I would be fascinated to know what we have threatened Putin with, should he resort to nukes.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If they wish to make a point, then a massive missile attack onto the supply line (e.g. where tanks and other materials enter Ukraine)
They have neither the intel nor the capabilities to do that. If they could directly attack the supply of western arms entering Ukraine, they would.
It’s already clear that they consider any target inside Ukraine fair game. The only line for Russia to cross in this respect is attacking the supply line outside Ukraine, but they won’t do that because (a) it would constitute an attack on a NATO country and bring the attendant response, and (b) they have neither the intel nor the capability.
As would we all 
But that purposely hasn’t been disclosed. Presumably because disclosing it would make Putin look weak and therefore back him into a corner.
kwlf wrote:
I would be fascinated to know what we have threatened Putin with, should he resort to nukes.
It is almost certainly the immediate sinking of a significant proportion of the Russian navy. Every significant Russian vessel out of port is almost certainly being followed by hunker killer subs which the Russians can neither detect nor avoid.
This is the most logical ‘punishment’ anyhow. It’s easy to execute with almost no risk to NATO military assets, does not allow Putin to appeal to the Russian people that Russian territory has been attacked, and avoids escalating the nuclear situation further.
It can also be quickly done and then stepped back from, as opposed to an intervention in the Ukrainian theatre which would have to be an ongoing thing rather than a one-day event.
Graham wrote:
they have neither the intel nor the capability.
Underestimating one’s adversary was the critical mistake Putin made. I somehow don’t think NATO will do the same.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Underestimating one’s adversary was the critical mistake Putin made.
Perhaps to a degree, but the real issue was that he thought he had a world-class military machine at his disposal. It turned out that what he had, although large, was barely serviceable and not really capable of any operations against any enemy offering any kind of resistance. Endemic corruption, chronic lack of supplies, incompetence, apathy, etc.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Depending on how it’s done, if they are imported in large batches it might be a target for a low level nuke. That way, you don’t have to get too close to the target and still have a massive destruction.
Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, I cannot imagine Russia using even the lowest-yield nuke in any other circumstance than a direct and massive NATO attack on Russia on all fronts – which will never happen – or of course nuclear attack on Russia.
Despite what Olaf Scholz seemingly feared for months, it is certainly not a proportionate reaction to the delivery of Western tanks – or any other conventional weapon, for that matter. And the moment Putin tries to pull of an disproportionate retribution using nukes he’s under extreme danger of being removed by the saner elements in the Russian military or FSB.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
By now they must have realized, that had they used massive air power one year ago and levelled most of Kiew in the first moments of the war and taken out the government with a massive air and missile attack, the situation would be very different now.
They won’t do that as it goes against their whole narrative of Ukraine “really” being part of Russia and the historic and symbolic importance Kiev has to them.
massive air power
Russia has very little availability of “massive” anything 
Large bombers are totally vulnerable to air defences – radar guided SAMs.
Even these days, the other day Russia used some “small” jets for bombing in the east and lost 6 (six) of them in one day.
the real issue was that he thought he had a world-class military machine at his disposal.
I am not sure any of us knows what he was really thinking. He may have thought he could “do a Czechoslovakia 1968 job” which was done in 48hrs, but with considerable assistance from the CZ govt and armed forces. I suspect he was banking on the same level of co-operation in UKR. But we will probably never know. The USSR was never big on public enquiries
How far the original invasion got (quite far actually) will be a matter for a lot of investigation. Some UKR commanders have already been “got” for co-operating with Russia. That is probably a part of the picture of what he was expecting in terms of resistance. UKR has some way to go before everybody is pulling in the same direction. Look at the graphics posted further back for probable levels of Russia-supporting population.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Is it more understandable to Norwegians…?
It was a joke Having said that, I think perhaps it is. Not that I understand Icelandic just like that, but it doesn’t take me all that long to figure out written Icelandic (without Google translate). It is fairly similar to Norse (the language spoken in the Viking age). We call it Old Norwegian, and even my mother had Old Norwegian as mandatory course in high school. She could read Icelandic fairly fast, much better than me at least. Speaking it in a conversation is another step or two, and requires practice. Today New Norwegian is mandatory for anyone who has Bokmål (“standard” Norwegian) as their main written language and vice versa. Bokmål is more or less (written) Danish. New Norwegian is more of a soup of dialects put together. It is definitely closer to Icelandic than Bokmål, but not nearly as much as Old Norwegian.
No one speaks Bokmål or New Norwegian though. They are both written written languages, and there are dialects in Norway that are much closer to Icelandic than New Norwegian, particularly regarding pronunciation. There are no rules about pronunciation in Norwegian to my knowledge, but lots of people who let themselves be very irritated by “wrong” pronunciation
Foreigners typically learn Bokmål, and with an Oslo’ish pronunciation. Then they go to Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim or Tromsø and think: WTF, If this is Norwegian, then what have I learned? My own dialect is closer to how they speak in Jämtland (Sweden) than how they speak in Oslo IMO. I guess my ability to understand Icelandic is similar to someone from the countryside outside Østersund/Åre. Not all that much in other words, but I probably have a benefit of knowing more similar words through New Norwegian? I don’t know. I guess it’s something we will never find out
