A false flag operation using radioactive warheads is reportedly aimed at spent nuclear fuel
Ukrainian forces have begun preparations to target nuclear waste storage sites at a Russian power plant with radioactive warheads and to then blame Moscow, according to intelligence received by Russia.
“Sources on the other side report that the [Ukrainians] are preparing a nuclear false flag – an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” military journalist Marat Khairullin said Friday on his Telegram channel. “They plan to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant.”
The special warheads intended for the attack have already been delivered to the Vostochny Mining and Processing plant in Zhovti Vody, in Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk Region, according to Khairullin.
As possible targets of the attack, Khairullin indicated either the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar or the Kursk NPP in Kurchatov, noting that the Ukrainian government and its Western backers are “desperate and willing to try anything.”
A security official in the Russian Military Administration of Kharkov Region corroborated Khairullin’s claim to RIA Novosti on Friday. The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody.
Kiev’s intention is to accuse Moscow of a false flag so it could justify using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the security official said. The Ukrainian government has received orders from its Western backers to “escalate as much as possible,” he added.
According to the security official, the intelligence came from Ukrainian prisoners of war.
Sergey Lebedev, introduced as leader of the Nikolaev Region underground, who said the planned attack would be carried out with NATO weapons, with the consent of the West.
Lebedev pointed out that a large number of Western journalists have already arrived in the Sumy Region near Kursk, as well as the Ukrainian-controlled part of Zaporozhye, suggesting that this is part of Kiev’s preparations for the nuclear false flag.
Very alarming if true.
Elon energy on your comment
looking into it.
Concerning.
!!!
Dirty nuclear attacks pretty much have one purpose; area of denial. If they use them, that’d pretty much be the only purpose. Contaminating a section of land and giving horrible diseases to whoever goes there for 300-10,000 years. At this stage of the war, I don’t think they’d use them at this point or at spent fuel sites but perhaps if they’re forced into retreat?
Sure, this is RT. An example of looking at this article though is that Russian intelligence or another source from Russian government is concerned about the potential use of dirty bombs. Their info could be wrong or not. That’s pretty much what I get from this; not that they’re going to be used now, where they say it’s gonna be used or etc.
Regardless of that, we have first-hand evidence here that liberals (of the feddit variety, at least) would be glad to see a land poisoned for thousands of years and thousands more slaughtered to enforce and justify a literal neo-nazi terrorist state that is already eager to commit resources to violence in Africa for their American paymasters during an existential war.
They can’t get enough blood, folks, they love it.
If true—and it’s sure not hard to believe it is given the endless fucked up stuff western colonialism and imperialism has done over centuries—all I can say is, they make ghouls look like casper.
The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody.
Where do I even begin to talk about how dumb this is?
It’s like saying you will make nerve agent just so you can bomb a nerve agent plant. It doesn’t make sense. Not even for the Ukrainian regime.
I guess you could add extra radioatice stuff to make sure it to gets mixed with everything else at the target site, but if you just use normal shells/bombs you can at least claim it was a mistake, so I really don’t see how this makes sense as is.
If they want to bomb a nuclear power plant normal bombs, perhaps bunker busters, sufice. There is no need to do any more than that.
The only reason I can see for them to be searching for “radioactive materials” to target the plant it would be if they wanted spent uranium rounds, but that wouldn’t be used because it is radioactive but because it is “harder”.
So, either this is some dumb propaganda piece, some even dumber plan, or some dumb reporting or translation on what should be really serious.
It makes sense if that nerve agent plant is on enemy territory, in enemy land and will contaminate it and doing so allows you to claim you had either nothing to do with it and they had an accident or did it to themselves OR that you did do it but by conventional bombing and it’s their fault and therefore a leak and not a violation of international treaties against use of such weapons.
We must also consider this is a Nazi regime. They are losing. They have an intense racial hatred of Russians and the west (the US mainly) has a desire to punish Russia and to drag this on as long as possible. Contaminating Russian land, escalating like this would certainly make peace talks harder which means Zelensky can stay in power and alive longer along with the rest of his regime and they can continue serving the west while saying “look how unreasonable these new Russian demands are since that nuclear incident”.
They don’t need a bigger reason other than it will hurt Russians, it will hurt Russia, and it will the sick Nazis who delight in sending in battalions of child rapist nazi militias into Russian speaking areas to “pacify them”.
Come on. There are videos of these Ukrainians wearing Nazi regalia, speaking German and tormenting an old Russian man. What military or strategic purpose does that advance? If anything it hurts their attempts to pain themselves as wholesome-100 moderate white liberals under attack from the evil slavic barbarians. They just can’t help themselves. The cruelty is the point.
Your last paragraph is true. Why is it hard for some people on this site (hexbear too) to accept the fact that a Nazi regime is going to be just cruel as it is foolish?
Did the Holocaust not fucking happen? Were victims not put in ovens and sent to die in gas chambers? Did we just neglect that history??
I absolutely see those monsters using a dirty bomb. This is so cruel that it could only come from Nazis.
And the Ukrainian regime is a Nazi regime.
I guess there might have been some confusion from what I said to here.
I never said the Ukrainian puppet regime would never do something like irradiating Russia and Europe by blowing up a nuclear power plant, I just said that if they were going to bomb a nuclear power plant, releasing a lot of nuclear materials, there was no reason for them to go out of their way to get more nuclear materials to throw at it as just blowing it up conventionally would already be spreading a lot of radiation and adding more would likely not even make a difference.
So, either they would be attacking the nuclear power plant with conventional weapons or they would get nuclear materials to attack a city with a dirty bomb, but there is no need to attack a nuclear power plant with a dirty bomb as it is redundant and counter productive, so it might be that the news is either really bad propaganda or mistranslated/misreported.
I agreed with you at first, but then I thought about Yugoslavia. NATO dropped DU bombs in urban locations during that atrocity of a war of aggression by the West. Why? They weren’t trying to penetrate armor.
It turns out there’s a whole other area of war strategy we forget about, which is field testing. I don’t think the West has ever tested a dirty bomb in the field before, which means the intelligence on how it will behave is limited. I don’t know how much range testing they’ve done, but field testing will always yield additional insights.
So it’s possible that this is being floated in the West simply because whoever the new Kissinger is needs some more data.
If this is true, we might get another Chernobyl.
This is the second time Ukraine is trying to use nuclear war as a bargaining chip.
Keep in mind, the earlier Kursk offensive’s goal seemed to be to take control of the Kursk nuclear power plant to threaten a nuclear meltdown on Russian soil and/or to take control of nuclear weapons nearby. In other words, Ukraine has already tried this shit once.
If Ukraine and NATO wants nukes that badly, Russia should deliver them the experience first, preferably with conventional munitions first as a taste. I honestly do not give a shit anymore what happens to the Ukronazis. If they want to get glassed that badly, Russia should give it to them.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes. China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA. If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West if need be while taking out a good number of US nukes. The USA is the only NATO country with sizable nuclear forces and decent ICBM defenses, so CRINK should be able to glass Europe at least. China should be able to glass the USA, Russia to glass Europe, Iran to glass Israel, and North Korea to glass the stragglers (Japan, occupied Korea, etc.) if needed. That is deterrence.
How about we don’t go into the nuclear holocaust scenario? It’s not a good thing, even for Russia - to keep flaunting nuclear weapons as though you’re a gangsta waving a Glock. I understand the sentiment against the Ukronazis, and I hate them as much as you do, but what you are saying is far beyond the reasonable.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes. China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA. If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West while taking out a good number of US nukes. The USA is the only NATO country with sizable nuclear forces and decent ICBM defenses, so CRINK should be able to glass Europe at least. China should aim to glass the USA, Russia to glass Europe, Iran to glass Israel, and North Korea to glass the stragglers (Japan, occupied Korea, etc.) if needed.
sorry chief but I think we should be aiming for nuclear disarment, not holocaust.
I agree that nuclear disarmament is a lovely utopian ideal to strive for, but is simply not realistic until capitalism is completely destroyed. Until then, there is no way to trust that any capitalist country is actually disarming. For example, if everyone disarms except for the US, then we are even more fucked than if everyone had nukes.
Acquiring nukes is simply the best way for any anti-imperialist country to protect themselves against overt outside interference. If capitalist countries warmonger about invading the anti-imperialist bloc, the logical response is to remind them that they will get glassed if they try. Libya is what happens when you don’t get nukes.
See this previous discussion on the topic: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4516648
China’s current nuclear stockpile of ~500 warheads is 1/10 the size of Russia’s or the USA’s (both around 5000) and is around the size of Britain + France (~250 each). China’s official reason for this is the country’s no-first-use policy, but such a policy assumes that NATO is not insane. Ukraine’s recent NATO-backed attempts at attacking/stealing nukes is clear evidence against that. In such a scenario, China’s arsenal is simply not enough to protect its 1.4 billion population.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side’s favor. Let’s assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia’s stockpile numbers for each.
I do not consider nuclear winter in this scenario, only direct kills. Nuclear winter only really affects food production. Recent simulations and the experiences of the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires actually show that nuclear winter would be much less severe than initially predicted in the early 1980s, decreasing temperatures by only a few degrees for ~10 years in localized areas before returning to normal. If this wasn’t the case, Canadian wildfires would be cooling the planet significantly, but they don’t. Furthermore, nuclear winter depends on setting flammable cities ablaze. Modern cities are made of concrete and steel, not wood, so would not produce the firestorms and soot needed for severe nuclear winter.
Its real, relatively small effects can be mitigated with large enough stockpiles and rapid deployment of nonperishable foodstuffs, greenhouses, sunlight-independent energy like nuclear/geothermal energy, fossil fuels (which would actually make climate change a good thing to warm the planet), sunlight-free food production tech, climate geoengineering, and other technologies (much research has been focused on this topic already). China and the USA both have enough resources to invest in these and protect their own populations if tensions did spike. Ultimately, the only way to hinder their deployment is again, to kill enough of the enemy.
Based on their strategic warhead arsenal to total strategic arsenal megatonnage ratios), each warhead in both of their stockpiles is about 0.6 megatons, for a total megatonnage of 300 for China and 3000 for the USA. The average population density is ~400 per sq mile (psqm) in China and ~90 psqm in the USA.
Using NUKEMAP to estimate deaths per nuke, we can use Hanzhong, Shaanxi; Hegang, Heilongjiang; and Yuxi, Yunnan with population density around 400 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in China is ~230,000. We use Sandpoint, Idaho; Hillsboro, Texas; and Vermillion, South Dakota with population density around 90 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in the USA is ~10,000.
This means that to match the casualties for every one US warhead, China needs around 23 warheads. If the USA uses its entire stockpile, it can kill at least 1.15 billion Chinese, while China can only kill around 5 million USAmericans. What an amazing deal for the USA, a trade of one US death per 230 Chinese deaths! This is not mutually assured destruction, this is USA assured success. We aren’t even counting the nukes that could be shot down by air defenses or destroyed during first strike, which would just make the US situation even better.
To just counter the USA and ensure complete mutual destruction, China needs at least 30,000 nukes with 0.6 megatons each. Notice how conveniently close this is to the USSR’s maximum stockpile of 45,000 nukes. The math is valid and has been done before.
An obvious objection to my quick maths is that nukes would be used on population centers first. However, if China and the USA want true mutually assured destruction, they must kill practically every single human. At first, the deaths-per-nuke will be very high. But by the end, all population centers will have already been glassed, so the deaths-per-nuke will be very low, resulting in an overall deaths-per-nuke around that experienced by the average population density.
Even if this averaging assumption isn’t true, it simply makes China’s situation all the more pressing since each US nuke can kill way more Chinese.
There’s too many fellow travellers here for them to see the point you’re trying to make, some people in the West resist the New Cold War not out of any moral or principled anti-imperialist reasons but principally a selfish self-preservational fear from a potential MAD scenario they have floating in their heads.
We’ve been through all this before. Back in the 1980s, you had some Western “leftists” too busy celebrating over the supposed European nuclear disarmament through the “Zero Option” scam that Reagan pitched to Gorbachev to see the capitulation to imperialist hegemony that Gorbachev represented. There was a rather disgusting, though largely unserious at first, struggle session over on Hexbear a while back where they debated whether China should “bother” launching its second strike if the US suddenly launches a first strike against it. “Yes, 1.4 billion people will be murdered, 1/5th of the human race exterminated, but since things are already too late, China should prevent the loss of ‘more lives’ and let bygones be bygones.” I’m sure they thought writing a few articles in Monthly Review afterwards condemning this nuclear holocaust would be a balanced recompense for this fantasy genocide scenario. You don’t need enemies with “comrades” like these.
All these nonsense stories about Ukrainian “dirty nukes” or NATO escalatory gimmicks, that tries to make it seem like the Western leadership is more like the fictional General Ripper rather than the chicken-hawk it really is, obfuscates the fact that Russian nuclear superiority, particularly its still-active Perimeter program will always ensure that there is always a bottom line the West will avoid stepping on. China has completely bypassed the nuclear unilateralism nonsense that gripped the USSR, having rejected so far all Western attempts to shackle it to “trilateral arms agreements” (where the West combines its stockpile with Russia’s against their own) when it still has not reached nuclear parity. The material conditions of a contemporary arms race are different from the first Cold War in that China’s industrial capacity can afford it to outcompete the West in a nuclear buildup when this had once been an active US strategy to drain the Soviet budget.
The difference in the treatment of Libya and the DPRK, the first having drawn back from its nuclear program and the latter having heroically ensured its sovereignty through a mere modest nuclear capacity is plain to see for anyone in the Global South.
Thank you for your enlightening historical viewpoint on this topic. There is no reason why socialist and anti-imperialist states should allow the West to have nuclear force supremacy. Doing so fixes nothing and instead portends the collapse of promising socialist projects.
“Yes, 1.4 billion people will be murdered, 1/5th of the human race exterminated, but since things are already too late, China should prevent the loss of ‘more lives’ and let bygones be bygones.”
Slight correction: A nuclear second strike is any launch after the first one. So if the the US goes for a first strike and China launches its arsenal while the US nukes are still on their way, that’d too be a second strike.
Strongly agree with most of what you’re saying.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side’s favor. Let’s assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia’s stockpile numbers for each.
The calculus for China is even more complex. They need the ability not just to take x lives for x lives. They need the ability to suppress US and NATO capabilities globally. It’s not enough to suppress the US mainland when the US stations nukes and has military forces, bases, reserves, pawns all over western Europe, as well as smaller bases in the middle east in places like Jordan, as well as places in Asia itself like Japan, occupied Korea, etc, etc. Nukes could come from anywhere including a pawn which the US disavows.
China needs a nuclear capability that is enough they can wipe out the US in a tit for tat mainland attack but also have enough that if they start with attacking US assets outside the US, they’ll have enough after finishing that to still finish the US and the UK. I’d say 1500 bare minimum. Luckily they are on their way to 1000 though it will take time, time in which they’re under greater threat.
They must also consider interceptor tech or the math that not all warheads will reach their destination if this is in response to a first strike by the US who is now waiting fully prepared to mitigate as much as possible (to say nothing of the possibility of the US actually managing to take out a chunk of their warhead stock in the first strike). So you need to allocate at least 10-20% more warheads than you think you need, maybe as high as 30%. Having reserves never hurts. Of course this is alleviated somewhat by putting such warheads on hypersonic missiles/delivery systems but I don’t think the Chinese have entirely switched their nuclear arsenal over to those yet as they are still kind of a beta product and may not be considered ready for that duty. But even those there’s still the chance the US could launch counter-nukes into the atmosphere in the path of incoming weapons to destroy them and a hypersonic missile if caught close enough would be destroyed just the same as a regular one (though I admit given the plasma around them they probably have an advantage in being able to be closer to such a blast and continue than normal missiles).
And I’ve mentioned this before they need enough to hit all these places plus New Zealand. Why NZ? Because it’s where all the big western bourgeoisie have their bunkers and will likely flee and they need to know they’ll die because China will drop 3 nukes one on top of the other on them and bury them alive in their now tombs.
I agree. The US and all its vassals and military bases absolutely have to be subdued in the event of nuclear war. In other words, the USSR’s 45,000 nuke stockpile should be the goal for China as well, and is even more prescient than we expected.
Russia and North Korea should be encouraged to assist as well, as it increases redundancy and is in their interests also. In the same vein, Iran still desperately needs nukes to defend itself and contribute as well.
As @MelianPretext@lemmygrad.ml discussed, unlike the USSR, China actually has the industry to rapidly build up and maintain a stockpile of this size. If China can automate electric car production like no other, it should automate nuke production as well. Nuclear warheads are about the size of electric scooters, so should be able to be built on similar production lines. China’s rapid buildout of nuclear reactors should help this along, as nuclear reactors are needed to produce the plutonium for nukes.
It seems many of our considerations have been taken into account by Xi already. If western media is to be believed, China’s buildup is real. I only hope that production is scaled exponentially to reach the necessary amounts before it is too late.
As a side note, IDK why western journalists on this topic say that China is building up nukes for “ambiguous political reasoning and muddled thinking”. Clearly, Chinese thinking isn’t muddled if we here are discussing the same things. It’s so funny how westerners will warmonger about destroying China, then act surprised when China prepares by strengthening its arms.
We’re already seeing a holocaust against the Palestinians, and the Isntrealis are talking about their “Samson option” as usual.
Disarmament only works if the other side also complies. So- no disarmament, rather, the entire global south, those whose states desire independence rather than being wholly enslaved to the west, should be armed. Nuclear armament is the tangible form of hman dignity and equality in the face of genocidal intent, so long as the west holds the world hostage. The imperialists can disarm first, or they can go to hell.
(edit) and also- why is it a “holocaust” when the Isntrealis bring upon that which they are trying to provoke, and inflicting on others? Was the destruction of Germany during WW2 a “holocaust?” Was the driving out of settlers, in Zimbabwe or Algeria, a “holocaust?” The Zionists can either cease being Zionists, cease being settlers, accept equality, or get the hell out- they are the ones inflicting holocausts on others, and threatening holocausts on other nations such as Iran.
My ancestors also experienced what may as well be considered genocide- in fact, the vast majority of particularly the non-white, non-western world has. Why do the Zios receive special treatment to do the same unto others, and to avoid the consequences of their actions?
why is it a “holocaust” when the Isntrealis bring upon that which they are trying to provoke, and inflicting on others?
please dont insert things that I havent said, I called it a nuclear holocaust because of things like the cuban missile crisis, one nuke is enough to set off a chain reaction that kills everyone.
Its all good and well saying ‘deterence!’ without factoring in how fucking stupid we all are.
it’s a holocaust because it would literally be death by fire, it’s not that deep
Fair enough. Though as said above, Isntreal is already inflicting a holocaust on the Palestinians. The west (the Zionist occupation included) is threatening a holocaust on the rest of humanity, as they always have.
Deterrence in kind is the first and only reliable bulwark against a greater holocaust, one that the west has shown all intention of inflicting, which they are already inflicting in part, and which they have already inflicted thousands of times over, constantly moving from one holocaust to another, for 500 years.
we’re literally under an article about a war being prosecuted despite a nuclear deterrence (the strongest nuclear deterrence in the world btw) but sure what could go wrong with even more doomsday weapons spread across even more actors with varying levels of security, political stability, and responsibility
And how do you think that war would be going, if Russia had not had that deterrence? Russia’s arsenal is the biggest reason why things are only officially a “proxy war.”
Frankly, I would trust any non-western, non-western backed states or even most non-state entities with nukes over the western imperialists. If you want to talk about reducing the number of doomsday weapons, perhaps you should look at the ones who introduced them to the world to begin with, and who are being the aggressors across the entire globe, rather than those who are simply trying to resist.
what if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? you can’t account for every state’s internal security & political rectitude in perpetuity, if Ukraine had kept nuclear weapons to protect itself from the west nazis would have inherited them today.
isn’treal already has nukes is the problem. The unstable golden child will use them before they topple.
indeed, israel makes a very good argument against nuclear proliferation
Almost all countries in the world are run by normal people who simply want to improve the status of their country (and also possibly personally benefit in the process).
The only countries in the world that would benefit by nuking people is the USA, Israel, and maybe NATO allies. This is because they are the current dominant global powers, so nuking anyone else cements their position.
That means giving nukes to any stable country who is not them is objectively a good thing, as it reduces the likelihood that USA and co. can glass others without consequences.
no non-imperial countries ever have wars or competing interests, they’ve never done bad things to one another. listen to yourself.
if this was a salient strategy the USSR and China would have shipped off nukes to everyone who’d take them, but thankfully they were run by less impulsive people than you
Nuclear disarmament will need to be forced when the Amerikkkan regime can be beaten down enough
It’s getting extremely difficult to have any sympathy for these Ukra-Nazis.
Of course it goes without saying, Ukraine or Ukrainians aren’t the problem, and Ukraine isn’t a race, and obviously people are individuals, and the Ukrainian government is a fascist state that has millions of people hostage, and constantly lies to them, abuses them and uses them as cannon fodder or fleshlights, and it’s simultaneously unfortunate and horrific and evil, yet slightly reasonable for many Ukrainians to have an antagonistic attitude towards Russians for daring to liberate them from Amerikkkan-NATO imperialism and dismantling their decades-old lies and horseshit capitalist propaganda, and we shouldn’t let some nutjobs allow us to overgeneralize millions of people.
But with that all being said, on Twitter, it seems many Ukrainians are ungreatful, selfish, monsterous, manipulative, twisted, evil, whiny bastards that are mad that their government and their racism is being challenged. Just like Zionists, Ukra-Nazis pretend to speak for all Ukrainians (Or Jews, as it were) and act like such innocent victims being forced to commit atrocities because the U.S. somehow put a gun to their heads and collectively forced them to, but Jesus Christ, I’m starting to think that the more of these Ukra-Nazis that get put in the ground, the better it is overall for humanity.
ungreatful, selfish, monsterous, manipulative, twisted, evil, whiny bastards that are mad that their government and their racism is being challenged
This, just this, I don’t give a shit anymore, I just want Urkonazis to get what’s coming to them and for that terrorist country to be finally put to rest, at this point they aren’t even just a regional threat, but a global one which needs to be put out like a plague as soon as possible.
Mali can testify about the global threat part. Apparently the Ukronazis have enough extra resources to help terrorists attack Mali’s army.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes
Reasonable
China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA
Unnecessary, useless brinksmanship
If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West while taking out a good number of US nukes
Batshit, world-ending insanity that should permanently disqualify the speaker from holding any political office
Survival isn’t useless
Obviously CRINK shouldn’t first strike ever, but having the ability to wipe out the West is essential. Please see my calculations below on why China needs more nukes. Right now China is fully dependent on Russia for nuclear defense. Russia’s nukes are better spent as EU deterrence. China’s 500 warheads simply cannot kill more than 10% of the USA with its entire arsenal on a good day, while the USA can wipe China’s entire population out. That is not deterrence.
China’s 500 warheads simply cannot kill more than 10% of the USA with its entire arsenal on a good day
Lmao what are you talking about
Say the U.S. could destroy 20% of Chinese nukes in a war (it can’t). The remaining 400 nukes could do more than enough damage to the U.S. to make thr cost of starting a nuclear war too high – that’s deterrence, that’s all you need. Hell, the DPRK’s situation (a few nukes that can strike U.S. bases or take out a carrier group) is probably sufficient.
If push comes to shove, the loss of 10% of the US population in exchange for deleting all of China is not that bad of a trade for US capitalists. 0.6 megaton nukes are actually kind of small compared to the size of the USA.
In the case of the DPRK, the cost of getting California nuked is not worth the relatively tiny amount of resources the DPRK has. It wouldn’t even pay for the damages. The same is not true for China. Taking over all of China would certainly be enough resources to rebuild the USA and profit massively for hundreds of years after, especially if the USA only loses ~10% of its population. The radioactive nuclides from nukes last barely a week, leaving the land empty and ready for colonization. Imagine Manifest Destiny 2.0 and white colonization of a ‘pristine’ land, empty of the ‘yellow hordes’, the size of another USA. A settler’s wet dream.
Just the ability to hold onto US hegemony for another century would be worth the cost of 10% of the proles dying in the US and a few trillion in damages that need to be repaired to the bourgeoisie. I mean they stand to make or lose everything if they can’t stop China. If they could nuke China and survive themselves they’re looking at hegemony for the rest of this century and capitalism continuing well into next.
Even better for them and worse for us, as climate change accelerates it will turn the screws on most places that aren’t the US. It will put at a permanent disadvantage all their major competitors/enemies such as India, the whole Asia region, etc. It will create masses of desperate people, empty land, death, and a suffering world whose desperation they can exploit even harder due to the worsened conditions making migration more common and migrants more desperate. The only other country that will sort of benefit like the US is Russia but frankly I don’t see them rising as any kind of real challenge unless they go communist again and if the US takes out China they’ll do their damnedest to prevent or blunt any type of communist revolution in Russia and prefer the status quo at at that point Russia will be encircled anyways waiting for the right moment where they can do a decapitating strike on its government and splinter it into pieces.
the loss of 10% of the US population
400 nukes would do far more damage. Just the 100 most populous U.S. cities have about 67 million people, or 20% of the U.S. population. And that itself dramatically understates the immediate effects of nuclear strikes on those cities, because a bunch of the next most populous U.S. cities are right by where the nukes would land (Frisco, TX, #101 on that list, would have a real bad time if nukes landed on Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Plano, all in the top 100).
And that still leaves 300 nukes to strike military bases, carrier groups, and smaller population centers (again, baking in the overgenerous assumption that the U.S. could shoot down 1 in 5 nukes). And there would be worldwide fallout and environmental destruction. And killing well probably closer to a third or half the U.S. population, in addition to losing every major economic hub, would likely end the country’s ability to function anything like it does now.
In short, you aren’t remotely close to the reality of a nuclear exchange. It just might be possible that the PRC’s strategists have a better handle on effective deterrence than someone on the internet who thinks 500 nukes would be basically a bump in the road.
So what if the USA loses 20%? All it does it change the calculus for US capitalists a little bit. It is still a great deal for deleting China.
You are confusing the rather ambiguous definition of a “city” in the USA with the actual distribution of people in said “city”. US city populations aren’t distributed like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, they’re much more spread out (Even then, the US’s bombs weren’t enough to kill everyone in the municipal city area). Because of US sprawl, it doesn’t take just one 0.6 megaton warhead to eliminate a city’s inhabitants, it takes 4+. For example, New York City technically has ~8 million residents, but it takes ~5 0.6 megaton nukes to cover the entire city. As cities get smaller populations in the USA, they get much more spread out, making this problem worse. As another example, take Virginia Beach, a “city” that is 100% suburbs. Just to kill all residents, it also takes another 4 nukes. At this rate, China will very quickly run out of nukes in a casualty v. casualty exchange with the USA. If we approximate that each city takes ~5 nukes, China can currently only eliminate 20% of the US population at maximum as you estimate.
The problem is that we can apply the same density-maximization to the US nuking China, in which case everything looks much worse. China’s cities are much larger, much denser, and there are way more of them. Because China is denser, the US simply gets more bang-for-the-buck per nuke. In that sense, the US could cripple China much faster than the other way around by killing many more people with way fewer nukes.
In my calculations, I assume that both nations seek full elimination of the other. As I explained in my other post, over time there are diminishing returns per nuke as nations run out of dense population targets and trend toward sparser targets. That is why I calculated using average population density.
I have already addressed the environmental destruction / nuclear winter talking point below. In short, new research, experiences from the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires, and the switch from flammable wood to nonflammable concrete and steel in city buildings combine to show that nuclear winter simply would be nowhere as severe as initially predicted in the 1980s. Fallout from nuclear bombs only lasts around a week due to short half-lives. Assuming decent amounts of prior preparation of necessary supplies and tech in hardened bunkers (which major Cold War countries did kinda do before), it is survivable, especially if China only kills 20% of the US population in certain centralized cities. At current, there are plenty of Wyoming farmers who would survive unscathed, put up some greenhouses, and weather out the storm.
Previously, China could get away with low nuclear bomb counts because it could depend on Russia and/or court the West. Now they can’t do that. Russia has its own worries in Europe, and the USA is hellbent on destroying China. The USSR has shown the number of nukes required to go against the USA alone. China is clearly responding to these concerns by building up to at least 1000 nukes, which should increase the cost to the US to ~30% of its population based on your estimates. I see no downsides with such an act.
So what if the USA loses 20%? All it does it change the calculus for US capitalists a little bit.
You’re on another planet lol
Listen, your entire argument is fundamentally flawed from the get go. You are looking at nukes as if they only kill people. Your analysis does nothing to account for infrastructural damage. Primarily energy and communications. China wouldn’t even need 100 nukes to land to wipe out 80% of the US population. They could do it with a dozen or so.
The energy grid of the US is so dilapidated that the destruction of 9 key substations would wipe out power for almost the entire country. Estimates that it would be 18 months before power was restored. In that time is estimated 80% of the population would die. The country would be in absolute chaos. They couldn’t fight a war because the population would be tearing itself apart just trying to survive. Most people couldn’t even cook a meal without electricity. Houses, stoves, etc. are designed for it anymore. Water treatment, refrigeration, etc. without power then manufacturing goes out the window.
Even if they didn’t hit those exact substations, a couple hundred nukes would still do so much damage to the grid that it would take years to begin restoring electricity to the country in any reasonable level. When the country fall apart that bad the military itself will fall apart. Cut off supply to every ship and base outside of the US landmass and see how long they hold up. See if the USs vassal states stay loyal when the home country is literally ripping itself to pieces for their neighbors canned food.
You obsession with nuclear deterrents being solely about how many people die in the initial blasts has no basis on reality. People are not just little NPCs standing around waiting to be ordered to do a thing. They need infrastructure and resources to survive.
I think you’re missing the point. Obviously people aren’t NPC’s and need resources, but having a huge arsenal of ready nuclear weapons is way more intimidating for the imperialists than a small group of 10.
Do you have some reading about those 9 key substations?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020104579433670284061220
https://spectrum.ieee.org/attack-on-nine-substations-could-take-down-us-grid
Where in my comment did I say they needed to reduce their nuclear arsenal, or only have 10? I simply said they don’t need as many as this person is claiming they need. That their argument is fundamentally flawed because they are looking at nuclear deterrents as only the direct impact to immediate population size. That if you can’t turn the whole of the US into glass it somehow means you don’t have enough nukes to defeat them. When, in fact, the ramifications of nuclear warheads is much greater then just immediate dead bodies. If you destroy enough infrastructure to cause 80% of the population to be gone in less than 2 years you have effectively destroyed that country. Especially a country like the US that can barely rebuild its infrastructure under its current situation. Let alone one in which it’s been hit with multiple nuclear warheads.
I meant as a counterexample or a point of phrase, I’m aware that your argument wasn’t to reduce China’s nuclear arsenal, I was speaking to the character of your argument by a related hypothetical.
I’m also aware of the extreme ramifications of nuclear weapons, but my point was that when it comes to psychopaths like the bourgeoisie, what scares them is a force that hits them where it hurts that they understand.
In the same way that someone may be an evil monster that wants to wantonly murder people, the threat and efficacy of a socialist police force prevents them.
This is how you get useless arms races that suck up resources and manpower that could be used to support the population and economy.
How in the fuck is building up a method of attack and deterrence useless? I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely asking. When the very existence of human civilization, humanity itself, life on Earth, the biosphere, and practically everything humanity knows and loves is at stake, then fundamentally no price is too high.
I wager that China is large enough (as in population wise, labor-force wise, financially, natural resource-rich, and geopolitically allied with and has arguably the best and largest most skillfully-pat down scientists, technicians, and supply chains on Earth to accomplish this, and is almost definitely better able to than the Soviet Union was) take care of it’s people’s population and economy, build socialism, and produce en masse nuclear weapons.
Obviously this shouldn’t be the main focus, and no plan for socialism, humanity or the future should hinge on a single plan, and preparing for war, especially nuclear conflict, is always a soul-wrenching experience, and no one hopes that it should come down to it, but how you anyone honestly say that this isn’t a worthwhile possibility or a last resort?
The cold calculus of war is a harsh mistress, but avoiding all of this is stupid and wrong. It’s incredibly unfair that China and the global south have to put this much forethought and agonizing and picking our battles, and it’s bullshit and evil how badly the odds are stacked against us, but I feel that if socialist/anti-imperialist states don’t take all of this into account, then we have already lost. We have a responsibility, even if it’s unfair and dangerous and cruel, to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
I wager that it would cost more resources, willpower, money, time, and suffering if more nuclear weapons aren’t built or if we collectively wait until we have no other option, and then it will be too late.
You have a slight point in regards to not exactly going tit for tat against the imperialists and the west, and not losing sight of the bigger picture, but that isn’t an excuse to not do anything, especially when billions of souls and life on Earth are in danger.
You really think the U.S., Britain, France, NATO, and their ilk, aren’t just all itching to obliterate all of humanity if the power of the capitalists is even slightly threatened in the coming years and decades?
I take no relish in saying any of this, I am unfortunately extremely sober, and this shit is fucking scary and inhumane, that we are all put in.
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “the only way to win, is not to play?”
In this case, a better argument is “if the Global South collectively does nothing, then we almost automatically lose, so we have no choice but to play”
Of course the west wants the Global South to agonize over this, because the west are inhumane evil monsters. Having a conscience is extremely difficult, in regards to war. If China or the rest of humanity bellyaches and overly worries about right or wrong about whether or not to build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons, then the west has already one before the conflict has begun. The only way to win is to embrace the danger carefully and intelligently, lest all of our efforts are for nothing.
If I was an advisor or somehow had Xi Jinping’s ear, I would explain all of this. China is already in efforts to massively scale up it’s building/acquisition of nuclear weapons, to get at least several hundred more, which is a good start, but I think that can or should be kicked already into overdrive.
I’m open to discussion and I’m not saying I’m 100 percent right or immovable, and I don’t presume to know more than Xi or the CPC or the Global South.
Edit: Wow, stepped on some toes.
least delusional nuclear war fan
Tell that to the capitalists. No one is pushing for nuclear war. It’s stupid to not consider every single last resort.
I am the least delusional, thank you. Can’t say the same for you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh wow. I never realized that before. Thanks for red‐pilling me.
I’m so glad this post was found by brilliant lemmy libs here to teach us right from wrong. I was almost tricked by ebul Putin!
Okay, no more sarcasm: what do they get out of this? Seriously, what is the point? I am guessing that they honestly don’t know that we have already read or heard these generic opinions umpteen thousand times already, but what do they expect from restating them as blandly and insubstantially as possible? Is a reply like ‘you’re wrong’ or ‘I don’t like this source’ supposed to utterly blow our minds away? Can they simply not think of anything better to do with their time? What is the fucking point of any of this?
I think it’s more for them than for us. They don’t expect to change minds, they’re just saying “these people are wrong and dumb and I am smart and see things for how they really are.” It’s self-soothing more than trying to educate someone. They don’t know how to handle information that doesn’t fit into their worldview, so they dismiss it without thinking about it.
I think the comment above yours is legit. There are a few people in the comment section taking the news seemingly at face value, or arguing “if this is true, then…”. All news are propaganda, just different sides, which makes the comment a bit naive, but I get the meaning given the comment section.
When I said “if true” I meant more “if it is accurate” not that I think it is a lie by the evil Russians. News coming out of a Russian person’s mouth doesn’t automatically make it fake (which is what the lib above is saying)
The source isn’t a random russian person though, it’s a “Russian military administration” source, hard for me to trust a source from either government during wartime
There is a level of caution that should be exercised, sure, but we shouldn’t dismiss everything out of hand (especially since “independent” third party sources are often even worse with their information.)
Surely not my point that we should automatically discard and ignore everything from russian government sources, just to be very careful when listening to all recounts and information about an ongoing military conflict
I know, I agree with you on that, but I guarantee that the lib above’s point is that Russian==Bad, no thought involved.
Sometimes it’s hard, sometimes it’s easy. It depends on what they’re talking about, and what reasons they have to be honest or dishonest
I prefer my sources from the U.S State Department /s ; that’s kinda the point though. Critical analysis of what is being told to you compared to other narratives/viewpoints.
Dismissing entire sections of information simply because they don’t fit into your narrative or are associated with even a government source isn’t good. You just have to change the lens that you are analyzing it with.
Of course, libs don’t do any of that.
Dismissing entire sections of information simply because they don’t fit into your narrative or are associated with even a government source isn’t good
I routinely do this with US propaganda against China and with Israel anti-palestine propaganda, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I flat-out refuse to listen to news from these sources for the most part
Fair. However, we must consider the overall situation and recent news. NATO really wants Ukraine to keep wearing down Russia, and causing a nuclear threat to Russia certainly would damage Russia more than Ukraine has been able to do before.
Furthermore, this is consistent with the goals of the previous Kursk offensive. The earlier Kursk offensive’s goal seemed to be to take control of the Kursk nuclear power plant to threaten a nuclear meltdown on Russian soil and/or to take control of nuclear weapons nearby.
In other words, Ukraine has already tried this shit once. Fool me once, shame on you. Ukraine is not fooling Russia twice.
You do realize that something being propaganda and a news source aren’t mutually exclusive, right?
You neoliberal nutjobs are smug and racist as fuck.
Propaganda is information that tells a story. Propaganda isn’t inherently true nor false, nor is it automatically “good” or “evil.” It’s neutral, a tool. Though not as big of a tool as you are.
By “propaganda”, you scumbags mean that it’s all lies, is what I think you simpletons are trying to say.
Literally anything and everything can be propaganda, so saying that something is information that tells a story is an empty statement.
damn are you telling me RT is a group of people with class backgrounds and viewpoints? holy shit thank god we can trust the objective BBC which is not made up of people with class backgrounds and viewpoints, just honest hardworking journalists with no material interests of their own!
Please provide some actual “news sources”, thanks.
If only they hadn’t given up their “clean nukes” in exchange for security assurances we wouldn’t be in this “situation”…
Yeah man, a nuclear-armed nazi state is just what the world needs (another one that is
)we wouldn’t be in this “situation”
Probably cause the Nazi government installed post-coup by Obomba would have launched them a decade ago
Ukraine is a little bit like the kid that got bullied, then eventually list their shit and punched the bully’s face in, and keeps punching.
Sure, Russia deserves it, but some friend of Ukraine should pull him off the bully.
…after just a few more hits. …once the bully has learned not to lie.
Bro do you guys ever look at a comment before you post or what fucking marvel ass brain
There’s no way someone double-reads that shit and still posts it but on the other hand there are many such cases with libs on a daily basis.
Even marvel movies are way more logical and reasonable than neoliberals
Just FEDdit things, accounts from both their nl and de instances regularily shows up on .ml with galaxy brain takes like this uniformely holding the smol bean banderite propaganda line, and the second one about defending Germany.
Another feddit domain comment another banger
…do you think Ukraine is…winning, or “teaching Russia a lesson” right now?
To some extent, yes. By the numbers, at the very least.
By CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, XYZ numbers or by actual numbers?
God… You fucking libs are delusional…
Which numbers would those be?
Dead people, pressganged recruits, embezzled funds and equipments, disabled soldiers, disabled soldiers pressed into service again, days without elected government, terrorist attacks on civilians, failed offensives, nazi iconography cases, assaults on Roma people, people running from country, number of shellings of nuclear plant, etc. etc. many many numbers.
Those from Ukr high command, according to which the ghost of Kiev shot down all of Russias planes, Russia sending in press ganged conscripts armed with shovels to get mowed down by heroic Ukranian cyborgs powered by the ghost of Stepan Bandera.
Anyone believing those batshit numbers has serious mental problems.
Buddy, about 10 Ukrainian soldiers die for every russian casualty. Russia has 10 times the artillery, still a fully functioning air force, can supply arms and ammunition ad infinitum. Where do you see Ukraine winning?!
The vibes bro!
Vibes based warfare, the side out of vibes first has to surrender.
I get the feeling you deserve a few punches, with a 2x4, until you learn that Russia was defending itself from Ukra-Nazis that started this whole mess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M33UUZCSSs&list=PLctW_WzoCt_kAelK-L1be0LxyBOO0uge7&index=4
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yeah. Russia and Ukraine have a long and bloody history. There’s no shortage of death all around.
But what we know now is that:
- Ukraine does not want to be a part of Russia
- Russia wants them to be, against their will
- Russia was willing to force the issue
- Russia attacked and attacked, and got their assess handed to them.
- Ukraine is a little pissed off now
- All Russia has to do to end the war is acknowledge Ukraine as a sovereign state - that Ukraine is not a part of Russia, and let Ukranians go. Forever. Civilians, the people, their land… …just leave them alone.
Oh. And pay for the damages you’ve caused, either in cash or in retaliatory strikes.
…or fuck around and find out.
Russia and Ukraine have a long and bloody history
No they fucking don’t! They have an extremely short history of conflict, this shit kicked off literally just ten years ago!!
In 2014, the US launched a coup against Ukraine to replace the democratically elected government with Nazis (and I don’t mean that hyperbolically, I mean actual Hitler-worshipping Nazis) who immediately started persecuting the minority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. After eight fucking years of doing nothing as the Ukrainian Nazis constantly escalated, Putin finally got it through his thick skull that the west was never going to treat them as an equal and launched an incredibly restrained military action to knock the coupists out of the Ukrainian government and protect the now-autonomous Russian-speaking regions.
The result is this:
When a peace deal was about to be signed in April 2022, Boris Johnson personally flew to Kiev and through a combination of lies and threats convinced Zelensky to tear up the deal and continue fighting.
The unfathomable devastation, the destruction of enormous swathes of infrastructure and the catastrophic death toll of Ukrainian men are squarely the fault of the Nazi regime in Kiev and their western - let’s not beat around the bush - their US handlers. Ukraine had a peaceful and beneficial relationship with Russia from independence all the way up to the moment the US took direct control of it and suicided it into Russia for their own geopolitical gain.
You have a definite delusion if you think Russia got their asses handed to them. Tens and tens of billions of dollars, and yet the Ukra-Nazis and NATO have lost several hundreds of thousands of soldier’s lives as cannon fodder, compared to 30,000 Russian soldier’s losses, and for every Russian soldier that is killed, Ukraine has 10 dead soldiers.
Your army is so pathetic that even with tens of billions of dollars of equipment and aid and pretty decent military technology, you still use children as human shields while you’re busy raping them at the same time, and you resort to using hospitals and schools as bases of operation (that you cleared out or murdered students or patients) and set up military equipment in civilian areas to draw soldiers there, and DROP WHITE PHOSPHOROUS ON CIVILIANS.
You Ukra-Nazis are so mind-bendingly stupid and evil and corrupt, and to top it off, you accuse anyone with a brain or a heart of being evil or brainwashed for not believing everything they read. You call Russians bootlickers, yet Russians are way less trusting of their own government yet still way more reasonable than you mindless fascist banderites are.
Get fucked.
The only one denying anything is you downplaying the Ukra-Nazi’s atrocities with your false equivalences.
Russia has always and still does recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state, for better and worse. Russia’s main issue is Ukraine joining NATO, a racist and fascist organization dedicated to fighting socialism and Russia itself for decades, despite promises that NATO wouldn’t expand. And the Ukrainian government’s multiple decades since then of denying the heroism of the Red Army, systemically downplaying the Nazis, the holocaust, renaming streets after nazis and demonizing Russia and removing Russian’s cultural heritage and history of Ukraine and committing ethnic cleansing of Russian-speaking civilians and LAUNCHING BOMBS AT CIVILIANS THAT DECLARED THEIR SECESSION FROM UKRAINE you stupid ass bootlicker.
You Ukra-Nazis act like innocent victims when it was Ukraine that started this conflict, and now you blame Russia for having the gall to defend itself, despite Russia refusing to attack your shithole country for almost 8 years, turning the other cheek for 8 years, and refusing to recognize the Donbas republics as independent from Ukraine for over 8 years, despite them pleading Russia for help.
You fascist nutjobs purposefully murder civilians, rape civilians, kidnap and press-gang teenagers into your shitty army, and let out PEDOPHILES AND MURDERERS and threw out guns like goddamn candy and told people to shoot anyone who looked or spoke Russian, and you still claim Russia are the evil ones for setting up humanitarian corridors and rescuing civilians, all while calling them racial slurs like “orcs”, while still blaming them for horrific atrocities like Bucha.
You’re scum of the Earth
Serious brain worms. The long history of Russia and Ukraine is that Europe invaded Russia through Ukraine, kills millions of Russians, and Russia beats Europe back. First it was Napoleon, marching across Europe building supply chains and logistics as it invaded Ukraine then marched across the country to the border with Russia, invaded Russia, killed millions of Russians in one of the bloodiest campaigns in history, and Russia beats them back.
The second time was Hitler, who wrote a book detailing how much we he wanted to invade Russia to end the worker state and enslave the Slavs. The Third Reich marched across Europe, building supply chains and logistics as they invaded Ukraine, marched across the country to the border with Russia and invaded Russia, killing millions with the most advanced military ever fielded at that point in history. Russia beat them back, then marched all the way to Berlin and destroyed them at their home. The West finally mopped up the last 20% of the Nazis and met the Soviets well West of Berlin.
Now the European scourge helmed by the USA and developed into a transnational nuclear military called NATO has been building supply chains and logistics across Europe and finally began building out in Ukraine. And this time, Russia decided not to wait for yet another invasion because this time, nukes are in play.
The history between Ukraine and Russia is not bloody, it’s the history between Europe and Russia. The Banderites mostly killed Jews because they were Nazi sympathizers and when Russia fought back the Nazi military the Banderites fought in the side of the Nazis, but that’s not representative of all Ukraine (unless you think all of Ukraine are Nazis). The Banderites, or what was left of them anyway, were reformed into a clandestine militia by NATO through Operation Gladio to activate as a color revolution if the opportunity ever arose. That militia has a direct historical line through to the current neo-nazis operating in Ukraine after they couped the former government in 2014.
Russia has zero plans to take Ukraine. The CIA said so 2 years ago, the NYT reported it this year. There is no material possibility of it happening. Russia is not trying to take Ukraine.
Ukraine is fighting Russia because Russia invaded, and Russia invaded because Ukraine was working to hand over a portion of its sovereignty, specifically the military bases and nuclear sites, to NATO. Ukraine isn’t pissed off, they are scared shitless. Look at how many people are fleeing Ukraine out of fear, look at how hard it is to get recruits to the front line. Look at the average age of the Ukrainian military.
Russia obviously acknowledges Ukraine as a sovereign state because it has tried at least 3 times to negotiate with it. You don’t negotiate unless you believe in the sovereignty of the state you’re negotiating with. Your fantasy delusion about the world does match even the most basic of facts.
Also, I love that you think retaliatory strikes are recompense. Least bloodthirsty lib moment right here.
Thank you, comrade. Top notch post, so well-written I saved it for later use.
One thing to add - you forgot that 14 capitalist countries invaded the newly created Soviet Russia after 1917, some through Ukraine. The Germans and the Austro-Hungarians created an anti-communist/quasi-monarchist puppet state called “UNR” (People’s Republic of Ukraine), which by the way had very little support from the local population - the vast majority of Ukrainians supported the Reds - I wonder why, huh.
Excellent recounting of history, though I’m familiar enough with it. Let me summarize the key points:
Russia got tired of being invaded by random nations. This is totally reasonable. Russia and the west worked together to end the Nazi scourge. This was generally considered a good thing, because hey, fuck Nazis. Then Russia became insular and paranoid, and attacked Ukraine out of the assumption that history is repeating itself, thus guaranteeing war.
This small difference (who strikes first) makes a huge difference in who’s in the right. It’s not simple, I know. There’s a lot of history there. There’s a lot of mutual fear. But the plain and simple of it is this:
You fucked up. You struck at Ukraine. You started this particular fight. …and yes, once a fight starts, it’s difficult to stop. And we’re not bloodthirsty about that, we’re just unsympathetic that the bully of this particular fight is whining.
…but can you acknowledge that, with actual action? Can you acknowledge that being the first to strike doesn’t necessarily make you the winner, but does necessarily make you the asshole?
More terrible understanding. The USA supported the Third Reich. The UK refused to support the Soviets against the Third Reich. The Soviets asked for help and got nothing. The USA literally had a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, FFS.
And no, “random” countries did not invade Russia. The most powerful military in Europe invaded Russia, twice. Napoleon was the height of European power at the time. The Third Reich was the most powerful military in Europe at the time. It is the West that invaded Russia, not just random countries.
And no, in the age of nuclear war, against the only world power to ever use nukes (the USA), the idea that the first to strike is the asshole is not as cut and dry as it was before nukes. This is because we are in a world governed by Mutually Assured Destruction and the US war machine and think tanks have been pushing to figure out a way to win a nuclear war. Part of that is developing what is referred to as “nuclear first strike capabilities” and what it entails is the ability to stop a retaliatory nuke strike. If the US can stop a retaliatory nuclear strike then it has the power to break MAD and launch a nuclear first strike without fear of reprisal.
What is the KEY component to nuclear first strike capabilities. Forward deployed nuclear bases encircling other nuclear powers, supply chain and logistics sufficient to launch a large scale invasion and disable nuclear launch sites, anti-missile capabilities deployed along all possible flight paths,and the ability to deliver nukes to targets in less than 10m. This is what the US has been building with it’s 600+ military bases globally in 80+ countries. And this is what Russia knows is being built in a final attempt by the West to subjugate Russia. Napoleon and Hitler failed. Do you think the West has just decided to stop trying to invade Russia? Absolutely not. They just want to make sure that this time they succeed.
Russia striking first using an SMO instead of a declaration of war, and very clearly focusing on securing their border and not attempting to take all of Ukraine, is a clear indication of what it’s doing - it’s trying to maintain it’s ability to defend itself from the West. It is inappropriate for me to surround your house with neonazis gang encampments and installing watch towers with armed guards around your home. But if you try to destroy them, should we call you the aggressor here?
the idea that the first to strike is the asshole is not as cut and dry as it was before nukes
It wasn’t cut and dry even before nukes. Kim Il Sung did technically invade the South, but it was overwhelmingly the South and Rhee’s government who provoked the North in every single way they could, including conducting actual massacres, constant border raids (at some point they used to do, like, over 100 per month), constantly opening fire at the border towards the North, you have it. Both the North and the South wanted reunification, but it was overwhelmingly the South who was beating the drums of war and was absolutely unreasonable, diplomatically. What do you do in situations like this?
Libs to me appear rather unable to apprehend the idea that things don’t happen for no reason. Their history of the conflict in Ukraine starts in 2022.
The North/South distinction in Korea is not real. It was an arbitrary proposal by the USA to create a US controlled Korea and a Soviet controlled Korea based on the racist idea that the Koreans were not sufficiently developed to govern themselves. The Soviets agreed to the proposal, essentially on the grounds that they really did not want to fight a war on 2 fronts with the USA, especially after the USA had just nuked civilian populations in Japan like the bloodthirsty psychopaths they are. Koreans opposed the division of their country, and the Soviets and Americans could not make their agreement stick, so they abandoned the agreement after 2 years, but the dividing line remained. Then the UN decided to hold elections in the South and exclude the North and create a new republic with a border that aligned with this arbitrary division.
In essence, Kim Il Sung launched a war for reunification of Korea against foreign occupying forces after years of brutal foreign occupation. There was no such thing as “South Korea” to be invaded except in the eyes of foreign occupiers.
They won’t get to do that after everything they did for 10 years and not leaving Donbas alone.
They attacked and attacked for so long and are now whining and crying that their rump state is coming to an end.
They are because they’re desperate since they wasted their entire capable male population for furthering their nazi cause and delaying their inevitable downfall for a few years.
They won’t get to be that ever again, civilians in eastern and southern Ukraine will get to leave in peace since they didn’t want any of this or be part of it since 2014 , but Banderites will never be left alone until they’re finally wiped out and no longer a threat to anybody and Ukraine as we know it doesn’t exist as a state, like Isn’t real won’t in the near future.
Keep living the dream, buddy.
With you libs it’s always projection, isn’t it…
You know what they say about fascists
They’re just liberals who came out of the political closet?
Yeah. Russia and Ukraine have a long and bloody history.
No, they don’t. Coming from an actual Ukrainian here who knows, well, real history.
Russia wants them to be, against their will
No, it doesn’t. If it did - there wouldn’t be a single reason for them to stop and try talking sense into the Ukrainian government - I am referring to the Istanbul talks. And guess who torpedoed that agreement - it was the West. Why? Because they didn’t have enough war yet.
Russia attacked and attacked, and got their assess handed to them.
Sure thing, bud. That’s why Ukraine has been kidnapping people off the streets for more than 18 months now. That’s why they are considering lowering mobilization age to 18 and forcing everyone above 15 to register for the future draft. That’s why they themselves admit constantly there is a serious manpower issue. That’s why ghouls like Lindsey Graham and Blinken regularly visit Kiev right before a new mobilization law is drafted. But idiot libs like you are satisfied with CNN and MSNBC narratives.
All Russia has to do to end the war is acknowledge Ukraine as a sovereign state
Russia still acknowledges Ukraine as a sovereign state. All UKRAINE had to do is acknowledge its neutrality as its OWN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE states loud and clear - that being “no presence of an aggressive, imperialist and virulently russophobic Nazi Arming and Training Organization on Russia’s doorstep” and “no bombing of civvies in the Donbass area, no discrimination against Russians and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine”.
Russia and Ukraine have a long and bloody history.
Together. As comrades. They defeated the nazis.
Until Nuland attacked.
deleted by creator
What we actually know now is:
-
The part of Ukraine that wanted to be a part of Russia got bombed in a massive terrorist bombing campaign before the invasion started. Fuck those people, right?
-
The seceded parts of Ukraine want to be a part of Russia; they’ve literally been fighting for it. Russia wanted only those parts until the war had reached a certain point. Now they want the removal of a literal Nazi state on it’s borders.
-
Israel’s diplomats had encouraged Ukraine into belligerence during negotiations and diplomacy with Russia. A literal fascist state full of Nazis would also want me to force the issue of their removal.
-
Ukraine has lost this many lives and haven’t even gotten to Kursk. Just take a minute and pull your hand off your dick and your brain out of your Marvel comic-books and actually go look at a map to see how big Russia is. Or keep jerking it to your fantasy.
-
Nazis tend to get pissed easily.
-
What about the parts that want to be a part of Russia? What about the literal Nazi terrorist state that is sponsoring even more terrorism in central Africa targeted at Mali? Oh boy, another Western rogue state getting massive cash-flow and weapons stocked away right next to Europe! I’m sure the sudden surge in arrests of far-right groups all over Europe in connection to arms smuggling has no connection!
Oh. Go fuck yourself. Go ahead and ignore 2014, seperatists and lick up the propaganda from your Western masters like the good dog you are. I could post sources or links; or just the HISTORICAL FACT that literal neo-Nazi groups have been fighting against Russian separatists in the eastern region of Ukraine. You’d scream and flail about Russian propaganda, or ask “What time in Moscow is it, Tankie” like you bloodthirsty, seething fascists always do.
Ukraine has lost this many lives and have gotten to Kursk
Actually they haven’t even made it a quarter of the way to Kursk. They only made it to the first small town just on the other side of the border.
Ah, I misread some of the headlines then. Corrected it. With how much of a meat-grinder this is though, how far can they go before they’re full on sending 15 year olds to the battlefield?
Here’s a map to put things into perspective:
I won’t try to predict how far they can still go or how long until Russia kicks them out (it’s only a matter of time), but what’s clear is that the more resources they throw into this incursion the faster Russia advances in the Donbass.
2 days until Zelenskyy sends battalions of 12-year olds.
-
get a load of this worldnews ass
hereAh, of course. I didn’t mean to interrupt your mutual masturbation. By all means, continue your circle of love.
Ah yes, many people have given you long and detailed explanations of the history and context, while you just shove your fingers in your ears and go “Russia is the schoolyard bully and Ukraine is the little nerdy kid who had enough and swung back!!”
But everyone here is totally just circlejerking, right? Clearly except you, the wise and learned historian 🤣
Of course a psychopath like you thinks that dead children is love
I’m just going to stop arguing with you, since you’re hell-bent on lies and twisting the truth. You seem so corrupt to me that you can’t see anything but corruption.
Good luck - you’ll be living in that world until you change. Enjoy your circle jerk - because that’s all you’ve got.
Good job on ignoring everything you read here, spewing out a completely wrong recount of history (from a Ukrainian, no less) and then telling everyone else they’re lying, twisting the truth and calling us corrupt.
You lie. You twist the truth. It’s safe to assume you love dead kids because people who love Democrats usually love bombing campaigns in the Middle-East or at the very least, ignore them/push them to the side.
Corruption? What corruption you idiot? What mechanisms of power or government or social institution do we fucking control that is “corrupted”? You wandered into a community of communists with similar beliefs and ideals and said some stupid shit and now when everyone actually dogpiles you and offers you an entirely different form of recourse all you did was plug your ears. We’re “corrupt” because we don’t listen to your bullshit and counter it and all have the same beliefs? This isn’t feddit/reddit.
Nah, you just gave up because you couldn’t keep up. You’ll be waiting a long time to see anyone here change, most of them started out as liberals before realizing what a fucking farce liberalism and capitalism are.
Who knows, maybe someday you can enjoy circlejerking with the comrades too? Ain’t nothing in this world more fulfilling than COMMUNity. It may help jumpstart your journey if you risk reading a book from someone outside of your existing system of beliefs. At least that way, you’ll be better informed to counter the power of our jerking. Start with Parenti.
Projection.
deleted by creator
Ukraine is another Nazi regime that needs to be put down.
They are the bullies, just ask the people Donbass and Luhansk
Only that Ukraine never got bullied…
