More precisely, Putin has apparently lost Tokaïev, Kazakhstan strong man. — Olivier5

I think that many leaders are starting to notice that Putin's fragile position.

That some ex-Soviet states are starting to have border troubles shows also that they have noticed that Russia is weak, incapable to intervene. Let's remember that Armenia and Azerbaijan didn't even wait for the Soviet Union to collapse before they started their war with each other.

And Armenia and Azerbaijan are again on the edge:

on 12 September (2022), a series of clashes along the countries’ border resulted in dozens of casualties on both sides, giving rise to fears large-scale hostilities could resume. Despite a Russian-brokered ceasefire in November 2020, violence continued to bubble up periodically. But the latest incidents are of a different degree, and took place far from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which has long been at the heart of the dispute between the two states.

And then there are other border clashes:

(Sep 17th 2022) Kyrgyzstan reported “intense battles” with Central Asian neighbor Tajikistan on Friday and said 24 people had been killed in the latest outbreak of violence to hit the former Soviet Union.

Both of the small impoverished landlocked nations have accused each other of restarting fighting in a disputed area, despite a ceasefire deal.

When the cats away, the mice come out to play?

Meanwhile, the "partial mobilization" is going well. It was initiated blyatzkrieg-style, much like the war on Ukraine, only this time the target was the Russian people. As with the war, authorities strenuously denied that it would happen the whole time (even just days before Putin's announcement). Then when it was finally announced, they said with an innocent face: oh but this is partial mobilization, not general mobilization (special operation, not war).

It quickly became evident that there is nothing "partial" about the it. This follows from Putin's decree, the actual practice, and statements from some of the local commissars in charge of the campaign. General mobilization doesn't mean that everyone gets called up all at once - the Russian military couldn't handle even a fraction of all eligible people anyway (even though that's much less than the claimed 25 million). The Soviet military reserve system, whatever its shortcomings, was pretty much dismantled in the 2010s, and there is no evidence that any preparations have been taken even after the war started. The military seems to have been taken as much by surprise as everyone else.

Even with the professional ("contract") army we have had plenty of reports about their poor equipment and inadequate supplies in the field. Some of the looting was simply due to the fact that soldiers didn't have enough food and clothing. A typical story was that of a kontraktnik from a supposedly elite division borrowing money to buy his own gear before deployment. Some described the first aid kit issued to them as consisting of a gauze bandage, a rubber band and a bottle of iodine.

This sorry state of logistics will become much worse with the mobilized troops. There are already videos making the rounds showing mobiks being quartered in abandoned barracks with rickety walls and no beds, and being asked to buy their own sleeping bags and mats, and improvise first aid kits from hydrogen peroxide and women's tampons (apparently they work pretty well for stanching the blood flow). Oh, and training? Forget about it, you are going straight to Kherson!

Germany's Olaf Scholz obtaining a LNG deal with the UAE few days ago — ssu

He looks so anxious! I can't blame him.

Oh, and training? Forget about it, you are going straight to Kherson! — SophistiCat

They're going to be killed. I don't understand it.

There tends to be very little dissent in the NYT, it tends to go with the government in relation to wars, so it's not the best site for this conflict. I think something like Democracy Now! is better, though I do occasionally go to these "traditional" sources, to see what the US establishment is thinking. It certainly has its uses, but I prefer other sites, like Al Jazeera and a few others.

RT used to be excellent for non-Russia related news. Now it's a parody. As is to be expected during wartime from a state sponsored media.

There tends to be very little dissent in the NYT, it tends to go with the government in relation to wars, — Manuel

Dissent isn't their job, though.

That's true. Though it should be. "Check on power" and all that media responsibility.

That's true. Though it should be. "Check on power" and all that media responsibility. — Manuel

The US government has built-in checks on power. We just want the newspapers to investigate and report.

Situation update: mobilisation makes it far more sure Putin will resort to tactical nuclear weapons now. He has proven he will keep doubling down no matter what the costs. The only off-ramp seems to be if his generals refuse to push the button, and so Putin is replaced.

Questions: What would be the first target? Would he aim to shock and awe Ukraine into submission with a demonstration population strike like Hiroshima, or hit vital infrastructure, or hit some military concentration?

Then what is the world like after that? The West couldn’t respond in kind. But does it just escalate its current tactics - step up arms supply, sanctions and isolation - or does it have to stop and come up with an entirely new plan? Can it give into Putin’s demands in the short term while having some long term containment strategy? What’s plan B?

There's an analysis here.

If they were used for a tactical advantage, then some units would have to advance through the corridor provided. There is no evidence that the existing forces are equipped to do that. The prevailing winds tend to go from west to east. Not good for Russia.

If it was a strategic strike, then wiping out Kyiv would certainly change the calculus. But that would probably prompt NATO and company to strike all of the other Russian weapons with conventional forces. And if the Russians know that would happen then the strike would have to get in front of all the instruments of Mutually Assured Destruction by a preemptive strike from the mother of preemptive strikes.

So an EMP strike to take out communications and surveillance in conjunction with a renewed push by a conscript reinforced frontline, perhaps next spring, rises to the top as one rational choice - depending on whether EMP works as advertised and if the frontline can be held through the winter.

Or else the big Hiroshima demonstration of resolve much sooner to see if that cracks Ukrainian and Western will. A more desperate gamble. And who would be the likely target? Odessa as the critical sea port and historical city?

Could US provide the Ukrainians with the antimissile defence or even shift to enforcing a no fly zone if Russian preparations are underway? Is that the countermove?

If they were used for a tactical advantage, then some units would have to advance through the corridor provided. There is no evidence that the existing forces are equipped to do that. The prevailing winds tend to go from west to east. Not good for Russia. — Paine

Yes. The analysis I’ve read so far rules out practical use on the battlefront - apart from EMP.

If it was a strategic strike, then wiping out Kyiv would certainly change the calculus. — Paine

But who do you negotiate with? And Belarus might be unhappy about a strike so close.

Odessa docks might be a limited enough starting point. Both a useful military target and one with international name recognition.

And if the Russians know that would happen then the strike would have to get in front of all the instruments of Mutually Assured Destruction by a preemptive strike from the mother of preemptive strikes. — Paine

Yep, the sky’s the limit after the first move. So if the Russian generals are capable of rational choice, does that tilt things to an EMP attack and spring offensive? A more “excusable” crossing of the line?

The problem is that Putin needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat in the next month or so given the way his frontline is crumbling. What do we know of his generals and their ability to prevent that?

I don't know how deep the support may go toward supporting the use of weapons of mass destruction in the Putin regime. But I am pretty sure that there is not any room to try one thing first and then see how others react. The best chance one has, as the aggressor, is to wipe out the opposing response at the same time one attacks. Otherwise, you are toast.

Commentators say Russia could use a tactical nuke and the West would live with it. So step one is not MAD but calculating what Western caution allows.

It’s not as if the chemical and biological lines haven’t been crossed often enough now.

Yes, that is why I thought a 'proportional' response would employ 'conventional' weapons. What if that response wiped out strategic use of nuclear weapons by Russia?

MAD only works if you can deliver the destruction on command.

What if that response wiped out strategic use of nuclear weapons by Russia? — Paine

I’m not following. How could lobbing a few tactical nukes in the current war - now framed as a legitimate defence of mother Russian territory - make any difference to the strategic arsenal of subs, missiles and cruise missiles?

I think no nukes will be used in Ukraine. It's just too close to Russia, the fall out would be spread all over western Russia. Assuming the missiles themselves don't crash in Russian territory by mistake, as happened recently.

RT used to be excellent for non-Russia related news. — Manuel

That was the irony. Yes, to report on the US they were able to act like investigative journalists. But anything concerning Russia or it's allies is a different matter. And of course, when the Kremlin wants to push something, everything close to journalism goes out the window and it's Goebbels-time. Sad, but they could be OK journalists, if they want.

No nukes will be used in Ukraine. It's just too close to Russia, the fall put would be spread all over western Russia. Assuming the missiles themselves don't crash in Russian territory by mistake, as happened recently. — Olivier5

I sincerely hope so. There is a small possibility that Putin will follow the "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine especially now when directly from the Stalinist playbook, the sham referendums have been done with North Korean success on the occupied territories. Especially if not otherwise the Ukrainian counter-offensive cannot be stopped.

A tactical nuke wouldn't do much in the battlefield: Ukrainian battlegroups simply aren't packed together that a tactical nuke would do much. It would just create huge panic and likely condemnation to Russia even from it's allies. Naturally the panic, especially in the West, could do wonders. People would genuinely think that nuclear annihilation is the next logical step and will happen the next day. Arguments for immediate cease-fire would be heard a lot.

Likely in that case, if tactical nukes would be used against Ukraine, suddenly the Ukrainian defence forces would start to inflict unseen damage to the Russian forces. The Russian Black Sea fleet would have many ships sunk in rapid secession, Ukraine suddenly would leash this awesome barrage of cruise missiles etc. I think this is the issue that US tries to communicate to Russia. Hopefully they are credible in their threat. (And it's obvious that this isn't said publicly as that would make it just worse)

I do think that neither side wants all out WW3. Putin's game would literally start to be Russian roulette for him.

The fact is that it seems now as things are going good for Ukraine, some Western countries are starting to limit the arms shipments to Ukraine. Germany hasn't been keen to send Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine and what the Ukrainians are short of is modern Western air defence systems.

Ukraine’s relations with Germany have soured this week, with Kyiv asking why Berlin reneged on its promise to provide heavy weaponry.

Tensions over Germany’s provision of Leopard tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine — or lack thereof — came to a head this week when Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, publicly asked why Berlin was backtracking on a pledge made to send these weapons to Ukraine.

“Disappointing signals from Germany while Ukraine needs Leopards and Marders now — to liberate people and save them from genocide,” Kuleba said on Twitter, adding that there was “not a single rational argument on why these weapons can not be supplied, only abstract fears and excuses.”

See here

Finally even our country wants to follow Trump. If visas are unobtainable and things go the way as they are going now in Russia, illegal entry could be an issue.

The Border Guard wants to build 130 - 260 km fence on our 1300 km border with Russia. The project is estimated to take 3 to 4 years. Now there is no fence or anything physical on the border. Just an narrow corridor in the forests with border stones marking where the border is.

(This isn't reality yet between Finland and Russia)

I am not worried about nukes, for one because it won't make any difference if we are worried or not; for two because I believe "Russians love their children too", and won't nuke a place so close to Russia; and for three, because the only reason they evoke nukes is to get us scared, and I won't give them this satisfaction.

Ukrainians could also retaliate: not with a real nuclear weapon (at least initially) but with "dirty bombs". Add nuclear waste material to a conventional bomb, and find a way to blow it off on the Red Square.

Meanwhile, the "partial mobilization" is going well. It was initiated blyatzkrieg-style, much like the war on Ukraine, only this time the target was the Russian people.

Lol, yes. It seems that mobilization has succeeded in making people fear the Russian military again, it's just that those people are Russians themselves.

After reports and videos of escalating clashes and riots in Dagestan, officials have stopped mobilization there, at least for now. I can see this having serious follow on effects if other minority populations, who have made up a massively disproportionate amount of front line combat forces, realize they can refuse to fight and their federal leaders refuse to assist with mobilization. After all, what can Putin do if they refuse like Luka in Belarus, send his military to cow them? They increasingly are the military. Quite a predicament.




I mean, it's a dumb question. What is the answer supposed to be: "well, after we've come under nuclear attack, I might start having second thoughts about the doctrine of retaliation?"Or maybe "hmmm, I suppose I be paralyzed by fear and unable to act?" All you can really say about strategic deterrence is "yes, no doubt should exist, we will retaliate." Hell, you'd say that even if you're arsenal didn't actually work.


Western responses proposed range from detonating a nuclear weapon in the Arctic, to a conventional strike on the base that sent the attack, to a no-fly zone over Ukraine and the destruction of what remains of the Russian air force, probably paired with US missile defenses moved in as well so they can't effectively use more weapons as easily, to a nuclear strike on an unpopulated area of Siberia.

Or simply increasing sanctions to a full embargo. China has a treaty saying it will defend Ukraine in the event of a nuclear attack, so it may feel it has to join such an embargo to keep its credibility, which would totally isolate Russia.

I suppose the West could also have already prepared tactical nuclear warheads that can be mounted on Soviet era systems or Ukrainian designs such as a modified version of the Neptune missile. This would allow the West to avoid directly attacking Russia, but let Ukraine deter Russia by answering strikes on military targets with their own low yield nuclear strikes on Russian bases. Obviously the big risk here is that a loose cannon gets control of the weapons and uses them in a first strike.

However this war ends, Ukraine will end up with a large incentive to develop nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching strategic targets in Russia in order to avoid future attacks. They also likely have the resources left over from the Soviet era to accomplish this, and the risks associated with them being armed now might carry less weight if you expect them to be armed later.

The parallel in history here is Russian nuclear escalation during the Yom Kippur War. Part of the reason this didn't work as well as it might have was that Israel itself was capable of hitting Moscow and St. Petersburg with its own nuclear weapons, which made Moscow's ability to escalate much more fraught, since it wasn't only the US it has to worry about.

The referendums in eastern Ukraine went swimmingly for Russia. Annexation is next.

Is anyone surprised? I doubt it. This decade long war only ends with both sides sitting down and negotiating peace. It could probably have been avoided. Hindsight is hindsight though.

The referendums in eastern Ukraine went swimmingly for Russia. Annexation is next. — NOS4A2

Putin would have annexed the territories anyway :lol: the referendums were just a make up.

Yeah, 99.2% approval in some areas. Truly an unbelievable victory...


In general, the most dangerous part of a radiological attack is the actual explosion. I generally worked on the C and B in CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear but people who had spent their careers in the field were pretty underwhelmed by the threat of the R component. Something like VX or anthrax is much easier to disperse and more deadly, particularly if used in a terrorist attack in an indoor soft target.

Its also unclear how many tactical nuclear weapons Russia can really deploy. The arsenals that exist on paper don't exist in reality. We know the Russian defense budget has been plundered for years, and weapons no one expects to use are a good target for plundering.

We also know the US arsenal was in shambles during the Obama era despite much less theft and a much higher funding level. Even after a modernization surge in spending, Russian funding for its arsenal is just 1.8% of US spending, despite that being spread over 33% more warheads supposedly held in readiness. Delivery vehicles also need constant upkeep and all of Russia's are near or past their retirement date. It's telling that their only functional delivery vehicle since the fall of the USSR is a liquid fueled system (older technology that is much easier to attack before it can be used since you have to fuel it before launch). This is of course aside from ridiculous wunderwaffen like their nuclear torpedo or nuclear powered hypersonic cruise missiles that circle the globe at all times, which are every bit as much science fiction as the idea of satalites firing lasers for ICBM interception.

So, the risks for Putin of ordering a strike aren't just the risks of the responses from the rest of the world, but also the risk that the military will refuse to execute such a command, and that they will fail to implement it, further hitting Russian credibility.

You can't just throw ICBMs and nuclear warheads in a warehouse and expect them to work. Anything using tritium from the Soviet era is very unlikely to detonate. He also has to worry about plans for a strike leaking and Aegis intercepting the strike if it comes from an IRBM (the vehicles they have that are most likely to be reliable for these purposes), as this will cause second thoughts among his military leadership about following him into further escalation. Aegis' ability to hit ICBM targets is new, without a lot of public data, but the ability of the launchers in Poland to shoot down shorter range missiles is a better understood, and larger threat.

I can see this having serious follow on effects if other minority populations, who have made up a massively disproportionate amount of front line combat forces — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the US gets a lot of their troops by offering citizenship to Latin Americans for service.

Medvedev Says US and NATO Won’t Intervene If Russia Uses Nuke in Ukraine

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/09/27/medvedev-says-us-and-nato-wont-intervene-if-russia-uses-nuke-in-ukraine/

I don't think anyone can afford to have much confidence in even further escalation. It is not wise. People always say that no-one would dare use them because of the consequences, if philosophy has any application here, its that we can't be certain of anything. This applies to international affairs doubly so.

I think Putin wants to stop where he is and just defend the (soon to be) annexed territories. If they're part of Russia, attempts to take them back are supposed to be an attack on Russia.

Depends on what you consider "a lot." It's about 30,000 of 1.3 million. It was a relevant source of recruitment when the all volunteer force was under a lot of stress in the mid-late 2000s though.

Minorities in general (if we define that as non-Hispanic White) are actually underrepresented in the military in comparison to the population of service age in the US. If you look at just females, minorities have a much higher representation, but women are a minority in the military. This isn't that surprising historically. African Americans are over represented, as are non-Hispanic Whites. Asians and Hispanics are underrepresented, which tracks with lower levels of military service among immigrants that declines over generations. But again, this is quite different with female members.

Interestingly, this is a pattern that is common with trades too. Minority women are much more likely to go to trade school, get licenses, and join trade unions. When I was working on boosting the number of minority employees working on construction projects we were funding the advice we got from a PhD team was to work on recruiting more women, as this would be key to reaching your other targets.


Right. Best case, Russia is able to keep their gains and becomes a pariah state likely facing near embargo trade restrictions, and possibly even harsh sanctions from China. I can't see a path where using nuclear weapons to conquer new areas doesn't provoke a military response, because at the point what is to stop Putin from doing this anywhere he pleases?

And this will leave Ukraine intact and will likely get the US to go along with deploying Aegis and THAAD there, while Ukraine will have a very high incentive to build their own nuclear arsenal. So now you've created a hostile neighbor who has significantly better missile defense than you and an arsenal that isn't 40+ years old, while your ability to find and get materials for your military as dropped off a cliff. Wasn't the goal to make Russia safe?

Depends on what you consider "a lot." It's about 30,000 of 1.3 million. It was a relevant source of recruitment when the all volunteer force was under a lot of stress in the mid-late 2000s though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not that many, then. I I guess it was related to trying to stabilize Syria?

Minority women are much more likely to go to trade school, get licenses, and join trade unions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wonder what proportion of those are single moms ready to take any path to earning wages.