I really wonder what the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal is like then? Better or worse? Maybe that still have a lot of the old Nuclear power stations running to better supply the materials to maintain their warheads ?
This is a frequent topic of discussion in various forums and I am sure by Very Serious People in Charge [TM].
Extrapolating from the general sad state of the weapon systems in use by Russians where they are at this point unpacking tanks made in 1950, the quality of maintenance on their vehicles, and is difficult to plausibly claim that all the ancient rusty USSR stuff across the strategic rocket barrier is in any sort of usable shape.
Now, if an order to launch is given, some rockets may launch, some of those may actually fly, some of those flying actually get somewhere, and perhaps some of THOSE may actually detonate should they reach the target, and maybe if you're lucky at the designed yield. The percentages in that funnel that aren't known. And nobody [perhaps except some crazies] wants to find them out because even one in the middle of big city is enough.
>Now, if an order to launch is given, some rockets may launch, some of those may actually fly, some of those flying actually get somewhere, and perhaps some of THOSE may actually detonate should they reach the target, and maybe if you're lucky at the designed yield. The percentages in that funnel that aren't known.
I think you're likely wrong about that last part. I would be willing to bet that certain US 3-letter agencies know very well what the percentages in that funnel are. It's clearly enough that the west is careful about direct confrontation with Russia.
Could it be that the source of your skepticism is the fact that you have over the last 2 years seen many comments here on HN asserting that Russia's military is probably incapable of maintaining an effective strategic nuclear capability whereas my comment is the first one you've seen that takes the opposite position?
According to one comment I saw here a few weeks ago, Russia's nukes are probably made of wood.
I suggest searching the web for "Russian nuclear weapons modernization", restricting yourself to credible news outlets.
Still feels like an opinion, as the other commenter said, look at the state of their equipment when going against Ukraine, there is little indication their nukes or their silos, bombers are much better except your opinion.
Opinions are fine, but the evidence against your opinion is currently stronger.
Also, you do realize that Russia is currently winning in Ukraine
They are not "currently winning". By any objective measure, the war on the ground is currently a stalement.
Only problem is that in the long term -- stalemates never work out for the occupiers.
In Russia's case: If the situation continues as it does, and moving at the glacial pace that it does, and draining 10 percent of its GDP every year -- they will ultimately have to give up on their optional neocolonial adventure, pick up their toys and go home.
That's not true, as Ukraine has scored significant non-territorial advances (like forcing most of the occupier's fleet to retreat from Crimea) in the same time frame.
Also you're setting an arbitrary time window of 1 year (when if we want to evaluate the conflict meaningfully, we need to look at how things are moving now compared to the start of the conflict. Which is definitely not the outcome Russia intended. And ignoring Russia's considerable losses in achieving the paltry gains that it has (which are very much part of the attrition equation), etc.
What never works out is a smaller country winning a war of attrition against a (much) bigger opponent.
You're missing the point -- the smaller country doesn't need to "win" the war of attrition (in terms of effecting a complete reversal) in order to win the conflict. It just needs to outlast the occupier. For which there are no end of precedents in history, recent and ancient. Including (ironically) the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan, which is apparently what gave Putin the gigantic (for him) hard-on that inspired him to sign his country for the same inevitable fate in the first place (but with much higher cost and KIA/WIA rates to his people along the way).
Did you catch Zelensky the other day? He knows where this is going.
I don't see any significance to that quote.
But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for, in any case.
>But it does seem pretty clear which side you're cheering for
Whether Russia has the upper hand is an important question for deciding on what policies the NATO countries should pursue, but we cannot have a fruitful public discussion on the question if anyone giving evidence for one side of the question is shouted down as a traitor.
"shouted down as a traitor" does not get at the crux of the problem I see. The problem is that anyone who thinks as follows cannot form an accurate opinion about the likely outcome of the war:
Anyone who argues that Russia is winning the war is probably a Russia sympathizer,
and a Russia sympathizer shouldn't be trusted and consequently we don't have to
consider his argument.
It was more the "cutesy" (and fact-indifferent) way they were arguing their position (rather than the basic proposition what they were arguing) that suggested to me that something was off here. As confirmed by their subsequent posts. I'll withdraw the pro-Russia insinuation if you like (as whichever side, if any they may favor seems irrelevant in this context).
I've personally yet to encounter anybody who holds (or read any arguments in favor of the view) that Russia is outright winning this conflict in any tactical or operational sense, beyond perhaps a very marginal measure - without it becoming immediately clear that the person making them had major gaps in their knowledge, and/or strong biases (as revealed by reciting standard narratives as to the supposed causes of the war). Or without it emerging (as with the sibling commenter) that they just don't seem to give a fuck either way.
Professor of international relations John Mearsheimer claims that Russia is winning and that consequently Ukraine and NATO are in a pickle. The 60 seconds or so after this timestamp is a relevant quote:
Mearsheimer initially comes across as concerned, serious and intelligent. But when we stop to unpack what he's actually saying -- he emerges as a prime example of someone way too ideologically biased and beholden to broken narratives to be taken seriously.
One thing I'll agree on John Mearsheimer is that an incredibly well articulated. He's also absolutely wrong. One of my also russian friends used one of his videos as a proof that everything is west's fault in the conflict in Russia. I patiently listened and what I heard was might makes right/who are we to meddle in the affairs of great Russia or great powers/Russia is great and we're doomed. It's a take that takes ANY agency out of Ukraine or any small country. Catnip for Z-patriots!. He's one of those "useful idiots" that Putin and his gang cultivate around the world.
For just a bit of - at the glance similar - but much, much more thought out and balanced stuff, I would recommend anything at all by Steven Kotkin. He speaks with folks from Brookings quite a bit. His experience is unparalleled and world view is considerably more nuanced
Some choice quotes:
"Vladimir Putin has the old politburo to thank for the huge stockpiles of weapons that were built up during the cold war"
"Russia’s ability to build new tanks or infantry fighting vehicles, or even to refurbish old ones, is hampered by the difficulty of getting components. <...> The lack of high-quality ball-bearings is also a constraint."
"They [military firms] also largely depend on machine tools imported years ago from Germany and Sweden, many of which are now old and hard to maintain."
Given that the country has no ability to produce ball bearings - and in other news, even nails, and can only cast gun barrels in single digits on western equipment, consider me HIGHLY skeptical that any rocket modernization that was supposed to have transpired has gleaming ready to fly stuff. More likely the money was "razpil" (разпилено) - literally "sawn off".
> I really wonder what the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal is like then?
Does it matter?
The thing about a nuclear *deterrent* is that it doesn't have to work. There just has to be a realistic possibility that (at least some of it) it might.
