For Ukraine to come out of this war OK, it needs to take some kind of action or actions that cause Russia to stop attacking it and stop capturing it's land.

Maybe that action is a negotiated agreement.

Maybe that action is some kind of well designed military strikes.

But whatever actions are taken, they must not cause Russia to feel that it is under an existential threat. Attacks that disable Russia's ability to defend itself against other worldwide nuclear powers, like against its first-strike radar (as was done), or its nuclear bombers (as was done), may cause Russia to take the severe action of disabling Ukraine for good.

Attacking Ukraine with nuclear weapons probably would not cause NATO powers to strike Russia with nuclear weapons, because that would be well known as the MAD ending. Russia doesn't want to hit Ukraine with nukes. But it becomes their best strategic choice as soon as Ukraine effectively disables their ability to retaliate against a nuclear attack. Was this attack on the bombers such a thing? Probably not. But it's definitely encroaching on that territory.

If Russia nuked Ukraine in retaliation for the attack on their bombers, I'm not sure there is any way Ukraine or NATO could effectively respond. And that makes it strategically viable for Russia to do it, whereas yesterday it wasn't. And that is why I mentioned earlier that Ukraine making it's last moves was strategically "questionable".

Daring them is dumb. You will think you are winning until the day you lose catastrophically. Like double-or-nothing on the roulette table.

Russia doesn’t need to use nukes. The new Oreshnik missile is comparable to a nuclear warhead in terms of destructive power but without the radioactive aftermath.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Last time it was used, the warheads were empty or something... just a demonstration of the hypersonic nature. Have we seen conventional Oreshnik warhead strikes yet? Do we have estimates of how powerful they would be?

Getting hit at Mach 11, there's not a lot of difference between HMX and sand.

Yes, it was used without nuclear to destroy a factory, as far as I remember.

Yes and the factory complex was damaged, but that wasn't anything like a nuclear strike.

Perhaps! I remember it was marketed as a big deal even in the western media but not sure why exactly.

Mach 11 is pretty hard for AD to react to, never mind intercept.

But comparing any non-nuclear payload to a nuclear one is absurd hype...

the very fact they developed that system means they do not want to nuke anybody.

however an Oreshnik strike on a G7 meeting would certainly be a wake up call to the Globalists.

remember that all the Russian attacks so far are on infrastructure, not even on military personnel, let alone on political leaders

you do not need kilotons of TNT if you're striking the right target.

the people in charge do not care if you murder 10 million of their civilians. they DO care if you murder THEM.

nostr:npub1etqwgv34spk6p98s0pa9kp8zntgyevdrcl49eas7mswr8pe5pq4sfj8ues

Current Western leaders are so often drunk or high on cocaine they probably think they can stop an Oreshnik with emotional blackmail or a tantrum.

Other than that, 100% agree

if not sure then STFU

Dude, chill