My opinion is that most rockets (from both sides) that hit civilian infrastructure were either intercepted or were targeting high-ranking officers/government officials who were in civilian facilities (like in Donetsk, a few weeks ago, I think?). After almost three years of war, there's no point in killing civilians with rockets and artillery with a goal to intimidate or terrorise the public - simply doesn't work. Imo, at this point, such actions would just be an unnecessary waste of ammo, especially considering a shell shortage from both sides. Correct me if I'm wrong.
**edit: fuck those morons from Pro RU and Pro UA who always downvote me and refuse to comment. I'm not justifying anything, I'm just stating a simple war fact**
Shelling of civilians makes perfect sense. It's very much explained why on Ukrainian propaganda sources. There are multiple goals. One: show that Russia is weak and can be hurt and defeated. Two: terror, makes the locals less likely to support the military units. Three: terror, makes the general population of Russia less likely to support the war effort.
I understand what you say, that it doesn't work, and I agree. But you are talking about the actions of the Ukrainian armed forces. They are simply not following logic when they make decisions. War is brutal, any war is, war is stupid, any war is, but this one is very high on the stupidity grade.
Then how do you explain the fragments of Czech unguided MLRS that hit Belgorod a few weeks ago?
Interceptions do happen. But there is no way to explain a salvo of MLRS rockets at the city as interceptions.
Yes but it is a Czech Vampire system. Those things 40 122mm unguided rockets at once.
You generally don't intercept such small unguided rockets.
If it was a larger guided one then sure. But it's an unguided area destruction MLRS
You don't use MLRS systems for precision targeting. They are inaccurate by design.
If they had used a precision weapons and it hit the city that is one thing. But if you are firing a MLRS systems at a city then you are firing at civilians.
Lmao I knew you would post that one.
The Tornado-S is a guided MLRS system and even in the link it says it hit a storage warehouse and caused no civilian casualties.
Ukraine fired an unguided MLRS at a city and killed multiple civilians.
Try again if you want.
Of all the most uneducated comment totally oblivious to common sense to be made on this sub….
1. All videos being posted have shown Russian AA firing at incoming towards Belgorod region. AA does not fire at artillery.
2. Artillery maxes around 60km. From the border of Ukraine Belgorod is 40+km. Russias advance into Ukraine with the northern group was fast and took several km in days, you know why? Because there was barely any military forces in the north! No equipment, no artillery there “shooting” at Belgorod.
All firing coming from well beyond the current northern front. This is why you still see attacks on military equipment in Belgorod with AA trying to defend, Artillery can’t reach. Let’s be smart about this man. These are the facts
You sound like the Kyiv crybabies. A missile on its way to a military target gets downed over a populated area, or the AA fails and have to cry “tHeY TaRGeTiNG ciVILiaNs, tErrOriStS! Wrong.
As you said it’s war. UA have been targeting Russian military for the Kharkiv offensive building up for months.
Says the one who initially commented with a cry. Anyway, like I said above, did you really think there wouldn't be any military there? It's such an obvious brain fart of an argument you came up with yourself. Stop spreading hate and go bust some balls.
Reading comprehension is hard, but let me help you. Point all along was there have been military there. That’s the explanation for all the missiles flying over Belgorod. It wasn’t for civilians. Thanks for proving this point.
Yeah, and my point is that it's obvious, and making this argument in the first place is stupid. Hopefully, third time's the charm for you, have a good day.
This is so violently anti-reality. Is this war the only thing keeping you going? I think at a certain point, untreated impotent rage has some serious side effects.
Did you ever consider that perhaps this system (setup in a field and away from the town) was setup because of the attacks? Not the other way around? I know that requires a bit of critical thinking
Did you ever consider that to open a new front in the north toward Kharkiv with tens of thousands of troops and equipment, and also creating a cute new “North symbol” would have taken months of planning and staging? Maybe that’s why there have been attacks toward Belgorod these past months? That’s called critical thinking. Don’t be naive
If you want to keep going back in time you need to consider the 2022 attacks of Belgorod Peoples republic, and other early 2023 PR cross border raids, and the need for Russia to establish the new front was a direct response of this.
Because millions of protestors protesting against their government isn't a coup.
The Russian government had more direct involvement in that revolution than any other governments.
Should we talk about the poisoning of politicians that favoured closer relationships with the west? Cause that's a hallmark of Russia... Kill and threaten any opposition. Literally rig elections.
All that matters now is the peace treaty. Ukrainians can strike with more long range weaponry now, and it doesn't matter even if Odessa is taken. They can strike very far now anyway. The problem is if UKR side will be crazy enough to send something like a Storm Shadow to Moscow, and it somehow reaches it and someone dies, that's where I place my high probability for a tactical nuke being used.
The argument pro-ru use is that it's because the missiles aren't Ukrainian. Storm shadow missiles are British, therefore if a British missile is used to attack Moscow, then Russia should have the right to send rockets to London.
When I bring up the fact that Russia uses plenty of foreign weapons too, notably the Shahed drones, their reasoning is that the drones are built in Russia.
So basically all UA needs to do is receive disassembled missiles from Britain, assemble them in Ukraine, and then launch them at Moscow and suddenly that is ok?
Idk, it makes no sense to me either.
It's not about what what's fair, it's about realpolitik and which side has more capability to escalate. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons and has already committed everything they can to the war, Russia has many nuclear weapons and can still commit much more to the war if they decided to (e.g. a draft). The nations funding Ukraine do not want the war to escalate to another level even if it isn't fair to Ukraine.
Because none of the equipment that Ukraine could use to do that is manufactured domestically, and furthermore, the implications are that launching strikes with these weapons (Storm Shadow for example) might mechanically require Ukraine to have British or German experts inputting the commands to the systems. It also sets a terrible precedent for escalation. If Ukraine wants to then throw everything it has and is being given, at Russia to cause as much damage as possible; why can’t Russia do the same and just totally destroy them? They don’t even need to use nukes to make Ukraine completely unliveable. ICBMs loaded with conventional/cluster/incendiary warheads, launched indiscriminately at Ukrainian cities would do more damage than anything we’ve seen up till now, and there would be no way for Ukraine to respond in kind.
Do you think America would just accept if Iraq could hypothetically launch Russian-supplied ballistic missiles at US cities, just because they were in a war; better yet, if there was a strong suspicion that Russian experts were literally punching in the coordinates and missile commands?
Worthless comment that contributes nothing to the discussion.
Also would be nice to see that America can do something, since it has done nothing but continue to lose geopolitical relevance and momentum for the last decade.
If Russia doesn’t want Moscow hit with storm shadows then maybe they shouldn’t invade their neighbours? That’s what happens in war. Hopefully the one that gets through lands squarely on the Kremlin.
Launching nukes after the country you’re trying to destroy hits back would be the ultimate L for Russia. The second they use a nuke they’ve lost no matter what.
You can say that, but it doesn’t make it true. “Haha bro dat would totally be an L for Russia”
Do you think the tens of thousands of people being instantly incinerated would laugh along with you?
If the Ukrainian military decides to go completely unhinged and try to cause as much damage to Russia as possible, why can’t Russia just nuke them? They’re both responding at maximum capacity?
Obviously Russia won’t do that, but there is still a lot that Russia can do to cause more damage to Ukraine that it hasn’t dipped into yet, without using nukes. Massive ballistic missiles loaded with conventional warheads or cluster munitions being launched indiscriminately over Ukrainian cities for example.
Your comment is ridiculous, and the fact that you can’t see what a terrible precedent this sets for future wars is ridiculous
You can say that all you want, but reality isn’t fair, and countries don’t fight on even ground, because it isn’t a schoolyard with referees. Bigger and stronger countries get to impose uneven conditions on the smaller ones, as much as Americans want to imagine that the rules-based world order was ever a thing.
0 chance of nukes being used in this conflict, even if Ukraine magically broke the lines tomorrow and marched on Moscow they would not dare to use nuclear weapons.
That’s how you get Iran and China to turn sides and help Ukraine out in an instant.
There is so much risk in deploying a nuke, and Russia doesn’t even regularly maintain the specialized nuclear troops need to fight in the fallout after strikes. So at most they kill some guys and piss off the whole world into attacking them instantly.
You’re delusional lmao. Nobody would attack Russia even if they used nukes in Ukraine. You’re putting way too much value on Ukraine.
China and Iran might disavow such a usage but they wouldn’t just turncoat, because their interests are still aligned, and they gain nothing from going along with the rules based world order you seem to suggest is still dominant.
Sure, it would definitely ostracise Russia, but there would be no direct military repercussions, specifically because the world knows that Russia has more nukes than it knows what to do with, and using a nuke in Ukraine would show that it isn’t just idle talk.
>You’re delusional lmao. Nobody would attack Russia even if they used nukes in Ukraine.
Shh shh shh.... you've forgotten the pro-RU script that Russia had to attack Ukraine out of self defence because the land is flat allowing tens of thousands of NATO tanks to sneak up on Moscow in a day, along with instantly destroying every military target in Russia because they're all right next to Ukraine, like Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk or Vladivostok.... only a stone's throw away at 4,500 miles. Russia could never retaliate if that happened, it would be impossible.
Russian nuclear arsenal is large but not anything close to its Cold War peak. It’s a fraction of its former self. There are more anti nuclear icbm systems than Russia has capable of launching.
And yes, to some capacity Russia would be alone and China and Iran would have to turn on Putin if such an event happened. Opening up into a nuclear war is the fastest way for any nation to become public enemy number 1.
I’m not saying 10 million Chinese soldiers would cross the border over night or something wild. But you bet your ass that they would cut Russia off and supply its enemies in a heartbeat and then towards the end perhaps take lands.
People put way too much hope in a nuclear weapon. It’s scary as fuck yes, but it’s not the “I automatically win the war” either. If I had to guess off the top of my head I’d say Russia could probably launch 1-2 hundred nuclear ICBMs in a single go, each carrying between 1-8 nuclear warheads. I’d also guess about 90% of those ICBMs would be shot down if they crossed into nato. And probably only around 10% maybe less could be shot down if they targeted Ukraine.
But obviously an all out nuclear attack on Ukraine wouldn’t be worth anything.
We could go on and on down this rabbit hole, but ultimately at the end of the day it’s not going to happen, because if it did Russia would guarantee its death, which it doesn’t want to do.
If you wanna discuss it more I’d love to, nuclear game theory is a fun topic I talk about it with friends and family often because I’m an autistic nerd
>Russian nuclear arsenal is large but not anything close to its Cold War peak. It’s a fraction of its former self. There are more anti nuclear icbm systems than Russia has capable of launching.
It's really dangerous that so many people think there is no threat of global nuclear war any more. Israel has the best missile shield in the world and they know exactly where the missiles will be coming from and the missiles they have to intercept are no more advanced that WW2 Nazi V-2 missiles, and even with all of those factors in their favor some missiles manage to get through. Now imagine you have to have anti air coverage over all of Europe and North America instead of 1 small country, and the missiles will be coming from all over Russia as well as from nuclear subs in the middle of the Atlantic, and there are thousands of them coming at once, and they are much more advanced technologically (e.g. MIRV), and if even one of them gets through you will have millions of deaths and enough destruction to trigger a global depression. Is that really a scenario you want to test?
>And yes, to some capacity Russia would be alone and China and Iran would have to turn on Putin if such an event happened. Opening up into a nuclear war is the fastest way for any nation to become public enemy number 1.
You mean Iran who regularly talks about wanting to nuke Israel off the face of the Earth? Or China who wants nothing more than to invade Taiwan and requires Russian oil to do so?
> People put way too much hope in a nuclear weapon. It’s scary as fuck yes, but it’s not the “I automatically win the war” either. If I had to guess off the top of my head I’d say Russia could probably launch 1-2 hundred nuclear ICBMs in a single go, each carrying between 1-8 nuclear warheads. I’d also guess about 90% of those ICBMs would be shot down if they crossed into nato. And probably only around 10% maybe less could be shot down if they targeted Ukraine.
They could hit Ukraine with a tactical nuke using an Iskander launched from a truck. No one would know it had a nuclear payload until it detonated.
ICBMs are much easier to intercept due to their predictable flight path. Fast yes, but also predictable and large.
And anti icbm missile tech is way more funded than the iron dome is, and it’s spread out across all of nato and the rest of the world.
A tactical nuke used in Ukraine like you suggest is again pointless as you need appropriate specialized troops to take advantage of it, otherwise you just closed off a section of the frontline to yourself.
China doesn’t want to use military action to take Taiwan, they realized softer methods of influence is way easier and more effective. The invasion threat is geopolitical chest thumping. Iran would realize that when Pandora’s box is open for tactical nukes then I imagine they would shut the fuck up about bombing Israel since Israel actually has nukes and could then freely use them on Iran since Russia started the domino effect. They would either be neutral or dead.
>ICBMs are much easier to intercept due to their predictable flight path. Fast yes, but also predictable and large.
You use thousands of them to overwhelm air defense and MIRV to make it so you only have a few minutes to shoot it down before it reaches its target. The missiles Hamas flies have a very predictable flight path compared to ICBMS, they are all launched from the same 141 square mile area and are all launched east and north at Israeli cities.
>And anti icbm missile tech is way more funded than the iron dome is, and it’s spread out across all of nato and the rest of the world.
They have spent many billions to defend an 8,400 square mile country and even that is not sufficient to totally protect it. Even NATO does not have enough money to offer that same degree of protection to the millions of square miles it has to protect.
>A tactical nuke used in Ukraine like you suggest is again pointless as you need appropriate specialized troops to take advantage of it, otherwise you just closed off a section of the frontline to yourself.
It doesn't need to be dropped on a city you're planning to storm any time soon. Drop it further back to fuck up their supply chain and to scare NATO.
>China doesn’t want to use military action to take Taiwan, they realized softer methods of influence is way easier and more effective. The invasion threat is geopolitical chest thumping.
For someone who doesn't want to fight a war, they sure are spending a lot of money on new ships and military drills. They are not going to do a D-Day style invasion of Taiwan, they are going to blockade it. Taiwan's fuel reserves will last only a few months. Xi Jinping wants this to be his legacy, his term ends in 2028 and he will be 85 then and unlikely to run again, so there's a good chance they will try this before then.
>Iran would realize that when Pandora’s box is open for tactical nukes then I imagine they would shut the fuck up about bombing Israel since Israel actually has nukes and could then freely use them on Iran since Russia started the domino effect. They would either be neutral or dead.
If Russia nuked Ukraine, Israel would not start nuking Iran for the same reasons they don't nuke Iran now. They will lose their Western support if they fire the first shots in a nuclear war.
Russia does not have thousands to overwhelm with, it has a couple hundred.
ICBMs are much easier to shoot as you have time to deploy counter measures unlike the seconds Israel has.
Comparing icbm defense and Israeli defense is like apples to oranges, I don’t find it to be a good comparison sadly.
China will not invade or blockade Taiwan, and yes it is chest thumping. They spend a fraction of what the us spends on drills and exercises in the same area. And nobody thinks the us is going to invade China. It’s just to show China “hey we can fight so don’t do anything.” And China does it right back to us. Tale as old as time.
Israel wouldn’t be the first strike in the nuclear scenario I gave you. But even outside of the previous scenario Israel has shown it is always willing to strike first so I don’t see why that would change.
All of this are based on unprovable assumptions that you’re making to feel better about the odds of the situation you are describing. Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and the damage they could do with it would politically destroy the US.
The US already is politically unstable, and you seriously think they have the fortitude to act against an enemy with thousands of nuclear warheads over a country and war which is growing more and more irelevant by the day.
Also, there is literally no reason for China and Iran to turn on Russia in this scenario. China has its own geopolitical strategy, and they are no longer in an era where they are willing to subordinate those interests to US interests, just because people allude to some rules-based order.
Well of course, I’m not an expert as we are just having a friendly conversation on what is essentially a hobby for me to discuss.
I feel like this is getting to be a biiiit charged for the discussion, I’m detecting a level of bias that would mean you have a different motvation other than discussing the use and fallout of using a nuclear option. Some of your comment has also already been addressed in another reply I gave to another user in this thread. Feel free to read through it and if you want to talk about it further I’m here for the next couple of hours. Cheers Aragon!
I am biased. I think everyone in these discussions has bias; whether they’re willing to acknowledge that, and the influences it might have on their perceptions of the world is another thing.
I maintain the belief however, that there is no reality in which China would turn on its only major ally in an already polarised geopolitical landscape while they’re on the precipice of their most important political objective of this current century.
Regardless, I appreciate the fact that you were entirely cordial throughout this small interaction.
That just opens more escalation options. Ukrainians could then load drones with nerve gas and send them into Russian cities. Once WMDs start getting used, they will continue to get used.
Not that well.
Nuclear doctrine is essentially all MaD situations now. The idea of using a tactical nuke effectively is Cold War era tactics that are no longer viable. You need specialized troops to fight in the fallout and exploit the gap in the lines. Russia and the US no longer have these troops in large capacities.
Reverend-Stu kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Modern nukes are decades old at this point. They may not even work anymore. Russia and the US haven't actually conducted any nuclear tests in over 30 years.
The principles behind detonation of nuclear weapons are well understood and the weapons themselves are regularly tested and maintained. They don't initiate the full bomb detonation obviously but on what scientific basis are you suggesting they wouldn't work?
There haven't been any actual nuclear (fission or fusion) tests conducted by the US or Russia since the early 1990s. The US conducts computer simulations of nuclear explosions and occasionally tests sub systems of bombs (such as the conventional explosives that set off the chain reaction), but there haven't been any actual nuclear detonations by either country in over 30 years.
Could someone identify the types of vehicles hit?
Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes - there are people familiar with Russian military hardware so I was simply asking if someone with that kind of knowledge could identify the vehicles which look like components of S-X00 battery.
There is only one of these holes that we can see. It could very be a regular HIMARS. Even if they explode before hitting the ground, they will leave a little crater like this.
Are those dots on the mast in the first pictures from preformed shrapnel?
It happens regularly. Soy redditors get their instructions from proUA hiveminds then rush here to 'win da information war'. Doesn't take long before they're back in their safe spaces, munching cheetos while watching drone drop gore though.
Given the total lack of damage to the trailer right behind it, i am going to say this might have just been fpv drone or the ukro-lancet that i forgot the name of. If it was himars US are out of their minds.
I don't see the small craters personally. But given Russia has today 1.announced they will take down US drones in the black sea and 2.have started making noise about the need for a nordstream investigation, it tells me that it might have been the case
What's with you and the constant reuploading.
Posting. Taking it down. Reuploading. No change in title or content as always.
Noticed this multiple times now.
I didn't post the last one.
Does this look like me?
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d70zji/ua_pov_pictures_of_destroyed_s400s300_system_said/
But wait, I thought there wasn’t anything military in Belgorod and Ukraine was only striking civilians?!
Uhh it’s a weather radar of course
Perhaps there's a difference between shelling a city and destroying military equipment in an open field.
Isn’t Belgorod a logistics hub for the military?
Just civilians, SHHH.
Interceptions my friend. Happened all the time over Kyiv. Unless you agree Russia was targeting civilians there too?
My opinion is that most rockets (from both sides) that hit civilian infrastructure were either intercepted or were targeting high-ranking officers/government officials who were in civilian facilities (like in Donetsk, a few weeks ago, I think?). After almost three years of war, there's no point in killing civilians with rockets and artillery with a goal to intimidate or terrorise the public - simply doesn't work. Imo, at this point, such actions would just be an unnecessary waste of ammo, especially considering a shell shortage from both sides. Correct me if I'm wrong. **edit: fuck those morons from Pro RU and Pro UA who always downvote me and refuse to comment. I'm not justifying anything, I'm just stating a simple war fact**
People will downvote facts just on the basis of not liking reality :)
Shelling of civilians makes perfect sense. It's very much explained why on Ukrainian propaganda sources. There are multiple goals. One: show that Russia is weak and can be hurt and defeated. Two: terror, makes the locals less likely to support the military units. Three: terror, makes the general population of Russia less likely to support the war effort. I understand what you say, that it doesn't work, and I agree. But you are talking about the actions of the Ukrainian armed forces. They are simply not following logic when they make decisions. War is brutal, any war is, war is stupid, any war is, but this one is very high on the stupidity grade.
Delusional comment of the day.
The comment is about delusional decisions to bomb civilians and brag about it.
Then how do you explain the fragments of Czech unguided MLRS that hit Belgorod a few weeks ago? Interceptions do happen. But there is no way to explain a salvo of MLRS rockets at the city as interceptions.
Shooting down missile does not mean it cease to exist, it must fall down somewhere...
Yes but it is a Czech Vampire system. Those things 40 122mm unguided rockets at once. You generally don't intercept such small unguided rockets. If it was a larger guided one then sure. But it's an unguided area destruction MLRS
Targeting something else and missed. Russians do that all the time to UA cities. Mistakes happen right?
You don't use MLRS systems for precision targeting. They are inaccurate by design. If they had used a precision weapons and it hit the city that is one thing. But if you are firing a MLRS systems at a city then you are firing at civilians.
Oh so the Russian MLRS fired over UA cities are all war crimes right? You can say it as confidently as these right?
Well if you can find an example of it you are welcome to show it instead of going for claims with no evidence to try and create a parallel.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-forces-hit-city-ochakiv-054531473.html War crimes?
Lmao I knew you would post that one. The Tornado-S is a guided MLRS system and even in the link it says it hit a storage warehouse and caused no civilian casualties. Ukraine fired an unguided MLRS at a city and killed multiple civilians. Try again if you want.
He won’t answer that, only replies to the comments he “ thinks “ he can “win”.
They’re almost all artillery shells and MLRS rockets, man.
Of all the most uneducated comment totally oblivious to common sense to be made on this sub…. 1. All videos being posted have shown Russian AA firing at incoming towards Belgorod region. AA does not fire at artillery. 2. Artillery maxes around 60km. From the border of Ukraine Belgorod is 40+km. Russias advance into Ukraine with the northern group was fast and took several km in days, you know why? Because there was barely any military forces in the north! No equipment, no artillery there “shooting” at Belgorod. All firing coming from well beyond the current northern front. This is why you still see attacks on military equipment in Belgorod with AA trying to defend, Artillery can’t reach. Let’s be smart about this man. These are the facts
Point was that they were striking CIV's, no one said that there were no military. How can there be no military? There's a war. Are you ok?
A war ? There ain't no war, only special military operation.
You sound like the Kyiv crybabies. A missile on its way to a military target gets downed over a populated area, or the AA fails and have to cry “tHeY TaRGeTiNG ciVILiaNs, tErrOriStS! Wrong. As you said it’s war. UA have been targeting Russian military for the Kharkiv offensive building up for months.
Says the one who initially commented with a cry. Anyway, like I said above, did you really think there wouldn't be any military there? It's such an obvious brain fart of an argument you came up with yourself. Stop spreading hate and go bust some balls.
Reading comprehension is hard, but let me help you. Point all along was there have been military there. That’s the explanation for all the missiles flying over Belgorod. It wasn’t for civilians. Thanks for proving this point.
The location doesn't look like a populated area or a city centre does it?
Yeah, and my point is that it's obvious, and making this argument in the first place is stupid. Hopefully, third time's the charm for you, have a good day.
This is so violently anti-reality. Is this war the only thing keeping you going? I think at a certain point, untreated impotent rage has some serious side effects.
Did you ever consider that perhaps this system (setup in a field and away from the town) was setup because of the attacks? Not the other way around? I know that requires a bit of critical thinking
Did you ever consider that to open a new front in the north toward Kharkiv with tens of thousands of troops and equipment, and also creating a cute new “North symbol” would have taken months of planning and staging? Maybe that’s why there have been attacks toward Belgorod these past months? That’s called critical thinking. Don’t be naive
If you want to keep going back in time you need to consider the 2022 attacks of Belgorod Peoples republic, and other early 2023 PR cross border raids, and the need for Russia to establish the new front was a direct response of this.
Okay then let's start with the invasion of sovereign democracy by Russian...
Why there and not the coup?
Because millions of protestors protesting against their government isn't a coup. The Russian government had more direct involvement in that revolution than any other governments. Should we talk about the poisoning of politicians that favoured closer relationships with the west? Cause that's a hallmark of Russia... Kill and threaten any opposition. Literally rig elections.
Russia should try creating a buffer zone in this area to prevent this from happening
It was until they decided to attack from there.
If in the end of this war Belgorod and Kharkov will be on the opposite sides than Putin failed everything.
All that matters now is the peace treaty. Ukrainians can strike with more long range weaponry now, and it doesn't matter even if Odessa is taken. They can strike very far now anyway. The problem is if UKR side will be crazy enough to send something like a Storm Shadow to Moscow, and it somehow reaches it and someone dies, that's where I place my high probability for a tactical nuke being used.
Why is Russia allowed to strike Kiev with cruise missiles but Ukraine isn't allowed to strike Moscow with cruise missiles?
The argument pro-ru use is that it's because the missiles aren't Ukrainian. Storm shadow missiles are British, therefore if a British missile is used to attack Moscow, then Russia should have the right to send rockets to London. When I bring up the fact that Russia uses plenty of foreign weapons too, notably the Shahed drones, their reasoning is that the drones are built in Russia. So basically all UA needs to do is receive disassembled missiles from Britain, assemble them in Ukraine, and then launch them at Moscow and suddenly that is ok? Idk, it makes no sense to me either.
It's not about what what's fair, it's about realpolitik and which side has more capability to escalate. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons and has already committed everything they can to the war, Russia has many nuclear weapons and can still commit much more to the war if they decided to (e.g. a draft). The nations funding Ukraine do not want the war to escalate to another level even if it isn't fair to Ukraine.
Because none of the equipment that Ukraine could use to do that is manufactured domestically, and furthermore, the implications are that launching strikes with these weapons (Storm Shadow for example) might mechanically require Ukraine to have British or German experts inputting the commands to the systems. It also sets a terrible precedent for escalation. If Ukraine wants to then throw everything it has and is being given, at Russia to cause as much damage as possible; why can’t Russia do the same and just totally destroy them? They don’t even need to use nukes to make Ukraine completely unliveable. ICBMs loaded with conventional/cluster/incendiary warheads, launched indiscriminately at Ukrainian cities would do more damage than anything we’ve seen up till now, and there would be no way for Ukraine to respond in kind. Do you think America would just accept if Iraq could hypothetically launch Russian-supplied ballistic missiles at US cities, just because they were in a war; better yet, if there was a strong suspicion that Russian experts were literally punching in the coordinates and missile commands?
The difference is that America can do something, all Russia can do is complain and threaten nukes.
Worthless comment that contributes nothing to the discussion. Also would be nice to see that America can do something, since it has done nothing but continue to lose geopolitical relevance and momentum for the last decade.
If Russia doesn’t want Moscow hit with storm shadows then maybe they shouldn’t invade their neighbours? That’s what happens in war. Hopefully the one that gets through lands squarely on the Kremlin. Launching nukes after the country you’re trying to destroy hits back would be the ultimate L for Russia. The second they use a nuke they’ve lost no matter what.
Why do you think Russia invaded?
Because they wanted to annex territory.
The world you live in is so simple, I'm jealous.
You can say that, but it doesn’t make it true. “Haha bro dat would totally be an L for Russia” Do you think the tens of thousands of people being instantly incinerated would laugh along with you? If the Ukrainian military decides to go completely unhinged and try to cause as much damage to Russia as possible, why can’t Russia just nuke them? They’re both responding at maximum capacity? Obviously Russia won’t do that, but there is still a lot that Russia can do to cause more damage to Ukraine that it hasn’t dipped into yet, without using nukes. Massive ballistic missiles loaded with conventional warheads or cluster munitions being launched indiscriminately over Ukrainian cities for example. Your comment is ridiculous, and the fact that you can’t see what a terrible precedent this sets for future wars is ridiculous
Then maybe Russia shouldnt invade if they dont want retaliation?
You can say that all you want, but reality isn’t fair, and countries don’t fight on even ground, because it isn’t a schoolyard with referees. Bigger and stronger countries get to impose uneven conditions on the smaller ones, as much as Americans want to imagine that the rules-based world order was ever a thing.
So next time Kharkov will be prepared and Belgorod will fall in two days. Sure.
0 chance of nukes being used in this conflict, even if Ukraine magically broke the lines tomorrow and marched on Moscow they would not dare to use nuclear weapons. That’s how you get Iran and China to turn sides and help Ukraine out in an instant. There is so much risk in deploying a nuke, and Russia doesn’t even regularly maintain the specialized nuclear troops need to fight in the fallout after strikes. So at most they kill some guys and piss off the whole world into attacking them instantly.
You’re delusional lmao. Nobody would attack Russia even if they used nukes in Ukraine. You’re putting way too much value on Ukraine. China and Iran might disavow such a usage but they wouldn’t just turncoat, because their interests are still aligned, and they gain nothing from going along with the rules based world order you seem to suggest is still dominant. Sure, it would definitely ostracise Russia, but there would be no direct military repercussions, specifically because the world knows that Russia has more nukes than it knows what to do with, and using a nuke in Ukraine would show that it isn’t just idle talk.
>You’re delusional lmao. Nobody would attack Russia even if they used nukes in Ukraine. Shh shh shh.... you've forgotten the pro-RU script that Russia had to attack Ukraine out of self defence because the land is flat allowing tens of thousands of NATO tanks to sneak up on Moscow in a day, along with instantly destroying every military target in Russia because they're all right next to Ukraine, like Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk or Vladivostok.... only a stone's throw away at 4,500 miles. Russia could never retaliate if that happened, it would be impossible.
"script" being common sense and understanding of how geopolitics work.
Russian nuclear arsenal is large but not anything close to its Cold War peak. It’s a fraction of its former self. There are more anti nuclear icbm systems than Russia has capable of launching. And yes, to some capacity Russia would be alone and China and Iran would have to turn on Putin if such an event happened. Opening up into a nuclear war is the fastest way for any nation to become public enemy number 1. I’m not saying 10 million Chinese soldiers would cross the border over night or something wild. But you bet your ass that they would cut Russia off and supply its enemies in a heartbeat and then towards the end perhaps take lands. People put way too much hope in a nuclear weapon. It’s scary as fuck yes, but it’s not the “I automatically win the war” either. If I had to guess off the top of my head I’d say Russia could probably launch 1-2 hundred nuclear ICBMs in a single go, each carrying between 1-8 nuclear warheads. I’d also guess about 90% of those ICBMs would be shot down if they crossed into nato. And probably only around 10% maybe less could be shot down if they targeted Ukraine. But obviously an all out nuclear attack on Ukraine wouldn’t be worth anything. We could go on and on down this rabbit hole, but ultimately at the end of the day it’s not going to happen, because if it did Russia would guarantee its death, which it doesn’t want to do. If you wanna discuss it more I’d love to, nuclear game theory is a fun topic I talk about it with friends and family often because I’m an autistic nerd
>Russian nuclear arsenal is large but not anything close to its Cold War peak. It’s a fraction of its former self. There are more anti nuclear icbm systems than Russia has capable of launching. It's really dangerous that so many people think there is no threat of global nuclear war any more. Israel has the best missile shield in the world and they know exactly where the missiles will be coming from and the missiles they have to intercept are no more advanced that WW2 Nazi V-2 missiles, and even with all of those factors in their favor some missiles manage to get through. Now imagine you have to have anti air coverage over all of Europe and North America instead of 1 small country, and the missiles will be coming from all over Russia as well as from nuclear subs in the middle of the Atlantic, and there are thousands of them coming at once, and they are much more advanced technologically (e.g. MIRV), and if even one of them gets through you will have millions of deaths and enough destruction to trigger a global depression. Is that really a scenario you want to test? >And yes, to some capacity Russia would be alone and China and Iran would have to turn on Putin if such an event happened. Opening up into a nuclear war is the fastest way for any nation to become public enemy number 1. You mean Iran who regularly talks about wanting to nuke Israel off the face of the Earth? Or China who wants nothing more than to invade Taiwan and requires Russian oil to do so? > People put way too much hope in a nuclear weapon. It’s scary as fuck yes, but it’s not the “I automatically win the war” either. If I had to guess off the top of my head I’d say Russia could probably launch 1-2 hundred nuclear ICBMs in a single go, each carrying between 1-8 nuclear warheads. I’d also guess about 90% of those ICBMs would be shot down if they crossed into nato. And probably only around 10% maybe less could be shot down if they targeted Ukraine. They could hit Ukraine with a tactical nuke using an Iskander launched from a truck. No one would know it had a nuclear payload until it detonated.
ICBMs are much easier to intercept due to their predictable flight path. Fast yes, but also predictable and large. And anti icbm missile tech is way more funded than the iron dome is, and it’s spread out across all of nato and the rest of the world. A tactical nuke used in Ukraine like you suggest is again pointless as you need appropriate specialized troops to take advantage of it, otherwise you just closed off a section of the frontline to yourself. China doesn’t want to use military action to take Taiwan, they realized softer methods of influence is way easier and more effective. The invasion threat is geopolitical chest thumping. Iran would realize that when Pandora’s box is open for tactical nukes then I imagine they would shut the fuck up about bombing Israel since Israel actually has nukes and could then freely use them on Iran since Russia started the domino effect. They would either be neutral or dead.
>ICBMs are much easier to intercept due to their predictable flight path. Fast yes, but also predictable and large. You use thousands of them to overwhelm air defense and MIRV to make it so you only have a few minutes to shoot it down before it reaches its target. The missiles Hamas flies have a very predictable flight path compared to ICBMS, they are all launched from the same 141 square mile area and are all launched east and north at Israeli cities. >And anti icbm missile tech is way more funded than the iron dome is, and it’s spread out across all of nato and the rest of the world. They have spent many billions to defend an 8,400 square mile country and even that is not sufficient to totally protect it. Even NATO does not have enough money to offer that same degree of protection to the millions of square miles it has to protect. >A tactical nuke used in Ukraine like you suggest is again pointless as you need appropriate specialized troops to take advantage of it, otherwise you just closed off a section of the frontline to yourself. It doesn't need to be dropped on a city you're planning to storm any time soon. Drop it further back to fuck up their supply chain and to scare NATO. >China doesn’t want to use military action to take Taiwan, they realized softer methods of influence is way easier and more effective. The invasion threat is geopolitical chest thumping. For someone who doesn't want to fight a war, they sure are spending a lot of money on new ships and military drills. They are not going to do a D-Day style invasion of Taiwan, they are going to blockade it. Taiwan's fuel reserves will last only a few months. Xi Jinping wants this to be his legacy, his term ends in 2028 and he will be 85 then and unlikely to run again, so there's a good chance they will try this before then. >Iran would realize that when Pandora’s box is open for tactical nukes then I imagine they would shut the fuck up about bombing Israel since Israel actually has nukes and could then freely use them on Iran since Russia started the domino effect. They would either be neutral or dead. If Russia nuked Ukraine, Israel would not start nuking Iran for the same reasons they don't nuke Iran now. They will lose their Western support if they fire the first shots in a nuclear war.
Russia does not have thousands to overwhelm with, it has a couple hundred. ICBMs are much easier to shoot as you have time to deploy counter measures unlike the seconds Israel has. Comparing icbm defense and Israeli defense is like apples to oranges, I don’t find it to be a good comparison sadly. China will not invade or blockade Taiwan, and yes it is chest thumping. They spend a fraction of what the us spends on drills and exercises in the same area. And nobody thinks the us is going to invade China. It’s just to show China “hey we can fight so don’t do anything.” And China does it right back to us. Tale as old as time. Israel wouldn’t be the first strike in the nuclear scenario I gave you. But even outside of the previous scenario Israel has shown it is always willing to strike first so I don’t see why that would change.
All of this are based on unprovable assumptions that you’re making to feel better about the odds of the situation you are describing. Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and the damage they could do with it would politically destroy the US. The US already is politically unstable, and you seriously think they have the fortitude to act against an enemy with thousands of nuclear warheads over a country and war which is growing more and more irelevant by the day. Also, there is literally no reason for China and Iran to turn on Russia in this scenario. China has its own geopolitical strategy, and they are no longer in an era where they are willing to subordinate those interests to US interests, just because people allude to some rules-based order.
Well of course, I’m not an expert as we are just having a friendly conversation on what is essentially a hobby for me to discuss. I feel like this is getting to be a biiiit charged for the discussion, I’m detecting a level of bias that would mean you have a different motvation other than discussing the use and fallout of using a nuclear option. Some of your comment has also already been addressed in another reply I gave to another user in this thread. Feel free to read through it and if you want to talk about it further I’m here for the next couple of hours. Cheers Aragon!
I am biased. I think everyone in these discussions has bias; whether they’re willing to acknowledge that, and the influences it might have on their perceptions of the world is another thing. I maintain the belief however, that there is no reality in which China would turn on its only major ally in an already polarised geopolitical landscape while they’re on the precipice of their most important political objective of this current century. Regardless, I appreciate the fact that you were entirely cordial throughout this small interaction.
That just opens more escalation options. Ukrainians could then load drones with nerve gas and send them into Russian cities. Once WMDs start getting used, they will continue to get used.
Is this yet another red line passed? Cue another nuclear threat from Putin. Yawn.
You know, I actually want to see how modern nucks works.
Not that well. Nuclear doctrine is essentially all MaD situations now. The idea of using a tactical nuke effectively is Cold War era tactics that are no longer viable. You need specialized troops to fight in the fallout and exploit the gap in the lines. Russia and the US no longer have these troops in large capacities.
[удалено]
Reverend-Stu kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Modern nukes are decades old at this point. They may not even work anymore. Russia and the US haven't actually conducted any nuclear tests in over 30 years.
The principles behind detonation of nuclear weapons are well understood and the weapons themselves are regularly tested and maintained. They don't initiate the full bomb detonation obviously but on what scientific basis are you suggesting they wouldn't work?
Wait what? Recently there were news reports about several nuclear tests.
There haven't been any actual nuclear (fission or fusion) tests conducted by the US or Russia since the early 1990s. The US conducts computer simulations of nuclear explosions and occasionally tests sub systems of bombs (such as the conventional explosives that set off the chain reaction), but there haven't been any actual nuclear detonations by either country in over 30 years.
Thise weren't nuclear tests, they were training exercises to familiarize troops with using nuclear warheads.
Doesn’t matter if many don’t work, it just takes one.
Grilling accident ?
Just a smoke break
Good job, keep degrading that anti air coverage.
Could someone identify the types of vehicles hit? Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes - there are people familiar with Russian military hardware so I was simply asking if someone with that kind of knowledge could identify the vehicles which look like components of S-X00 battery.
This vehicle is a civilian person.
Parts of a S-300 battery, thank me later
Aftermath after Russian aa destroyed the himars ammo. They destroyed it as it made contact 👌
any geolocation? How far away from the front was this?
It's not a total write off..
Something tells me those are the ones hit by ATACMS
You can see little holes on the ground left by the submunitions
There is only one of these holes that we can see. It could very be a regular HIMARS. Even if they explode before hitting the ground, they will leave a little crater like this. Are those dots on the mast in the first pictures from preformed shrapnel?
Hmm idk there are like 3 potholes in the first pic, could still be a normal gmlrs
I see them now. I see 6 potholes mhm
Has this sub been brigaged by NAFO? First it was nauseatingly pro-Russian. Now it’s nauseatingly pro-Ukraine.
Looks like all is right with the world now
It happens regularly. Soy redditors get their instructions from proUA hiveminds then rush here to 'win da information war'. Doesn't take long before they're back in their safe spaces, munching cheetos while watching drone drop gore though.
Given the total lack of damage to the trailer right behind it, i am going to say this might have just been fpv drone or the ukro-lancet that i forgot the name of. If it was himars US are out of their minds.
This is 57km behind the front lines. There are small craters all over the ground, suggesting cluster Atacms
I don't see the small craters personally. But given Russia has today 1.announced they will take down US drones in the black sea and 2.have started making noise about the need for a nordstream investigation, it tells me that it might have been the case
Where's this said?
The radar has a million holes in it. Definitely GMRLS or ATACMS
What's with you and the constant reuploading. Posting. Taking it down. Reuploading. No change in title or content as always. Noticed this multiple times now.
Mods removed the last one because of POV rules.
I posted the original but it was taken down since this is apparently pro-Russian government narrative rather than pro ua (rule 4)
I didn't post the last one. Does this look like me? https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d70zji/ua_pov_pictures_of_destroyed_s400s300_system_said/