Ukraine: the danger level rises.

[Workingman]

Putin annexes (parts of) four Ukraine oblasts, as we always knew he would, I said so months ago. Any attack on them is now an attack on Russia, according to him, even though the Russians are not fully in control of those areas. This gives him the weak excuse to use tactical nukes should the Ukrainian counter-attacks in those areas force his forces back.

The Ukrainian reaction leads them to expedite its inclusion into NATO and possibly the EU. That would bring NATO forces directly into opposition with Russian forces. This would not be a Cold War, it would be a hot one.

If cool heads do not prevail then MAD really could be enacted. The Kherson area south of the Dnipro river, where Ukraine is making advances, could be the first to see tactical nukes.

This is not going well, for either side.

[cromwell]

I know this will not be a popular view but when the wall came down we had a chance to get better relations with Russia.
But someone in America did not want that and today we are where we are.

I think Putin has gone borderline mental. We are in great danger now and I hope a way can be found to de-escalate this crisis.

[TheOstrich]

Whilst not disputing the delusional despot Putin is seemingly out of control, it's all rhetoric. I wouldn't distress yourself unnecessarily.

From another forum:

As someone who works in the defence industry & with connections to the MOD don't worry too much. This is EXACTLY what Putin wants; the West in fear of him. 90% of the time he's posturing.
I know it's hard but don't kowtow to the idiot that Putin is.
Nothing has changed in his nuclear weapon readiness. The "tactical" nukes he keeps threatening are stored in bunkers in Russia & require old Zil/GAZ trucks to move them. The second one comes out the US/UK/France will know: I believe this is what Biden has conveyed to the Kremlin. ie we'll knock out your nukes before they reach the battlefront.

[Workingman]

Hmm, most munitions are stored in bunkers, for obvious reasons. We do it y'know. And the Russians have more modern transports to the 'old' Zil and GAZ trucks. Moving nuclear capable missiles, artillery shells and land mines to the battlefield is no more difficult than moving conventional weapons Just because a truck is 10 to 15 years old does not make it useless or obsolete.

The RAF Tornado was 45 years old when it retired and other forces were scared stiff of them. The Jaguar was 31 years old and it still had a big punch, but not needed. Nobody would disparage them as crap in old age, but it's OK to do so with Russian trucks, even though they might be modern builds? IS used Toyota pick-ups to transport their men and weapons in Syria - think about it.

The man who works in defence and knows a few people in the MOD sounds like a bit of a 'Bob down the pub' to me. It is how things could now play out that is the worry.

[Workingman]

Another thing: HIMARS And MARS, aimed at Russia, were developed in 2008, they are now 14 years old, so crap and old, according to Bob. They are now aimed at what is claimed as Russian territory - and the Russians wil be aiming back. Any ideas from Bob on how that might end?

[Suff]

During a Nato exercise in the 80's we replaced an engine in an Albion machine shop truck brought over by the TA. It was made in 1938. I regularly worked on 10 tonner trucks which were made in the early 1950's.

Old crap works so long as you have spares to keep them going and teams who know how to maintain them.

However, the downside is that they break down 10 times as quickly and need 10 times as much work to be done on them.

This means they will probably break down when you need them most.