Scrutable

Gfamily wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:55 pm

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:52 pm

Herainestold wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 8:56 pm Does Belarus have nukes?

No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _republics

Interesting note from that article

the wikipedia wrote:On 28 February 2022, Belarus held a constitutional referendum, in which it dropped its "Non-nuclear" status, in light of Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

Herainestold wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:50 am

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:44 pm And yes, things can move very fast. The unthinkable can become the inevitable in days.

The unthinkable is becoming conventional wisdom. The American President is talking about Armageddon. We will be lucky to make it to Guy Fawkes Day.

So, the Russians did respond with ~75 missiles. None of them were tactical nukes. Remember, this was retaliation for what Russia believes was an attack on Russian sovereign soil.

So, what are they waiting for? When do you think they will use their tactical nukes? When the Ukrainians attack Sevastopol? Rostov? Volgograd? Minsk? Moscow?

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:16 am

the wikipedia wrote:On 28 February 2022, Belarus held a constitutional referendum, in which it dropped its "Non-nuclear" status, in light of Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

Herainestold wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 8:56 pm Does Belarus have nukes?

No

Martin_B wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:11 am

Herainestold wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:50 am

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:44 pm And yes, things can move very fast. The unthinkable can become the inevitable in days.

The unthinkable is becoming conventional wisdom. The American President is talking about Armageddon. We will be lucky to make it to Guy Fawkes Day.

So, the Russians did respond with ~75 missiles. None of them were tactical nukes. Remember, this was retaliation for what Russia believes was an attack on Russian sovereign soil.

So, what are they waiting for? When do you think they will use their tactical nukes? When the Ukrainians attack Sevastopol? Rostov? Volgograd? Minsk? Moscow?

We can safely say it's not Saki. It's not Belgorod Bilhorod, it's not Kursk oblast or Voronezh olast or Rostov oblast.

bjn wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 5:27 pm Rumblings from Lukashenko about Belarus joining the party....

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-10-10/

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he had ordered troops to deploy with Russian forces near Ukraine in response to what he said was a clear threat to Belarus from Kyiv and its backers in the West.

Also reports of large movement of Russian troops into Belarus...

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/statu ... 5202781184

Could be about to kick off again in the North of Ukraine.

I've seen more rumblings about Russian troops into Belarus. Ukraine must be empowered to strike them at their assembly points, and to disrupt them within Belarus. They should not be expected to wait and let them have another go at Kyiv or Chernihiv, or even points to the west of that.

From a military perspective, it would be a desparate gamble by Russia, though. Ukraine has more troops, and more capacity to raise useful troops. That means in general Ukraine would prefer a longer frontline and Russia a shorter one. However, Russia may be relying on exploiting respect for Belarusian territorial integrity that, in the scenario of a renewed invasion, would be preposterous to expect Ukraine to uphold.

Martin_B wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:11 am

Herainestold wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:50 am

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:44 pm And yes, things can move very fast. The unthinkable can become the inevitable in days.

The unthinkable is becoming conventional wisdom. The American President is talking about Armageddon. We will be lucky to make it to Guy Fawkes Day.

So, the Russians did respond with ~75 missiles. None of them were tactical nukes. Remember, this was retaliation for what Russia believes was an attack on Russian sovereign soil.

So, what are they waiting for? When do you think they will use their tactical nukes? When the Ukrainians attack Sevastopol? Rostov? Volgograd? Minsk? Moscow?

I don't know. The militarist talk in Moscow just keeps ratcheting up. The more cornered the rat feels,the greater the risk to all of us.

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:16 am

the wikipedia wrote:On 28 February 2022, Belarus held a constitutional referendum, in which it dropped its "Non-nuclear" status, in light of Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

UK has its own warheads. I hope we aren't considering lending them to Ukraine.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:56 pm UK has its own warheads. I hope we aren't considering lending them to Ukraine.

Might be safer there than in the hands of Liz Truss...

But well done again for getting worried about a situation that is staggeringly unlikely. I imagine you live your life in a state of perpetual fear. Hope you took out the "being hit by a comet" cover on your house insurance.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:56 pm

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:16 am

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

UK has its own warheads. I hope we aren't considering lending them to Ukraine.

That is one of the most stupid ideas that you have come up with on this thread. Of course that is not going to happen. One needs a delivery system, and the UK is not going to lend a Trident submarine to Ukraine.

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:16 am

the wikipedia wrote:On 28 February 2022, Belarus held a constitutional referendum, in which it dropped its "Non-nuclear" status, in light of Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

They plan to in some circumstances. The US has nuclear sharing agreements with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the event of a crisis US nuclear weapons would be given to those states' armed forces for use against a common enemy.

It is also likely Pakistan has an arrangement to transfer nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia in the event of a crisis.

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:23 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:56 pm

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

UK has its own warheads. I hope we aren't considering lending them to Ukraine.

That is one of the most stupid ideas that you have come up with on this thread. Of course that is not going to happen. One needs a delivery system, and the UK is not going to lend a Trident submarine to Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn't have bombers or cruise missiles?

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:26 pm

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:16 am

So it is conceivable that Russia could "lend" Belarus some nuclear weapons.

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

They plan to in some circumstances. The US has nuclear sharing agreements with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the event of a crisis US nuclear weapons would be given to those states' armed forces for use against a common enemy.

It is also likely Pakistan has an arrangement to transfer nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia in the event of a crisis.

No wonder Russia feels surrounded by NATO.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:38 pm

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:23 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:56 pm

UK has its own warheads. I hope we aren't considering lending them to Ukraine.

That is one of the most stupid ideas that you have come up with on this thread. Of course that is not going to happen. One needs a delivery system, and the UK is not going to lend a Trident submarine to Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn't have bombers or cruise missiles?

You can't just strap a nuclear warhead onto a cruise missile. Nor can you just drop a warhead out of a plane.

As far as I know, the UK's only nuclear weapon system is Trident.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:39 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:26 pm

bob sterman wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:18 am

No - this would be about transit and storage - and even use by Russia of those weapons. Nuclear powers do not "lend" other countries warheads. US doesn't even "lend" UK warheads.

They plan to in some circumstances. The US has nuclear sharing agreements with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the event of a crisis US nuclear weapons would be given to those states' armed forces for use against a common enemy.

It is also likely Pakistan has an arrangement to transfer nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia in the event of a crisis.

No wonder Russia feels surrounded by NATO.

It's almost as if the countries in the vicinity Russia feel the need to join a purely defensive alliance to protect themselves from Russian aggression, you wretched worm.

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:43 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:38 pm

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:23 pm

That is one of the most stupid ideas that you have come up with on this thread. Of course that is not going to happen. One needs a delivery system, and the UK is not going to lend a Trident submarine to Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn't have bombers or cruise missiles?

You can't just strap a nuclear warhead onto a cruise missile. Nor can you just drop a warhead out of a plane.

As far as I know, the UK's only nuclear weapon system is Trident.

Exactly this. Trident has more or less one job; to delete from existence a significant number of Russia's most important cities in the event of a nuclear attack on Britain. The system is out there, lurking, more or less impossible to counter.

The knowledge that it exists is enough to deter such an attack by Russia.

Crisis diplomacy. From the FT.

President Joe Biden’s sobering remarks about the threat of the use of nuclear weapons show that the White House is clear-eyed about the risk of escalation. For understandable reasons, Washington wants to maintain strategic ambiguity in public while communicating its views to the Kremlin in private. However, attempts to use a combination of new sanctions, more diplomatic isolation and possibly conventional Nato strikes against Russian military targets in Ukraine to deter a desperate Putin from using weapons of mass destruction, should he feel cornered, are by no means guaranteed to succeed. To improve the chances of preventing a showdown, the quiet groundwork for crisis diplomacy should be laid now.

https://www.ft.com/content/c77e5760-ee8 ... 568ae03160

https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-russi ... ion-report

Moscow judge killed by the Kerch bridge explosion.
Appointed by Putin in 2014

Several independent Russian news outlets, including Taiga.info and VChK-OGPU, report that one of Maslov’s last cases involved none other than the eldest daughter of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. The Russian division of Condé Nast had reportedly filed suit against a fashion house headed by Chechen Culture Minister Aishat Kadyrova in August, though the publishing house unexpectedly dropped their complaint about two weeks later.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:58 pm Crisis diplomacy. From the FT.

President Joe Biden’s sobering remarks about the threat of the use of nuclear weapons show that the White House is clear-eyed about the risk of escalation. For understandable reasons, Washington wants to maintain strategic ambiguity in public while communicating its views to the Kremlin in private. However, attempts to use a combination of new sanctions, more diplomatic isolation and possibly conventional Nato strikes against Russian military targets in Ukraine to deter a desperate Putin from using weapons of mass destruction, should he feel cornered, are by no means guaranteed to succeed. To improve the chances of preventing a showdown, the quiet groundwork for crisis diplomacy should be laid now.

https://www.ft.com/content/c77e5760-ee8 ... 568ae03160

It’s almost as if you wouldn’t know that the quiet diplomacy is taking place in private.

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:20 pm https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-russi ... ion-report

Moscow judge killed by the Kerch bridge explosion.
Appointed by Putin in 2014

Several independent Russian news outlets, including Taiga.info and VChK-OGPU, report that one of Maslov’s last cases involved none other than the eldest daughter of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. The Russian division of Condé Nast had reportedly filed suit against a fashion house headed by Chechen Culture Minister Aishat Kadyrova in August, though the publishing house unexpectedly dropped their complaint about two weeks later.

It would be bleakly amusing if this was a coincidence (which I suspect it was, as it would seem very difficult and intricate to pull off as an assassination) but if those around Putin thought that it either was part of a move for power, or decided that others would think that and started to act as though the power struggle had stepped to the next level.

Putin makes his red lines clear in talk with Musk.

In a mailout sent to Eurasia Group subscribers, Ian Bremmer wrote that Tesla CEO Musk told him that Putin was “prepared to negotiate,” but only if Crimea remained Russian, if Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake44z/ ... in-ukraine

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:07 pm Putin makes his red lines clear in talk with Musk.

In a mailout sent to Eurasia Group subscribers, Ian Bremmer wrote that Tesla CEO Musk told him that Putin was “prepared to negotiate,” but only if Crimea remained Russian, if Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake44z/ ... in-ukraine

Which proves nothing other than Musk is a pathetic c.nt. We knew that anyway.

We. Do. Not. Need. To. Care. About. Vladimir. Vladimirovich's. Feelings.

He. Is. Not. Long. For. This. World.

He. Cannot. Win. Any. Fight. With. The. West.

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:14 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:07 pm Putin makes his red lines clear in talk with Musk.

In a mailout sent to Eurasia Group subscribers, Ian Bremmer wrote that Tesla CEO Musk told him that Putin was “prepared to negotiate,” but only if Crimea remained Russian, if Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake44z/ ... in-ukraine

Which proves nothing other than Musk is a pathetic c.nt. We knew that anyway.

We. Do. Not. Need. To. Care. About. Vladimir. Vladimirovich's. Feelings.

He. Is. Not. Long. For. This. World.

He. Cannot. Win. Any. Fight. With. The. West.

His underlings are already openly jockeying for position as though he's not there. He's a strongman who is demonstrating an ongoing lack of grip, which tends to be very unhealthy. At the moment all that's protecting him is consideration about the risk of exposing oneself by making the first overt move.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:07 pm Putin makes his red lines clear in talk with Musk.

In a mailout sent to Eurasia Group subscribers, Ian Bremmer wrote that Tesla CEO Musk told him that Putin was “prepared to negotiate,” but only if Crimea remained Russian, if Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake44z/ ... in-ukraine

All this proves is that Elon Musk is a fossil fuel and fascist supporting fantasist. Which we knew already.

dyqik wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:37 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:07 pm Putin makes his red lines clear in talk with Musk.

In a mailout sent to Eurasia Group subscribers, Ian Bremmer wrote that Tesla CEO Musk told him that Putin was “prepared to negotiate,” but only if Crimea remained Russian, if Ukraine accepted a form of permanent neutrality, and Ukraine recognised Russia’s annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

According to Bremmer, Musk said Putin told him these goals would be accomplished “no matter what,” including the potential of a nuclear strike if Ukraine invaded Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Bremmer wrote that Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid that outcome.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake44z/ ... in-ukraine

All this proves is that Elon Musk is a fossil fuel and fascist supporting fantasist. Which we knew already.

Well I don’t know about fossil fuel supporting, he’s doing quite a lot to promote electric cars and lorries. I think he’s definitely a fascist supporter though.