Ukraine

There is no such thing as a small nuke.

 

Found this What are tactical nuclear weapons? An international security expert explains and assesses what they mean for the war in Ukraine

 

Looking at NUKEMAP referred to in the article and any nuclear detonation in Ukraine would send the fallout in the direction of Moscow. Now that would be a clever thing for Putin to do.

 

I see Russia has escalated again. They've struck with missiles in every part of Ukraine. Clearly a sick demonstration that they can still strike wherever and whenever they want.

Moldova has also confirmed that missiles en route to Ukrainian targets passed through their airspace. I think I would take that as a statement, that the Russians don't care about violating other nations territory.

In other news today, north Korea's recent missile test where they fired over Japan, they've announced that it was a simulation for an attack on South Korea. Now I might be putting two and two together, but knowing that Putin and Kim what's his face of Korea are best mates, I wouldn't be surprised if the North Korean misbehaviour was encouraged by Putin, as it puts the US in a difficult position where they might have to decide who they are going to help.

I honestly can't figure out who benefits from all this nasty stupidity. Putin and his cronies were already stinking rich and untouchable, so if it's for personal gain I don't get it. And the world was increasingly trading and collaborating with Russia, giving the general population more opportunity until the invasion, so I see no national gain. The whole world is run by idiots.

 

Putin has lost touch with reality. He said that there will be a 'very harsh' response to blowing up the Azov bridge.

1 - Ukraine hasn't claimed to have blown up the bridge - it could just as likely be someone who is hacked off in Russia;

2 - what else can he do to top mass murder of civilians.

38 missiles were shot down yesterday - more missile defence systems would be a good idea using the US lend lease system.

He's starting to blame his top military brass - he knows he's going to lose and he's trying to distance himself. Too late now.

 

An adviser to the Ukraine military was interviewed this morning and he said 43 of 83 missiles were shot down. He thought it bad strategy for Russia to use missiles which are in short supply on soft targets instead of against hard targets such as troops, armoured vehicles and military stores.

 

It never ends well when the politicians meddle in militarily strategy.
The politicians should tell the military the objective and let them get on with it.

 

My concern is that if Russia depletes it's stocks of conventional weapons and they still haven't won, then they only have one route left.

If Russia does win, that's every bit as bad.

I also have a suspicion that Western support for Ukraine is very carefully managed. Just enough to enable Ukraine to keep Russia busy, but not enough to actually win. The goal, I suspect, being to severely weaken Russia. I don't think anyone planned it like that in advance, but I do wonder if someone saw an opportunity when Russia invaded Ukraine, and just took it.

 

Putin wants the USSR back, it wont happen but he probably longs for those days and wishes he was in charge back then, instead of being head of a second rate country that it is now.

It happens to us all, the UK is not what it was in terms of a world power, but you just have to accept it and get on with it.

 

That's the thing though, it wasn't a second rate country. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has prospered. They've been a major international player in everything right across the spectrum of trade, science collaboration and even military cooperation. They were doing alright.

It's definitely a second rate country now though.

 

It was second rate in his eyes.

 

A UK military analyst was on today and reckons Ukraine is winning and will win but it may take years.