Bankir and his men have been trying to fight off Russian attacks along the Ukrainian front lines for more than two years. But it’s only now that they are finally able to strike where it hurts: Inside Russia’s own territory.

The newly granted permission by the United States and other allies to use Western weapons to strike inside Russia has had a huge impact, Bankir said. “We have destroyed targets inside Russia, which allowed for several successful counteroffensives. The Russian military can no longer feel impunity and security,” the senior officer in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told CNN. For security reasons, he asked to be identified by his call sign only.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    People keep saying this, but take the premise a little more seriously and it falls apart. Whom does Russia nuke, and in hopes of what outcome?

    The only winning move is “nuke everyone all at once so far that nobody can retaliate, and then rule the world”. They simply don’t have that capability.

    • upto60percentoff@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ukraine?

      Striking inside their territory won’t matter all that much if they can just nuke Kiyv.

      And breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe for everybody, regardless of who the target is.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It would not instantly win them the war - it more likely would provoke a direct response from Ukraine’s supporters. Further, Putin would have to go on TV explaining why it was necessary, given that state media has been shouting Russian military supremacy from the rooftops this entire time. I don’t see how he justifies it to his side, and critically, to the power brokers in Russia who support him. He would jeopardize his own situation with nukes, at least for now.

        As all of the (nine?) nuclear powers know, normalizing the use of nukes on non nuclear powers will lead directly to massive proliferation, which is a nightmare scenario for Russia. Their entire geopolitical outlook depends on a world of purely bilateral agreements in which they are usually the stronger, so having to deal with more nuclear powers down the line would be seen as a major impediment.

        • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          This would instantly give Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia the excuse to allow nukes on their territory. Literally within 10 minute lauch+flight from Moscow and St. Petersburg

          And that’s REALLY bad for Mr P

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Even from a pure geostrategic point of view massive proliferation has the most negative impact for larger nations rather than smaller ones.

          Whilst nukes don’t really help in a war of conquest (they basically destroy the very land and resources that the war was meant to conquer), they’re far more effective for a nation defending itself - which if getting to close to defeat is highly likey to nuke the attacking nation - in effect nullifying the greatest advantage of the larger nations which is that they have the manpower and wealth to field much larger and more advanced conventional armies.

          So even the likes of China would turn against Russia if they used nukes, because China itself does want to expand its territory or at least to control more natural resources (just look at what’s going on in the South China Sea) and if nukes were used offensivelly in a war of aggression it would lead to all the little nations around China to get their own nukes (along with everybody else) by which point China wouldn’t be able to bully them anymore.

          And this is of course whithout even considering just how much more likely massive proliferation makes that we destroy part or all of our planet due to some otherwise shitty shit escalation or some nutcase getting control of a country’s nuclear arsenal, something which is bad for everybody, not just the larger nations.

          Somebody using nukes in a war of aggression would see every single nation on the planet turn against them, especially the larger ones.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep. And they can’t afford to lose China’s support at the moment, though their interests are only temporarily aligned.

        • upto60percentoff@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not saying they’ll do it, I’m saying it’s incorrect to state that there’s no valid strategic target when there absolutely is.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The target you mentioned does tick that box… But only if you carefully cut the corners off so that you’re only looking at what happens inside Ukraine within the space of a couple of months.

      • lmaydev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’d get absolutely flattened by everyone else. It would be an insanely short sighted move.

      • eleitl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        They could just take out logistics hubs like railway tunnels and the Odessa port, and destroy the rest of the power plants with few kT tactical nukes. Minimal direct casualties, but plenty dead in the aftermath.