The point of the article quoted is that a portion of the population is spooked by the possibility of conscription and have left their jobs to go into hiding. That number is beyond the number of people conscripted.
Russia and Ukraine Current Events
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Duke
Senior Member.
Russia says it has recovered drones used to attack its Black Sea fleet in Crimea
From the article:The ministry has said Ukraine attacked the Black Sea Fleet near Sevastopol with 16 drones early on Saturday, and that British navy "specialists" had helped coordinate what it called a terrorist attack, a claim Britain has denied.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-721003/amp
Wouldn't surprise me if the UK provided intelligence support. If there was more of a "hands on" support from the Brits, I'd be inclined to think they were civilian contractors not employed by or serving in the UK military.
Hevach
Senior Member.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...orts-that-700000-have-fled-russia-2022-10-06/
Russia claims 700,000 have fled the country. This isn't just brain drain, either, somebody I play video games with fled to Georgia with a group of factory workers after finding a factory owner willing to help them "rectify their inaccurate papers," and all that took was some machining experience.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225829/labor-force-russia/
Russia's workforce is about 75 million people, so 700,000 fled, plus 71,200 dead in yesterday's update from Ukraine (agenda filters of course, but the other numbers available are Russia's and I think they're still claiming only a few hundred?). And as more conscripts have been arriving on the front, the deaths have been skyrocketing - 320 on the 26th, 480 on the 27th, 550 on the 28th, and 950 yesterday. 100,000 by the end of the year is entirely in the realm of possibility.
And there is a lot more wrong. They're cut off from critical imports their industry needs, cut off from critical money from exports, have willingly cut off several avenues of export that aren't closed by sanctions. The handful of trade partners they still have are increasingly apathetic. And of course the country's called a kleptocracy for a reason, a lot of birds are coming home to roost with that.
captancourgette
Active Member
Russia claimed 21 September
Russians killed 5,937
Ukrainians killed 61,207 (49,308 wounded) (*)
And they want to conscript 300,000 more, though this 300k was the number released the actual number was redacted, speculation it was over a million.
Yeah I don;t think the russian economy will be 'dead by the winter' though I think it will be worse than low single digit decline of GDP like some predict.
I suppose this and a lot of stuff eg what blew up the pipelines/attacked the bridge/numbers of dead etc we won't find out until years after the war finishes.
Mendel
Senior Member.
From your source:
Article: October 6, 2022
The Kremlin on Thursday denied reports that 700,000 Russians have fled the country since Moscow announced a mobilisation drive to call up hundreds of thousands to fight in Ukraine.
"I don't think those numbers should be taken seriously," Peskov said when asked about some reports in Russian media that up to 700,000 Russians could have left the country.
If that number is true, the effect of the mobilisation is at least (300 000 + 700 000) / 75 million ≈ 1.3% of the work force.
As @Landru remarked above, there may also be a large number of workers who have not left Russia, but are merely hiding temporarily.
My personal take is that unless this affects a specific industry disproportionally (e.g. IT), the economic effects of the mobilisation won't be major. I'd be more willing to attribute Russian economic downturns to sanctions as their primary cause.
The graph suggests the Russian workforce shrunk by 1.4 million between 2017 and 2020, which is about as much as the claimed mobilisation effect.External Quote:Total workforce aged 15 years and older in Russia from 2017 to 2021
Do you have a source for this? It feels like a CT.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Point 7
Point number 7 of the decree is classified. In the version of the decree posted on the website for the official publication of regulations, paragraph 7 is not available and is marked as "for official use." Peskov told press that the classified clause referred to the number of reservists who could be called up for military service.
The banned opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta, operating in exile, reported on September 22, 2022, that the classified point 7 gives the Defense Department permission to mobilize up to one million men. Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denied this, calling the reports "a lie." On September 23, 2022, a source "close to one of the federal ministries" told Meduza, a Russian opposition media operating in Latvia, that 1.2 million people are going to be conscripted. Peskov also denied this.
A translation of the decree (sans point 7) is at https://www.politico.eu/article/text-vladimir-putin-mobilization-decree-war-ukraine-russia/amp/ .
It looks to me as if the decree might be designed to allow mobilisation of more personnel without a new decree being necessary, but I don't think there's any evidence that the September-October mobilisation exceeded 300 000 soldiers.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Social media footage documented an unknown number of unmanned surface vehicles striking at least one Grigorovich-class frigate in Sevastopol on October 29.[1] Footage also showed smoke near the port in Sevastopol and what appeared to be Russian air defense in Sevastopol engaging air targets.[2] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Ukrainian forces used seven autonomous maritime drones and nine unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct a "terrorist attack" against the BSF and civilian targets in Sevastopol.[3] Attacks on military vessels in wartime are legitimate acts of war and not terrorist attacks. The Russian MoD claimed that Russian forces destroyed all air targets, destroyed four maritime drones on the outer roadstead, and three maritime drones on the inner roadstead. A similar unidentified unmanned surface vehicle first appeared on the coast of Crimea on September 21.[4]
The use of maritime drones by Ukraine supports the idea that the Kerch bridge was attacked this way.
Article: Occupation authorities in Kherson Oblast announced a dual currency system that allows the use of both rubles and hryvnya, unwinding a months-long effort to enforce rubleization in the oblast.
captancourgette
Active Member
Sorry its a bit hard to find stuff out on this topic unless its within the last couple of days (Just too much stuff coming out trying to find stuff from > a month ago is like looking for a needle in a haystack)
I did find this though
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...ng-against-putins-mobilisation-summoned-join/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63005406
Russia text of the decree
https://tass.ru/politika/15816959
section 7 is redacted, section 7 is what the russian government admits contains the number of conscripts, yet they say that is 300k openly, so why in the official decree is it redacted?
EDIT: Oh I see you've foumd most of this already
I remember seeing stuff where people looking into who got conscripted in some villages (i.e. not moscow etc) and basically if you were a male under 40 you were conscripted, if we look at demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demog...pyramid_(structure)_on_January,_1st,_2022.png
russian males between 20-30 = ~7-8 million , thus they only need to conscript ~4% of those to reach 300k
or
russian males between 20-40 = ~20 million, <2% a 1 in 50 chance of getting conscripted
So why are all these young guys leaving the country, 1 in 50 chance, I'll take those odds
EDIT2:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-mobilisation-ukraine-war-army-drive
statistically there should only be 1 or 2 max if they're very unlucky, 20+ doesn't add up if they only wanted 300k, OK yes ppl outside moscow etc are more targetted but even still > 50% of the population lives outside moscow etc
Last edited:
DavidB66
Senior Member.
The UK is not at war with Russia, there is no treaty obligation to defend Ukraine, action against Russia in the Black Sea area would not be necessary for the defence of the UK, and, so far as I recall, there is no UN resolution authorizing the use of force. On the face of it, direct involvement of UK armed forces in the conflict would therefore be illegal. I think the UK military are quite sticky about such matters these days, and would not automatically take a Ministerial decision as a basis for action. Since Nuremberg, 'just obeying orders' has not been a sufficient defence. I recall there was at least one case (Iraq II?) where the forces insisted on a legal opinion from the Attorney General before getting stuck in. (Afghanistan was less problematic because the USA had invoked the NATO Treaty.) There would probably even be qualms about drone operators in a bunker somewhere in the UK pushing a button to launch a missile.
Duke
Senior Member.
Sounds like you agree with me.
Mauro
Senior Member
It does not add much, alos the existence of the naval drones used in the attack on Sevastopol was already known before the Kerch bridge blew up (a naval drone washed up in Crimea somewhere). The wave which is seen in one of the video might have been caused by a boat, but it comes from the North, which is the direction the (strong) wind was blowing from, while an Ukrainian boat would be expected to come from the South because Russia controls the whole of the Sea of Azov.
Oystein
Senior Member
Question is anyway: An economy is never actually "dead", that word is obvious hyperbole. Click bait?
What set of facts establish when or whether an economy is "collapsing"? That's a vague term. Is "collapse" the same as "recession"? Then it seems some Western economies are on the verge of "collapsing", but they will not be "dead" by Christmas, of course.
In a war economy, it is rational to discontinue production and services for highly valuable (in GDP terms) "luxury", and instead shift to things that have high value for the war effort, while not contributing quite as much as (say) Porsches or Prada purses to the official economic stats. So I am a bit skeptical about attempts to use bad GDP performance as an indicator of imminent doom during a major war.
What set of facts establish when or whether an economy is "collapsing"? That's a vague term. Is "collapse" the same as "recession"? Then it seems some Western economies are on the verge of "collapsing", but they will not be "dead" by Christmas, of course.
In a war economy, it is rational to discontinue production and services for highly valuable (in GDP terms) "luxury", and instead shift to things that have high value for the war effort, while not contributing quite as much as (say) Porsches or Prada purses to the official economic stats. So I am a bit skeptical about attempts to use bad GDP performance as an indicator of imminent doom during a major war.
Mendel
Senior Member.
indicators of collapse:
• mass unemployment and hyperinflation, proliferation of black markets and bartering
• food rationing may be an indicator as well
"collapsing" is before the collapse, but I'd expect GDP dropping and inflation to be warning signs
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Here's a take I found on Russia's economy and where it might be headed. As you stated above sanctions are a big part, but also, according to this article, Putin's years of relying more and more on energy as the country's main source of money. If the Russian economy has become largely a one trick pony, it may not take a massive amount of people fleeing/dying in war to start a collapse. It's one advisor's opinion, but interesting (bold by me):
External Quote:
External Quote:
External Quote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ts-energy-power-is-past-its-peak/ar-AA13Ayxh?External Quote:
Duke
Senior Member.
In the weeks before the invasion, there were economists/pundits from around the world who said the Russians would not invade because it would destroy their economy. I remember one guy in particular interviewed on the BBC was emphatic, he was an economist from one of the schools in London.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Current (Oct 4) figures from the World Bank:
From the report (via https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/europe-and-central-asia-economic-update ):
Ukraine is going to need help.
Article: WASHINGTON, October 4, 2022 – The ongoing war in Ukraine has dimmed prospects of a post-pandemic economic recovery for emerging and developing economies in the Europe and Central Asia region, says the World Bank's Economic Update for the region, released today.
Ukraine's economy is now projected to contract by 35% this year although economic activity is scarred by the destruction of productive capacity, damage to agricultural land, and reduced labor supply as more than 14 million people are estimated to have been displaced. According to recent World Bank estimates, recovery and reconstruction needs across social, productive, and infrastructure sectors total at least $349 billion, which is more than 1.5 times the size of Ukraine's pre-war economy in 2021.
From the report (via https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/europe-and-central-asia-economic-update ):
"Collapse" seems overstated with respect to Russia.External Quote:
Ukraine is going to need help.
Duke
Senior Member.
Article
So is this sabre rattling or serious military contingency planning?
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-721264External Quote:
So is this sabre rattling or serious military contingency planning?
Mendel
Senior Member.
not public enough for saber rattling, IMO
going straight to the source (tip: open NYT in a private tab):
Article: President Vladimir V. Putin was not a part of the conversations, which were held against the backdrop of Russia's intensifying nuclear rhetoric and battlefield setbacks.
But the fact that senior Russian military leaders were even having the discussions alarmed the Biden administration because it showed how frustrated Russian generals were about their failures on the ground, and suggests that Mr. Putin's veiled threats to use nuclear weapons might not just be words.
Still, American officials said they had seen no evidence that the Russians were moving nuclear weapons into place or taking other tactical measures to prepare for a strike.
The intelligence about the conversations was circulated inside the U.S. government in mid-October.
U.S. officials would not describe the scenarios the military leaders considered for use of a nuclear weapon. [...]
While the risk of further escalation remains troublingly high, Biden administration officials and U.S. allies also say that the phone calls between Western and Russian counterparts late last month helped ease some of the nuclear tensions. A speech by Mr. Putin last Thursday in which he denied that Moscow was preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine further lowered the temperature, according to some of the officials.
"We see no need for that," Mr. Putin said in his speech. "There is no point in that, neither political, nor military."
For Mr. Putin, using a smaller-yield, tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine presents more complications than ordering the firing of a strategic weapon, like an ICBM. Moving a tactical nuclear weapon is not simply a matter of giving an order and having two people turn keys.
There would be practical steps that Russian commanders would be alerted to be ready to carry out, including how to mitigate any risk to Russian military personnel in the blast area. [..]
But American officials said that the warning systems to detect such steps were imperfect, and that there was no guarantee that military or intelligence officials would be able to give the White House much advance warning.
Hevach
Senior Member.
If generals are talking about it and Putin isn't in the room my guess is they're discussing the likelihood that Putin will give that order, and their reaction if he does. Without knowing the content of the conversation, just knowing it happened doesn't give us much. They could, for example, have agreed that if he gives the order he has an immediate and tragic window accident.
Duke
Senior Member.
Thanks for posting the NYT article.
I tried to do that but could only see the first couple paragraphs, the rest was covered by a cordial invitation to subscribe if I wanted to see the rest of it. The JP article was the best I could find and access.
Hevach
Senior Member.
Not much movement there but that's changing.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135513599/russia-withdraws-kherson-ukraine
Ukrainian sources are saying Russians aren't leaving without a fight, but Russian state media seems to be priming the pump for the home audience, so we'll have to see how it plays out.
Russia's puppet leader in Kherson died in a car accident, and of course there's plenty of speculation about that since car accidents are up there with jumping out of windows for disgraced Russian politicians.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135513599/russia-withdraws-kherson-ukraine
Ukrainian sources are saying Russians aren't leaving without a fight, but Russian state media seems to be priming the pump for the home audience, so we'll have to see how it plays out.
Russia's puppet leader in Kherson died in a car accident, and of course there's plenty of speculation about that since car accidents are up there with jumping out of windows for disgraced Russian politicians.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: In the face of Ukrainian advances in the region, Russian troops across the Kherson region will withdraw from the west bank of the Dnipro River, an area that includes Kherson city, Russian state media reported Wednesday.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Surovikin said that "Kherson [city] and adjacent settlements in the current conditions cannot be fully supplied and function."
A prominent Russian Telegram channel, with more than one million subscribers, reported "there was a withdrawal to back up positions," near the town of Snihurivka, on the west bank, which is in neighboring Mykolaiv region.
"A bridge was also blown up by our forces in this area today," the channel, RVVoenkor, reported.
It added: "Ukrainian sources published a photo with the raising of their flag at the Snihurivka railway station. The settlement is under their control."
CNN has geolocated the photograph of the flag on a tower in Snihurivka.
The channel also said that the Ukrainians had entered a nearby village (Kalynivske) and that "the front line is steadily moving towards Kherson."
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Ukrainian forces are completing the liberation of the western (right) bank of Kherson Oblast after the Russians retreated from it. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Russian forces completed the withdrawal to the eastern (left) bank of the Dnipro River at 5am local time on November 11.[1] While contingents of Russian soldiers likely remain on the west bank, they are likely scattered throughout the Oblast and attempting to retreat as Ukrainian forces push towards the Dnipro River, although some may have remained behind to attempt to conduct partisan activities in small groups. It is unclear how many Russian soldiers remain on the west bank at this time. Russian sources noted that the withdrawal lasted three days and claimed that 20,000 Russian personnel and 3,500 units of military equipment moved across the Dnipro River.[2]
Satellite imagery corroborates statements made by both Ukrainian and Russian sources that Russian troops destroyed the Antonivsky Bridge and Railway Bridge (near Kherson City) and the Nova Kakhovka dam bridge (east of Kherson City near Nova Kakhovka) over the Dnipro River and the Darivka Bridge (northeast of Kherson City) over the Inhulets River in a final attempt to block Ukrainian advances towards central Kherson Oblast (see images in-line with text).[3] Geolocated satellite imagery also indicates that Russian troops have prepared first and second lines of defense south of the Dnipro River and will likely continue efforts to consolidate positions on the left bank in the coming days.[4]
ISW has recoded all western Kherson Oblast as liberated based on our high confidence assessment that the Russians have deprived themselves of the ability to hold terrain on the right bank of the Dnipro. Ukrainian forces will complete the liberation of any areas not yet under their control rapidly.
Closer view of damage to the damaged section of the Nova Kakhovka dam on November 11. Source: Satellite image ©2022 Maxar Technologies
No flood so far.
[compare]
[/compare]
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
there is no "Sad" reaction i can use for this one. i really feel sorry for everyone over there who are in that situation, having to fight for their country, being threatened with conscription, in danger in any way...
the good news of the Russians leaving Kherson city is very welcome and from what i've been seeing there's not much for them to hide in on the other side of the river so they may not be able to hold out very long there either. the challenge then becomes if they leave then any Ukrainian forces would be in similarly exposed positions. it will be interesting to see how they manage it. my best guess is isolate and do what they've been doing (effective artillery from a distance).
will also be interesting to hear any stories of Russians "left behind" or those who've deserted or chosen to switch sides or surrender.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't expect it makes any sense to attack across the Dnipro, for either side. Happily the Ukrainians are already on the Eastern bank and don't have to. In the future, they could use the units that liberated Kherson (because they won't need a lot of units for defense there), relocate them, and start a campaign elsewhere. Most tactically useful would be to cut through to the Sea of Azov from the North, as that would severely disrupt supply for anything West of that breach as long as the Kerch bridge is still being repaired. But the Ukrainian forces have proven time and again that they can surprise us.
Hevach
Senior Member.
They've been constantly pressing in the center between the previous offensive and this one, there's been some reports of Russia taking heavy casualties in failed advances but not a lot of change in map color. That could change if they shift their focus there next, or the north could have sufficiently reorganized logistics to renew a push. The Dnipro is a wide river and the opposite bank is actually more threatened if the dam is destroyed. With Russia blowing the main bridges and fortifying the opposite side I expect that front to settle back into the artillery exchange/attrition for the time being.
But, like you said, surprises. Speaking of surprises, there were some Ukranian reports on this last night, but today:
Source: https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1591853780806799360
Russia had been launching drones from that area, so this probably isn't so much holding ground as raids destroying Russian positions to disrupt the drone activity. But it does mean Russia is going to have to respond, because if they just give up the positions and launch their drones somewhere else, they give Ukraine a staging area that bypasses their whole defensive line.
But, like you said, surprises. Speaking of surprises, there were some Ukranian reports on this last night, but today:
Source: https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1591853780806799360
Russia had been launching drones from that area, so this probably isn't so much holding ground as raids destroying Russian positions to disrupt the drone activity. But it does mean Russia is going to have to respond, because if they just give up the positions and launch their drones somewhere else, they give Ukraine a staging area that bypasses their whole defensive line.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Russians have reported Ukraine attacking/occupying the Kinburn spit previously (e.g. September 15), it's never been proven true.
Duke
Senior Member.
Article
Article
Flying training missions in the airspace of an ostensibly neutral nation protects the Russian aircraft from Ukrainian fighters and SAMs. At least I doubt the Ukrainians would violate Belarusian airspace to attack Russian assets, doing so could bring Belarus into the war.
These publicized flights allow the Russians to continue to hold the threat of a nuclear strike over the West's head. While the missile does have a conventional capability, it's the nuclear potential that's far more worrisome. Would the Belarusians allow the Russians to base and/or launch a nuclear missile from their sovereign territory? Probably not if they can help it.
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-mig-31k-interceptor-jet-120852885.htmlExternal Quote:
Article
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/kinzhal/External Quote:
Flying training missions in the airspace of an ostensibly neutral nation protects the Russian aircraft from Ukrainian fighters and SAMs. At least I doubt the Ukrainians would violate Belarusian airspace to attack Russian assets, doing so could bring Belarus into the war.
These publicized flights allow the Russians to continue to hold the threat of a nuclear strike over the West's head. While the missile does have a conventional capability, it's the nuclear potential that's far more worrisome. Would the Belarusians allow the Russians to base and/or launch a nuclear missile from their sovereign territory? Probably not if they can help it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
yeah, but I'm not seeing the accompanying rhetoric.
obviously with a conventional warheadArticle: August 21, 2022
Russia says it has deployed Kinzhal hypersonic missile three times in Ukraine
We do have the Russian threat for this, they've recently announced they consider civilian satellites used for military purposes legitimate targets, so maybe they're considering hitting a Starlink node—this would have little practical effect and thus few repercussions, but allow Putin a propaganda victory. (It would also justify the US entering the war, so maybe not...)Article: The Kinzhal missile can also be used to destroy satellites in low earth orbit.
Article: As the United States continues to leverage more commercial satellites for intelligence and communications work, Russia has issued a warning that these may become a "legitimate target" for wartime operations.
That's according to statements made by a Russian delegation on Monday (Sept. 12) at a meeting of the United Nations' open-ended working group (OEWG) on reducing space threats,
Article: Commercial satellites that the U.S. and its allies are using could become "legitimate" targets for retaliatory action by Russia, a senior Russian foreign ministry official told the United Nations on Wednesday [Oct 26].
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
The threat of the Russians using nukes in Ukraine has been a topic since their conventional efforts there bogged down. Earlier this month the US released details of a meeting of senior Russian commanders to discuss when/how they might use a nuke in Ukraine.
Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons.htmlExternal Quote:
Not ever action has to be "pound-your-shoe-on-the-podium" in level of intensity to make/remake a point. Sometimes a subtle reminder is sufficient, especially to the informed.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes. That meeting took place mid-October and was reported Nov 2nd.
However, since then things have happened.
Article: Key Kremlin officials began collectively deescalating their rhetoric regarding the use of nuclear weapons in early November. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) released a statement on "the prevention of nuclear war" on November 2, stating that Russia "is strictly and consistently guided by the postulate of the inadmissibility of a nuclear war in which there can be no winners, and which must never be unleashed." The Russian MFA also stated that it is committed to the reduction and limitation of nuclear weapons.[1] Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on October 27 that Russia has no need to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and claimed Russia has never discussed the possibility of using nuclear weapons, only "hinting at the statements made by leaders of Western countries."[2] The deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has similarly increasingly downplayed the fiery nuclear rhetoric he used throughout October and is now focusing on promoting Russian unity in the war in Ukraine.[3]
Putin and key Kremlin officials had increased their references to the use of nuclear weapons from Putin's September 30 annexation speech and throughout October, likely to pressure Ukraine into negotiations and to reduce Western support for Kyiv. Putin made several general references to nuclear weapons in his September 30 speech but avoided directly threatening the use of nuclear weapons.[4] Putin's rhetoric during this speech and throughout October was consistent with his previous nuclear threats and failed to generate the degree of fear within the Ukrainian government that the Kremlin likely intended.[5] Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Chief Kyrylo Budanov stated on October 24 that the Russian nuclear threat has remained at the same level even prior to the start of the war.[6] The Kremlin also escalated its nuclear rhetoric after Russian military failures in Kharkiv Oblast and during Ukrainian counteroffensives in Lyman and northern Kherson Oblast in early October. The Kremlin likely continued its thinly veiled nuclear threats to deflect from their military and mobilization problems and to intimidate Ukraine's Western partners.
The Kremlin's rhetorical shift indicates that senior Russian military commanders and elements of the Kremlin are likely to some extent aware of the massive costs for little operational gain Russia would incur for the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or NATO.
[...]
The Kremlin likely privately clarified its nuclear policies to deescalate with the United States and its allies. US and allied officials reported that US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has been in contact with Putin's foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev in an effort to reduce the risk of nuclear use.[13] The Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Andrey Kelin, also noted on October 26 that Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu made several calls to his counterparts, reportedly assuring them that Russia is uninterested in using nuclear weapons in the war.[14] China might have also played a role in pressuring the Kremlin to reduce its nuclear threats. Chinese President Xi Jinping stated on November 4 that "the international community should… jointly oppose the use or threats to use nuclear weapons, advocate that nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought, in order to prevent a nuclear crisis in Eurasia."[15] Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe likely expressed a similar notion to Shoigu during an October 26 call.[16]
See also my post #658 above.
Duke
Senior Member.
Not sure I trust Putin or the Russians to do anything they say, either publicly or privately. Still seems like a jab in the ribs of the West to let the world find out they're flying training missions with a nuclear capable missile in Belarus. Sounds like a foot stomp to me.
If Putin and his military really want to de-escalate nuclear concerns in Ukraine, ironically his supporters are going the other way based on this story. I have my doubts this rally and its bellicose message would have taken place without Putin's approval.
Article
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-rally-urges-putin-strike-us-nuke-capable-satan-ii-missile-1759129External Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Maybe. But a) you have no evidence, and b) it's not saber-rattling if it's not anywhere close to official.
Absent evidence (and contrary the evidence I've quoted), your narrative simply aligns with Western propaganda aiming to portray Putin as this evil guy who'll start WW3 and kill us all if given half a chance.
Duke
Senior Member.
Sabre rattling? Who said that? I think I said "subtle" and "jab in the ribs."
Mendel
Senior Member.
Mauro
Senior Member
Of course Russia will be quite pleased if they can scare us, but Kinzhal missiles are nothing new, for instance they have been deployed in Kaliningrad too since a long time, closer to NATO borders than in Belarus.
Duke
Senior Member.
Sure. The discussion is the threat of nukes being used in/against Ukraine as a result of conventional failures there by the Russians, not where Russians base nukes as a hedge against NATO. The fact they have (and have had) Kinzhals based in Kaliningrad does not make a statement relative to what's going on in Ukraine like showing them off in training missions in neighboring Belarus. As I pointed out previously, this allows the Russians to subtly remind the West that nuclear threat still exists.
What I have been trying to find is whether there is any intel that indicates the Kinzhal(s) in Belarus are nuclear. The logistics of supporting a nuke is different than supporting a conventional version of the same weapon. Support equipment, transport/storage, security, maintenance personnel, etc would be specialized for the nuclear variant. Have those discriminators been identified?
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian missiles hit Nato member Poland on Tuesday in what he called a "significant escalation" of the conflict as dozens more caused destruction and power outages across Ukraine.
US and other western officials were investigating explosions at a grain store in Przewodow, Lublin, in which two people were killed.
The place is ~5 km (3 miles) across the border.
