Senate Russia: its impact on the world, its invasion of Ukraine, and its future

Except it probably won't happen. It's part of Russian propaganda.

 

How the US and NATO as a whole have let things deteriorate into this ridiculous state is idiotic to say the least. Sanctions have failed, arming up right on Russia's border has failed....gee, I'd say it's time for a new approach. Russia is hardly blameless, but I can certainly understand why they feel threatened these days.

 

Here's the same story but from a non-tabloid source.

Dmitry Kiselyov isn't new to rattling the nuclear sabre on Putin's behalf. After the annexation of Crimea he happily boasted about Russia's "ability to reduce America to radioactive ash."

There's definitely a pattern that seems to suggest that Putin is trying to make the nuclear option widely feared again. It makes a degree of sense given Russia's post-Cold War grievances and loss of soft power.

I really do wonder about that.

Yes, M.A.D may have prevented a nuclear war so far. I also don't think Putin is insane or suicidal. However, it's not as if rational leaders haven't nearly gone nuclear in the past. And he has invested a lot of political capital in making it clear that he will not back down over Ukraine or Syria under any circumstances. Enough to make me question whether calling his bluff would be wise.

If, for example, Hillary gets elected next month and she sets up a no fly zone over Syria after being sworn into office, what's to say that Putin wouldn't authorise a limited tactical strike in an attempt at shocking the west into standing down and allowing the Russian Federation to maintain its interests? This would be within their "Escalate to Deescalate" military doctrine.

It might not be a likely scenario, however it's a scarily possible one.

 

People seem to forget that Russian is not the USSR, and does not have the same capacity for war. If there were an escalation into a full scale nuclear war, while both sides would be utterly devastated, the resulting conventional war would completely end Russia in a way it might not have the USSR. So I think that any escalation which would skirt so close to almost certain defeat is unlikely.

Now I'm not saying that what the United States is doing in Syria isn't extremely dangerous, and that your scenario couldn't happen, however I don't see Putin skirting so close to annihilation over Syria, and if it really meant he had to lose in Syria he would. I don't think he would lose all that much support in Russia for it either (http://www.newsweek.com/why-russians-dont-care-putin-war-syria-508329).

 

Russia's conventional weakness is a relatively sure fire way of deterring an attack on a Nato member, I'm not going to disagree with you. However, we aren't talking about a snap invasion of the Baltic states here. As I mentioned, if the west were to form a no-fly zone over Syria and target Russian assets Putin has the 'Escalate to Deescalate' doctrine that is intended to prevent a conventional military defeat by shocking any attacker into standing down. What it means is that Putin believes he can order a tactical nuclear strike without retaliation, because he feels that his opponent wouldn't escalate the situation into a full scale nuclear war.

This effectively means that, in a scenario like this, Russia's conventional military weakness makes the nuclear threshold lower, not higher, than the Cold War.

It seems like we're not going to have long before we find out who is right anyway. The ground appears to be being put in place to create a coalition of the willing to enforce this no-fly zone.

Personally I think the Syrian war is starting to feel eerily like a pre-WW1, geopolitical farce.

 

The problem is even in the best-case scenario for Putin, even with the use of a singular tactical nuclear weapon, I think he loses in the long run. Even if he managed to scare off the West, the consequences for having dropped the bomb would be catastrophic for Russia. It would start a Second Cold War, almost every country would heavily sanction Russia and it would start an arms race which Russia can not afford (which could destabilise MAD). It's a no win scenario to use nuclear weapons.

 

A bunch of tabloids here in the UK have run a story claiming that Russian officials have been told to arrange for their families to be flown home and zomg ww3 etc.

The source, apparently, is znac.com - https://www.znak.com/2016-10-11/ros...omendovano_vernut_detey_i_roditeley_na_rodinu

Seems unlikely to be true; probably just a bit of mischief.

 

Znak is absolutely bat**** insane propaganda.

 

What it means is that Putin believes he can order a tactical nuclear strike without retaliation, because he feels that his opponent wouldn't escalate the situation into a full scale nuclear war

The problem is he can't. The minute he uses a nuke, the West will too. Doesn't matter how small--if he hits a NATO target with nuclear weapons, a Russian military target will be hit back in a proportional manner.

The question then is: where does it go from there? In that scenario, there would one chance to de-escalate, and that's it. If Putin responded by an even bigger "tactical" strike, then I think we'd go all-in. Bluffing is fine in poker; nuclear war, not so much.

Peace,

V-03

 

After reading this article, part of me just wants to stick my head in a hole and not worry, but how can you notice and turn away from it?

The specter of the Cold War has definitely been on the rise for the last few years. What happens when White House and Kremlin posturing becomes action?

I'm not sure how worried or not-worried we should be about the prospect of open global war, but we should at least be mindful and vigilant, and seek out peaceful diplomatic solutions first, always. All I know is, of the two "main" candidates, I have faith in neither treading these waters sagely.

 

Ok ok ok ok. Is limited nuclear war possible? Like 4 or 8 cities before cooler heads prevail?

 

guys, if you're American and stressing about Russia, write to your local congressperson (using simple words) and tell them to read what Pat Buchanan said. Then quote a bible passage on humility so you don't scare them when you implore the US to be humble. For once.

 

All this could of been prevented if Russia and America simply drew a line on the globe around circa 93. Your half, our half.


Sigh. What could of been.

Sometimes things can be as simple as a line.

 

Calm down guys.

https://www.rt.com/news/362511-russian-officials-tabloids-war/

 

Oh boy, RT.

 

Well multiple networks in the U.S. reported part of this too. Global recall of all Russians families abroad. But not the zomg ww3.

 

Nope.

 

Yes, I know it's Russia Today. Surely if it were true their line of argument would be "yes, this is happening, but it's not bad". Strange they claim it to not be true, suggests to me it isn't.

 

That and if the sources were solid, it would've been covered by real newspapers.

 

Yikes!

 

CIA may be preparing a cyber attack against Russia

I just heard about it via Maddow in conjunction with the stories about Russia hacking the Clinton campaign.

 

Hmm. Ordinarily I would point out that computer network attack and exploitation are typically the domain of the NSA, not the CIA (albeit sometimes in support of other agencies), but the fact that it's leaked to the press already is suggestive of the high caliber of operational security characteristic of the CIA.

Also, lol:

Always cyber lock your cyber doors, cyber people.

 

We've got the best cyber!

 

Actually, the fact that it was 'leaked' to the press sounds more like a classic psyop. Traditionally, that seems to work well against Russia.

 

In examples such as...?

I'm well aware that the "leak" may be intentional on the part of the intelligence community (frankly, I agree that's probably the most likely scenario). I just think it's silly and amateurish either way. If this is an unintentional leak, it exhibits incompetence. If it is intentional psychological operation, what's the CIA's objective? To scare Russia into backing down? To make them paranoid about when they'll be hacked? Russia is quite familiar with our capabilities, so they would not have embarked on this campaign without girding themselves for potential consequences. They've made the calculus that we have more to lose in this type of conflict. Our political and governmental infrastructure is full of fat sitting ducks with AOL email addresses and a general ignorance of good security practices. Does anyone think that hacked Putin documents would cause anywhere near the amount of domestic turmoil that hacked Clinton/Obama/Trump/${AmericanPolitician} documents would? Consider the implications of even the hint of electronic tampering on election day, how that would play into Trump's claims of election rigging.

If anything, this leak seems aimed at the American audience: don't worry, we're doing something! Even with that target in mind, it seems rather premature.