William Jockusch:

I understand your point, and ordinarily, I would agree with it… however.

Putin, years ago was a savvy, pragmatic leader who made rationale decisions.

Those days are long gone. The reason why is less important than recognizing the fact that for today, no one can predict with any degree of certainty, what Putin will do.

I am not a psychologist, but it doesn’t require doctoral degree to recognize aberrant behavior.

The recent personnel changes in Russias leadership cannot all be explained by Ukrainian assassins, some of it has to be domestic…. Long shot, but it must be considered that Putin is removing any one in authority who says ‘no’ to nuclear weapons use.

If that is the case, SVC might just end up be spot on correct.

Just this once, I hope he’s wrong.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, April 27, 2025 - 01:33 pm: Edit

In addition to the pattern of behavior I noted above, there are practical reasons. Let's look at the long list of what, from his point of view, could go wrong:

1) His order might be disobeyed. It is not possible for Putin to determine this in advance. The order itself could cause his overthrow.

2) If the order is obeyed, the delivery vehicle might fail or be shot down, thus giving fissile material to Ukraine.

3) If the above do not happen, the nuke might fizzle or fail to explode, again giving fissile material to Ukraine.

4) If the nuke does explode in Ukraine, Putin would immediately lose the support of China and India. Western countries would likely try to kill Putin, probably within days.

5) As pointed out above, Ukraine would quickly develop its own nukes.

Lastly, history shows that the most dangerous kind of dictator is one who succeeds. Examples include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Putin. A Putin victory in Ukraine is more likely to lead to nuke use than is a Putin defeat. This is why it is so critical to avoid defeatist thinking and make sure Putin fails.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 12:52 am: Edit

I never said Putin's nuclear warning shot would be Kiev, and I think that would produce a reaction beyond control. I suggested he might bomb a Ukrainian army-level headquarters.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:48 am: Edit

Putin continues to show places like Iran, Taiwan, and Japan why they should consider building nukes. I don't suppose Poland would be too adverse either.

I assume that the science and tech for building basic nukes are pretty much universally known by the relevant engineers.

I worked with CIVILIAN guys who had PhDs in nuclear engineering who were pitching their "thing-a-bob" to the DoD by running tests with it. And it was truly cool and didn't endanger anyone with radiation (even if you ran it over with a truck; I did the risk assessment case). Not a bomb, they were actually using it in Kirtland IN FULL ON live demos.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 12:13 pm: Edit

I like the news items above. Kewl. I liked them all, but the American Eagle best.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 01:25 pm: Edit

SVC, Kiev is a placeholder word because it really doesn't matter where he nukes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Carl, it matters. A nuke on Kiev would kill hundreds of thousands. A nuke on an Army HQ would kill a thousand. A nuke on a tank battalion would kill 500. A nuke in an open field would kill a dozen. His point would be to say "you went too far hitting those refineries" without provoking a nuclear war.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 05:50 pm: Edit

SVC, Ukraine already has launched numerous attacks on Russian oil refineries, frequently resulting in fires large enough to be visible from many miles away. The impact has been severe enough that Russia has issued a series of partial bans on gasoline exports. It has not provoked nuclear retaliation.

In light of the likely consequences I outlined above, a nuclear "warning shot" would be a disastrous move for Russia. I don't understand why persist in this assumption that flies in the face of so much evidence.

I realize that responding to William Jockusch on this crucial point must be exhausting . . . but if one is going to insist on a point of view that precludes victory, one has got to test it against the evidence. And in this case, it doesn't hold up.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 06:26 pm: Edit

William:

Putin is using threats to deploy nuclear weapons for the shock
value.

There are very nervous types who go into hysterics at the mere mention of the word.

It is the only value (in practical terms) that he has left.

For centuries, politicians would see the size of the Russian Army, and cave in to all sorts of threats, out of fear of going to war with Russia (matters not, Czarist, Soviet or Putins paper army).

We have talked a lot about Putins dwindling options.

The fear of nuclear war is Putins fall back position.

I expect, that if Putin were a Religious type, he would be fervently praying that no one would ever call the bluff.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 07:00 pm: Edit

@Jeff,

Purportedly Putin regularly attends holy day services of the Russian Orthodox Church and communicates (and has a good relationship with) Patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church.

@General Comment,

I don't think however, I'd call Putin a religious type. I think his ties to the Russian Orthodox Church have more to do with political expedience and making himself look better to Russians.

Putin was in the Soviet KGB back in the day and was promoted quickly. I suspect his religious beliefs then were of the state "religion" of the time: Atheism. I suspect his current beliefs are similarity aligned with the times.

Of course, this is all suspicion, speculation, and conjecture (possibly cynical). I can't know what he believes in his heart.

That being said, I've personally known devout Russian Orthodox Christians, including a priest. Let's just say their outlook regarding how to behave towards their fellow humans seems... incongruous... with Putin's behavior.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:10 pm: Edit

Ever wonder how effective Ukraine’s aid really is?
One homemade drone just wiped out more Russian shells than the US and EU produce together in a year.

On 22 April, Ukraine’s $1 million Palianytsia drone flew 700 km (435 miles) to torch Russia’s 51st Arsenal — igniting 264,000 tons of ammunition in a blast NASA satellites caught from space. Even 70 km from Moscow, Russia’s air defenses failed to stop it.

This wasn’t just a strike — it shattered Russia’s entire summer offensive.

With previous arsenal hits already halving Russia’s firepower, blowing up their biggest stockpile now forces Moscow into a brutal choice: delay assaults or attack without artillery cover — either way, a disaster in the making.

And beyond battlefield headlines? The real victory is human.

Artillery causes 70% of Ukraine’s casualties. At roughly one casualty per 100 shells, destroying 6 million could spare 60,000 lives — soldiers and civilians alike.

ONLINE NEWS SOURCE

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:22 pm: Edit

I was responding to suggestions that Ukraine might conduct a deliberate campaign to wipe out the Russian oil industry.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:37 pm: Edit

The Russians have been trying to devise new tactics foe more than a year now, tactics that do not use large scale artillery fire.

There are several video clips on you tube of several of these attempts, including one particularly gruesome human wave attack using North Korean troops. (Goes a long way to explain how far Russian/North Korean military relations have fallen since North Korea joined in the war.)

Another used fifty motor cycles, each with two soldiers aboard. It also had two remote controlled four wheeled vehicles… the attack never got close to the actual defense line, between artillery, drones and sniper fire, well, the word failure does not come anywhere close to describing the debacle.

Several other videos show Russian tanks attacking, without infantry, artillery support, drone support or air support.

They ran over a field of anti tank mines, interspersed with anti personnel mines. (Those were the ones that exploded but didn’t stop the tank.)

The Russians have long been regarded as masters of attrition warfare.

Somehow, they have found a way to lose the war of attrition.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 03:20 am: Edit

SVC, I agree that nuking an army HQ, or Kiev is not the same thing, but I think the consequences, for fear of escalation, will still be the same; Extreme Ostracism.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 05:11 am: Edit

The Truman lost a FA-18 by it falling off the ship into the Red Sea, along with its tractor. Someone will be SOL.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 09:10 am: Edit

SVC, Ukraine has been conducting a deliberate campaign to damage Russia's oil industry for over a year now. Per the Caspian Policy Center:

"Live Map of Russian Refineries documents 61 attacks across 24 Russian refineries and the resulting level of damage since January 2024"

"Ukrainian operations have been credited with dropping the volume of Russian oil refined to its lowest level in 12 years and a nearly 10% reduction in Russian seaborne oil exports in 2024"

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 10:34 am: Edit

There's a wonderful photo of the giant cat sitting on the deck of the Truman, looking down at the FA-18 it just knocked off the deck.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 11:13 am: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 11:14 am: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 11:16 am: Edit

William J: I am more aware of that campaign than anyone here, given what I once did for a living. However, as I noted, I was referred to a comment about massive attacks that would actually impact the Russian oil industry, not the relatively minor amount of damage done so far.

Getting tired of responding to people who didn't read what I said, only what others said about it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 11:22 am: Edit

Carl: The result would not be the same. Nuking a military target would get a lot of bluster, some behavior/strategy changes, and not much else. Nuking a city, any city, would be a very different kettle of fish.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 12:32 pm: Edit

I'm with SVC on the nukes.

A nuke on a military facility is just another serious violation of international norms, and the Russians have been committing war crimes right and left.

Russians under Putin violate international law and norms: is it Tuesday already? Maybe this time instead of having the Winter Games in Sochi, we should let the Russians host the summer games instead, 2036 is still open.

But a nuke on a city is an attrocity on a scale not seen since WWII.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 04:22 pm: Edit

The nuclear bombs in WW2 killed 60,000 and 80,000 immediately and more over time. The biggest fire bomb attacks on Japan killed 100,000 or more. I suspect that a tacnuke on a city would eclipse that easily.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 07:49 pm: Edit

The statistics for numbers killed in WWII, even with the nuclear bombs, were just that; "Statistics."

By contrast, people got to see, via films shot when they were liberated, the unspeakable horrors of the Death Camps. THAT was something that shocked the consciousnesses of the world.

I would suspect that, with real time video coverage, any sort of nuclear attack today would become as much of an outrage as were the Death Camps.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 08:18 am: Edit

I have heard reports that the F18 and tug were MOVING on the hanger deck and they went overboard via the elevator hatch. Perhaps they were being prepped to be lifted up? And that crash turn came at exactly the wrong time?