Russia attacks Ukraine

Russia did all of this to buffer up the Volgograd region, and they're not going to just slink back home after this "AH WELL, GUESS WE JUST LOST THEN :O" so yes, this will - somehow - sooner or later - end with territorial concessions. It might also end with tactical nuclear deployments, if ONLY to simply go "we take Donbass, even if we have nothing left but wheelbarrows and fire-crackers to fight with"
If that's the case. There will be no point to the war ending. Putin knows deep inside he's already lost the war. It's so unpopular, morale is so damn low to the point troops are refusing to carry out order. That if all russian troops pull out of Ukraine, his downfall is guaranteed to come swift but no quickly enough. Russia's already lost the psychological war. Even if they by some margin won. Itd be such a bitter, tasteless, and hollow victory that wont change the fate of their nation's leader or the resentment from Ukrainians or the world. And everything they do there. Will bleed into the next war they fight. Likely world war III, a direct result of their actions of the previous war. Setting the stage for the next major war in Europe.
 
Last edited:
If that's the case. There will be no point to the war ending. Putin knows deep inside he's already lost the war. It's so unpopular, morale is so damn low to the point troops are refusing to carry out order. That if all russian troops pull out of Ukraine, his downfall is guaranteed to come swift but no quickly enough. Russia's already lost the psychological war. Even if they by some margin won. Itd be such a bitter, tasteless, and hollow victory that wont change the fate of their nation's leader or the resentment from Ukrainians or the world. And everything they do there. Will bleed into the next war they fight. Likely world war III, a direct result of their actions of the previous war. Setting the stage for the next major war in Europe.

Yeah, I'm not sure about a practical end-game here. This truly developed into an affair surprisingly unfavorable to Russia (in particular compared to Crimea/Donbass before) - however, their main concern is maintaining their Black Sea fleet, as well as keeping Volgograd free of any potential NATO-steamrolls from Ukraine - such a move would mirror Hitler's push for USSR Caucasus, culminating in the Battle of Kursk - because whatever losses they can take, losing Caucasus is NOT one of them, thereof the obsession with Donbass/Eastern Ukraine, as well as Russian absolutely fanatical consolidation of the region (Chechnya) *as well* as their creating "short-cuts" to the other side of the mountain range, "just in case" with Abkhazia and Ossetia.

In other words - I think it's a matter of mindset, such as how Russian school-children learn about geopolitical ambitions, or Trump-esque word-have-no-meaning-antics have been commonplace in Russian media for a while now - Putins mindset is one that, seemingly, accepts losses in morale or economy or what have you, so long as these strict, strategic, geopolitical concerns are handled first, a very "long game" sort of mentality. All that said - it is clear, this did not go according to plan. Problem is, not going to plan, is not an alternative, and Russia does have the means to force this (vastly larger manpower, just *more* everything, and nukes. There's something about Rus. Fed. allowing for tactical warheads to be used in conventional combat, where they otherwise apply a more typical "we would never!"-attitude to ICBMs mainly, but I'm not a 100% on how that works.)
 
Yeah, I'm not sure about a practical end-game here. This truly developed into an affair surprisingly unfavorable to Russia (in particular compared to Crimea/Donbass before) - however, their main concern is maintaining their Black Sea fleet, as well as keeping Volgograd free of any potential NATO-steamrolls from Ukraine - such a move would mirror Hitler's push for USSR Caucasus, culminating in the Battle of Kursk - because whatever losses they can take, losing Caucasus is NOT one of them, thereof the obsession with Donbass/Eastern Ukraine, as well as Russian absolutely fanatical consolidation of the region (Chechnya) *as well* as their creating "short-cuts" to the other side of the mountain range, "just in case" with Abkhazia and Ossetia.

In other words - I think it's a matter of mindset, such as how Russian school-children learn about geopolitical ambitions, or Trump-esque word-have-no-meaning-antics have been commonplace in Russian media for a while now - Putins mindset is one that, seemingly, accepts losses in morale or economy or what have you, so long as these strict, strategic, geopolitical concerns are handled first, a very "long game" sort of mentality. All that said - it is clear, this did not go according to plan. Problem is, not going to plan, is not an alternative, and Russia does have the means to force this (vastly larger manpower, just *more* everything, and nukes. There's something about Rus. Fed. allowing for tactical warheads to be used on conventional combat, where they otherwise apply a more typical "we would never!"-attitude to ICBMs mainly, but I'm not a 100% on how that works.)
There's also the talks of them potentially deploying chemical weapons on the battlefield. Which is just as if not even more dangerous than nukes. Imagine them deploying horrid shit like VX or sarin against tactical and strategic targets. That's the ground being poisoned like the fields of Verdun for generations and i dont know how the NATO would retaliate to that
 
There's also the talks of them potentially deploying chemical weapons on the battlefield. Which is just as if not even more dangerous than nukes. Imagine them deploying horrid shit like VX or sarin against tactical and strategic targets. That's the ground being poisoned like the fields of Verdun for generations and i dont know how the NATO would retaliate to that

Oh for sure - now we're delving into anecdotal stuff, but there was this viral FSB-thing, ranting about the failures of the war - it also brought up the use of tactical nukes, and it spelled out what we all can sort of already guess: Nuking a battlefield isn't really going to do much, unless the whooole army is sitting where the nuke lands. It will be a statement, more than anything - "we are willing to take this step, now think hard - "
And this kind of desperation from the Russians is exactly the sort that would inspire the use of excessive weapons, alternatives to nukes, like chemical weapons, they just can't continue to piss troops away in this manner
 
Oh for sure - now we're delving into anecdotal stuff, but there was this viral FSB-thing, ranting about the failures of the war - it also brought up the use of tactical nukes, and it spelled out what we all can sort of already guess: Nuking a battlefield isn't really going to do much, unless the whooole army is sitting where the nuke lands. It will be a statement, more than anything - "we are willing to take this step, now think hard - "
And this kind of desperation from the Russians is exactly the sort that would inspire the use of excessive weapons, alternatives to nukes, like chemical weapons, they just can't continue to piss troops away in this manner
Yeah. I dont know if a nuke would really break Ukraine's spirit to fight. Id hope it wouldnt and do the opposite and strengthen resolve. But wouldnt the use of chems lead to retalitation use against Russia itself? Dont think of a nuclear war. But a chemical war.
 
Meanwhile, Poland's sitting at the border fucking itching for this happen. They're ready to go, this is something everyone in the government old enough to remember has been wanting. The other day they completely banned Russian coal imports, and then called out Germany publicly for continuing to purchase Russian energy (coal, oil, et cetera).

I'm guessing the only reason they haven't done anything is because no one else in NATO wants to step up, but they've had their hand on the "Invoke Article 5" button for awhile now, and seem to be very close to pushing that button. And from what we've seen of the Russian military struggling against Ukraine, Poland's infinitely more well equipped and tactically superior (than the Ukrainian military) military could possibly end up wiping the floor with the Russian forces in Ukraine... considering they can maintain proper logistics, and I think that's the issue. I'm not so sure Poland's economy could support a wartime military for very long, especially without EU or NATO backing.

Either way; one thing is for sure. The end of this war will be a clusterfuck. It's who that's on the receiving/worse end of said clusterfuck that we don't know yet.

Depending on how much territory Russia does end up taking from this endeavor, they could end up having to deal with a whole 'nother insurgency problem like they had in Chechnya in the early aughts.
 
Last edited:
This whole shit show is so insane. I still can't understand those that demand NATO to get involved. Do people actually secretly want WW3?
 
This whole shit show is so insane. I still can't understand those that demand NATO to get involved. Do people actually secretly want WW3?

Yeah because it is going to happen one day so might as well get it over with. What you want to live forever?
 


GETTING READY FOR THAT RP BABY!

giphy.gif


https://www.businessinsider.com/video-woman-accusing-ukraine-war-crimes-russian-fake-report-2022-3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When doing nothing emboldens folks like Putin and Xi and doing something causes war, I'd choose that latter. Imagine how different things woulda been had France and GB rolled into Weimar Germany and laideth the smack down on the Nazis after Czechoslovakia.

The first option is just delaying the inevitable.


Europe's energy dependence on Russia is the same. Putin has a stick and he'll use it, like this ruble bullshit.

The whole nuke thing I doubt it and even if it were to occur it would be tit for that, like Harry Turtledoves Hot War. There is no reason to launch a global world ending strike over Ukraine. Russia and the US will never be invaded sooooo
 
Last edited:
When doing nothing emboldens folks like Putin and Xi and doing something causes war, I'd choose that latter. Imagine how different things woulda been had France and GB rolled into Weimar Germany and laideth the smack down on the Nazis after Czechoslovakia.
*Yawn*

Hitler had no nuclear weapons. Aples and Orange trees and so on.

The whole nuke thing I doubt it and even if it were to occur it would be tit for that
Robert McNamara said a few really good things about this in his later years.



It's true. You never know. It's the Fog Of War. Will they push the button? Or not? Maybe?
But here is the issue. There is no second chance. The margin for errors here is zero.

The first option is just delaying the inevitable.
You don't know that. You're the second guy parroting this nonsense - sorry guys, Love you all.

Seriously, what cynical bullshit is that? Because it might happen one day anyway lets do nuclear war/WW3 now? O_o

I know this is a Fallout fan forum and all. But are you people so eager to patroll the Mojave or something?
 
Last edited:
I didn't say invade Russia, which is what might cause nukes to fall. I am saying stop relying on cheap Russian gas so much that Putin felt he could stomp Ukraine and the Europeans would do nothing.

The Russians went into Georgia. Russians went into Moldova. The Russians went into Syria and now the Russians are in Ukraine. I have been saying all along Putin wants an empire. He wants Russia to retake what he feels to be countries that never should have gotten independence.

If Russia or China want to be empires, they will attempt it, which sooner or later will lead to war. The key is to not look weak and show the Russians and the Chinese that their dreams of an empire will not work, thus reducing the chance of war.

Now you say maybe the attempt at stopping them may lead to war which is also a possibility.

This is what I mean when I say war may be inevitable anyways as looking weak will cause a war and being strong might cause a war. Of the two options, I'd rather be strong.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say invade Russia, which is what might cause nukes to fall. I am saying stop relying on cheap Russian gas so much that Putin felt he could stomp Ukraine and the Europeans would do nothing.

The Russians went into Georgia. Russians went into Moldova. The Russians went into Syria and now the Russians are in Ukraine. I have been saying all along Putin wants an empire. He wants Russia to retake what he feels to be countries that never should have gotten independence.

If Russia or China want to be empires, they will attempt it, which sooner or later will lead to war. The key is to not look weak and show the Russians and the Chinese that their dreams of an empire will not work, thus reducing the chance of war.

Now you say maybe the attempt at stopping them may lead to war which is also a possibility.

This is what I mean when I say war may be inevitable anyways as looking weak will cause a war and being strong might cause a war. Of the two options, I'd rather be strong.
So what youre saying is that it's best to treat the war like a band aid and just tear it off and get it over with other wise your bandage infects your wounds? Sounds a bit fatalistic if you ask me but by all means every road may have been leading down this path. As Russia is a sad state of being of what it once was and this is a ploy to commit to the annexation of Ukraine, eventually Belarus would willfully get annexed and then Russia enroaches on either Poland or Moldova and World War chapter Trés will truly commence
 
Last edited:
This is what I mean when I say war may be inevitable anyways as looking weak will cause a war and being strong might cause a war. Of the two options, I'd rather be strong.
It think this is a sort of cold war mentality that has to be put to rest better sooner than later. It's simply way to simplistic when you consider the challanges that are present today. Which does not mean that 1. You do nothing and 2. You don't keep a good (first) strike capability.

For example, a strong military in Europe or the United States wouldn't have prevented (probably) the invasion in Ukraine. Or when you look at the defence budged of Europe and the US alone. It already is much larger than Chinas and Russias combined. And that doesn't even include all of the NATO members. Yet, they kinda scare a lot of people shitless like, omg! We fall behind they will take over everything! We need more rockets, ships, soldiers yada yada. Double our defence budged! Quick! But as we see right now in Ukraine Russias capabilities to orchestrate very large and complex military operations have been vastly exaggerated. Which isn't necessarily bad, as it's generaly better to overstimate your opposition rather than to understimate them. But like when I just look at Germany, we have a lot of administrative issues with our military as well and much less one that's purely about the defense spending. All the money in the world helps nothing if there is a bad or even corrupt system at work.

What I am trying to say is, money can not fix all problems here. And we have to be carefull not to get another very costly, very dangerous and useless arms race spending billions into "doomsday" systems (Can you say Star Wars?) that we hope to never use that will ultimately serve only to make the armamend industry rich while social and economic issues are ignored. There has to be a sort of balance here. Or you will simply loose the war on the domestic front. There is a very real risk that both Europe and the United States might see very serious turmoil in the near future due to growing inequality, economic strains and serious ecological threats. I fear the inflation right now, is only the foreshadoing of much much bigger issues to come which are simply fueled by our constant growing overconsumption. If our economies and societies have an achilles heel, than I would say it's that. Economic models which are largely based on unlimited growth.

Not to mention, a much larger risk anyway than our military qualities, which far exceed those of China and Russia anway, is the potential of a serious dissent within the NATO member states. Which is what's already causing some serious issues within the European Union for example where some leaders, like in Hungary, feel like they have to be best buddies with Putin, where as other states like Poland, would rather see him gone already yesterday and be a lot more involved in Ukraine. NATO and even more so the EU have a lot of political issues which are not resolved, hell it's not even really discussed in a serious manner, like a common defence strategy, foreign policy, how to treat refugees, asylumseekers and migration and many more topics. Those have a much larger potential to actually do some substantial damage than China or Russia - see Brexit as prime example. A direct military confrontation between Russia and/or China with us is not a real threat in my opinion. Infact the attack by Russia on Ukraine unified the EU and NATO more than any other event since the cold war was over. I mean think about it. Germany alone has over night decided to spend 100 Billion for defence. This might sound not like much compared to the US. But believe me, as far as German politics goes, it's like the hit of an (political) asteroid. But the money has also to be spend efficiently or it will be just wasted.

So as far as our "strength" or "resolve" is concerend, I am not really worried here if Russia and or China decide to become bigger "bullies". But that Russia and to some extend China, have lobbyied and supported the dissent within Europe and the NATO is far more concerning. Particularly because you have a quite large number of voters that actually don't even acknowledge their influence and manipulation out of a strange idea of free speech or outright denial. Like how was it possible for Russian Oligarchs to literaly "buy" their way in to so many institutions and nations? And not just them. China has been doing similar actions for years as well. Some of Greence largest harbors are either directly or indirectly controlled by chines corporations. I quote "They sold this place to China and Russia," screamed the graffiti on a road along the Port of Piraeus, about a 20-minute drive from Athens.

To severe those kind of conections is much more difficult - as we can see with Russia right now - in case of military aggressions. Because at the end of the day, it might affect the livelihood of millions of people. People which might feel inclined to rather chose China and/or Russia when in doubt. So we not only have to keep an eye to the outside so to speak. We have to really be carefull with the outright corruption that's present in our nations as well.
 
Crni


Why such a big paragraph when all your saying is, throw your hands up and say what can we do against Russian and Chinese aggression? I am also getting the vibe that Russian and Chinese aggression is not as scary as climate change or refugees or social justice and equality, which is crazy to me. Putin's invasion and western intervention has out us closer to war and potential nuclear war much more than climate change or social equality ending the world.

You seem to ignore consistently or at least do not bring up, that Europe's need for cheap energy is a big reason why Putin thought Europe would do nothing against the invasion. TBH, when looking at Europe's actions in the past, especially Schroeder and Merkel getting cozy with Putin, it isn't really that hard to believe that Putin would think the way he does

The EU and NATO was not 'guaranteed', to unite more closely . Hence the Russian interventions in Georgia, Moldova, Syria and Ukraine. If anything I was surprised you Europeans actually decided to stick with NATO instead of continue to ignore Russian aggression, all the while talking smack about the USA as an bad guy.

Y'all just grabbed into the Nord Stream 2 pipeline for dear life and only after Russia invaded a SECOND time did y'all do something.
 
Back
Top