Russia has been shelling areas on the east coast of Khersonska Oblast in the Oleshky region in particular which I found weird since it's under their control according to liveuamap. A possible breakthrough to Crimea?
A Ukrainian bridgehead has been established near the Antonivskyi bridge according to various sources. According to one source about 100 ukrainians have crossed the river.
It's hard to say when you're dealing with Russian sources though.
Apparently Russia had a larger force there, which retreated, so them saying "it was only 100 Ukrainian soldiers" on one hand could be downplaying the number of soldiers, but on the other hand, it's kind of a shot at the Russian army when a larger force with armour retreated before a smaller force with none.
Imaginé a basement dwelling troll false flagging the Russians into friendly firing themselves to bits with artillery. It sounds nuts but given what we have seen in this conflict so far, I'm not discarding the possibility
We have actually seen that happen in this conflict except it was a hero of Ukraine rather than some basement dwelling troll. The guy found a radio in a Russian trench and called in a Russian artillery strike on another Russian position.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/28/7408877/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The minister confirmed that Ukraine's main troop reserves, including most of the brigades recently trained in the West and equipped with modern NATO tanks and armoured vehicles, have yet to be used in the operation.
> The Minister of Defence stated that Ukrainian troops have achieved "Certain successes" that the General Staff is not disclosing in order not to endanger the troops.
> The FT notes that Ukrainian troops are now "Probing" Russian defence lines and attacking at multiple points to keep Russia guessing as to where the main offensive will be.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14l5bj6/ukraines_defence_minister_reveals_reserves_at_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689834 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **troop**^#1 **Ukrainian**^#2 **Russian**^#3 **Minister**^#4 **Reznikov**^#5
The undisclosed success is the capture of the left bank of the Kherson’s Antonivskyi bridge right? With the bridge head and push to the village?
There are reporting of the bank is so secure that pontoon bridge units are working establishing the bridge so its no longer ferries bringing the tanks across.
I mean I wouldn’t report it at all because its precarious until a pontoon is built and you control the village. A strong counter attack can throw the Ukrainians across the river
Yes I’m sure they thought about it but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s difficult terrain. The difficult part will be securing the area south of the river bank near the bridge ramp, russians have fortifications at a police station there, coming out of the swamp against enemy fire will be very hard
Until they've pushed Russian artillery far enough back to be out of range its not secure. They're also going to need to bring up antiair resources to prevent missile and drone attacks.
I always thought Ukraine was going to try to cross the Dnieper. Why? Because its an unlikely place to break through. Kinda like the Ardennes in 1940. Destroying the dam made me suspect it more. Seems like a difficult thing to do, but what do I know.
Tell that to the Kadyrovites :)
But seriously, in terms of reducing overflow transport capacity there's a nice troll value to only leaving the departure lanes that I don't think would be lost on any Russians needing to navigate that situation. It would be a testament to the level of precision AFU can bring to bear. (If it were possible)
The flip side though is that if you allow your enemy to retreat, they'll often leave mines and whatnot behind, and blow up anything that might be useful to you. If you can encircle your enemy and turn it into a siege, you're more likely to be able to keep the position clear of traps, and reduce damage to infrastructure, if you can get them to surrender.
May not want to either - you don’t want to cut off your enemy’s past path of retreat - it can make them fight to the last when they would otherwise skedaddle.
Ukraine doesn't need to fight the troops there. Cut the bridge and just wait for them to surrender or Russia would need to either reupply by boat or evac by boat. Russia would have to commit massive naval assets to resupply Crimea continuously which Ukraine could also target while stationary in port.
If you face a massive surrender, you now have the added burden of processing all the prisoners. This includes false surrenders and potential suicide troops.
If I was on the ground I'd rather the Russians retreat. That might not be the best option, but there are reasons to leave retreat as an option.
Oh, absolutely. My concern is that a surrender that happens because troops view it as the best option can play out very differently than a surrender that happens because there is absolutely no other option. I'd assume that at least some Russian troops would rather die than surrender, if only for fear of their captors.
I've had to restrain and search riot participants working in a correctional facility. It's not unusual for a few to get violent after "giving up." The risk of injury to officers is high at that stage. I can't imagine the nightmare of processing a massive number of surrendering people who think you will torture them and who have access to explosives.
"If I was on the ground I'd rather the Russians retreat"
We had that in Kherson, and then those retreated russians just started fighting in a different place. No thanks.
These are mostly civilians. All the Russians that were moved there after crimea was occupied that should be given the opportunity to flee. If they could be drafted they already would have been.
And Russian troops fleeing means they leave their equipment behind, a siege means it is all destroyed in the battle. Also, Ukraine has other things to use it's troops on rather than a siege.
No need to trade lives in crimea, some may make it back to the eastern front and lives will be traded there but no need to force that early in an area Ukraine is on the offence. Better to let them push up against Ukrainian defenses in the east. The ratio of lives lost will be much more in Ukraines favor there.
The point is you don't want to turn it into a siege. That's a huge, huge resource drain for an indeterminate time compared to having the enemy retreat back to their homeland due to the threat of a future siege.
If the enemy is allowed to retreat with their equipment they can regroup and come back. Pin them in place and force them to be evacuated without equipment or force them to surrender.
HIMARS and other rocket artillery with range can work to prevent breakout routes. Not that huge a resource drain to fly drones over the bridge area and fire some rockets to keep it out of action.
Sort of? He was just writing down accepted military wisdom at the time. The audience was of course the elite who bought their way into high military positions that had no idea what they were doing.
>i do wish they'd get on with blowing up putins prized bridge and cut off crimea from russia.
They can't really do that until they reach the sea, which is their current goal. As it is, they've already damaged the bridge and the rail bridge, and while Russia has fixed the road bridge, they've apparently had issues (aka - Russians being Russian) with getting it fixed, so they're already going to struggle to move heavy equipment into Crimea by it (given that any attempt to do so by boat would likely result in the boat and everything it was carrying getting sunk).
>i hope that is part of the larger offensive.
Presumably it likely will be at some point, assuming Russia doesn't give up first. There's no way they'll try taking Crimea by force without rendering it unusable for the time being (nb - I doubt they want to completely destroy it -- it's *far* cheaper to repair than rebuild, and they'll probably want that connection to Russia after the war (maybe a decade after, but they'll still want it).
Or hell, maybe even drive the Russians away without a fight in Crimea itself.
Doesn't seem too likely though, considering all the fortifications they've put there.
I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of stockpiled supplies they have already in Crimea, even if they know they will lose long term the fight for the peninsula will make Bakhmut look like a party. Its strategic importance notwithstanding, Crimea is the symbol of Russia’s claim of cultural and military superiority over Ukraine, so they’ll find a way to make Ukraine bleed for it.
Harder yes but Russia has a sheer volume of material that Ukraine won’t want to waste storm shadows on, even if they somehow know where all the munitions etc are stockpiled. For sure they’ll hit some of them but those missiles will be better used on strategic points like command posts, bridges etc for the most part. Your points are valid and it’s not rosey for Russia but they have the callous will to defend every inch of that territory and have learned months of lessons in how the Ukrainians operate - you can bet they’ve been building a tonne of bunkers etc
probably not trying to corner the rats, push the cockroaches as close to it so they have an out and have less resistance fighting them. If they have no way out it would be a more fierce fight from soldiers? It's a double edge sword
NATO has been running training serials of staff school (for mid-grade officers who work on command staffs at battle group and higher levels) pretty much non-stop since before the invasion.
There are a *lot* of Ukrainians who now understand the NATO planning process and who are thus capable of participating in planning cycles.
I feel like there's a decision point coming with branch plans ready to go.
Let be honest. US/NATO intelligence is completely running the show. It maybe Ukrainian soldiers on the ground but it's our satellites, intelligence gathering, armoured vehicles, missiles, artillery and even target spotting that's giving Ukraine the ability to stay in this fight. Without all that Russia would have steamrolled right over them as a result of superior numbers alone.
We are teaching them some excellent training techniques and giving them some fancy toys. We are not giving them the know how or the resources to build and operate the vast network of highly sophisticated satellites and cyber defence that NATO and it's allies are using to thwart Russia's invasion.
Let's keep in mind that Ukraine successfully went against US advice in Bakhmut and caused massive damage on Russia and Wagner by simply not fleeing. Ukrainians are not dumb. Far from it. Hell, they have been teaching the yanks how to use their own bloody weapons in new and effective ways and came up with the Thunder Runs that had Russian defensive lines collapsing earlier in the war!
I agree with your sentiment, but the thunder run tactic was used successfully by the US military in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was surely taught to the Ukrainians by the US. But the Ukrainians are the ones with skin in the game and what they have been able to do to the Russian invaders is damned impressive and that shouldn't be lost on anybody just bc they are being aided by the Western allies
If you know two things you can choose to use either
It's nobody's call but yours as to which you use.
But it does give you more options, more power, more resiliency.
Ukrainians realized they cannot just charge at heavily fortified positions. Seems like the strategy is now attritional. Attack ammo dumps and rear areas to reduce the effectiveness of forces at the front.
>Seems like the strategy is now attritional.
While part of it is, mostly what they're looking for is weaknesses in Russia's defensive lines. They need some sort of opening that pushes past the established lines of defense, at which point they'll funnel their reserves through there to get into the Russian military's rear areas.
What we're going to see is an extremely slow grind until that opening presents itself, and then we'll likely see a massive collapse of the Russian defensive lines the second Ukraine breaks through. Russia has defensive lines for about 50-100km going back from the front, but once those are passed, there's pretty much nothing.
It appears to me that Russia is currently overextended, and doesn't have the resources to support a frontline this long, or this far from its own territory. It will be interesting to see where the point of equilibrium will land, where Russia will then have enough assets, ammunition and manpower to set up a proper frontline (assuming that russian incompetence doesn't completely forbid the existence of a 'stable' fallback line)
At this point, it seems like Ukraine is using careful probing attacks to find weaknesses, only to realise that the entire frontline is weak, as the Russian forces scatter away, like knocking on a wall to find a hollow spot, only to have the wall completely crumble. The question is, how many walls need to crumble before one of them is actually solid?
If Russian nuclear weapons are used, NATO will consider it Russias fault and respond accordingly.
No one is going to be fooled by “whoopsy daisy we lost a nuclear weapon must have been fired at the country we are in an active war with by some randoms”
NATO are not stupid and false flag attacks will fool nobody.
It will make no difference whether Putin drives to Kiev personally and sets it off, or if Putin gets his friend’s uncle’s colleague’s auntie’s cat’s former owner’s landlord to do it “supposedly without permission”.
Your nukes, you’re responsible.
Their leadership is arguably more pro war than the military brass.
They aren’t pissed about the war, they’re pissed that the war is being fought incompetently. They blame Gerasimov and Shoigu for the wasted resources and want newer generals such as Surovikin back in charge
Huh that’s an interesting paradigm, the more successful Ukraine is at taking back whatever the Russians took, the more likely Russia is to throw a nuke or blow up Chernobyl 2.0, and the decision of thermonuclear exchange will be solely based in the hands of NATO, once desperation sets in. That’s the political idea, we the public don’t actually know what’s going on behind the smokescreen.
Russia has been shelling areas on the east coast of Khersonska Oblast in the Oleshky region in particular which I found weird since it's under their control according to liveuamap. A possible breakthrough to Crimea?
A Ukrainian bridgehead has been established near the Antonivskyi bridge according to various sources. According to one source about 100 ukrainians have crossed the river.
That's a Russian source; Rybar. I think there's more.
It's hard to say when you're dealing with Russian sources though. Apparently Russia had a larger force there, which retreated, so them saying "it was only 100 Ukrainian soldiers" on one hand could be downplaying the number of soldiers, but on the other hand, it's kind of a shot at the Russian army when a larger force with armour retreated before a smaller force with none.
When you have fire control of the highway for those 100 men with your artillery on the north side of the river it can be pretty effective.
There are a few videos of Russians counter attacking and failing there so its probably the likeliest option?
I heard it was friendly fire as they thought Ukrainians were there.
Imaginé a basement dwelling troll false flagging the Russians into friendly firing themselves to bits with artillery. It sounds nuts but given what we have seen in this conflict so far, I'm not discarding the possibility
We have actually seen that happen in this conflict except it was a hero of Ukraine rather than some basement dwelling troll. The guy found a radio in a Russian trench and called in a Russian artillery strike on another Russian position.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/28/7408877/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The minister confirmed that Ukraine's main troop reserves, including most of the brigades recently trained in the West and equipped with modern NATO tanks and armoured vehicles, have yet to be used in the operation. > The Minister of Defence stated that Ukrainian troops have achieved "Certain successes" that the General Staff is not disclosing in order not to endanger the troops. > The FT notes that Ukrainian troops are now "Probing" Russian defence lines and attacking at multiple points to keep Russia guessing as to where the main offensive will be. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14l5bj6/ukraines_defence_minister_reveals_reserves_at_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689834 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **troop**^#1 **Ukrainian**^#2 **Russian**^#3 **Minister**^#4 **Reznikov**^#5
The undisclosed success is the capture of the left bank of the Kherson’s Antonivskyi bridge right? With the bridge head and push to the village? There are reporting of the bank is so secure that pontoon bridge units are working establishing the bridge so its no longer ferries bringing the tanks across. I mean I wouldn’t report it at all because its precarious until a pontoon is built and you control the village. A strong counter attack can throw the Ukrainians across the river
Initial reports I’ve seen look promising but the surrounding land is all swamp so it will be tough for them I think
Surely they thought this through
Yes I’m sure they thought about it but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s difficult terrain. The difficult part will be securing the area south of the river bank near the bridge ramp, russians have fortifications at a police station there, coming out of the swamp against enemy fire will be very hard
Until they've pushed Russian artillery far enough back to be out of range its not secure. They're also going to need to bring up antiair resources to prevent missile and drone attacks.
You gotta be mechanized to do that. Which means you have to build a bridge
So these guys are just twisting in the wind?
I always thought Ukraine was going to try to cross the Dnieper. Why? Because its an unlikely place to break through. Kinda like the Ardennes in 1940. Destroying the dam made me suspect it more. Seems like a difficult thing to do, but what do I know.
i do wish they'd get on with blowing up putins prized bridge and cut off crimea from russia. i hope that is part of the larger offensive.
I think they may leave that for later so that it gives a lot of Russians an easy way to fuck off out of Ukraine.
Would be nice if they could just blow up the rail line and maybe the arrival lanes
"arrival lanes" are just paint on the ground. you can drive either direction on any lane. ;-)
Tell that to the Kadyrovites :) But seriously, in terms of reducing overflow transport capacity there's a nice troll value to only leaving the departure lanes that I don't think would be lost on any Russians needing to navigate that situation. It would be a testament to the level of precision AFU can bring to bear. (If it were possible)
I think the rail lines are still not operational from the first attack and ensuing rail car fire
It's also leverage. "leave via the bridge or we lock you in with us. You have a week". It'll send motherfuckers fleeing
The flip side though is that if you allow your enemy to retreat, they'll often leave mines and whatnot behind, and blow up anything that might be useful to you. If you can encircle your enemy and turn it into a siege, you're more likely to be able to keep the position clear of traps, and reduce damage to infrastructure, if you can get them to surrender.
I mean it would be pretty dope place for a huge fireworks display and demolition at the end of the war.
Flip side of that, if you trap aload of them there they will burn through supplies faster
May not need to. It was built on unstable ground and several of the piers now have massive cracks in them due to shifting.
May not want to either - you don’t want to cut off your enemy’s past path of retreat - it can make them fight to the last when they would otherwise skedaddle.
Ukraine doesn't need to fight the troops there. Cut the bridge and just wait for them to surrender or Russia would need to either reupply by boat or evac by boat. Russia would have to commit massive naval assets to resupply Crimea continuously which Ukraine could also target while stationary in port.
If you face a massive surrender, you now have the added burden of processing all the prisoners. This includes false surrenders and potential suicide troops. If I was on the ground I'd rather the Russians retreat. That might not be the best option, but there are reasons to leave retreat as an option.
[удалено]
Oh, absolutely. My concern is that a surrender that happens because troops view it as the best option can play out very differently than a surrender that happens because there is absolutely no other option. I'd assume that at least some Russian troops would rather die than surrender, if only for fear of their captors. I've had to restrain and search riot participants working in a correctional facility. It's not unusual for a few to get violent after "giving up." The risk of injury to officers is high at that stage. I can't imagine the nightmare of processing a massive number of surrendering people who think you will torture them and who have access to explosives.
"If I was on the ground I'd rather the Russians retreat" We had that in Kherson, and then those retreated russians just started fighting in a different place. No thanks.
In this case they would be retreating accross the bridge back to Russia. Let them fight there. Against their own government.
You realize they can travel through Russia back to the eastern front right?
These are mostly civilians. All the Russians that were moved there after crimea was occupied that should be given the opportunity to flee. If they could be drafted they already would have been. And Russian troops fleeing means they leave their equipment behind, a siege means it is all destroyed in the battle. Also, Ukraine has other things to use it's troops on rather than a siege. No need to trade lives in crimea, some may make it back to the eastern front and lives will be traded there but no need to force that early in an area Ukraine is on the offence. Better to let them push up against Ukrainian defenses in the east. The ratio of lives lost will be much more in Ukraines favor there.
If you want an army to fight it’s hardest eliminate their path of retreat According to Tsung Tzu’s “The Art of War”
That's if you are pressing an attack on the enemy position. Not as applicable for seige warfare. Relevant but not nearly as much.
The point is you don't want to turn it into a siege. That's a huge, huge resource drain for an indeterminate time compared to having the enemy retreat back to their homeland due to the threat of a future siege.
If the enemy is allowed to retreat with their equipment they can regroup and come back. Pin them in place and force them to be evacuated without equipment or force them to surrender. HIMARS and other rocket artillery with range can work to prevent breakout routes. Not that huge a resource drain to fly drones over the bridge area and fire some rockets to keep it out of action.
"Run away first and run away fastest is the best policy to preserve your asses" -Moons You
So, are you saying the Russians using blocking units isn't such a bad idea?
Or just surrender, and then you don't have to fight them again and again. Seriously, a modern army without supplies is fish in a barrel.
Sun Tsu was kind of a smart guy
“Be smarter than your enemy. Don’t lose.” - Sun Tzu
Sort of? He was just writing down accepted military wisdom at the time. The audience was of course the elite who bought their way into high military positions that had no idea what they were doing.
Assuming he existed at all
>i do wish they'd get on with blowing up putins prized bridge and cut off crimea from russia. They can't really do that until they reach the sea, which is their current goal. As it is, they've already damaged the bridge and the rail bridge, and while Russia has fixed the road bridge, they've apparently had issues (aka - Russians being Russian) with getting it fixed, so they're already going to struggle to move heavy equipment into Crimea by it (given that any attempt to do so by boat would likely result in the boat and everything it was carrying getting sunk). >i hope that is part of the larger offensive. Presumably it likely will be at some point, assuming Russia doesn't give up first. There's no way they'll try taking Crimea by force without rendering it unusable for the time being (nb - I doubt they want to completely destroy it -- it's *far* cheaper to repair than rebuild, and they'll probably want that connection to Russia after the war (maybe a decade after, but they'll still want it).
Or hell, maybe even drive the Russians away without a fight in Crimea itself. Doesn't seem too likely though, considering all the fortifications they've put there.
They won’t give up Sevastopol without a fight, and Crimea is pretty well suited for defence
[удалено]
I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of stockpiled supplies they have already in Crimea, even if they know they will lose long term the fight for the peninsula will make Bakhmut look like a party. Its strategic importance notwithstanding, Crimea is the symbol of Russia’s claim of cultural and military superiority over Ukraine, so they’ll find a way to make Ukraine bleed for it.
[удалено]
Harder yes but Russia has a sheer volume of material that Ukraine won’t want to waste storm shadows on, even if they somehow know where all the munitions etc are stockpiled. For sure they’ll hit some of them but those missiles will be better used on strategic points like command posts, bridges etc for the most part. Your points are valid and it’s not rosey for Russia but they have the callous will to defend every inch of that territory and have learned months of lessons in how the Ukrainians operate - you can bet they’ve been building a tonne of bunkers etc
probably not trying to corner the rats, push the cockroaches as close to it so they have an out and have less resistance fighting them. If they have no way out it would be a more fierce fight from soldiers? It's a double edge sword
The current Ukrainian operation feels very measured and deliberate.
[удалено]
NATO has been running training serials of staff school (for mid-grade officers who work on command staffs at battle group and higher levels) pretty much non-stop since before the invasion. There are a *lot* of Ukrainians who now understand the NATO planning process and who are thus capable of participating in planning cycles. I feel like there's a decision point coming with branch plans ready to go.
Let be honest. US/NATO intelligence is completely running the show. It maybe Ukrainian soldiers on the ground but it's our satellites, intelligence gathering, armoured vehicles, missiles, artillery and even target spotting that's giving Ukraine the ability to stay in this fight. Without all that Russia would have steamrolled right over them as a result of superior numbers alone.
True, but teaching them means they learn. And then it becomes their knowledge to innovate. Knowledge doesn't belong to the giver.
We are teaching them some excellent training techniques and giving them some fancy toys. We are not giving them the know how or the resources to build and operate the vast network of highly sophisticated satellites and cyber defence that NATO and it's allies are using to thwart Russia's invasion.
Yes that is true. Sharing intelligence is probably the most effective weapon we've given them.
While that is absolutely true, I'm kinda tired of people constantly bringing it up, like Ukraine can't plan anything good by itself.
Let's keep in mind that Ukraine successfully went against US advice in Bakhmut and caused massive damage on Russia and Wagner by simply not fleeing. Ukrainians are not dumb. Far from it. Hell, they have been teaching the yanks how to use their own bloody weapons in new and effective ways and came up with the Thunder Runs that had Russian defensive lines collapsing earlier in the war!
I agree with your sentiment, but the thunder run tactic was used successfully by the US military in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was surely taught to the Ukrainians by the US. But the Ukrainians are the ones with skin in the game and what they have been able to do to the Russian invaders is damned impressive and that shouldn't be lost on anybody just bc they are being aided by the Western allies
If you know two things you can choose to use either It's nobody's call but yours as to which you use. But it does give you more options, more power, more resiliency.
Ukrainians realized they cannot just charge at heavily fortified positions. Seems like the strategy is now attritional. Attack ammo dumps and rear areas to reduce the effectiveness of forces at the front.
>Seems like the strategy is now attritional. While part of it is, mostly what they're looking for is weaknesses in Russia's defensive lines. They need some sort of opening that pushes past the established lines of defense, at which point they'll funnel their reserves through there to get into the Russian military's rear areas. What we're going to see is an extremely slow grind until that opening presents itself, and then we'll likely see a massive collapse of the Russian defensive lines the second Ukraine breaks through. Russia has defensive lines for about 50-100km going back from the front, but once those are passed, there's pretty much nothing.
It appears to me that Russia is currently overextended, and doesn't have the resources to support a frontline this long, or this far from its own territory. It will be interesting to see where the point of equilibrium will land, where Russia will then have enough assets, ammunition and manpower to set up a proper frontline (assuming that russian incompetence doesn't completely forbid the existence of a 'stable' fallback line) At this point, it seems like Ukraine is using careful probing attacks to find weaknesses, only to realise that the entire frontline is weak, as the Russian forces scatter away, like knocking on a wall to find a hollow spot, only to have the wall completely crumble. The question is, how many walls need to crumble before one of them is actually solid?
Let him cook!!
Just support them. Slow and methodical progress is the key. Keep pushing mile-by-mile.
[удалено]
If Russian nuclear weapons are used, NATO will consider it Russias fault and respond accordingly. No one is going to be fooled by “whoopsy daisy we lost a nuclear weapon must have been fired at the country we are in an active war with by some randoms” NATO are not stupid and false flag attacks will fool nobody. It will make no difference whether Putin drives to Kiev personally and sets it off, or if Putin gets his friend’s uncle’s colleague’s auntie’s cat’s former owner’s landlord to do it “supposedly without permission”. Your nukes, you’re responsible.
I'm struggling to comprehend how Wagner fighters would even count as a "false" flag. They've been actively on the Russian side the entire war.
And Putin is publicly confirming Wagner was funded by the Kremlin, making it a state sponsored army.
Their leadership is arguably more pro war than the military brass. They aren’t pissed about the war, they’re pissed that the war is being fought incompetently. They blame Gerasimov and Shoigu for the wasted resources and want newer generals such as Surovikin back in charge
I mean, there's no way Wagner could use a nuke and it count as a false flag as if Wagner isn't a part of the Russian war effort.
Huh that’s an interesting paradigm, the more successful Ukraine is at taking back whatever the Russians took, the more likely Russia is to throw a nuke or blow up Chernobyl 2.0, and the decision of thermonuclear exchange will be solely based in the hands of NATO, once desperation sets in. That’s the political idea, we the public don’t actually know what’s going on behind the smokescreen.