They’re still following their WWII and czarist military doctrine of “we have more people and resources than you”. It’s a shame that Russian military leadership will forever be associated with this instead of having a second chance to demonstrate the actual might and strategy of Trotsky’s red army.

It sometimes seems like being in power in Russia destroys your ability to have sensible military strategy

now, to be very upfront about this: I do NOT want to fuck around and find out, but…

it wouldn’t surprise me if Russia’s entire nuclear arsenal is in a similar state of repair.

To add some icing, the phrase was originally Russian and was a household joke in Russia for decades. Russians (and Vlad Puta) know very well how unserious and comical numerous “final warnings” are.

SIEZE RUSSIAN MONEY!

This is exactly what they should do. But they won’t, because most of it is held in the City of London’s offshore boltholes. Seizing anything from them would scare the shit out of every big-time capitalist and corrupt politician on the planet. Would be good for us though.

So true. By this point, Russia is already using everything it can, short of an actual, hot war with the west. And their military is stretched to the limit already without that.

I think this sabre rattling is still useful to them as a one-two-tactic:

1. Public threat from Russia, mentioning but not directly threatening nukes (the “push” side)
2. Russia-aligned media in the west publish articles saying “Putin’s threat should be taken seriously,” Russia-aligned western politicians smearing their opponents as “irresponsible war mongers”, followed by pushing for existing sanctions to be lifted, etc. (the “pull” side via stooges/crooked politicians)

Yeah if we’d done this in Vietnam it wouldn’t be great because Ho Chi Minh was the elected leader of Vietnam, but the Vietnam war wouldn’t’ve been the absolute shit show it was. Frankly most of our wars should’ve been this

The US is fighting dirty in every country but Ukraine?

I have complained to the chancellor about that and will continue to do so. But they do provide Taurus to allies who in turn send their stock of older but similarly capable systems to Ukraine such as storm shadow.

Still, it’s silly and our weapons are only for defense against Russia anyway. We will only need Taurus ourselves if Ukraine loses. Might as well put them to use.

It wouldn’t, but Russia is basically saying that’s a perfectly valid reason to do it.

US assessment is that China is providing the majority of what Russia needs to make those weapons, which is critical to russias ability to maintain their offensive.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/china-supporting-russia-in-massive-military-expansion-us-says

They’re using loopholes to bypass sanctions by posing as civilian gear.

Ukraine is also finding critical Chinese parts on captured gear that used to be from other countries honoring those sanctions.

“Our view is that one of the most gamechanging moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base,” the official said.

I’d say that we’re frequently doing something right. Unfortunately, we’re also frequently doing other things wrong.

It genuinely baffles me how the conservative parties of more than a few western countries went from the hawkish party during the Cold War to Russian apologists today. The mental gymnastics are truly astounding.

yes that could be true…but in the end I welcome all support for Ukraine.

What I like about this is that in order to appeal to right wing fascism the Tories must oppose the poster-boy for right wing fascism.

Yeah but how do you check?

A 99% failure rate would still leave them capable of MAD. That they don’t have that capability is a dangerous pipe dream, which I see nowhere except Lemmy and Reddit comment sections.

Russia has already been “appeased” multiple times.

Allow me to rephrase: We’re not going to involve our troops first. NATO territory is a total red line that would lead to direct conflict, and there’s been specific, limited consequences set for their use of various non-conventional weapons. All conventional weapons are now being given to Ukraine, to match the ones Russia is bringing to bear.

Because of that, I don’t worry too much about appeasement of Russia specifically at this point. I do worry about appeasement policies in general, though. Specifically towards various factions within the West.

They did that because they needed a reason for their forces to be near the border (Of course it wouldn’t fool a concussed chipmunk, but that’s not relevant). This is why historically Russian military exercises often get up NATO’s nose, because Russia does this a lot, it claims " training exercises" as an excuse for its forces to be in NATO waters.

But simulating a nuclear strike doesn’t require forces to be in NATO territory or anywhere near the UK.

It’s not the exercises itself that’s the problem, it’s the fact that Russia often uses them as justification for moving forces around.

If Russia simulates a nuclear strike against London for example, how will anyone in London even notice. They’re just going to say they did it. It won’t actually involve doing anything.

I’m going to nuke Moscow. Done.