Quote from: be.open on Today at 07:20:37 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 12, 2022, 11:46:57 PM

Quote from: paxmao on May 12, 2022, 09:09:42 PM

I am not sure it is a lie TBH, it is probably the only "reason" that may have, from Putin's view, at least some coherence. However it is mostly a flawed argument, since NATO has not invaded any country. In fact, many countries did not support US stance on Iraq other than US a a few lightweights.

I am still wondering if there is out there a system of early nuclear interception that works in a 300 or so km range from the launch point. That could explain all the fuss about security.

Fair enough, it may be not a lie in the sense that Putin et al may honestly believe it, but the fact is that no one wants to fight Russia. A resource-rich country with nuclear weapons... it's in everyone's best interest for it to be stable and friendly, so much so that even in the face of aggression (like 2008 in Georgia and 2014 in Ukraine) the rest of the world was like "nah, Putin's actually a good guy and if we buy enough gas from him, everything will be fine".

As for interception... considering that NATO deployed Patriots only in Romania (AFAIK) in the 20+ years since the expansion eastward began, and it was Romanians buying it, not NATO "donating" it, doesn't seem like it was a huge concern, at least not geographically. Now probably NATO will stack missile defence three rows deep along the entire border, again a great victory for the geopolitical genius Vladimir Vladimirovich.

NATO's strategy is to get closer to Russia and thus reduce the reaction time for the Russian missile defense system. Russia's strategy is to have a significant advantage in the means of delivering nuclear weapons, by increasing the range and speed of missiles. NATO and Russia are both quite successful in their strategies, but whose strategy is more effective I hope I will never know in practice.

In simple words, Russian missiles are now so fast and long-range that NATO does not have adequate countermeasures. They can fly over the North Pole, bypassing NATO missile defense systems, they can even fly over the South Pole. This is if we are talking about land-based missiles, and Russia's nuclear triad also includes sea- and air-based missiles, which are on constant combat duty....And Russia has missiles two to three times faster than Kinzhal, as well as the S-500 missile defense system, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles...

Quote from: suchmoon on May 12, 2022, 02:18:22 PM

More evidence of Russian forces killing civilians and looting: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/11/europe/ukraine-video-russian-soldiers-shoot-civilians/index.html

You seem to be a sane person, but you eat all sorts of shit and don’t even wince. Tank special forces on a minibus lol. Grin

Of course, Russian soldiers on a minu-bus, ridiculous lol... what is going to be next? Them trying to scape a drone in a Lada ... that cannot be!

If NATO wanted to have nukes at less than 500 miles from Moscow, it would be perfectly possible already. Vilnus is quite close....

False, Russia has no capability to intercept hypersonic missiles. The existing S-400 missile stands some chance of stopping an small number of warheads if placed in large numbers and very close to the warheads targets. S-500 at most can intercept short range ballistic missiles and there are very and costly few units (I wonder how will they be produced without semiconductors in the future). Russia does not have an advantage on NW delivery platforms by sea or air. The North Pole and the South Pole are there for everyone to use - confers zero advantage. A hypersonic missile, as of now, can deliver one warhead, as opposed to ICBM that can deliver multiple (even 40) warheads both real and decoy.

In sum, there is no Russian weapon that can protect a large city from a determined attack. I am not aware of US having one either, I am just suspecting that THAAD is not all there is.

The argument of Putin trying to avoid nukes in close proximity is completely flawed, that ship has already sailed (like the Moskva). Putin psychologically, is a gangster. He understand only the language of threats and intimidation and somehow he is convinced that his intimidation power is reduced if UKR joins NATO. But I am wondering, what is the real underlying strategic issue behind the war. It could be:

- Nuking to close to Russia would backfire. Russia would be affected. Having Ukraine between Russia and NATO makes a nuclear threat more credible.
- There is some interception system in NATO that is not widely known but could potentially work in early launch stages.

An the reason I think is correct, and that battle is lost with Finland joining NATO: Putin's Russia cannot economically defend a very large border with NATO at the same time as with China and control the extremists in Georgia. Unfortunately, he got most of this wrong.