Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "Why is the West not reacting to Russian attacks?" video.

The reason they did not react is they knew it was Ukraine not Russia all along.
2
@harmless6813 First of all, Russia has no way of knowing what the intentions of other countries are or might become. Secondly, losing conventionally to a medium sized country like Ukraine would show Russian army as unable to win conventionally and not just in Ukraine. It is of course possible Putin would accept such a debacle, but showing such a lack of nerve when playing for the very highest of stakes would hardly leave Russia's nuclear deterrent to a conventional invasion much credibility, would it; so what would the point of having either conventional or nuclear forces, or RusFed as a unitary state to pay for them? It would break up.
2
@tokeherkild8038 We'll both go on living and in a year we shall be able to agree on what happened in 2023.
2
When the idea of Russia being driven out of Ukraine by the Ukrainians seemed far fetched it was fine for him to backhandedly scoff at the Kremlin' daring to chose a nuclear option. But that Russia loses conventionally seems a real possibility now, and nuclear weapons may well have utility for the Kremlin in rapidly developing losing endgame for them. Anders is trying to have it both ways with his talk of uncertainty and fear being part of a Russian psychological stratagem. There are some things, such as what the Kremlin would do with its theatre thermonuclear weapons in such an increasingly likely losing endgame for them, that have uncertain yet nonetheless credible outcomes it is wise to fear.
1
@harmless6813 The new Ukrainian minister of defence Budanov predicted in an interview the other week that there will be a revolution in Russia and it will break up. Putin's system and the existence of the country will be in doubt if Russian army just goes home making all the losses for nothing. There are obvious parallels in the Russia Japanese war and WW1so I have no idea why you have no idea of what I speak.
1
@harmless6813 Bad as using a nuke would be for Russia any alternative would be far worse from Putin's standpoint because it would (1) entail RusFeda being relegated from the ranks of great powers and (2) lead to RusFed breaking up. Zelensky' closest advisor Podolyak has just predicted the break of RusFed as a result of the coming defeats and casualties. Anders spoke of 'some people' who talked as if nuke us was a option for the Kremlin . One of those is Vad, former brigadier and German military advisor to Merkel, who is now predicting an inevitable Russian defeat by Western technology in Ukraine and a decision to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine rather than going quietly. Anders is a naval expert.
1
@harmless6813 You are in agreement with Anders that what I suggest has a low order of probability, yet the Ukrainian success Anders is reporting is a clear pathway to Putin having to take a decision of what is the least bad outcome. Can't have it both ways, either Russia is heading for defeat or nukes are going to be completely redundant. In the doctrine of the US and as well as RusFed the purpose of nuclear weapons is to halt an enemy's successful conventional offensive, and the US is not giving Ukraine many conventional weapons such as ATACEMs even though Ukraine is completely dependent on US supply of the coordinates for HIMARS and would be for ATACMS too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1_lpy8TVE That speaks for itself about the US worry that sudden reverses for Putin could lead to him seriously considering the option. At present he thinks he is winning, the US want to keep him oblivious to what is happening, but eventually he will realise he's going to lose. Is he going to have to accept that?
1
@tokeherkild8038 A "units along the border" stance by Russia was politico military pressure, yet unconvincing as a threat because they would be outnumbered four to one on the ground and even more in the air if they crossed that border in an actual offensive Far forward and stationary mobile units are sitting ducks for surprise attack t so the Russian posture was sabre rattling, not defensive, as can be seen in Belarus right now. The present conflict between Russia and US led Nato is political/ hybrid. As I recall important US officials considered the electoral advances of the Italian Communist Party in the 70s/80s as a threat to Western security, so I expect that Putin is threatened by democracy in Ukraine heartening his Russian opponents and in a time of crisis contributing to by a colour revolution example. However, the simple fact is that Russia's accelerating relative technological backwardness means that in the future its going to become increasingly helpless in any real war, and any sabre rattling it does will be risible. Putin has foreseen this (his Munich Security Conference speech about the prospect of the US developing a complete defence to ICBMs and becoming the sole centre of international decision making), therefore he understands that US Patriot and anti ICBM bases on Russia's borders are bringing forward the day when Russian inferiority is so complete that no one pays any attention to waht the Kremlin says. Holding back that day is Putin's job as leader of Russia.
1
@harmless6813 Russia is not aware it is destined to lose yet. so one would not expect them to think there could be a reason to actually use a nuke. that lies in the future IMO.
1
All depends what you mean by 'win'. Halt the Russian advance and attrite the Russians until they realise their efforts is futile and ask for an agreement freezing the front lines? Forcibly retake the land in the South and Donbass occupied post Feb 2022? Make remaining in Crimea untenable for Russia? Inflict so many KIA sons on Russian soldiers' families that Putin gets overthrown by popular unrest and Russia breaks up? Ukraine will try to attain the latter outcomes. The West won't help them achieve those, but Ukraine might just be able to do it anyway. Big if, but if Ukraine was getting the kind of victory they aspire to then I think Putin would use nukes on the Ukrainian army. Theatre thermonuclear weapons' as unignorable hybrid warfare; the US led Nato alliance would not have been attacked yet it would still have to do something but what would they dare do to a country that had already crossed the Rubicon? There would be uncertainty and fear of overdoing it and panicking the Kremlin, with good reason! In my opinion the greatest asset of Russia in deterring the Wesst in Russia's fragility. An endgame without a Russian rout and resort to desperate measures short of an attack on Nato forces but presenting them with a challenge will be very tricky to avoid because things speed up towards the end, in war as so many things. Although we hear a lot about Ukraine currently winning comfortably, no one spells out how taking that process to completion would actually be feasible without a period of extreme instability and danger. Is Nato willing to directly enter conventional combat, limited but nevertheless actual, against Russian forces if Russia gets so desperate it nukes the Ukrainian army?
1