Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "Ukraine's advance in the East: Russia confirms its retreat from Lyman | World News | WION" video.

What a lot of these arm-chair quarter backs fail to realize is that the strength of nukes is in their deterrence factor. Once used, that effect is lost. An opponent unfazed by threat of first use against them will not stop once they have been used.
5
To be fair, India has always tried to play the neutral third-party card. But recent developments are making that position more and more untenable.
5
@shafqatishan437 What do you consider as "help"? Sure, the West is giving them equipment and training, but that is the limit. Ukraine is still a Soviet Army fighting another Soviet Army. Only the Soviet-Ukraine army is being augmented by Western tech and tactics.
5
Make no mistake, this is a Soviet-Ukrainian Army fighting a Soviet-Russian Army. Only, the Ukrainian Soviet Army is being augmented by NATO technology and tactics.
3
@pfroudzdo Dude, you don't remember the Russian theft of South Ossetia from Georgia, do you? This war is exactly the same, with the EXACT same false pretexts.
3
@rob-8928 Ukraine does not have nukes because they gave all the ones they had to Russia at Bush's urging. But to your point about retaliation, I do agree that if Putin uses one, then the West has every incentive to give Ukraine a few to use as they see fit.
2
@Rnankn While I nominally agree with you. Your rejection of how the Indians see it shows a certain lack of historical understanidng. The Indians have always had more in common with the West than the Communist Block. But history as a colony of the UK has caused them to reject BOTH sides and advocate for the Third World movement.
2
A railway hub IS a strategic asset. But I understand that you folks in the Middle East don't have regular rail service so i forgive you for your gross ignorance.
2
China has no interest in emancipating Tibet. Strategically, most of China's water comes from the Tibetan Plateau, so whoever controls the Plateau controls the Chinese heartlands. THAT is why they will never tolerate India or even an independent Tibet in the area. Keep in mind that while I agree it SHOULD be independent, that does not blind me to the geo-political realities of the situation.
2
The power of nukes is in their deterrence. Once you use them, they lose the effect. An opponent unfazed by threats of nukes against them will not be stopped once they have actually been used.
2
Sure, keep telling yourself that. Just like the Bltizkreig on Kiev was "just a diversion". First Tank Guards, the pride of Moscow is effectively non-existent as of now.
2
The value of nukes is in their deterrence. Use them and they lose about 80% of their effective power. Someone unfazed by threats of first nuke against them will not be stopped once they have been used.
2
@JohnDoe-hf4te You give me WAY too much credit. I just happen to have a father who handled what the US Navy called "nuclear shapes" (ie simulated nuclear devices). To your first question: it is hard to say. if he thinks he has nothing to lose, he very well might (especially true if he thinks a coup from within is in progress). He also knows that he cannot afford to alienate folks like the Indians by using them. To your second question, it depends on what the target is. Should Putin nuke London, Berlin, Paris, or any American city, I guarantee you that Trident Missiles will be launched against Moscow and Petrograd. If not by the US, then by the British or the French (if Paris is nuked, they WILL do it). A Polish city will also likely trigger such as response, though at a slower pace. Ukraine being struck by nukes is a harder call. There WILL be a response, but not an automatic one. It could end up being something of a Potsdam Ultimatum. Third Question: The Indians will most certainly condemn their use immediate, the Chinese will be more reluctant, but will eventually also condemn the use but more likely several days later. India will find itself forced to act on sanctions or other economic means, but China will try to drag their feet like they always do. I hope that enlightens you.
1
Rail lines that supply the main areas DO make it more valuable than it first appears.
1
Nobody forced former members of the Warsaw Pact to join NATO.....except for maybe Putin himself driving them that direction. If you want to blame anyone for NATO's expansion, look no further than the Kremlin.
1
The power of nukes is in their deterrence factor. Use them and you lose that effect. Further, first-use WILL turn neutral powers like India against Russia.
1
The power of nukes is in their deterrence. Once you use them, that effect is expended. Further, it would guarantee that India and China would throw him under the bus, wanting nothing to do with a first-strike nation. Why do you think that China has never let North Korea nuke Japan?
1
I don't know about Dagestan, but I would like to see an independent Sahka Republic in the Far East. Maybe even a Kamchatka Republic as well.
1
@rob-8928 Seriously doubtful. All of the activation and authorization codes were in Moscow so barring Western intervention in arming/disarming, there was no value in holding any in hiding.
1
@assertivekarma1909 Indeed. My understanding is that while the Ukrainians have been shelling Belgorod, they have been VERY surgical in their strikes, hitting only obviously military targets and choosing to forego striking valid non-military targets such as power stations and war production factories. Me think the Ukrainians (with Western prodding) are trying to make it abundantly clear to the Russian people that their beef is with the Kremlin, not the population.
1
Because they are TRYING to play the neutral third world position as they always have since WW2. Recent developments are making that more and more untenable.
1
Not used all of the toys? You realize that thanks to Russia's rout in Izium, they are now the largest supplier of tanks, artillery pieces, and bullets to the Ukrainian Army? 1 Guard Tank Army, the pride of Moscow gave away most of their equipment!
1
Except, the AK-47 was never meant to be used for targeting. It followed the philosophy of "spray and pray". It was always nothing more than a buttle hose for the Soviet solider.
1
@keyfitter You are engaging in the logical fallacy of presentism. Namely you are trying to apply today's mentality to when it was created. Jungle Warfare had NOTHING to do with the AK-47's production. It was made in response to Soviet performance in WW2, in the Ukraine, ironically enough. Now, I agree that today, the philosophy no longer applies because personal targeting systems have rapidly advance to the point that spray and pray is an ineffective tactic on the battlefield.
1
@bringbackthefruits3281 That may be true, but the fact is, the Russians are NOT demonstrating en-masse. The Ukrainians showed in 2014 what real resistance protesting is.
1
@propagandasheep Pot meet kettle. The Russian Duma is nothing more than a rubber-stamp on Putin's agenda. Putin is an absolute dictator in the mold of Jospeh Stalin.
1
Put down the copium. Remember Putin's "Not one Step back" order?
1
A city of 25,000 pre-war is not small by Russian or Ukrainian standards. But I get that you have Western bias. Everything is big in the West making the cities of Eastern Europe seem small.
1
15-year-old American equipment outperforming the best that Russia has. What does that tell you? The Russian Bear is Geriatric.
1
"Hundreds of Years of Peace"? You do realize WW2 was less than 100 years ago? Further if by "peace" you mean under the bootheel of a dictatorship, you could be correct. But the Ukrainians have rejected that as a workable solution. They remember the days of the USSR and don't want to go back.
1
The power of nuke is in their deterrence. Once you use them, that effect evaporates. And in doing so, it WILL alienate the neutral powers, turning them against Russia.
1
The power of nukes is in their deterrence factor. Once you use them you lose most of the strength of the weapon. Someone unfazed in the face of first-strike use against them is not going to be stopped once it has been used.
1
If he does, Russian will have alienated even the nominally neutral nations. That is a bridge he cannot afford to cross.
1
Moskva the Sinkable Not really. American "intelligence" is more focused on Midwest "memaws" than outside threats. I trust British intelligence MORE than I trust American intelligence. And I say that as an American.
1
"Testing the West"? Have you so quickly forgotten the 2008 Russo-Georgian War over South Ossetia? Or the 2014 theft of Crimea? They both followed the playbook Putin is using now. Difference is, the Ukrainians are putting up more of a fight than they did in 2014.
1