Peter wrote:
Ukraine has a “natural” problem with this simply due to the large numbers of Russians, of whom lots will be pro-Russia. On every corner, there is somebody texting the Russians with details of how accurate their artillery was, etc.
Interesting view, worth considering. However I am not sure that it is so widespread or that would significantly influence the way war goes.
What I saw from news-videos-posts is that UA FSB (secret service) is working like Gestapo now and if they have the slightest suspicion about you, you are done. No trial will be held. Would pro-Russian civilians under those circumstances risk their lifes? Maybe some, but I think most of them just keep their heads down.
If I was fighting a war in my country, I would not be inviting 5th columnists for a pizza 
This has been a funny topic in the UK. Every few years, some farmer ploughs up a new bit of a field and digs out an old radio. KGB issue, and the owner is either long dead, or a 99 year old Cambridge graduate who never had a brain and forgot where he buried it But real “5th column” would have always been tiny in the UK.
Nowadays, Ukraine, they just send text messages… I reckon even with Telegram you can do traffic analysis.
robirdus wrote:
What I saw from news-videos-posts is that UA FSB (secret service) is working like Gestapo now and if they have the slightest suspicion about you, you are done. No trial will be held.
It looks like you have several streams of information and disinformation mixed up. FSB is the Russian secret service, and they are quite cruel and indiscriminate indeed. In Ukraine, it’s called SBU. They are probably quite hard, too (I’d be surprised if they weren’t), but as far as I can tell from Ukrainian- and Russian-language sources, they are significantly more precise in their work than today’s FSB. A late friend of mine, a Ukrainian political writer and volunteer military paramedic who was on the FSB hit list, received a few warnings from SBU about upcoming kidnapping attempts, and held a high opinion about their professionalism. (Anticipating a question, no, he didn’t ultimately get killed.)
172driver wrote:
To add: I hope Russia in its present form does NOT survive this war.
I hope the current Russian government does not first and foremost. A possibly violent break up of Russia as a country would constitute the “critical threat to Russia’s integrity” which has been quoted as the one reason Russia will use it’s nukes. If Russia falls apart with the current leadership in place, they will immediately put the blame on the West and do whatever they deem necessary to stop it. Secession wars are bad enough without nukes in the game. Anyone who remembers the ACW should be well aware just how far countries will go to suppress any idea of secession.
Peter wrote:
The pressure for a change will mount within Russia.
What has changed so far is that quite a few moderate Russians who were against or at least indifferent towards Putin have now rallied behind him as they deem the Western Sanctions to be proof of what Putin has been telling them.
Unfortunately it is dead easy to convince people of stuff they want to hear or they are weary about. Don’t forget that the anti Western propaganda is deeply rooted in that population, notwithstanding the fact that they liked some of the perks of Western life just fine. But it the “Rodina” is perceived in peril, it is always the easy way to blame the usual suspect enemy rather than realize and admit that the mistakes are those of your own government.
Peter wrote:
I am convinced that this conflict will end properly only when Russia has been pretty well completely destroyed as a military force (apart from nukes).
That is a fact even now. Russia has been practically destroyed as a conventional military player. But the fact that they do have the nukes has so far kept everyone from going in there and finishing the job, because it makes the assessment of what they are capable of militarily in conventinal means pretty obsolete. As long as they can deter direct action against them with the nuclear threat, they are a force to be reckogned with.
I recall discussions in the 1980ties when even Swiss politicians were considering how to deal with the various cold war thread scenarios, what airplanes, weapons to buy and all that. Some said even then, get rid of the Army and get some nukes.The moment you can assure any enemy that in case of agression we WILL nuke you, you’ve pretty much eliminated the threat of invasion.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The moment you can assure any enemy that in case of agression we WILL nuke you, you’ve pretty much eliminated the threat of invasion.
I’m not so sure.
Nuclear weapons have the problem of not being deployable. I mean if some country were to invade part of Switzerland then it would be faced with the option of accepting the position (assuming it failed to push them back with conventional weapons) or launching a nuclear strike.
If they launced a nuclear strike they are sure to get the same (and more) in response.
So really it’s choice is :
a) accept the loss of part of its terratory and keep the rest, or
b) its own assured destruction along with that of the enemy.
It’s hard to see how option B is better than A.
In that case having nuclear weapons hasn’t really provided any defence.
The difficulty is that nobody really believes that anybody will risk MAD on behalf of another country.
So if Russia invaded Switzerland, they could keep it, and we would be skiing in Russia Same with say Sweden… until they join NATO, which Russia does understand (rightly or not) is a no-go proposition. I am not really sure NATO would hold so solidly (meaning: will the US yet again come in and sort out Europe, only this time at a considerable risk to itself?) but so long as Russia believes it, it’s good enough!
And that’s why the UK originally got its SSBNs. They were quite open that they thought no US president will launch on behalf of the UK. Same with France and their SSBNs.
Tactical nukes are a different problem because you have to have a graduated response, and quite possibly non-nuclear to start with. I am sure scenarios have been worked out…
I’ve just seen an idea for a garden design, which I proposed to Justine, but she wasn’t impressed
dublinpilot wrote:
I’m not so sure.
Well, neither am I. And no, I was not for this in the discussions in the 80ties. Even if one should mention in passing that our air force, which would be tasked delivering those in those days, was a sight larger than now. On the other hand, has anyone ever constructed a nuke which can be delivered by a Hunter or F5?
dublinpilot wrote:
In that case having nuclear weapons hasn’t really provided any defence.
The whole thing goes: If someone has nukes, you don’t invade. Period. So this brings up the rather unsettling notion that anyone who wants to be “sure” the (insert favorite enemy here) are not out to get them, they need at least a few Hiroshima size nukes. In effect, this pulverizes 50 years of treatywork banning nukes everywhere.
Peter wrote:
So if Russia invaded Switzerland, they could keep it, and we would be skiing in Russia
Hitler thought so but didn’t. They could probably get the flat lands but the mountains…. Afghanistan anyone? It might be an idea to reactivate some of the mountain fortresses though, which are currently used as tourist attractions or shelters for digital currencies or similar stuff.
Peter wrote:
Tactical nukes are a different problem because you have to have a graduated response, and quite possibly non-nuclear to start with. I am sure scenarios have been worked out…
For most countries tactical nukes would probably be a big enough deterrent. But then again, it is simply lamentable that in this day and age the only way you can keep people from anihilating each other is by making sure that no one is left if somebody tries. ….
until they join NATO, which Russia does understand (rightly or not) is a no-go proposition
Word is that Sweden and Finland will announce intent to join the alliance this week – bringing with them the two most effective European armies north of Sinop.
I once asked a Turkish friend why the Republic has a standing military of nearly 800,000. His answer was “just look at our neighbours”.
Jacko wrote:
Word is that Sweden and Finland will announce intent to join the alliance this week
The word in Sweden is that the social democratic government made up its mind to join NATO weeks, if not months ago, and the ongoing national security analysis and discussions within the social democratic party are just shams to give the impression that discussions and analyses matter. I believe that to be true.
Peter wrote:
Vodka… I thought Russia had unlimited quantities
Russia does, but not the troops fighting in Ukraine.
