they aren’t stupid, they are actually very shrewd.
Sure, as a 3 day 'special military operation' continues after 1241 days ... & its nogal a David vs Goliath battle with the Dawie fighting with one arm tied behind his back.
Russia using nukes in Ukraine will guarantee their very own destruction as the West retaliates & launches a nuclear blitzkrieg .
A full US-Russia exchange (?3,000–4,000 warheads):
This is the most plausible mechanism for global catastrophe affecting most life, not just humans.
Famine, not radiation, becomes the biggest killer
Reading the above serves as an affirmation that Putin won't use nukes. He once famously spoke about the dissolution of the Soviet Union being the biggest tragedy of the 20th century & I doubt that he now wants to be remembered as the architect of its ultimate total destruction. China will probably join in & bomb Russia.
There is no guarantee the US president’s impatience with Russia will last, but the Kremlin may come to regret testing his patience
Wed 16 Jul 2025 06.00 BST
Before Donald Trump was a politician he was a property tycoon. Naturally, he thought he could fix the Ukraine war with a real-estate deal. In exchange for a ceasefire, Vladimir Putin would get to keep territory he had already seized.
But before Putin was a politician he was a KGB agent who mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union. His idea of a fair solution begins with Ukraine’s total submission to an imperial Russian motherland.
There is no evidence that Trump was ever appalled by that ambition or by atrocities committed in pursuit of it. But he does now declare himself “very unhappy” with the Russian president for intensifying hostilities in defiance of White House efforts to end the fighting. It isn’t the killing that upsets the US president, but the ingratitude. Trump was offering Putin a hefty slice of Ukraine (not that the land was his to give away) and all he wanted in return was grounds to boast of his credentials as a peacemaker. Russian refusal to trade on those terms makes the White House look impotent, which is a good way to rile a prickly potentate.
The manifestation of that pique is an agreement to supply Ukraine with vital anti-missile defence systems and a threat to impose “severe” tariffs on Moscow if a ceasefire isn’t forthcoming within 50 days.
That is long enough for Trump to revert to his old habit of indulging the Kremlin. Also, his deadlines are famously elastic. It would be premature to celebrate the US president’s recognition that Putin has been “bullshitting” him as a symptom of strategic enlightenment, still less an affirmation of solidarity with Ukraine. The president who this week spoke of Kyiv’s right to self-defence is the same one who only five months ago scorned Volodymyr Zelenskyy as the author of his nation’s misfortune and a trickster who beguiled Joe Biden into handing over precious US resources to a lost military cause. Favour denied and then bestowed can be withdrawn again. Such is the Trump way.
The current position may be temporary. That doesn’t mean it lacks substance. The crucial change is that Zelenskyy and his European allies have convinced Trump that they are footing the bill for the war; that Ukrainian independence isn’t a rip-off.
The first stage of that persuasion was the creation of a co-owned investment fund for the exploitation of minerals, oil and gas in postwar Ukraine. Washington’s 50% notional share of those resources was presented as “repayment” for military aid.
Then came the commitment by Nato members to raise their annual defence budgets to 5% of national income within a decade. The alliance’s annual summit last month was choreographed almost exclusively to frame that pledge as a personal tribute to Trump. It wasn’t an edifying spectacle. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, didn’t dignify his office by calling the US president “daddy”. But the show seems to have impressed its target audience. At his post-summit press conference, Trump spoke of European resolve with unusual warmth.
That fondness was on display again this week in a broadcast from the White House, where Trump, with Rutte at his side, declared that “having a strong Europe is a very good thing”. He referred back to the “very successful” Nato summit, the 5% pledge and a new arrangement whereby missile defences badly needed by Ukraine – the uniquely effective Patriot system – will be bought on Kyiv’s behalf by its continental allies. Trump’s point was not that the cause is just but that the price is paid by someone else. (The shift in posture reflects a judgment that Europe is a better client than the Kremlin.) Nato dollars beat Putin’s bullshit. For now.
That is a relief for Ukraine, but not much more. Patriots help provide cover for cities that have come under ferocious Russian bombardment, but they won’t much alter the balance of power on the wider battlefield. The Kremlin continues to eke out territorial gains at huge cost in casualties. Ukrainian forces continue to mount a heroic defence and sometimes pull off bravura feats of counterattack, but panache cannot resist sheer weight of population indefinitely.
Putin’s plan is more arithmetic than strategy. He intends to keep feeding soldiers into the “meat-grinder”, as Russians call the front, until there aren’t enough Ukrainians left with the strength or weapons to fight back. That is why the economic front – especially sanctions that target Moscow’s ability to raise revenue from oil and gas exports – is so vital, and why Trump’s readiness to reinforce that effort, if sincere, would be truly significant.
Putin might reasonably assume it is a bluff, or a passing whim. But the Russian president may also have overplayed his hand. He has less control over events than his biggest fans and most anxious detractors imagine. Kremlin propaganda cultivates the myth of the great and visionary leader bestriding history. That image is refracted through foreign lenses as the shadow of an omnipotent puppeteer, tugging at strings that pull down western democracies.
The truth is still sinister but more banal. Putin is the boss of bosses in a gangster kleptocracy where the security services are the paramount clan. Ultranationalist ideology and a personality cult around the president are embedded in all public discourse as tests of loyalty. Who really believes what is hard to know when the penalties for saying the wrong thing are severe. The economy is geared for total war from top to bottom, from industries that churn out munitions to the signing-on fees for volunteers and compensation payments to bereaved families that sustain remote regions where soldiering is the only work.
Putin has repeatedly told Russians they are engaged in an existential struggle with the west, equivalent to resistance against Nazi invasion in 1941. If he now stopped the war in exchange for a percentage of eastern Ukraine, it wouldn’t be the victory he has promised. He has mobilised patriotic fervour to silence doubt about the wisdom of the struggle and the implicit payback is national glory. If the fighting ends on more desultory terms, he will face angry mothers whose sons died in vain. He will have to find civilian jobs for disillusioned veterans. Those are problems he would rather defer. It is easier to keep riding the conveyor of death than step off it for a deal like the one Trump has in mind – a deal, it must be emphasised, that is still grotesquely generous in rewarding unprovoked aggression.
Putin’s reluctance to take that option is not the choice of a strategic mastermind, but nor was the full-scale invasion in February 2022. Plan A was to overrun Ukraine within days. The Russian president badly underestimated his adversary then. Plan B is slow butchery and patience, hoping the other side runs out of ammunition and will. Stringing Trump along may prove to have been another grave error of judgment. Ukraine and its more dependable allies must hope so, and press the advantage hard while it lasts.
Oh sure the Administration is less informed than a bunch of clowns with TDS syndrome. You have statements like sure Putin has nukes but we have more nukes. Obviously the fool who wrote this never read On the Beach even though he lives in Oz.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome? Absolutely the Trump administrator consists of probably the most ill suited and least competent people around, chosen for one reason only, loyalty to the leader. You know dumb people who tend to the use the term TDS unironically. I've no idea who's claimed "we" have more nukes and no I didn't read the book On the Beach but I did see the movie based on the book.
Escalation will not help the Ukraine and with their nuclear arsenal Russia will not be defeated..,what we don’t want to do is drive them to the point where they even seriously contemplate using tactical nukes. The world doesn’t need that precedent. And if they do, what do we do, start a nuclear exchange?
Again did the nuclear arsenal prevent the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan? Why would the Russian's use a tactical nuke, what exactly does it achieve on the battlefield. Ukraine's forces are dispersed so a single tactical nuclear weapon won't actually kill all that many of them. Then you have the issues of how would the Russian themselves advance through nuclear contaminated terrain, they have issues advancing as is. Even if they gained some battlefield advantage they risk brining in NATO on Ukraine's side and become an international pariah.
Getting a reasonable peace was the best solution and if the Russians weren’t ready to do that, grinding defense is the next best option. Send in long range missiles that hit Moscow and every Ukranian city will get the response.
Getting a reasonable peace, well you see that's the thing. Ukraine is sticking to grinding defence but striking targets in Russia enables that defence to be easier and also save civilians lives back in the cities.
Russia is already sending as many missiles and drones to Ukrainian cities as production and time allows, irrespective of Ukraine having long range missiles or not.
And Russia isn’t ‘simply going to attack another country’ after what they have already experienced….they aren’t stupid, they are actually very shrewd.
No straight away no. But if Ukraine is allowed to fall to them, they will be back in a few years attacking so were else. And yes they are not stupid and are shrewd which is preciously why they won't use nukes.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome? Absolutely the Trump administrator consists of probably the most ill suited and least competent people around, chosen for one reason only, loyalty to the leader.
Early days yet but Rubio is getting good marks and Bessent has the market’s confidence….so two of the four key positions in good hands. Hegseth was a dubious appointment, time will tell. And the AG contributed to the Epstein confusion.
There are some great appointments in the ranks, especially the AI Crypto Tsar who has a great grasp of the issues.
$o once again, you are out of touch
Again did the nuclear arsenal prevent the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan was a resistance based ‘defeat’….the cost of maintaining control was too much. But Russia had control of all the major cities and infrastructure. Ukraine is a war on their border with geo political implications
A totally different situation…your analogy is wrong
Getting a reasonable peace, well you see that's the thing. Ukraine is sticking to grinding defence but striking targets in Russia enables that defence to be easier and also save civilians lives back in the cities.
How does striking Moscow make defense easier? Striking Moscow will solidify Russia’s commitment to acheive a more complete victory
No straight away no. But if Ukraine is allowed to fall to them, they will be back in a few years attacking so were else. And yes they are not stupid and are shrewd which is preciously why they won't use nukes.
Why….what target represents a political and economic tradeoff
.
"Why would the Russian's use a tactical nuke, what exactly does it achieve on the battlefield. Ukraine's forces are dispersed so a single tactical nuclear weapon won't actually kill all that many of them"
Very simple really.....and you need to start thinking like any tactical military expert would....
They would do it for the exact same reason that the USA used the nuclear option against Japan, to force a surrender or overall capitulation from Ukraine, which would drastically lower the Russian deaths which Russia might find difficult to maintain given the vast numbers they have lost already and also the ongoing risks of this war continuing for another 3 years costing a absolute fortune, which Russia may not be able to afford
In fact the very reason that the Ukranian forces are so disperserd could actually motivate Putin to use one, purely because it would minimise the deaths on the Ukranian side with their troops being so spread out across the country, whilst also sending a very clear message to Ukraine that Russia are more than prepared to use this nuclear option, maybe on a much smaller scale, whilst also sending a clear and direct message to Ukraine that they could send another one ay any time.
I hope this never ever happens, I seriously do.....and I honestly don't think it ever will.....but don't sit there and think that Putin would just never use this option based on your reasoning above, because that reason is nowhere near good enough to prevent Putin from using this as an option to end this war.
MAGA
Early days yet but Rubio is getting good marks and Bessent has the market’s confidence….so two of the four key positions in good hands. Hegseth was a dubious appointment, time will tell. And the AG contributed to the Epstein confusion.
There are some great appointments in the ranks, especially the AI Crypto Tsar who has a great grasp of the issues.
$o once again, you are out of touch
No mention of Gabbard and Kennedy Junior holding positions that they are almost uniquely ill suited too?
Afghanistan was a resistance based ‘defeat’….the cost of maintaining control was too much. But Russia had control of all the major cities and infrastructure. Ukraine is a war on their border with geo political implications
Once again your grasp of history is very superficial. Afghanistan was a resistance to an occupation, something that you are probably unaware of also is actually occurring in the occupied territories of Ukraine presently. True Afghanistan it wasn't a direct war between two states like the the Russian-Ukraine war, but the current war is far for costly for the Russian's in terms of human lives and money. Afghanistan was on the border of the the Soviet Union at the time and the war did have significant geo political implications, not least of which is its generally considered to have contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
So no not a totally different situation.
How does striking Moscow make defense easier? Striking Moscow will solidify Russia’s commitment to acheive a more complete victory
I'm not the one constantly bringing up strikes on Moscow but I think military production planets and command and control assets in around Moscow are perfectly legitimate targets for Ukraine to strike. Destroying them mean's less incoming fire back into Ukraine. But as I said I don't think Ukraine would necessarily expend a lot of longer range missiles at Moscow they probably have a laundry list of targets beyond their current range but not as far as Moscow.
Moscow has already been hit probably hundreds of times now by drones. What difference does it make if its hit by missiles at this point.
Why….what target represents a political and economic tradeoff
Moldova is the obvious target, once again outside NATO and with a ready made excuse in Transnistria.
Very simple really.....and you need to start thinking like any tactical military expert would....
Am I going by military experts. Particularly the Institute for the Study of War. They don't think it likely the Russian's would use Nukes, and neither do many other military experts (Ben Hodges for one).
They would do it for the exact same reason that the USA used the nuclear option against Japan, to force a surrender or overall capitulation from Ukraine, which would drastically lower the Russian deaths which Russia might find difficult to maintain given the vast numbers they have lost already and also the ongoing risks of this war continuing for another 3 years costing a absolute fortune, which Russia may not be able to afford
That's not thinking tactically, that a strategic level option, it would be a massive gamble on the Russian's part and would be far more likely to bring about the Russian defeat than the other way round as it would all be guarantee the west would enter the war on Ukraine side.
In fact the very reason that the Ukranian forces are so disperserd could actually motivate Putin to use one, purely because it would minimise the deaths on the Ukranian side with their troops being so spread out across the country, whilst also sending a very clear message to Ukraine that Russia are more than prepared to use this nuclear option, maybe on a much smaller scale, whilst also sending a clear and direct message to Ukraine that they could send another one ay any time.
Your the first person who I've ever come across calling enemy unit dispersion as a motivation to use a nuke. Makes f**K all sense.
Again if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine it becomes an international pariah overnight. Even China could well abandon them. But ultimately regardless of Ukraine surrendering which their is every chance they wouldn't, it could make them even more determined to fight on, the west will still intervene. NATO/Western Europe can't allow Russia to occupy a surrender Ukraine and move that same threat up right to its borders.
I hope this never ever happens, I seriously do.....and I honestly don't think it ever will.....but don't sit there and think that Putin would just never use this option based on your reasoning above, because that reason is nowhere near good enough to prevent Putin from using this as an option to end this war.
Oh I can't categorically rule out Putin using a nuke, it's just incredibly unlikely for the sound reasons I have given.
Tell me what do you want Ukraine to do? Do you want them to take the terms the Russian's are currently offering. Or do you want to just fight on under the same restrictions they presently are?. Do you not want Ukraine to have the means to fight back properly?
If nukes are used between super powers it’s unlikely it will happen in a logical, precise way. More likely misunderstandings and ignorance of intentions will suddenly escalate. That’s why experienced statesmen are nervous when there is any risk of direct contact between any of the nuclear country armies.
That hasn’t happened in this conflict and that’s a good thing.
As for fighting on, that can lead to a better set of options or a worse set of options, what it will definitely lead to is more destruction and deaths, and less commitment to peace on Russia’s part. Your argument is the old American belief if you don’t stop them in Vietnam you might have to stop them in Hawaii. On that basis you believe other countries are at risk.
If there’s a humiliating peace for Russia a far bigger risk is they agree to peace but resume the conflict when conditions look more favorable. As Germany did after Versailles.
And in the final analysis Russia is always going to be the Ukraine’s big neighbor. These countries are going to have to learn how to occupy contiguous territory amicably.
Tell me what do you want Ukraine to do? Do you want them to take the terms the Russian's are currently offering. Or do you want to just fight on under the same restrictions they presently are?. Do you not want Ukraine to have the means to fight back properly?
Mozart ... answer the question pse
Blob I doubt any country has ever got more support from other countries to fight their war. Are we serving their brave young men by encouraging them to think the West is guaranteeing the result when in effect we will never have NATO fighting with them? Weapons will help but they won’t stop the Russians.
‘Not fighting at the outset would have guaranteed an occupation….fighting until defeated will guarantee occupation. The thing to judge is when the best possible result has been achieved. That could be now, distasteful as that thought may be.
Tell me what do you want Ukraine to do? Do you want them to take the terms the Russian's are currently offering. Or do you want to just fight on under the same restrictions they presently are?. Do you not want Ukraine to have the means to fight back properly?
Moffie slips, slides and weaves as per normal, he blusters with some fancy words and no clear direction. But reading between his lines he's saying that Ukraine should capitulate and hand over all of Ukraine to Russia because there's no hope of Ukraine winning. That ties in with the original Trump line.
The question is after Ukraine which European country is next in line for Putin to takeover by force and then are we once again going to suffer the BS threat of a Russian nuclear attack which Moffie and the rest of his suck-ups are selling.
Trump flubbed the whole thing, as I've said he emboldened Putin and as I've also said they were high fiving in the Kremlin the day Trump humiliated Zelensky in front of a world wide audience. That was the time Trump should have said....the USA will support Ukraine all the way.
……Don’t worry Hysteria you will get the word eventually in the boonies where you squat.
What's distasteful is Trump ... sits on his lil hands for 6 months & now when he's truly pissed off by Putin's intransigence he gives him another 50 day warning. Are you happy living under an authoritarian dictatorship?
quote;
Still, many Russian officials and pro-war bloggers appeared to breathe a sigh of relief last week, dismissing Trump’s threats as milder than anticipated and framing them as effectively granting Putin a 50-day blank cheque.
“A lot can happen in 50 days – and Putin knows that. He sees Trump as emotional and susceptible to influence,” said another source within Russia’s foreign policy establishment. “Moscow will keep making overtures toward Washington. They don’t see this rift as irreversible.”
Highly doubtful. Putin is the main obstacle for negotiations. He's not really interested in meaningful talks. Nor is he interested in negotiating security guarantees—Ukraine getting NATO protection, or steps like Polish, Swedish, or Norwegian troops on the border. His goal is to subjugate Ukraine. For him, it's not territory. It's control over the whole country.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/whats-future-war-ukraine
Moscow has already been hit probably hundreds of times now by drones. What difference does it make if its hit by missiles at this point.
Hopefully you do realise the enormous difference between multiple drones hitting Moscow and multiple ballistic missiles hitting Moscow .... you cannot even compare the two.
Your the first person who I've ever come across calling enemy unit dispersion as a motivation to use a nuke. Makes f**K all sense.
Neither does your theory of, "they won't use a nuke because the Ukranian soliders are too spread out anyway"......
If you wanted to send a very clear message to the country that you are invading, and also to the rest of the world, you could send a smaller nuclear tactical missle to any area of Ukraine, that you already know has the least amount of military personnel and public in that area... which would cause the smallest amount of damage, and result in the lowest possible loss of lives........
I am not saying that they would do this, and I certainly hope that they never do, but the USA did this to Japan, to send the exact same message, and it worked, otherwise that war could have gone on and cost so much more money, resulting in the loss of so many more lives on both sides.
Tell me what do you want Ukraine to do? Do you want them to take the terms the Russian's are currently offering. Or do you want to just fight on under the same restrictions they presently are?. Do you not want Ukraine to have the means to fight back properly?
I would actually want the West to put all their collective minds and resources together and do what they could to help speed up Ukraine's own design, development and production of their very own home made longe range ballistic missile, which they are already busy with at the moment and apparently it is not that far away from coming into operation, it is busy in testing / near development, called the Hrim-2, which is amongst other missiles being developed and built in Ukraine.
In my opinion, this way, Ukraine is using it's own designed, developed and produced weapons against Russia which I would like to hope, would not escalate this war to the same level it would do if NATO supplied all their own long range missiles to target Moscow or any other area of Russia, because I believe that that action would immediately escalate tensions in this war between Russia and the west so much more quicker..
It's like the bully taking on the class nerd and the nerd ends up getting the bully in a rear naked choke hold from being taught how fight against someone like a school bully..... I doubt that the bully would blame whoever taught the nerd how to do the choke hold, and the bully would probably seriously rethink how they approached the nerd from then onwards.... but if the nerd had got someone else to fight his battle for him, they would now both be in the sights of the bully from then on.
A very basic and simplistic scenario, which does not really do this war justice, regarding what is happening right now, but I think you get the picture of what I am trying to say, and I am trying not to overthink what could, should, or would happen in any given situation, just giving a honest and raw unfiltered opinion.
Do I want Ukraine to take the terms that Russia are offering.... No, because I detest bullies like Russia
Do I want Ukraine to have the means to fight this war..... Absolutely
Do I want Ukraine to continue fighting under these restrictions.... No..