to maintain the legitimacy of said deterrent. Spent 39 years making sure that if they are used they will in fact work.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
It is really quite simple.

I don't think Russia has functioning nukes. Or functioning launchers. Both those things cost lots of money to maintain. Especially the Russian versions. Which use corrosive propellants and maintenance unfriendly designs. Top Secret mainteniance program, very expensive, difficult work, dangerious work, easier to divert that money into buying that 11th yacht. No audits, no one will ever know.

We have seen the troops who are supposed to be maintaining those things on the front lines in Ukraine serving as infantry. Think about that!

We have seen Ukraine shot down incoming hypersonics. A functioning nuke is just another hypersonic.


I believe if we give Ukraine nukes it will show Russia as the emperor with no clothes. That all the nuclear threats were empty threats.

The revelation would end the nuclear threat. Destroy the last visage of Russian glory. The last thing they cling to on Russian propaganda channels over and over. And with it, accelerate the shattering of Russia. In 10 years Russia would cease to exist, 1200 years of tyranny come to an end.

The EU/NATO could then continue its peaceful eastward expansion, picking up Ukraine, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, and etc.


(I admit, I just stuck that last part in to light grasshopper on fire)
I think the general consensus is that Russia's land based ICBMs are very questionable. Their surface/air launched IRBMs and sub launched ICBMs are in better shape (supposedly, from a few things I've read). I really have some doubts on the even the subs - since those are more complex. Anyway, this means we can't write them off. That said, I agree that Putin's nuclear threats are simply made as a matter of psychological warfare, and that he has no intention of seeing Russia face the full fury of the West, with full support from the entire rest of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,636
3,510
136
How well do we think say a Russian flagged fuel tanker would fare against a couple Ukrainian USVs? Not well I think.

The Russians do not have the resources to protect their shipping if they want to go this way.

Anything that can take out a whole bridge span would blow the side of any ship wide open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea