Ukraine has been using US missiles to attack it for a while. Just not as far behind Russia's borders.

GAC06 said:

---

Russia annexed Ukrainian oblasts and they are supposedly part of Russia now so it's kind of funny to see Russia making distinctions between "Russia" and actual Russia.

---

It's amazing the logical inconsistencies that are glossed over in the clamor over Russia's repetitive nuclear threats. If anything, Russia may be stupid enough to attempt tac nukes on the battlefield as an escalator statement to frighten the already weak kneed. Even that, however, would backfire and the temporary benefit would be negligible given the nature of the battlefield.

Putin is most likely bluffing. The results of nuking Ukraine, we'll exclude NATO as that would invite almost certain nuclear retaliation. There are really only 3 targets for any such strike, Kyiv, the front lines or a major (but sparsely populated) marshalling area.

The blowback would be extreme. Likely India and China at a minimum would back away from Russia. Europe would almost certainly fully rearm and you'd see major proliferation to Poland, Germany, a joint Scandinavian program at a minimum.

Again, this is a bluff, it certainly ups the ante but unless they're using these weapons to hit Moscow or St. Petersburg I just don't see that changing the equation much, if at all.

The only thing russia is going to do is up its hybrid campaign which it has been waging for years along with increased donations to proxy enemies; which it has been doing for years. russia has no incentive to actually pull NATO into a full blown war.

As far as nukes, we act like we do not have the ability to touch them as well. Likewise, russia is not in any existential danger, they are just not going to take Ukraine for free like they had hoped and are throwing a fit. Even if we were to let Ukraine fall, russia will always use nuclear war as a bargaining chip for what it wants with the West. russia has been conquering its neighbors for centuries, this is not going to just stop with Ukraine. They always want more.

aezmvp said:

---

Putin is most likely bluffing. The results of nuking Ukraine, we'll exclude NATO as that would invite almost certain nuclear retaliation. There are really only 3 targets for any such strike, Kyiv, the front lines or a major (but sparsely populated) marshalling area.

The blowback would be extreme. Likely India and China at a minimum would back away from Russia. Europe would almost certainly fully rearm and you'd see major proliferation to Poland, Germany, a joint Scandinavian program at a minimum.

Again, this is a bluff, it certainly ups the ante but unless they're using these weapons to hit Moscow or St. Petersburg I just don't see that changing the equation much, if at all.

---

........and there's no way to ensure that the toxic after-effects of a nuclear strike are confined inside Ukraine. Next door European states, Belorussia and Russia itself would very likely be at risk.

I assume our authorization to use longer range missiles was a bluff. Russian nuclear threshold is a bluff. Everything is a bluff until some yahoo pulls the trigger.

2000AgPhD said:

---

sclaff said:

---

First time I have seen this reported.

Polish President Andrzej Duda says that its "Eastern Shield" fortification construction project on the borders with Belarus and Russia is in fact the start of a new "Iron Curtain" against the Russian world.

He added that Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania are also building their part… pic.twitter.com/iOriYjDVFD

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 18, 2024

---

Other than EW, surveillance tech and the anti-drone stuff, this looks very Maginot-ish.

---

I was gonna jokingly say, it's WWII again
But this is good for "peacetime" escalations

DamnGood86 said:

---

I assume our authorization to use longer range missiles was a bluff. Russian nuclear threshold is a bluff. Everything is a bluff until some yahoo pulls the trigger.

---

Welcome to the new world, same as the old one. While today's Russia isn't communist Soviet Russia, today's Russia is headed by staunch Soviet revanchists who view geopolitics and war much as their forerunners did. In order not to ultimately come out of this in a bad spot, it probably needs to be viewed and managed from a Reaganist position. That is, sack up, steel your nerves and "play the game".

Because that's what Putin is doing. And he doesn't think that soft modern leaders and their fearful masses have the balls for it. Putin, in part, wants revenge for how the Cold War panned out.

74OA said:

---

Russia has not been able to subdue piddly Ukraine despite almost three years of all-out effort.

Why should we believe Putin would now also step up to the infinitely more dangerous US/NATO?

The answer is that he is counting on us to self-deter while he commits endless war crimes in Ukraine.

Safely back here at home, we should find the nerve to be at least half as brave as the Ukrainians who are under fire.

---

I simply don't understand this mentality. What do you mean by "we should find the nerve to be half as brave?"

Are you saying we should be willing to see our sons and daughters die if Putin decided to launch a missile at us? This isn't our war we shouldn't have to be willing to see Americans harmed to defend one inch of Ukraine.

We didn't bluff.

Another official says Russia was able to intercept 2 out 8 missiles fired by Ukrainians.(Not 5 of 6 missiles like the Russians claim, the official says) https://t.co/4Q2I1VwTDU

— Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) November 19, 2024

bonfarr said:

---

74OA said:

---

Russia has not been able to subdue piddly Ukraine despite almost three years of all-out effort.

Why should we believe Putin would now also step up to the infinitely more dangerous US/NATO?

The answer is that he is counting on us to self-deter while he commits endless war crimes in Ukraine.

Safely back here at home, we should find the nerve to be at least half as brave as the Ukrainians who are under fire.

---

I simply don't understand this mentality. What do you mean by "we should find the nerve to be half as brave?"

Are you saying we should be willing to see our sons and daughters die if Putin decided to launch a missile at us? This isn't our war we shouldn't have to be willing to see Americans harmed to defend one inch of Ukraine.

---

No. He means we shouldn't be sitting here in our living rooms pissing down our legs every time Putin threatens us for making his war less convenient.

Every person who is a regular participant on this thread has said at one time or another that they don't support US troops or troop supported assets on the ground in Ukraine and don't see any way that would happen unless Putin directly and purposely attacked a NATO country (which would then end the Ukraine war quite rapidly).

How it started. How it’s going. #Velsig #geopolitics #foresight pic.twitter.com/yExzmqXiqE

— Velina Tchakarova (@vtchakarova) November 19, 2024

Yup

Can you define what it means then for Americans to be brave in Ukraine's fight? What do you consider an acceptable probability for escalation of the war to include NATO and its populace?

People haven't paid anywhere near enough attention to this development⬇️

Russian cruise missile production is now like their tank production.

Russia is living off of Cold War stockpiles that are thinner & thinner as time goes on, & harder to resuscitate.

Attrition🧵
1/ https://t.co/MjnkuLkvnY

— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) November 19, 2024

bonfarr said:

---

Can you define what it means then for Americans to be brave in Ukraine's fight? What do you consider an acceptable probability for escalation of the war to include NATO and its populace?

---

Like I said, simply not getting weak kneed and lamenting our existing material assistance in fear of nuclear holocaust every time Putin makes a threat. Just have a smidge of fortitude.

I think that jerking oneself around in an attempt to assess the mostly nebulous probabilities is a pointless exercise given the consistently fluctuating unknown variables at play.

I will say that the chances of Russia attacking NATO over 25-30% of Ukraine is between infinitesimal and nonexistent because the logic for doing so doesn't follow. There's no potential benefit or positive outcome for Russia. The outcome is substantially worse in doing so even in comparison to suffering a total loss in Ukraine. The benefit of making us FEAR that they will, however, is substantial.

Putin isn't nuts and he isn't illogical. His logic is based on his norms and experiences, which many people seem incapable of grasping, but he's quite calculating and methodical.

I have been following this thread from the beginning and still check it almost every day. One of my very first replies was a knee-jerk reaction to a nuclear threat, but I quickly realized it was a bluff. His target audience is average individuals like myself, and it's part of his strategy to influence the leaders of democratic countries through their own citizens.

But what if he actually uses a nuclear weapon? Life happens. We cannot allow himor any countryto weaponize nuclear threats. However, every time I hear yet another nuclear threat, I worry he might resort to more sabotage attacks that could severely disrupt our lives, such as the recent undersea cable cuts in the Baltic Sea.

**** Putin.

Rossticus said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

74OA said:

---

Russia has not been able to subdue piddly Ukraine despite almost three years of all-out effort.

Why should we believe Putin would now also step up to the infinitely more dangerous US/NATO?

The answer is that he is counting on us to self-deter while he commits endless war crimes in Ukraine.

Safely back here at home, we should find the nerve to be at least half as brave as the Ukrainians who are under fire.

---

I simply don't understand this mentality. What do you mean by "we should find the nerve to be half as brave?"

Are you saying we should be willing to see our sons and daughters die if Putin decided to launch a missile at us? This isn't our war we shouldn't have to be willing to see Americans harmed to defend one inch of Ukraine.

---

No. He means we shouldn't be sitting here in our living rooms pissing down our legs every time Putin threatens us for making his war less convenient.

---

This.

74OA said:

---

Russia has not been able to subdue piddly Ukraine despite almost three years of all-out effort.

Why should we believe Putin would now also step up to the infinitely more dangerous US/NATO?

The answer is that he is counting on us to self-deter while he commits endless war crimes in Ukraine.

Safely back here at home, we should find the nerve to be at least half as brave as the Ukrainians who are under fire.

---

740A you own probably well over 50% of this entire thread yourself and I find this one statement to be your finest yet.

I just wish the doubters would realize the greatest deterrence to russia's aggression around the rest of the world and very specifically NATO, is a secure and sovereign Ukraine.

Not to mention the message it sends to China. Everyone forgets that China, as we speak, is building deep water ports in South America that they will have full control over. Don't think that if you signal fear and reticence in this moment that Russia and China won't remember it when they're prepared to further their push of influence in our hemisphere.

gamedrunk said:

---

I have been following this thread from the beginning and still check it almost every day. One of my very first replies was a knee-jerk reaction to a nuclear threat, but I quickly realized it was a bluff. His target audience is average individuals like myself, and it's part of his strategy to influence the leaders of democratic countries through their own citizens.

But what if he actually uses a nuclear weapon? Life happens. We cannot allow himor any countryto weaponize nuclear threats. However, every time I hear yet another nuclear threat, I worry he might resort to more sabotage attacks that could severely disrupt our lives, such as the recent undersea cable cuts in the Baltic Sea.

**** Putin.

---

Who cares if he does? It wouldn't result in a full nuclear exchange, it likely wouldn't change much for Ukraine unless he targets all the population centers, and it would isolate Russia to an unimaginable extent.

A nuclear weapon or 20 detonated in Ukraine won't be the end of the world. There have been 800 atmospheric nuclear tests to date and we're still here.

I recommend everyone go back and read Reagan's "A Time For Choosing" speech. There are many fantastic points that remain applicable as we move forward into the next administration but specifically as it applies to how we should be viewing our strategic approach towards Russia, Iran, and China in this new era.

At its core, the world hasn't changed nearly as much as we like to think. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. "Peace through strength".

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964

Here's an update on the use of ATACMS in Russia. Most military commentators have said that, while useful, ATACMS can't/won't materially affect the outcome of the fight.

Despite this, Putin's subsequent fear mongering has succeeded in generating hysteria in some segments of the Western public mind, which has been his strategic objective from the beginning.

As opined earlier here, the missile's primary value is to give Trump one more tool with which to incentivize Putin to negotiate in good faith. "Work with me or the ATACMS pounding will continue."

ATACMS

The thing is, most of the histrionics are stemming from people who were in favor of Russian appeasement from the jump. As with every Russian threat, it's being used as another opportunity to insist that failure to appease Russia will result in catastrophic consequences.

If Russia were to use a small nuke on Ukraine, what next?

There is no small nuke. There are smaller nukes. A distinct difference, and not just semantics. It would result in full ostracizing of Russia, even from China.

If Putin brings the war to any NATO state he is committing suicide. Plain and simple. I'm actually more concerned about a false flag on this topic.

A lot of reports on X that a second under sea cable was cut this morning and it appears to be in the vicinity of a Chinese ship. Danish Navy responded.

BREAKING:

Looks like the Danish Navy has just boarded the Chinese bulk carrier Yi Peng near Denmark and is turning her back.

It’s the main suspect in the investigation into who cut two undersea telecom cables between Finland-Germany and Sweden-Lithuania.

🇨🇳🇩🇪🇫🇮🇸🇪🇱🇹 pic.twitter.com/uxJ1JHmBfs

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 19, 2024

It would be monumentally stupid for China to engage in European sabotage on Russia's behalf.